If a piece of human-architect can become part of the picturesque after being overflown by nature, shouldn't the idea of the architect still be brought up? What I mean is, if the piece is totally overlooked and not described (besides being something negative) can one really say that it is part of the picturesque? When nature is described, so much detail is brought up about the nature (trees, natural stones, color, etc.) and the architect is all but disappearing into the nature, it feels like it is still consider a flaw and imperfection to the scene. If the architect has been absorbed into nature then I feel like it should be acknowledged a bit more like the other aspects are.
It it is overlooked, and not because it's been overrun by nature, than isn't the argument flawed? Why ignore something that is claimed to be part of nature?
I feel like, that while Wodsworth brings in the idea of having the Abbey near (or that it's once religious aura has touched the lands and his memories) it doesn't feel like, personally, it is given its due. But even if others feel like I am wrong or misinterpreting it, I still wonder if a human-architecture can be brought into a nature scene (painting, poem, or description) and it be described, in detail, in a positive light, and still be consider picturesque.
I might still be thinking about the paintings we saw during class on Tuesday, particularly the first and second piece. The first one is almost all nature but we could see a slight blur of ruins in the background. It was a picture about nature and was beautiful. But though the ruins were there, they were almost invisible. And then in the second one, where there was a castle, the picture all of a sudden felt negative and dark. Can't there be ruins that aren't pushed to the side and still appreciated for natural beauty after the nature has taken over?
I really like your view of the architecture as negative, mainly because I see it more as positive and I'm always looking to challenge myself with different perspectives. I'm really intrigued with why you found the second painting so negative and dark.
ReplyDeleteLooking at this painting that was presented in class: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/turner-tintern-abbey-west-front-tw0371
I feel like it a positive representation of going back to nature. It has a light ethereal vibe. The shadows and the moss look like extensions of the trees growing around it. Even the houses off to the side seem to pull it into nature, like a small hill rising into the roof. The abbey has a transparent quality that feels almost celestial.
I have to agree with you that Wordsworth doesn't really talk about the ruins, but the nature that surrounds it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the architecture is brought up in the poem only to strengthen the role of nature. If nature is able to destroy or grow vines over the man made than it gives man made products or architecture less power to be something beautiful.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it the more I think it should not be seen as man made vs. nature but man-made being PART of nature or at least that's what this picture represents to me http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/turner-tintern-abbey-west-front-tw0371 It says that "man" or the "architect" should not be credited for this piece but nature should because this piece of architecture was left to nature. I think I see some sort of man-made machinery that was not being used, therefore nature took over. Tintern Abbey is then a place to enjoy nature not to enjoy what mankind made there.
To Calliope: I don't necessarily find the picture itself dark or negative. I am just curious about the representation of the architect. In truth, I'm not 100% if my curiosity holds anything to the topic (or just causes more confusion) but I'm just curious about the idea of "what makes a picturesque" and how the building must be regressing "back" to a state of nature. In truth, I see that picture as beautiful and light, but the class conversation over it and the one with the castle within the middle of the painting made it sound like that the artists or the majority didn't find this beautiful or picturesque. But rather sublime and too-powerful, as if that takes away from it. If a building looks like that, it seems beautiful to me. And yet it doesn't fit into the criteria.
ReplyDeleteEnargia: Perhaps. I am just very curious about it and if a negative stance can be taken on it. Can man-made artifacts truly appear to be beautiful to these particular poets? If the man-made object is not yet overrun, does that mean that the whole scene is ruined? Then perhaps that it is not the object but the message or title people place on it that takes away from its beauty.
Wordsworth, _Guide to the Lakes_ , 5th ed. (1835)
ReplyDeleteHere's what Wordsworth had to say about modern versus ancient buildings:
"Houses or mansions suited to a mountainous region, should be 'not obvious, not obtrusive, but retired;' and the reasons for this rule, though they have been little adverted to, are evident...A mansion, amid such scenes, can never have sufficient dignity or interest to become principal in the landscape, and to render the mountains, lakes, or torrents, by which it may be {275} surrounded, a subordinate part of the view. It is, I grant, easy to conceive, that an ancient castellated building, hanging over a precipice or raised upon an island, or the peninsula of a lake, like that of Kilchurn Castle, upon Loch Awe, may not want, whether deserted or inhabited, sufficient majesty to preside for a moment in the spectator's thoughts over the high mountains among which it is embosomed; but its titles are from antiquity—a power readily submitted to upon occasion as the vicegerent of Nature: it is respected, as having owed its existence to the necessities of things, as a monument of security in times of disturbance and danger long passed away,—as a record of the pomp and violence of passion, and a symbol of the wisdom of law; it bears a countenance of authority, which is not impaired by decay.
Child of loud-throated War, the mountain stream
Roars in thy hearing; but thy hour of rest
Is come, and thou art silent in thy age!
To such honours a modern edifice can lay no claim; and the puny efforts of elegance appear contemptible, when, in such situations, they are obtruded in rivalship with the sublimities of Nature."
here's the link to this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=idlAAAAAYAAJ&q=castellated#v=snippet&q=castellated&f=false