--A.J. Downing was in many ways the "Martha Stewart" of his time, offering all sorts of advice on how to make life more beautiful and pleasing to antebellum Americans. In the essay we are discussing tomorrow, he takes up the significance of building attractive country homes and cottages. Why are they important and what are they supposed to do (beyond pleasing owners)? Compare Downing's notion of the cultivation of taste for nice homes to Cole's notion of cultivating a taste for scenery.
--Willis writes about the countryside around his home "Glenmary" in the Susquehanna River Valley. While surely not urban, it is neither wilderness nor farmland (he is farming, but not because he needs to financially). What does he value about this landscape? What do he do on it and with it? Compare it to the visions or attitudes toward landscape that we have seen to date in the class.
According to Downing, attractive country homes contribute to the morality and intellectual sophistication of society. In the 19th Century the notion that proximity to art could produce profound effects on the minds and emotions of common people began to gain popularity. More and more museums became open to the public in an attempt to increase society's moral and intellectual potential. Architecture, an artistic medium naturally visible to everyone, takes on particular importance in this context. As Downing hypothesizes, the sight of a beautiful house next to ones own purely utilitarian dwelling will awaken ideas of beauty and possibility. It will result in a "diffusion of good taste, of well being, and a love of order and proportion, upon the community at large".
ReplyDeleteCultivating a taste for beautiful homes goes right along with cultivating a taste for art or scenery in that vision is not innate but is something that must be learned. The usage of houses or land is something we understand naturally, but looking at land as scenery and finding the beauty in it is an entirely different action with new emotional requirements that a farmer or forester would not need. Though he might develop an emotional and intellectual relation to the scenery on his own, it would come by accident rather than necessity and could be further developed by conscious "seeing". A new way to build houses promotes likewise a new way to look at houses that the man who lives in a simple house might never acquire and certainly would not develop. As far as intellectual and emotional influences go, I can follow the argument. When it gets into morality, however-- with architecture, just as with nature and art--I doubt that can define the influences of beauty so easily.
Downing argues, like Cole, that there is a moral purpose to the cultivation of taste for nice “dwellings,” just as there is for cultivating a taste for scenery. Cole claims that “it is generally admitted that the liberal arts tend to soften our manners; but they do more—they carry with them the power to mend our hearts.” Similarly, Downing mentions the “moral effects of the fine arts.”
ReplyDeleteIn both pieces there is a fear of backsliding to a primitive state; instead, each places emphasis on our ability to become a “refined and intelligent being,” as Cole says, through our cultivation of taste for finer things in life. As we move out of this primal state, Downing claims that “the mind of the civilized and cultivated an as naturally manifests itself in fitting, appropriate, and beautiful forms of habitation and costume.” It is a direct reflection “that the ideal of their owners has risen above the platform of mere animal wants.”
Downing and Cole also share a love of comparison: they both feel obligated to convince the reader that America is equal to if not greater than Europe. Downing refutes the point that the building of nicer homes could establish classism just as it does in “some transatlantic countries, where wealth and its avenues are closed to all but a few,” by claiming that the possession of a beautiful home will have a “bettering influence” on all classes. He begins his defense by saying “but, in this country, where integrity and industry are almost always rewarded by more than means of subsistence…”. I find this defense against classism interesting when we look at his ranking of houses later in the essay. Though he respects the charm of both a cottage and a mansion in his final lines, he warns to not try and step out of the “class” to which each home belongs when he says “let their individuality of purpose be fairly avowed; let the cottage be a cottage…” He even lists them in order of the most humble (cottage) to the most lavish (mansion).
It is interesting, however, to position these seemingly similar viewpoints because of a marked difference: Downing’s piece signifies a taste for progress, whereas Cole is adamantly opposed to the marring of landscape. Cole appreciates the wild beauty of nature, the picturesque, while Downing desires “tasteful grounds and gardens.” Where Cole believes that nature is a reflection of what humanity must aspire to be—that which is godly and pure—Downing takes a reverse approach; instead, he urges his audience to build dwellings that reflect their already superior intellectual and moral capacity. In Downing’s sense, architecture must keep up with the moral progress of humanity.
In my opinion, Willis describes a sort of middle landscape between wilderness and the city in which he basically exercises to gain health and to find relaxation. All the farming he does is not to sustain himself and provide food it seems but rather to exercise in a beautiful setting of nature. Most, if not all of the beauties he describes are man made in the way that man modified and cultivated nature.
ReplyDeleteWillis compares his work to that of a sculptor, who takes a rock from nature and then creates a piece of art from it. In the same way, Willis moves trees or cuts them down in order to create a beautiful landscape around his house. This modification also includes the view of the church, for which a tree has to be cut down. Interesting enough the church is a sign of the city or least of human settlements and shows the proximity to civilization.
Willis even redirects a brooke and builds a canal, which he tries to make look natural by planting trees at its banks as well as he tries to make it picturesque. Everything around him seems to be arranged in such a way that it provides relaxation and visual beauty and Willis is its creator.
Only within nature, his soul and body can be truly free but in comparison to the other authors we have read, this setting does not describe a wilderness that is completely distinguished form civilization. In this landscape, man is no longer sublimed by the power and vastness of nature but he is in control of it.
In my opinion, Willis describes a kind of civilized nature that lies within reach of all the urban commodities but does shut out all the negative aspects such as the noise or the fast pace of city life.
- Markus
To me, it seems that what Willis values most about the Glenmary landscape (or what distracts him from his letters the most) is the everyday activities of the wildlife interacting with their niches. At one point, Willis describes himself like “a squirrel, brought up in a school-boy's pocket, and let out some June morning on a snake fence,” and the way he keeps getting distracted by the wildlife around him does make it seem as if he’s gone a little nuts. (Excuse the pun.) Willis also seems to enjoy the opportunities that both nature and man-made structures offer him to play. Judging by the title of the collection of letters, what’s interesting about Willis’ letters is the way that he uses nature to carry out the ideas of his imagination, including considering taking up residence underneath a bridge.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found contradictory about Willis is that, like Cole, he seemed to be ambivalent about whether or not he disliked people interrupting nature. At one point, Willis returns part of the Owago to the original path that humans had diverted, but he doesn’t seem to mind that humans have built a bridge over a stream for him to take up residence under. He also doesn’t seem to mind farming; land cultivation is something he takes a great deal of enjoyment in. Is there a method to what he likes and doesn’t like about humans interrupting nature, or is it simply all over the place like a squirrel searching for a nut?
While Downing and Cole express similar thoughts on beauty and morality, their stance on industry versus innovation differentiates their essays.
ReplyDeleteCole’s notion that there is “an almost inseparable connection between the beautiful and the good” appears throughout Downing’s piece. Both men are blatant in their assertion that being able to recognize beauty and appreciate nature as scenery, as opposed to recognizing it solely for practicality, is a trait of a progressed society. Downing offers a Maslow’s Hierarchy point of view when it comes to distinguishing the primitive, and in his argument morally inferior, with cultured society or the morally superior. Downing compares the way the Native Americans live off the land to suit their most basic needs to living like the surrounding animals. He provides a comparison in their shelter and the Native Americans use of a blanket; “[a] blanket covers the skin of the savage from the harshness of the elements, as the thick shaggy coat protects the beasts he hunts in the forest.” Downing goes on to say that the civilized man requires more after his basic needs have been satisfied. For Downing, this is the point where society satisfies fine arts and intellect through appreciation and industry.
Downing and Cole have several points of agreement when it comes to calling on society to be cultured, both even recognizing a distinction between the savage and civilized as well as between society’s population of those with good taste versus those without. Downing attributes fine arts, “habitation and costume,” and taste with the progression of a morally superior society. While Cole’s essay seems to contradictorily reject fashion and industry while touting taste, refinement, and progress, his views diverge from Downing in both appreciation and industry. Cole requires that nature be appreciated untouched in its terrifying sublimity and that industry is a threat to this cultivation in society. Downing is uninterested in nature’s sublimity or society’s appreciation of it, but more interested in cultivating an American ideal of being both industrious and modest in advancements. Cole asks artists to take in nature as inspiration while Downing recognizes art as an innovation in itself, a rung above wearing only a blanket for warmth.