As we turn our attention away from the 18th century into the first half of the 19th, we recognize American artists are also turning their gaze from portraiture to landscape! American artists recognize the unique beauty of the American landscape, especially compared to what was visible in the art world in Europe with regards to nature.
In his personal diary, Ford Madox Brown wrote: “Of the difficulties of landscape painting, it is better to be a poet; still better a mere lover of nature, one who never dreams of possession” (Ford Madox Brown, Diary, 1855). Brown argued against the idea of possessing nature as if we could actually control the American wilderness!
The famed English Art critic John Ruskin added the following thought to this American/European discussion of landscape painting: “Mountains are the beginning and end of all-natural scenery.” (John Ruskin, Modern Painters, 1843-60)
Thomas Cole, the Anglo-American painter, helped found the Hudson River School of American landscape painting in the early 19th century. Cole was moved by pulling himself away from the European maintenance of portraying landscape as a strictly romantic effort in favor of the more interesting and engaging sense of wilderness and fury in the new world of America!
Thomas Cole was part of that growing multitude of ‘Modernists” who preferred imagination to allegiance to the past, who promoted creativity over blind obedience to a preconceived dogma, and who advanced the notion that poetry was selected over the static influence of sustaining rote memory to the past. Thomas Cole exclaimed: “If the imagination is shackled, and nothing is described but what we see, seldom will anything truly great be produced either in Painting or Poetry.”
What are your thoughts on the American wilderness and scene for artists who prefer to paint nature over portraits, and the sense of constraint by worn-out European dogmas in favor of responding intuitively and passionately to the American wilderness?
It’s an interesting point in time. American artists were previously struggling with setting themselves apart as “American” artists, or going back to Europe to finish their studies and education to become “real” artists, which at the time were seen as portrait artists. Even when the “real” artists were creating landscapes, they were romanticized, idealized. So for the American artists who chose to let their imagination run wild and free, like how the wilderness in America had seemed, sets their art works apart; I find that as an artist very liberating. Allowing for imagination and creativity to guide the direction of our work, allows us to break away from traditional restraints; creating artwork that allows for new ideas and thoughts.
I personally really like the landscape pictures over the portraits. The artists’ depiction of the American wilderness wasn’t always 100% accurate, but I think that’s what makes it more interesting. The artists are able to include their own touches to a landscape and make it look more wistful than it actually is. From a viewer’s perspective, it looks a lot more interesting than a portatrait and makes you wonder what kind of landscape and scenery is in America. Painting with a real life source and your imagination gives artists a lot more freedom to express themselves. The rules and expectations before didn’t allow a ton of room for freedom and creativity, this change definitely helped people appreciate and create art a whole lot differently.
From all the quotes within this blog post it seems that the artists of this time wanted to be freed by any constraints that European standards had thrown down on them. It seems that landscape art allowed these artist to depict the emotion that the temperature of the day gave them instead of what was actually in front of them. I know this feeling very well, if the day at the beach is warm and peaceful the water in my painting might be painted purple by the sunset instead of the real murky color of the tossed-up sand. My thoughts about the artists is that I relate very deeply to them, and sometimes reality is nice enough in front of you, but when you imagine replicating this feeling to a group of people that couldn’t experience the scene with you, I would rather depict the way it felt instead of the way it looked.
It seems like the preference of painting the American landscape, as opposed to painting portraits, is because painters are able to interpret the changes of society and what they could potentially lead to, easily through landscape depictions. Landscape portraits were done to convey the East’s growing nostalgia for the West, portray the belief that the woodsman and nature are meant to be harmonious , and even depict the moral, religious and poetic sentiments in America at the time. Take Cole’s Oxbow, he was conveying metaphors of America’s Antiquity and how human intervention was the down fall of the American landscape. The storm depicted in the painting also becomes a foreshadowing of human intervention on the wilderness.
These landscape portraits seem to have given painters more of the freedom to convey messages and opinions on the change of the times in America.
I feel that as we move through history there are always moments in time were artist are trying to push against the gain to set themselves out from everyone else. I enjoy landscape paintings because I typically find that artist don’t always paint what they see 100% of the time. More so they tend to present the scale of the area and the emotional context of the scenery as well. With a landscape you can make someone feel a certain way, the scenery can tell a story that ranges from somber to full of joy. I feel that the shift from portraiture to landscape embodies the sense of freedom artist wanted to encapsulate. More specifically they wanted to capture the wild and untamed part of nature. In nature nothing is idealized since its formed out of chance, willed by none but itself. I see this as a bridge between the artist who want to stand out for themselves, against the traditions from European standards.
I have always enjoyed landscapes over portraits because of that nature perspective we get to see rather than somebody modeling. I believe that the American landscapes were special since artists tend to use whatever landscape they are painting as a reference sort of speak, more so than the painting being a direct copy and paste. When doing any landscape I feel as an artist you have the ability to be more passionate about the work in comparison to portraits because portraits can come off as a duller painting more than showing a landscape. The creative process especially is something that allows the artist to explore and experiment with different settings around their environment, which is important when expanding your art boundaries.
In a time where only people were depicted and painted I think bringing beauty to the landscapes and the rawness of nature excited people of that time period. I do believe that just depicting nature doesn’t give it justice. Such a beautiful thing like nature and the magnificence of an untouched piece of beauty can only be painted or symbolized by creative words and colors. The painting of the European stylized portrait wasn’t exciting enough for the new landscape artists of the nineteenth century. The true beauty of something that can’t be dressed up or contorted needed to be represented by painter’s with imagination and romantic poetic viewpoints that can represent a different style painting than people were used to at that time period.
Compared to portraitures, landscape paintings feel a bit more whimsical. In a previous discussion, we talked a lot about how art is interpreted differently. The subject is interpreted by an artist in a way that other people might not. I think the conclusion was this was not too hot with portraits. But it can be fun with landscapes. There’s a beauty in trying to portray something that’s everchanging and it’s relationship to people (or not). It made the imagination and interpretation run free. It’s also noteworthy that the painters at the time did not just focus on the pretty and romantic aspects of it because that’s not what the wilderness and nature is all the time. The American interpretation of it exposes its viewers to the other side of things as well.
I personally prefer nature over portraits. Cole is fascinated by the American wild nature, and his paintings are so majestic. Portraits are not for every artist, working with people can be very hard. While working on the landscape is a great experience. I like the French word En plein air for painting outdoors. I assume that some of his paintings were done outside under the sun surrounded by fresh air and green trees. Maybe some of them were done in his studio from outdoor sketches, he has a great color palette and great attention to detail.
I think the transition from portraiture to landscape painting is a really interesting point for the art world. In a sense, we stop focusing on the living being, and shift our attention the life itself. The American landscape is full of beautiful sites that deserve to have poetry written about it and paintings dedicating to trying to capture its beauty on a canvas. I do also agree with Thomas Cole in that landscape painting, and especially for American landscape artists, it is a way for imagination to run free. Portraiture and even the European style of landscape painting have so many rules that artists subconsciously find themselves adhering to. Landscape painting is something let’s them paint as they wish, given that all they are trying to do in the end is pay homage to the nature before them.
I quite enjoy the American landscape paintings that there seems to be a shift towards and landscape painting in general. What is really grand about these is the freedom that Cole talks about and the lack of “shackles” to the imaginations. It is similar to what we discussed last week in the way that portraits aren’t always so precise and being able to give the artist that freedom to create what is really there. Another great side effect of this switch to landscape paintings is the ability for painter to make statements about how society may be impacting the land almost making political implications through art.
Although I am sure many artists were tired of the constraints the European dogmas placed over art, I think perhaps the massive American wilderness is what drove or inspired them to paint landscapes. As we learned from the PowerPoint, the European architecture of the Greeks and Romans influenced even Thomas Jefferson. While it is beautiful work, many artists were surrounded by wilderness, some they may have never seen before. Although America may have been a new country in the sense it did not have the ancient ruins of a massive civilization before it, it did, however, have a new inspiration, the great outdoors. Thomas Coles The Course of Empire, The Destruction, demonstrates that he did indeed understand or appreciate the ancient world but felt the need to display it differently, creating a landscape/environment we can all get lost in. Much like taking a hike or walk through the city or mountains will do, at least for me.
Since there was so much nature to behold without the interruption of man chopping all the trees or paving new roads at this time, Thomas Cole seems to want to appreciate how much of it existed at that time. Since the colonists came from the cities of Europe, the change of scenery and much cleaner air was such a significant change. I really adore the imagination Thomas Cole put into his painting “The Titans Goblet” as it is filled with imagination and outdoor imagery. However, I will disagree and say that if people want to paint portraits then it should be okay to do. Some people like painting portraits because they’re highly commissioned as cameras didn’t exist yet, and it captured someone’s likeness as it will outlive the owner. I do like the landscape paintings more, but artists have comfort zones we tend to stick to whether it be painting what we see or a subject we’re passionate about. To each their own even if Thomas Cole were to disagree.
Nature itself has a very freeing disposition, so I can see why they preferred it over doing portraits. Even in connection to a previous week’s blog, it can be seen that doing portraits has its own major constraints. At least with nature, especially of a landscape that was refreshing compared to what they had seen before, it was probably more freeing. It must have left more for the artists to express a more creative thought rather than having to stick with some tired dogmas. In the landscape paintings themselves, it represents the freedom they are feeling.
Personally, although portrait art is very interesting to look at and seeing the styles created whether it be realism, surrealism, or abstract, I am definitely a nature/scenery person. Portraits do have their beauty but nature and scenery is definitely more intriguing to look at because of how beautiful some of the landscapes are. It’s very breathtaking to take in the view which I really love to look at even if it’s just a painting that actually being there it can have that effect. The sense of constraint by worn-out European dogmas in favor to the intuitive of American wilderness is sort of two sided for me. I can appreciate that the European dogma trying to capture the essence of nature as it is which can be very nice and admirable to look at with that replication. It’s like a realism still-life photograph and showing the audience the beauty of it. But the passionate take on involving more imagination for the American wilderness is very intriguing and mesmerizing with the surrealism takes artists will create. It creates a whole different world based on the inspiration of nature and can be just as breathtaking and magical even. I can go both ways with this if I’m being honest and wouldn’t be able to choose.
I find the shift in focus from portraiture to landscape art to be rather refreshing and interesting. I also especially like the quote from Thomas Cole that expressed the need for imagination for a piece of art to be considered “truly great,” because imagination can be one of the things that transforms a piece. I also believe that allowing imagination to be seen in work made landscape artwork even more interesting to look at and create; this is something that can certainly be seen in the pieces by Cole that are included in the blog post.
The attention that was brought to the wilderness was an amazing shift in focus. Portraiture tends to be something that is very specific to the culture and people. It can also exclude many people of different class structure. Landscape, on the other hand, tends to be more freeform and accessible. Where portraiture focused on the human form and strived for perfection, landscape payed attention to the endless expanse of scenery. America also had varied and flourishing open terrain unlike much of colonized Europe which likely contributed to the switching of focus.
The shift in focus from Portraiture to landscape was an exciting new path to take. It allowed artists to connect to something far greater than themselves, with freedom in expression that they had yet to have while painting portraits. Portraiture is rigid in structure and subject matter. There is so much focus on capturing the reality of their subject that there is little to no room for intuition and passion. In painting landscapes, it appears as if the artists were searching for more than just imagery, looking for meaning and emotion. Furthermore, the way American’s interpreted nature was more than just an empty rendering of idealized nature, but imaginative interpretations of the vast natural scenery.
Its definitely a logical path to take after feeling constrained by a type of art for too long. On a smaller scale this is similar to how an artist will switch styles or subject matter if they are stuck in a rut, it’s like exercising muscles they haven’t moved in a long time. Additionally, landscape and nature are very much an opposite to the more closed in and realistic feeling that portraiture has which allows the making of landscapes to feel very free, open, and fantastical in comparison.
The vast American wilderness was a rich and untapped source of inspiration for Thomas Cole and his fellow landscape painters – there is every conceivable weather pattern and eco system available to explore, and there are unique landforms everywhere. The fact that the imagination was wont to run wild seems as natural as the urge to expand westward. This movement as a follow-up to the regimented constraints of the Old World school of art, seems wholly American. It is a complete change in focus akin to change in focus from the commonwealth to the burgeoning national identity.
Artists frequently draw their motivation from nature. Many of them will take their materials, paints, and paintbrushes into nature so they can paint in the midst of the normal magnificence that they wish to portray. I feel that as we travel through history there are consistently minutes in time were Artists are attempting to push against the addition to set themselves out from every other person. While doing any scene, I feel as an artist you can be more energetic about the work in contrast with pictures since representations can appear to be a more blunt painting more than showing a scene. I have consistently appreciated scenes over representations on account of that nature viewpoint we will see as opposed to someone displaying.
I believe it is great for artists to paint nature over portraits. It would allow artists to paint in a new perspective. In portraits, artists are only allowed to paint on what they see in the people. They would only see the physical structure, mental mind, and personality. However, nature can provide multiple opportunities and moments for artists to paint. This will inspire artists to develop new landscape painting techniques to capture the essence of nature.
Artists need to develop their own unique methods to paint nature accurately on landscapes. Nature is constantly changing, and it will never revert itself back to its original state. Nature continuously changes its settings based on its weather patterns and structural environment. The different seasons will change both the environment and weather around nature. Also, the day/night cycle creates changes to both lighting and shading to the natural environment. Finally, the weather can improve nature over time.
The weather can continuously build certain areas of nature over time. Both the rain and sun will provide enough warmth and water to make both trees and grass grow. Also, the wind can blow certain materials, such as fruits, nuts, and seeds, to other areas to produce more natural environments, such as both trees and crops. Finally, proper weather conditions will allow animals to inhabit natural lands. However, the weather can destroy nature in harsh environmental conditions.
The weather can destroy nature based on certain hazardous conditions. Both the wind and snow can destroy nature by blowing down trees and destroying fields. Also, both depletion of water and increase in heat will make natural fields decay over time. Finally, harsh weather conditions can desecrate the wildlife in nature. The weather is continuously changing both nature and its surroundings over time. If the artist continuously paints the same area, it will never produce the same artwork. It will have new materials, colors, shading, and environments. Also, both the season and day/night cycles will create changes to both color and shading in the environment. Nature will always provide artists new areas to paint. Also, it will inspire artists to develop both new creative methods and materials to paint their landscape.
I agree with Thomas cole’s beliefs concerning both the sense of constraint and use of imagination. Painting with only proper or well-known methods can limit creativity in artists. Also, staying in one place can limit your ability to both see and paint the world in a different perspective. Artists need to explore the world and develop their own methods of painting their landscapes. By exploring the world, they can witness new environments in multiple perspectives. Also, by exploring around the world, artists can both learn, improve, and develop their own styles and methods to both painting and other art formats. Artists shouldn’t limit themselves to one method of painting, such as portraits. They should both explore and develop both new methods and perspectives in both art and painting.
I believe that it is great for people to expand their horizons when painting. Portraits were the forefront of every painter, and I can understand how it would be considered boring at a certain point. Artists like to push the boundaries when it comes to the creation of art. Drawing from nature can empower an artist to not only learn the technical aspects of learning art and design, but also can bring new creative thoughts that usually cannot be attributed when painting portraits. There are many things that you as an artist can accomplish by simply looking at nature. Looking at the world around you can give you a whole new perspective. It is good that these artists valued the American Wilderness, as it brought new ideas and innovation to painters who wished to paint this vast beautiful wilderness.
The concept of painting this land that even by the 19th century was still so strange and new is fascinating. It gives the art this fresh, ethereal atmosphere.
There’s also this freedom that comes with depicting nature. You don’t have to be that accurate; as long as you know how to paint some bushes and trees you should be fine. It’s not the same as painting a specific person’s portrait where precision is key.
This time period was a very interesting yet important one. Many American artists had problems setting themselves apart from their European roots because they were shackled by the constraints that their European predecessors had placed on them. Everything was perfect, with no room left for the imagination. The process of painting portraits in Europe were clear and concise, without any wiggle-room. The idea of wanting to paint the American wilderness must have felt so refreshing and free for these artists back then, and with how wild and open the American wilderness is, these types of paintings were left for the audience to interpret and appreciate. These landscape paintings did not have any type of rules or expectations that portraits tend to have. These American artists took the beauty of what they see through their eyes and painted what they saw onto a canvas. There was no need to fix or remodel nature because what they saw in front of them was the way it was meant to be viewed as after all.
I can understand why the American artists would feel restrained by European art due to the history between the two. As Cole stated, there is definitely an issue with blind obedience and a preconceived dogma due to the past. However, American artists were changing and it was evident that they were constrained due to a reverence to the European standard, something that potentially shackled their creativity and imagination in a new surrounding. I’d imagine that many artists, and myself, can relate to this as it can feel frustrating trying to only follow standards or what is considered “correct” rather than your own interests and imagination. It also allows artists more freedom and develop unique pieces, just as the American artists did as they began shifting away from the traditional European standard.
Rejection towards a new style or subject is the typical battle in the midst of two artistic eras. There had to have been frustration among art critics because America has finally now just established itself in the painting world slightly, and artists are receding from the norm yet again. However these artists were receptive to the bountiful nature and beauty only known to America and were able to open a new door for American artists. There was too much available in this new country to only value the human form as worth recreating.
Lizbeth Ramirez | Art 474
It was a wise change and a good one for the American artists to experiment with and succeed in painting nature over portraits. I understand that they wanted to pay their respects to their artistic elders, but there’s also a time where an artist has to part ways and find their own unique voice. That voice might be in defiance of traditional methods, but it is what allows an artist to be set apart from their mentors.
The way the artists captured nature might not be one hundred percent realistic but they add their own vision to it. I believe that’s what makes it beautiful and successful, it’s not just another nature painting, but it is how the artist interprets the scene. They accompany it with their own little twist, which helps makes it theirs and unique.
I think landscape painting over portrait is very modest. Artist were able to look past themselves and society and appreciate the beauties of the world that gave human everything. I liked the way the artist were able to capture the light and gave a welcoming vibe to something that could be seen as background scenery. The landscapes were not accurate but the sense of unrealistic beauty made the landscape seem that much more important.
Personally, I feel artists drifting away from portraiture and into landscape painting impacted the impressions people had on American art. This historical era had reached a new stage. In this period, American artists were being defined by their artistic styles. I personally feel American wilderness can be so much more captivating than looking at traditional portraits all day. I feel nature, historically, has been the line where fantastical and religious themes have crossed realistic life in the arts without actually showing a person. I feel European constructs were the foundation for so many art principles that still hold true for many artists today. However, as America had begun to establish its own identity and culture during this time period, artists rebelled against these traditions. I feel it worked in their favor as, historically, a lot of American art leans away from traditionally historic, European art.