Talk:Hudson River School/Archive 1

Why is there a red border and fake shadow behind the cole painting? That seems innappropriate and even distracting. It should be removed/ photoshopped out. -the architect
 * I agreee. It's being used to represent a "frame" of some sort, but it is not in keeping with this great painting.  JJ 13:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, I did crop the frame and shawdow out. I hope no one is upset. JJ 13:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a much better image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cole_Thomas_The_Oxbow_%28The_Connecticut_River_near_Northampton_1836.jpg under the main Thomas Cole article. I recommend doing away with the current one completely.  Jonrock 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the most accurate and easy to find page on the history of the Hudson River School on most of the internet as a whole. The information is accurate and exactly what I need, focusing on the historical, not the present-day site. Thank you, Wikipedia! This is just what I was looking for!

-Serina Troup, 14


 * I deleted the artist Gilbert Munger from the list of Hudson River artists.  Although a well-known artist, there is no evidence that he was considered a member of the Hudson River School.  There is not a single mention of him in one of the definitive references American Paradise, The World of the Hudson River School (Introduction by John K. Howat, The Metropolitan Museum of Art).  If someone has evidence to the contrary, please let me know.  JJ 13:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that too, and personally I agree. I did a Google search on Munger and found an amazingly extensive website here. He apparently painted realist landscapes in the 19th century, mostly of western subjects. I guess the closest comparison would be with Albert Bierstadt. Bierstadt, however, also worked and socialized with the core group of Hudson River School artists in the 10th Street studios in New York. An interesting question is whether Munger was also in the 10th Street studios, in which case he might be more closely related to the Hudson River School. I removed George Inness from this list some time ago. I'm a also little uneasy with Martin Johnson Heade and expanded his entry to explain this, though since I try to be conservative in reversions I've left it in the list. The question of "who is and is not a Hudson River School artist" is an open one. The loosest definition, which I have trouble with, is that "any realist (non-Barbizon, non-tonalist) American landscape painter in the 19th century was a Hudson River School artist". How you tighten up the criteria from there is problematic but I think should take into consideration the artist's working and social circle. Since I'm an art geek I find the whole thing fun to think about :) --Worldofdew 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You have raised an interesting issue. I'm going to do some more research, but off the top of my head the artist had to be from NYC (or have a studio there).  The early painters were very much "in" with the National Academy of Design that would only allow New Yorkers.  Interesstingly, Munger had a studio in NYC, but not (according to Who's Who in American Art) in the 10th Street Studio Building.  Also, he was not a member or associate of the National Academy. I have seen photos of artists gathered together at the Studio building, and it reads like a Who's Who of the Hudson River School.  Do you have the publication McEntee & Company?  I can send you a copy if your would pay me for postage.  It has a photo of the studio of Worthington Whittredge in 1866 and pictured are: Thomas Le Clear, Worthington Whittredge, John W. Casilear, James Sidney Brown, Jervis McEntee, William Hart, Regis Gignoux, Edward Lamson Henry, John Ferguson Weir, Sanford Robinson Gifford, William H. Beard, Richard William Hubbard, and Seymour Joseph Guy.  Wow!  In American Paradise, both Heade and Inness are listed with significant essays.  This is, to me, a pretty definitive reference.  This does not mean that it's all inclusive, but I would feel comfortable putting Inness back in the list.  And, I believe Heade belongs there.  But, Munger, no.  FWIW, the essays in American Paradise are for Bierstadt, Bricher, Casilear, Church, Cole, Colman, Cropsey, Robert Duncanson, Durand, Gifford, Heade, Hetzel, Inness, David Johnson, Kensett, McEntee, Mignot, Arthur Parton, W. T. Richards, Shattuck, Silva, Sonntag, Jerome Thompson, Whittredge, and Wyant.  I suggest that those absent from this article be listed.  Please give me your opinion.  One more tidbit on Munger.  I have a large book titled Paintings and Sculpture in the Collection of The National Academy of Design (do you have this reference?).  The book has many references to works other than those in its collection.  There is no mention or reference to Munger. JJ 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I do have McEntee & Company (I wish I had a McEntee) and I know the photo you mention--I would love to have been there. As for including an artist on the list here it depends on what we (we meaning the past and future contributors to this article) wish to communicate by doing so. I personally make the distinction between "card-carrying Hudson River School artists", like Cole, Durand, Kensett, Gifford, Whittredge, McEntee, Church, and a few others, versus "artists who at one time painted some works in the Hudson River School style", who I would be very careful about adding to the list--because including artists in the second category tends to communicate to readers not familiar with them that they are on the same stylistic ground as all the rest. George Inness, for example, (who is one of my very favorite artists) did paint a small number of Hudson River School works early in his career. However, I would say that any artist who, like Inness, for most of their career painted in the Barbizon or tonalist style--which was antithetical to the Hudson River School--is not a Hudson River School artist, and shouldn't be categorized side-by-side with artists like Gifford and Kensett. Inness really did turn his back on the Hudson River School early on, in the 1850s. This is supported in the recent book, "George Inness and the Visionary Landscape" by Adrienne Baxter Bell. Having said all this, again with the exception of Inness, I would not disagree with adding the remainder of the American Paradise artists to the list here (though I personally don't think of Richards or Silva as among this group). By the way, if you're thinking of adding some Hudson River School artists, I'd throw in the Hart brothers :) --Worldofdew 01:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes to William and James Hart. No to their sister Julie.  We do agree on Munger, so that's final.  I need to give more thought to Inness, and I don't have the book you reference.  He, himself, came to the defense of fellow artists who were criticized as being of the Hudson River school.  But, yes, he moved in a different direction.  JJ 02:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Rock band
I deleted the two external links to a rock band called "Hudson River School." To me, a rock band is completely irrelevant to an article about a school of art. I hope no one disagrees with me. JJ 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Article name
The article is named "Hudson River school." I have noticed, however, that most artist biographies refer to the "Hudson River School." I changed one of them to use a lower case "s," but I'm having second thoughts. Isn't this a case where the article should be moved to change the title to "Hudson River School?" I would appreciate comments. JJ 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just changed them all to lower case "s" for the sake of internal consistency (and before reading your comment here). It seems either way is correct depending on which book you're looking at. Dictionaries always seem less inclined to capitalize art terms like cubism and futurism than books on art, but "Hudon River school" isn't in Webster's. I'm not sure what the consensus is, I prefer capital S myself, have to look into this. A title change might be in order. Ewulp 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Artists
It has been awhile since I looked at this article. I don't think of either Winslow Homer or Samuel F. B. Morse as Hudson River School artists. Homer has his own, unique style. Morse was too early, and, to my knowledge, was not a follower of Cole. Please chime in here. Do people agree or disagree? JJ 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only do I agree, I have removed the names as completely inappropriate. Homer and Morse have never been catalogued as artists of the Hudson River School, so there is no reason for Wikipedia to be the first to do so.   Furthermore, neither artist is even considered primarily a landscape artist, so adding their names here is wildly off the mark. If the WP contributors who added these names have evidence (published catalogues, textbooks, museum exhibitions, etc.) that supports their addition to this category of artists, then please provide it before relisting these otherwise inappropriate artists here. Jack Bethune 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm very glad you agree, since I did not want to do this unilaterally.  You added a reference to my article on White Mountain art to Gerry and paintings of The Old Man.  Check out the Gerry in this exhibition that I have recently co-courated.  http://nhhistory.org/cv/  JJ 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I'm very aware of your very fine and impressive exhibition of White Mountain art, and of the painting by Gerry chosen for the cover of the catalogue, Consuming Views. It was interesting to see Gerry's Old Man of the Mountain so prominently featured, since I know of a much smaller but very similar version by him in a private collection. Incidentally, the painting on the cover must be the large version by Gerry that I mistakenly once suggested was at the Smithsonian. Thanks for clearing that up. And, more important, thanks for your superb WP contributions on White Mountain art, artists, and American landscape painting.  Jack Bethune 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits
I restored the version to that of Jack Bethune of December 5th. Unsigned edits were primarily by vandals, with some unsuccessful attempts to restore the article. Any comments are welcome. JJ 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

List of artists (again)
I guess I'd like to raise this issue again. Both Jack Bethune and WorldofDew have contributed on this subject. It would be good if we had some "definitive" reference. Howat in his book does list Homer as a Hudson River painter. We know that Inness did paint early on in the Hudson River style. WorldofDew is looking for "hard core" Hudson River painters. If we don't have some reference that we can all agree on, we will find ourselves (primarily) deleting names from the list of artists. If we can agree, we will have some scholarship to fall back on. The definitive exhibition on the subject was American Paradise. I throw out that we could use this as a reference. The problem, however, is that both Inness and Homer are mentioned in the following way. " ... American landscape art had vastly matured in its evolution from the Hudson River painters to those perceived as antiacademic heroes of the late nineteenth century -- Inness, Martin, Homer, and Thomas Eakins." So, if an artist changed his style, is he or is he not a Hudson River artist? Let's hear from others. I, in particular, don't like adding and deleting names without some sound basis (which I hope we can find and agree on). JJ 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I don’t see any particular difficulty in categorizing the artists properly (not marginally) belonging to the Hudson River School. These are the “hard core” Hudson River School artists advocated by WorldofDew, and they are the very same artists that even Howat acknowledges are its principal members. Their works are always imbued with a breadth of vision, magnificence of scene, reverence for and inspiration by Nature, and attention to detail that were the hallmarks of Hudson River School art.  Taken together, these distinctive qualities are familiar, recognizable, and give this renowned body of work its lasting character by which it is rightly known today. From the references you cite (both of which I have and consulted), it’s clear  that Howat only grudgingly admits Inness, Martin, Homer, and Eakins into his discussion of Hudson River School artists, and he does so only after remarking on their maverick styles and departures from that tradition.  Inness only briefly experimented in that style and today is much more associated with American Barbizon.  Martin’s later impressionistic style never came close to displaying the characteristic qualities of the Hudson River School mentioned above.  Homer’s inclusion in Howat appears to be based entirely on the geographic titles given by Homer to some narrow, untraditional views merely identified as the Hudson River -- obviously a case of overinclusiveness by Howat. And the scant mention of Eakins in either reference is sufficient evidence that this artist was never considered a member of the Hudson River School.  As a consequence, and regarding your suggestion, I’d agree that American Paradise offers the best foundation for forming any list of Hudson River School artists, with the proviso that some artists (e.g., Homer, Inness, et al.) should be separately categorized as only marginally associated with the Hudson River School, and are not considered fully accepted members of that tradition.  Thanks for inviting my two-cents’ worth. Jack Bethune 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding further comment and answering your question whether Martin belongs on this list, the evidence I find in American Paradise clearly places Martin outside the academic canon of the Hudson River School. You mention a claim made in 1912 by Frederick Sherman, that Martin was "the last and greatest expression of that discredited movement." (p. 7) That opinion places Martin outside the mainstream of the HRS and seems to celebrate his separation from it. The same assessment of Martin's outsider status was made earlier, in 1905, by Samuel Isham, who said that the art of the HRS "served as a crude foundation for the achievements of Inness, Wyant, and Martin." (p. 11) These early critical judgments clearly place Martin's work among a later development in American landscape painting, not a continuation of the HRS. And they are unanimous that at best he represented a definite departure, an evolutionary outgrowth of it. In my opinion, these conclusions are not disputed by Howat and the other editors of American Paradise, so Martin can legitimately be categorized along with Inness as a stylistic outsider of the HRS, not a representative of it. Jack Bethune 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm going to delete Martin from the list.  And, I refer others to this discussion if they disagree.  JJ 19:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Westervelt-Warner Museum
I deleted the external link to this museum. What is the relevance to the Hudson River school? We can't just put links in to museums, or the list would be very long. Just becuase a museum has a Hudson River painting, does not mean it should be included in this External links section. I left the Albany Institute link because of its location in the Hudson River valley and its extensive collection of Hudson River paintings. I welcome any agreement or disagreement with my position. JJ 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * John, the last paragraph lists the Westervelt Warner Museum along with Hartford's Atheneum, NY's Met, the Brooklyn Museum, and National Gallery as having a sizable collection of Hudson River School art. If that is true, and I don't know that it is, then the Westervelt deserves a link just as the other museum collections are linked in that paragraph. Since there is no existing Wikipedia page to link to, it seems that the best recourse is to add the Westervelt to "See also," unless you have a better idea. If not, then I'd like to see it added back. Jack Bethune 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is the proper solution (I must admit, I don't pay much attention to all the Wiki guidelines), but I made the hyperlink within the paragraph that references the other institutions. Is this acceptable to you?  JJ 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your solution is a good one! Thanks for coming up with an even better idea.  Jack Bethune 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)