minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Introduction
Albert Bierstadt was one of a group of American landscape painters known as the Hudson School. In the second half of the 19th century, they produced a copious number of lavish, romantic landscape paintings featuring the wild beauty of the mountains, forests and waters of the continent. These paintings featured dramatic lighting and exquisite detail. “€œLooking Down the Valley of the Yosemite” is a classic example.

Bierstadt himself was German born, and painted epic European landscapes before he relocated to the US in the late 1850’s. His prolific work drew countless honors on both continents, and he was financially and critically successful in his day. A point about Bierstadt that persuaded me to choose one of his works rather than another Hudson River painter was his connection to photography. He often traveled to these breath-taking locations with his brother, who was a noted photographer of the day, and he often painted from his brother’s captures. His brother specialized in shooting stereoscopic pairs for use in the popular parlor viewing device that every middle class family had. There is an interesting link in the Links section below about this.

Look at the Bierstadt painting below, and consider his influence on modern landscape photography. There are links in the resource section to guide you further. Share your thoughts about the painting, about the Hudson River School and how you see those principles affecting the work you see by current landscape photographers in galleries, exhibits, on 500px, even on this site.

Questions to Consider
1. Is this likely a realistic painting of the scene in the mid 1800s, or is it idealized? Support your thinking on this, and tell us whether you agree with that approach or not?
2. What are the strategies Bierstadt used to make this and other paintings so dramatic? Do those strategies apply to landscape photography today? Do you use those strategies? If you do, feel free to post an example. Note the article on Luminous Landscape, linked below, which gives us ways we can implement some of their approaches in our own work.
3. What influence do you think the Hudson River painters had on landscape photography as a whole?
4. What do you think of the composition of “Looking Down the Valley of the Yosemite”? The lighting? The framing? The color? Would you want it on your wall? Why or why not?
5. Bonus question for those willing to read the article about the stereoscope: What do you think of the author’s theory? Do you see evidence in his paintings of Bierstadt using stereo pairs as reference images? Explain.

Links for Further Exploration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bierstadt#/media/File:Albert_Bierstadt_-_Valley_of_the_Yosemite_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bierstadt
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=102
https://www.albertbierstadt.org/the-complete-works.html?pageno=1
https://www.nga.gov/collection/artist-info.6707.html
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/albert-bierstadt-410
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/08/arts/reviews-art-he-painted-the-west-that-america-wanted.html
http://www.sullivangoss.com/albert_Bierstadt/
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hurs/hd_hurs.htm
http://counterlightsrantsandblather1.blogspot.com/2013/10/albert-bierstadt-goes-west.html
http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/autumn13/jensen-on-albert-bierstadt-and-the-stereographic-landscape
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_School
https://luminous-landscape.com/lessons-from-the-hudson-river-school-of-painting/
http://photo-review.net/?p=107

Fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bierstadt#/media/File:Albert_Bierstadt_-_Valley_of_the_Yosemite_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bierstadt http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=102 https://www

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The connection between traditional art and photography is always worth considering. When I checked out his landscape paintings I was expecting to see an abundance of the sort of composition techniques that are common in photography - leading lines, channels, natural framing and the like. While they are not absent, they don't feature as strongly as I expected. There's natural framing of sorts, but not so pronounced that it would be classified as an attention manipulation technique. When he does use natural framing, it looks more like an attempt to create visual balance. His use of light, on the other hand, does look like deliberate manipulation of the viewer's attention - not that I'm complaining, because it's both effective and beautiful.

Do I think the paintings are representations of reality or are they idealised? I would say idealised because of the repeated use of the same sort of elements such as fortuitous lighting of specific parts of the scene, clouds that look like they're glimpses of heaven and the repeated use of Golden Hour lighting. Again I'm not complaining because it's all very effective, but in reality their occurrence is rare - too rare to be coincidence for such a large proportion of his paintings.

Do I think that the Hudson River painters influenced photography? I can see definite similarities between those paintings and some of Ansel Adams' work, but in more general terms I would say that any influence is partial. The things that work and don't work for landscapes are obvious enough, whether you're a painter or a photographer, and I think that in the main each generation forms their own preferences.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

For a time while I was in college, I had the exceeding good luck to find myself employed as a guard in a small but prominent Museum of American Art in Connecticut. Talk about being happy as a clam; I was one very pleased bivalve indeed. Walking around, eyes open, able to view the Bierstadts, the Coles, the Morans and other works at my working leisure, while assuring the Museum that none of the grandmotherly types who spent those Sunday afternoons in the halls might seek to purloin any of the Cassatts or Wyeths or anything of value. The museum joined at times with the local Arts Council, and did 'field trips' with patrons to galleries and museums in New York and Boston and elsewhere, and after a time, I was asked if I might like to go as well, partly to assist the herding of cats and partly because the Museum Director had taken a liking to me. Suffice it to say, times were pretty good.

I was already a little bit knowledgeable about many of the artists whose works hung on those walls, and it was always fun to discuss aspects of this painting or that with a visiting patron. It was difficult at times to not butt in on a conversation when a Docent might spout some gibberish they expected a viewer to take as gospel, but as best as I recall, I usually managed to hold my tongue. After all, how could one not be at considerable ease while surrounded by all this skill and beauty and sheer artistry?

I'm not going to try to address any of your specific questions, Paula, but I will say that sure, the painters of the Hudson River Valley School have been, and I suppose still are, huge influences on me, both in painting and in photography. I did, however, find that the stereography piece was a little much, especially considering that one of the hallmarks of the School was a fidelity to reality in the sense that when they painted a tree, it wasn't simply some generic 'tree' as studio painters of the previous age had painted, it was an oak or an elm or some actual tree, and the viewer of the work knew damn well it was an oak or an elm or whatever genus of tree was in place in the scene. Why would a painter who wanted to accurately convey Nature as Nature not avail themselves of the mnemonic device of a photograph, stereo or otherwise? I know I sure do. Secondarily, a couple of times I've tried to talk about 'thematic composition' (which I generally equate to the use of allegory and symbolism), but since that fell flat, I no longer bother to try to bring it up.

I figure about half the stuff I've posted on UHH could be said to be influenced in one way or another by Hudson River Valley conventions, so there isn't much point in posting something more. Sure, there are major differences --most notably with the lack of atmosphere-- but hey, we just don't get haze like that but once or twice a year here in southern Ootah, so photographing that isn't an everyday thing.

I'll close this off by saying, if I glance up above my computer monitors, on the wall behind and a little above are two pencil and wash drawings that HRV School artist Aaron Draper Shattuck did in Maine and New Hampshire respectively in the latter 1850's. They're pretty good. But its also a relatively small wall, too, and I'm pretty sure any of the better Bierstadts wouldn't fit. And I don't have a few million dollars to spare this week, either.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thanks for taking the time to work through this offering, and including the questions!! I agree they are idealized, and I think many of the current offerings on professional photographer’s sites or 500 pix are also idealized. I do some idealizing of my own, with Lightroom and Photoshop. I see the Hudson River guys ghosts in so many of the landscape images we see today.

Your comments about the compositional structure were very interesting. I hadn’t thought about it but I agree with you. And then I wonder if that darned stereoscope has anything to do with that - does depth carry more weight than other factors on which an image depends?

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Though I never had the pleasure of guarding such art, I have always been enchanted by the Hudson School paintings and spend more time with them in any museum where I find one than any other art. I’m quite sure my view of what constitute a wonderful landscape photograph is in no small part influenced by these artists.

I was intrigued by the stereograph theory, and while I agree with you that the author rode that horse too far into the brambles, I did consider whether there might be a bit of influence, if only in a way of seeing. Bierstadt seems to me to convey more depth than most of them, and many seem to depend on that depth for at least some of their power. The whole point of the stereograph gimmick (and I’m old enough to have played with one at my grandparents’ house)was the simulation of depth.

Thank you so much for an insightful (and fun) response!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Your suggestion that stereoscopy influenced his painting is a compelling one. I think part of the reason why you don't see more enhancement of depth in conventional photography is because the techniques for creating and/or accentuating depth cues are not obvious (beyond the basic ones such as adding contrast and selective lightening). Maybe we should have a thread or two to discuss that subject.

MattPhox Loc: Rhode Island

I confess to being too uneducated to answer your questions but I do have a few observations.
First I like the stuff of his that I saw, including the one in your post.
Second, I focused in on a couple of comments from the linked articles. One mentioned that his works were not necessarily true to scene. Apparently he found that he was a man that could move mountains. Another mentioned that he, the artist, could not be found in his paintings. These two I guess would go along with another notion that he painted "what Americans wanted". I thought initially that the two notions of altering God's work to fit your liking and yet not imposing yourself in your work, to be somewhat contradictory. I did find an analogy for myself however. I hope without seeming to get off point I reference an recent article about Johnny Mathis, a favorite of mine since high school. Along with many positive superlatives the article mentioned one opinion that, while Johnny's voice, technique and songs were wonderful, they left his works incomplete. Basically the judgement was that Johnny never really challenged himself. I guess then that the same could be said here. The artist appears to have striven for technical beauty (which he achieved) but I think does fit the description of painting what Americans wanted. I would contrast him to Turner, another of your threads. Bierstadt goes for the serene. No raging streams, no wolves clawing at the side of the bison. Turner shows us the serenity of earthly scenery but also wants to rejoice in the forces that created some of those scenes and continues to challenge man.
I will say that I believe that their work has had much influence on landscape photography. And it is interesting that his work in photography appears to have influenced his painting. And now with our digital technology I think we see many who would create an "art work" from a photo. And, not to be outdone, we, with our digital software, can also be the movers of mountains.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thank you for a thoughtful response Matt. I tend to agree with you that Bierstadt’s paintings, while breathtakingly beautiful, is almost too beautifully perfect. I find that I feel that way about some current landscape photography, which perfect equipment , perfect skills and perfect software allows to be, well, perfect. Sometimes we may look at so many perfect images that we become numb or develop an expectatation of perfection at the expense of our creative vision or spirit.