Comments on Montserrat Paper 1 -- Spring 2018

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Emily Maher -- Views of Nature in Art

This is generally a very good discussion of the four 
paintings we looked at together.  I have several suggestions
though.

The first two sentences of your introductory paragraph use 
the same verb -- "to feature."  It would be better to mix 
things up a bit by changing the second sentence.  Also, you 
might acknowledge that those four paintings were actually 
selected out of the whole collection of the Worcester Art 
Museum for you to consider.  Just saying the museum ``features'' 
those paintings does not make it clear how the assignment 
came to be -- whether you might have selected them yourself,
for instance.

You are not correct in your assumption about the gender of
Jan Fyt.  He was a man even though I agree the name looks like 
it might be a woman's name in English. It would have been very 
rare to find a woman as a professional painter in the 1600's 
anywhere in Europe, though.  You mention that Hubert
Robert was a trained painter in the next paragraph, 
but that was true of Fyt as well. (He almost certainly
did an apprenticeship with another painter while learning 
his craft, though, since formal art schools were a later
development historically.) The contrast
there is really between the two Europeans and the
two Americans, Ralph Earl and Edward Hicks, who were
essentially self-taught (and it shows in their work).  

It's very good that you looked up the Bible verse
underlying the ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and used that
in your discussion.  

I think I know what you are trying to say when you 
Hicks' ``Peaceable Kingdom'' is similar to Fyt's
``Crossbow and Game'' but to me it's actually the 
differences that are even more striking.  I think 
it's natural for us to see Fyt's painting as showing 
humanity's violent and callous disregard for nature 
(as it was in his time);  Hicks is showing a harmonious 
relation with nature (as it could be in a future where 
the Bible verses from Isaiah have come to pass).  The
two artists are treating similar themes, in a way, but 
they are coming at them from completely different 
perspectives.  

Content: 92
Mechanics: 98

Total:  95 (A)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Andrew Sisitzky -- The Artwork of Humanities Influence

Not sure at all about what your title is supposed to 
mean.  Did you mean to say "humanity's" instead of 
"humanities" by any chance? 

I think you are exactly right when you say that none
of the paintings shows the natural world as it actually
is, though one might argue that Fyt and Robert come
closer in different ways.  Humans can behave in casually
cruel and destructive was to animals and humans are
always to an extent at the mercy of violent storms and 
other natural phenomena.  (You include a good discussion
of that after the opening paragraphs of your paper.)

The "massive stone structure" that sits on the cliff
in the Robert painting is supposed to be a walled 
town, I think.  The people just visible on the ledge
somewhat lower down reacting to the shipwreck below
are probably the inhabitants of the town coming down
to see what happened.  

It's a shame that you did not look up the Bible passage
underlying the ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and use that
in your discussion:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.  

I really don't think it's possible to understand that painting 
without understanding where it's "coming from," so to speak.  Hicks
is showing a what a harmonious relation with nature might look like
(as it could be in a future where the Bible verses from 
Isaiah have come to pass).

Content:  88
Mechanics: 98

Total:  93 (I keep scores in numerical form until the 
            end of the semester when I convert to 
            letters, but this would be right on the 
            A-/A boundary)


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Liz Daskalakis -- Views of Nature in Art

Very good work in your paper on the differing relationships
between humans and nature reflected in the four paintings
we viewed in the Worcester Art Museum.  I have just a few
comments.  It's very good that you looked up the Bible passage
underlying the ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and usedd that
in your discussion.  I really don't think it's possible
to understand that painting without understanding where
it's "coming from," so to speak.  To me, Hicks is showing a
what a harmonious relation with nature might look like
(i.e. as it could be in an indefinite time--maybe a 
future--where the Bible verses from Isaiah have come to 
pass).  You're right that the scene in ``Looking East
from Denny Hill" is completely serene.  However, that
leaves out what it took for humans to get the landscape
to the state that is portrayed.  Don't forget that a lot 
of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred 
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl 
shows in the painting.  Things might have even looked as 
ugly and violent as in the Fyt painting in the past(!)

A small point: in ``animals laying lifeless and bloody''
the ``laying'' should be ``lying'' ("to lay" is a transitive
verb -- you lay something down; "to lie" is intransitive --
something lies there.)

Content:  98
Mechanics:  98

Total: 98 (A)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Matt Lane -- No Title

Most of this essay about the four paintings we saw 
together at the museum is very good.  The one exception
is that I think it's a shame that you did not look up the 
Bible passage underlying the ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and use 
that in your discussion:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

Note that this shows Hicks' painting is really a literal
representation of these verses.  I really don't think it's possible
to understand that painting without understanding where
it's "coming from," so to speak.  You're right that 
Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation with nature 
might look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite time 
-- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah 
have come to pass.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say.

Another smaller point: at one point you say ``rabbits and
birds do not attack people very often,'' which is literally
true of course.  But if anything it understates the rarity
of incidents like that and creates a slightly comic effect
I don't think you intended.  The one circumstance I could think
of that would lead such small animals to even attempt
to attack humans is one where a mother would be defending her
young.  

Content:  92
Mechanics:  98

Total: 95 (A)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Ryan Gifford -- Essay #1 -- Views of Nature in Art

I know what you mean by saying that both Fyt's and Robert's
paintings show a ``negative'' aspect of the relationship
between humans and nature.  However, that's a slightly vague
way to characterize what is going on.  I think it's more
accurate and descriptive to say both paintings explicitly show how
``one side of the equation'' (i.e. humans or nature) can have
power or dominance over the other in some circumstances.  
Just saying that is ``negative'' doesn't capture the whole 
dynamic, or the ambiguity that power could be exercised for
what amount to good ends in some cases.

You go on to make an interesting point about Earl's painting
``Looking East from Denny Hill'' -- namely, that it (indirectly)
is actually showing the effects of the same kind of dominance
of one side over the other.  I agree that is true, but if anything
you might be underestimating the violence that occurred to get
this landscape to the state it is shown in.  You sort of hint,
but never really get around to saying explicitly, that a lot
of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl
shows in the painting.  Things might have even looked as
ugly and violent as in the Fyt painting at some point in 
the past of this scene(!)

I think you might have said more about the relationship between
Hicks's ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and the verses from Isaiah 11.
The first point to make is that Hicks's image is a literal 
depiction of what that passage is saying:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a Native 
American group at the start of the history of Pennsylvania).  You're 
right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation with nature
might look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite time
-- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have come to pass.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say.

One technical point:  You are not correct in your assumption about 
the gender of Jan Fyt.  He was a man even though I agree the name 
looks like it might be a woman's name in English. It would have 
been very rare to find a woman as a professional painter in the 
1600's anywhere in Europe, though.  

Content: 92
Mechanics: 98

Total: 95 (A)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Madison Ward -- Views of Nature in Art

Most of this is very good.  However, if you compare what you said
in your first paragraph about ``Looking East from Denny Hill'' you
will see why I'm pointing out that there is a bit of a discrepancy.
I don't think it's possible for a painting to be "showing the 
natural world as it is'' (page 1) and at the same time showing how humans
have "disrupted nature for their own benefit" (page 2) (By the way, 
in that sentence, "the" should be "their" and "benefits" should
be singular -- "benefit.")  In other words, I would say a painting 
can be a realistic depiction of a landscape as it exists at a particular
point in time (which I think "Looking East from Denny Hill" essentially
is) without "showing the natural world as it is."  The issue is 
really whether that landscape shows the effects of interactions
with humans or not.  And as you say later, that painting really
does, but in a rather indirect way.  Things might have even looked 
as ugly and violent as in the Fyt painting at some point in
the past of this scene if the actual process of cutting down
the forest and clearing the land was shown(!)

Although you do mention the inspiration for Hicks's painting,
I think you might have said more about the relationship between
Hicks's ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and the verses from Isaiah 11.
The first point to make is that Hicks's image is a literal
depiction of what that passage is saying:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a Native 
American group at the start of the history of Pennsylvania).  I would say
Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation with nature
might look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite time
-- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have come to pass.  He's pretty clearly painting something that
might be, or that he hopes will become true, rather than showing
the world as it is.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
prophecy and symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I 
would say.

Content:  88
Mechanics: 96

Total: 92 (A-)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Logan Milliken -- Views of Nature in Art

This is mostly good as a reaction to the four paintings we
saw at the Worcester Art Museum.

I think that you're mostly right that the scene in ``Looking East
from Denny Hill" is shows a reasonable balance between the 
needs of humans and the needs of the animals and 
forms of plant life that are portrayed.  However, that
leaves out what it took for humans to get the landscape
to the state that is portrayed.  Don't forget that a lot 
of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred 
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl 
shows in the painting.  Things might have even looked as 
ugly and violent as in the Fyt painting in the past(!)
So there is a more going on here that you are saying in 
a sense.

It is a shame that you did not mention the relationship between
Hicks's ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and the verses from Isaiah 11.
The first point to make is that Hicks's image is a literal 
depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a Native 
American group at the start of the history of the colony of Pennsylvania).  
You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation 
with nature might look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite 
time -- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have come to pass.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say
because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is.  You're right that it is unrealistic, but it's that
way because it is a symbolic depiction of the Bible verses rather 
than a naturalistic depiction of the world as it is.  

A couple of technical points:  First, make sure you understand the 
difference between ``its'' and ''it's'' = contraction for 
''it is.''  You are using the second several times where
you want the first.  The first is in the second paragraph
''how we as humans are at it’s mercy.''  Second, you 
are slipping into overstatement a number of times here: 
''tremendous work of art,'' ''extraordinary job'' and so
forth.  These phrases don't end up strengthening what you
are saying; I think they tend to weaken it.  

Content: 88
Mechanics: 92

Total:  90 (A-)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Connor Degenhardt -- Nature in Art

Most of what you say here is right on point.  However, I think
it is a shame that you did not mention the relationship between
Hicks's ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and the verses from Isaiah 11.
The first point to make is that Hicks's image is a literal 
depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with the reference to William Penn's treaty with a Native 
American group at the start of the history of the colony of Pennsylvania).  
You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation 
with nature might look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite 
time -- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have come to pass.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say,
because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is.  It is unrealistic, but it's that way because it is 
a symbolic depiction of the Bible verses rather than a naturalistic 
depiction of the world as it is.  

I'm not quite sure what you meant by saying that Earl showed
people in his scene as ``mere specs.''  Did you mean ''specks''?
(A spec is a specification -- specs for a building project are
the plans and descriptions of how the building will be put
together, for example.)  I agree that the human figures in
the Earl painting are very small, but they are recognizably
human if you look closely enough.  

In your description of ''The Shipwreck'' you say, "It depicts 
the relationship between nature and humans as nature being an 
insurmountable force that humans pale in comparison to."  
But it's not the relationship that is the force, it's nature
itself.  So that sentence does not really work.  

Content:  92
Mechanics: 92

Total: 92 (A-)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Lily Droesch -- Worcester Art Museum

The reframing of the contrast as peaceful vs. violent (rather
than ''positive'' vs. ''negative'' as in the first draft) is
good.  In your second sentence, though, you want ''seem''
rather than ''seems.''  

The first sentence of the second paragraph repeats what
the second sentence in the first paragraph said to a large degree.
So this is not a good transition.
 
Although you do mention the inspiration for Hicks's painting,
I think you might have said more about the relationship between
``The Peaceable Kingdom'' and the verses from Isaiah 11.  You say: 
''The painter Edward Hicks, a Quaker, uses a spiritual 
aspect as he enjoyed the old testament and shows William Penn, 
also a Quaker, signing a treaty for peace.''  This is not 
untrue but it's pretty vague and it doesn't really get to the point
of what Hicks was trying to do in this painting.  (There's a lot
more to it than saying he ``enjoyed'' the Old Testament.)

The first point to make is that Hicks's image is a literal
depiction of what the Bible passage is saying:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(together with the reference to William Penn's treaty with a Native 
American group at the start of the history of Pennsylvania).  I would say
Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation with nature
might look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite time
-- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have come to pass.  He's pretty clearly painting something that
might be, or that he hopes will become true, rather than showing
the world as it is.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
prophecy and symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I 
would say.

I think you might be underestimating the violence that is
implied in the Earl painting ''View from Denny Hill.''  Think
of what it took for humans to get the landscape to the state 
that is portrayed.  Don't forget that a lot of cutting down 
and burning of trees must have occurred long before the pastoral 
and peaceful scene Ralph Earl shows in the painting.  Things 
might have even looked as ugly and violent as in the Fyt painting 
in the past(!)  So there is a more going on here that you are saying 
in a sense.

Content:  85
Mechanics:  91

Total:  88 (B+)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Kyle Copeland -- Human Influence on Nature Through Art

Kyle, I'm sorry, but I don't think it's correct at all to say that
``The Peaceable Kingdom'' shows a relation to the world as it
actually is.  This might have been clearer if you looked in 
more detail at the verses from Isaiah 11 that are the basis
for the painting:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

Note the way the animals are paired here -- always a 
meat-eating predator (the wolf, the leopard, the lion, 
the bear) with a domesticated herbivore (the goat, the calf
and yearling, the cow, the ox).  The cobra and viper vs. the
children are another similar pairing.  The whole point is that
you NEVER see those pairs of animals coexisting peacefully
in the world the way it is because they are just so 
different as forms of life.  Things were always that
way in the (real) past too.    

The first point to make is that Hicks's image is a literal
depiction of what the Bible passage is saying (together with the
reference to William Penn's treaty with a Native American group
at the start of the history of Pennsylvania).  I would say
Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation with nature
MIGHT look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite time
-- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have come to pass.  He's pretty clearly painting something that
might be, or that he hopes will become true, rather than showing
the world as it is.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
prophecy and symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I 
would say.

There are also quite a few places here where some writing
issues detract from what you are trying to say.  For instance:

"many tree’s would’ve had to been cut down" -- no apostrophe
in "trees" and "been" should be "be"

"Fyt was known for his authentic oil paintings of animals to a 
point where they legitimately seem real."  I don't think you
want "authentic" there -- the issue is not whether he painted
this image; rather it's the sort of image he painted.  "Legitimately
seem real" is not too clear.  I think you are referring to the 
fact that the depiction of the fur on the rabbit and the feathers
on the birds is so realistic that it almost looks like a photograph.

Content:  85
Mechanics: 85

Total: 85 (B)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Joe Lang -- Art Museum

This is mostly good as a reaction to the four paintings we
saw at the Worcester Art Museum.

I think that you're mostly right that the scene in ``Looking East
from Denny Hill" is shows a reasonable balance between the 
needs of humans and the needs of the animals and 
forms of plant life that are portrayed.  However, the scene
leaves out what it took for humans to get the landscape
to the state that is portrayed.  Don't forget that a lot 
of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred 
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl 
shows in the painting.  Things might have even looked as 
ugly and violent as in the Fyt painting in the past(!)
So there is a more going on here that you are saying in 
a sense.

It is a shame that you did not mention the relationship between
Hicks's ``Peaceable Kingdom'' and the verses from Isaiah 11.
The first point to make is that Hicks's image is a literal 
depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

 (put together with a 
reference to William Penn's treaty with a Native American group
at the start of the history of the colony of Pennsylvania).  
You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious relation 
with nature might look like, but he's setting that in an indefinite 
time -- maybe a future -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have come to pass.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say
because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is.  You're right that it is unrealistic, but it's that
way because it is a symbolic depiction of the Bible verses rather 
than a naturalistic depiction of the world as it is.  

Your writing is good here, but a little informal (I'm
reacting to things like the fact that you don't use the 
formal titles of the paintings (they should be capitalized
and put in italics or in quotes).  At one point you say about
the Hicks painting "The Peaceable Kingdom" that "The bright colors 
and mix between humans of different race and different animals 
represents the happiness and content that comes with a peaceful 
relationship between the natural world and humans."   "Represents" 
should be plural since you have two things in the subject.  Also
this is a bit simplistic because you are not taking the religious
symbolism into account.  

Content:  92
Mechanics: 92

Total: 92 (A-)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Genevieve Gibbons -- Views of Nature in Art

Second sentence -- something missing here "paintings that 
we looked at"(?)  This is a good introductory paragraph, though!

Most of this is very good.  The one place where I disagree with
what you are saying is in the discussion of "The Peaceable Kingdom."
I don't think Hicks is saying there is actually the sort of balance
that you are describing.  It's much more of a potential or symbolic
relationship.  I think you would have seen this if you had looked
in more detail at the relationship between this painting and the 
Bible verses from Isaiah 11.  The first point to make is that 
Hicks's image is a literal depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a 
Native American group at the start of the history of the colony of 
Pennsylvania).   You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious 
relation with nature MIGHT look like, but he's setting that in an 
indefinite time -- maybe a future, maybe only an imaginary time out
of regular time -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have been fulfilled.  I think you have to understand this scene
as a potential or symbolic one.  Not bringing in the aspect of religious
symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say
because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is.  

A few other mechanical points:

"that was the artists point" -- missing an apostrophe in "artist's"

"It was such a unique piece of art that I feel like it would be hard 
not to find fascination in it" is overstated.  There are actually
many other painted versions of equivalent scenes (many other
ones painted by Edward Hicks himself, in fact).  So "unique" is
not technically correct.  I think I know what you mean, but 
you're talking about its effect on you rather than about whether
there is just one painting like this.  Be more careful how you 
say things.  

Say "superior to" instead of "superior 
than" in the discussion of the critical opinion of the Robert painting.
 

Content:  92
Mechanics: 92

Total: 92 (A-)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Eve Smith -- Views of Nature in Art


Most of this is very good.  The one place where I disagree with
what you are saying is in the discussion of "The Peaceable Kingdom."
I don't think Hicks is saying there was the sort of balance
that you are describing at any time in the past.  It's much more of a 
potential or symbolic relationship.  I think you would have seen this if 
you had looked in more detail at the relationship between this painting 
and the Bible verses from Isaiah 11.  The first point to make is that 
Hicks's image is a literal depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a 
Native American group at the start of the history of the colony of 
Pennsylvania).   You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious 
relation with nature MIGHT look like, but he's setting that in an 
indefinite time -- maybe a future, maybe only an imaginary time out
of regular time -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have been fulfilled.  How can we know that is true?  It's because
all of the verbs here are in the future tense -- it's a prophecy!  The wolf 
"will live" with the lamb, etc.  He's not saying that nature used to be like
this but that it could be like this.  So I think you have to understand 
this scene as a potential or symbolic one.  Not bringing in the aspect 
of religious symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say
because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is. 

I think you might be underestimating the violence that is
implied in the Earl painting ''View from Denny Hill.''  Think
of what it took for humans to get the landscape to the state 
that is portrayed.  Don't forget that a lot of cutting down 
and burning of trees must have occurred long before the pastoral 
and peaceful scene Ralph Earl shows us in the painting.  Things 
might have even looked as ugly and violent as in the Fyt painting 
at a certain moment in the past(!)  So there is a more going on 
here that you are seeing, in a sense.

Your writing is very solid.

Content: 92
Mechanics: 98

Total:  95 (A)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Grace Peluso -- Analyzing Environmental Data

In your first paragraph "countless art pieces" is overstated.
The WAM collection is actually relatively small considering how
high the general quality is.  Museums in bigger cities have 
much larger collections.  

Most of this is very good.  The one place where I think you could
have said more is in the discussion of "The Peaceable Kingdom."
As you say the portrayal is not very realistic; it's much more of a 
potential or symbolic relationship between humans and nature.  I 
think you would have seen this if you had looked in more detail 
at the relationship between this painting and the Bible verses 
from Isaiah 11.  The first point to make is that Hicks's image 
is a literal depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a 
Native American group at the start of the history of the colony of 
Pennsylvania).   You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious 
relation with nature MIGHT look like, but he's setting that in an 
indefinite time -- maybe a future, maybe only an imaginary time out
of regular time -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have been fulfilled.  How can we know that is true?  It's because
all of the verbs here are in the future tense -- it's a prophecy!  The wolf 
"will live" with the lamb, etc.  He's not saying that nature used to be like
this but that it could be like this.  So I think you have to understand 
this scene as a potential or symbolic one.  Not bringing in the aspect 
of religious symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say
because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is. 

I also think you might be underestimating the violence that is
implied in the Earl painting ''View from Denny Hill'' (even though
it does not appear in the painting itself).   Think
of what it took for humans to get the landscape to the state 
that is portrayed.  This area was originally covered by forests
and a lot of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred 
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl shows us 
in the painting.  Things might have even looked as ugly and violent 
as in the Fyt painting at a certain moment in the past(!)  So there 
is a more going on here that you are seeing, in a sense.

Your writing is very solid.

Content: 92
Mechanics: 98

Total:  95 (A)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Christian Boire -- Views of Nature in Art Essay

I agree with you that the Fyt painting "Crossbow and Dead Game"
shows a violent side of the relationship between humans and 
nature.  But note that the painter had to make choices to show
the dead animals in the sort of carelessly heaped pile that he did
with the bloodied feathers of the birds and the fur of the rabbit. 
The choices he made are what get the point across to the viewer.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, just saying that you 
could have made your point even more strongly by saying more about
what the painting shows.  

I also think you are right to point out the violence that is
implied in the Earl painting ''View from Denny Hill'' (even though
it does not appear in the painting itself).   Think
of what it took for humans to get the landscape to the state 
that is portrayed.  This area was originally covered by forests
and a lot of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred 
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl shows us 
in the painting.  Things might have even looked as ugly and violent 
as in the Fyt painting at a certain moment in the past too(!)  So 
you could make the point here that even though the artist isn't
showing the violence (and maybe didn't even think about showing it!), 
it's implied if you know something about the history and compare
the scene with what the area looks like now.

The discussion of "The Peaceable Kingdom" is also good, but
you're leaving something out there too.  As you say, the portrayal 
is not very realistic; it's much more of a potential or symbolic 
relationship between humans and nature.   It would have been good
to look in more detail at the relationship between this painting 
and the Bible verses from Isaiah 11.  The first point to make is 
that Hicks's image is a literal depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a 
Native American group at the start of the history of the colony of 
Pennsylvania).   You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious 
relation with nature MIGHT look like, but he's setting that in an 
indefinite time -- maybe a future, maybe only an imaginary time out
of regular time -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have been fulfilled.  How can we know that is true?  It's because
all of the verbs here are in the future tense -- it's a prophecy!  The wolf 
"will live" with the lamb, etc.  He's not saying that nature used to be like
this but that it could be like this.  So I think you have to understand 
this scene as a potential or symbolic one.  Not bringing in the aspect 
of religious symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, I would say
because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is. 

Your writing is very solid.

Content: 92
Mechanics: 98

Total:  95 (A)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Najee Quashie -- Worcester Art Museum

First a technical quibble -- you're misusing the word "portrait" here.  
A portrait is a particular type of painting or photograph showing a 
representation of a person's face (or more rarely the faces of people in a 
group).  Portraits are usually intended to show something about the character,
personality, or status of the subjects (the person or people).  
None of the paintings we looked at specifically fall into that category.  

Your anecdote about pigtail soup is interesting.  One could argue, though,
that the way some cultures like the Trinidad and Tobago island culture use
animals is actually a relatively responsible use of the resource.  Every part
of the animal is used and nothing goes to waste.  My mom's family came from
a very poor part of southern Italy and her mother (my grandmother) used to 
regularly cook things like chicken necks and beef hearts and lungs for much 
the same reasons.  

I don't think Hubert Robert had global warming in mind in painting "The
Shipwreck."  More or less violent storms have always been something humans have
to deal with, even before we started to affect the global climate with our
activities.  I would say the idea here is just that humans are sometimes
at the mercy of nature, especially when extreme weather happens.  

Interestingly enough, I think there is also violence that is
implied in the Earl painting ''View from Denny Hill'' (even though
it does not appear in the painting itself).   Think
of what it took for humans to get the landscape to the state 
that is portrayed.  This area was originally covered by forests
and a lot of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred 
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl shows us 
in the painting.  Things might have even looked as ugly and violent 
as in the Fyt painting at a certain moment in the past too(!)  So 
you could make the point here that even though the artist isn't
showing the violence (and maybe didn't even think about showing it!), 
it's implied if you know something about the history and compare
the scene with what the area looks like now.

It's very good that you looked at the actual Bible verses from the book
of Isaiah that are the basis for the Hicks painting "The Peaceable 
Kingdom."  The first point you make is "spot on."
Hicks's image is a literal depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a 
Native American group at the start of the history of the colony of 
Pennsylvania).   You're right that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious 
relation with nature MIGHT look like, but he's setting that in an 
indefinite time -- maybe a future, maybe only an imaginary time out
of regular time -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have been fulfilled.  How can we know that is true?  It's because
all of the verbs here are in the future tense -- it's a prophecy! 

You are not correct in your assumption about the gender of
Jan Fyt in the concluding paragraph.  He was a man even though I agree 
the name looks like it might be a woman's name in English. It would 
have been very rare to find a woman as a professional painter in the 1600's 
anywhere in Europe, though.

There are a few minor technical slips, but your writing is 
generally good and direct.  

Content: 92
Mechanics: 92

Total:  92 (A-)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Angel Chavez -- Views of Nature in Art

I think you could have said a lot more in the discussion of "The 
Peaceable Kingdom."  As you say the portrayal is not very realistic -- 
the animals don't look very much like real lions, leopards, etc.
It's much more of a depiction of a potential or symbolic relationship 
between humans and nature.  I think you would have seen this if you 
had looked at the relationship between this painting and the Bible 
verses from Isaiah 11.  The first point to make is that Hicks's image 
is a literal depiction of what that passage says:

    The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
    the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.

    The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

    The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

    They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
    for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

(put together with a reference to William Penn's treaty with a 
Native American group at the start of the history of the colony of 
Pennsylvania).   I would say that Hicks is showing a what a harmonious 
relation with nature MIGHT look like, but he's setting that in an 
indefinite time -- maybe a future, maybe only an imaginary time outside
of regular time -- where the Bible verses from Isaiah
have been fulfilled.  How can we know that is true?  It's because
all of the verbs here are in the future tense -- it's a prophecy!  The wolf 
"will live" with the lamb, etc.  He's not saying that nature was ever like
this, but that it COULD BE or maybe WILL BE like this.  So I think you have 
to understand this scene as a potential or symbolic one.  Not bringing in 
the aspect of religious symbolism doesn't do the painting full justice, 
I would say, because it doesn't acknowledge why the scene is shown the 
way it is. 

Interestingly enough, I think there is another aspect that is
implied in the Earl painting ''View from Denny Hill'' (even though
it does not appear in the painting itself).   Think
of what it took for humans to get the landscape to the state 
that is portrayed.  This area was originally covered by forests
and a lot of cutting down and burning of trees must have occurred 
long before the pastoral and peaceful scene Ralph Earl shows us 
in the painting.  Things might have even looked as ugly and violent 
as in the Fyt painting at a certain moment in the past too(!)  So 
you could make the point here that even though the artist isn't
showing the violence (and maybe didn't even think about showing it!), 
it's implied if you know something about the history and compare
the scene with what the area looks like now.

Content: 92
Mechanics: 92

Total:  92 (A-)

