Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 325:questions:week_4_questions_comments-325_17 [2017/02/09 14:12] – [Susan Danly, “RR in American Art”] jmcclurken
+++ 325:questions:week_4_questions_comments-325_17 [2019/09/17 16:45] (current) – 192.65.245.89
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Railroad companies used art to appeal to customers. This resulted in Railroads being represented as opportunities to leisurely enjoy the views of America in person, instead of just through art. Railroads were represented as a way to "experience the sublime landscape they had previously known only in art" (Danly, 32). To push this idea further, railroads began to use the image of the landscape seen through the train window. **This cultivated the notion that the best way to truly experience the landscape artwork people have admired was in person, and the best way to do that in comfort and ease, was by riding on the railroad. Railroads then began to represent the opportunity to see America in person instead of through artwork.** - Shannon K.
+Railroads as depicted in american art, most notably John Gast's painting //American Progress//, depicts railroads as part of the american movement to expand the country and to explore. This ideal was found primarily in the idea of manifest destiny that was a driving factor in much of the western settlements. It was also an ideal that would lead to the American Dream ideal that inspired many people to come to America in pursuit of their fortune. Thomas Lanier
 The railroad was a new an exciting technology that changed the way urbanization occurred in America. The railroad brought the cities to the farms and vice versa.There was a slow flux of product and goods come and going from country to city.  Their appearance in art was similar. It was a change that slowly occurred in art work. Subtle changes such as a change in landscape, from rolling hills to a flat horizon. This was seen in America to make grounds for the rails to be laid. Then there was the addition of one railway with white smoke trailing behind it. The train would be small in comparison to the entire picture, it was there but it wasn’t the main focus. As the railway increased in America, so did its appearance in art. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2017/02/08 14:57//
@@ Line 34: / Line 35: @@
 I found it particularly interesting that Danly discussed the romanticized attitude toward the railroad was a reflection of the period's "machine aesthetic". Alongside **names like, lightening that emphasized the speed these engines had were names like Hercules and Ajax, mythological heroes associated with strength and speed.** The romanticized images that many artists produced was definitely a reflection of the Industrial Age, while some of the general population was fearful of the technological advancements being made, many others saw the potential that these new inventions brought and embraced them. I also loved the way that many artists juxtaposed the natural world to the newly formed industrial, which I believe caused viewers/observers to consider the true impact that the railroad was having on the country and its people. - Danielle Howard
+The way that trains and railroads were romanticized in art makes it even more clear that Americans thought of the railroad as something as American as the American landscape. The contrast between the hardness of this “iron horse” and the way it is depicted as a soft creature that blends in with the landscape is interesting and obviously intentional. Figure 12 with the rainbow above the train chugging along while cows graze leisurely embodies this ideology perfectly. I’d never thought of the railroads impact on art, but the art clearly shows that the railroad permeated every aspect of American life. --Anna Collins
 ===== Arthur McEvoy, "Working Environments" =====
-McEvoy makes an interesting comparison between the human body and ecological systems. However, I thought his comparison of "Accidents and diseases are an ecological consequence of that organization no less than soil erosion is a consequence of the economies of agriculture or fishery depletion has its roots in the regulatory structure of fishing."(p78) This quote was particularly interesting to me because it showed that white industrialization, accidents and diseases are more prominent than they were previously but they are a risk that goes hand in hand with industrialization. The same is true that agricultural economies face the risk of soil erosion and fishermen face the potential for fishery depletion. While none of these outcomes are pleasant, they are a very real risk that comes with the territory. -Emma Baumgardner
+**McEvoy makes an interesting comparison between the human body and ecological systems.** However, I thought his comparison of "Accidents and diseases are an ecological consequence of that organization no less than soil erosion is a consequence of the economies of agriculture or fishery depletion has its roots in the regulatory structure of fishing."(p78) This quote was particularly interesting to me because it showed that white industrialization, accidents and diseases are more prominent than they were previously but they are a risk that goes hand in hand with industrialization. The same is true that agricultural economies face the risk of soil erosion and fishermen face the potential for fishery depletion. While none of these outcomes are pleasant, they are a very real risk that comes with the territory. -Emma Baumgardner
+I think that the connection that McEvoy makes between the effect that industrialization has not only on the physical environment, but on the social environment as well. On page 78 it is stated that "Technology, in addition, plays an important role in shaping peoples consciousness of occupational hazard, just as it does in the awareness of other social problems"(78). I find it interesting that in this time period it took a great amount of convincing for the people to recognize the severity of the risks that came with the workplace. It took an equal amount of convincing to make the owners of factories to implement safety measures for their workers. Given how much labor was lost due to these accidents and the overall setback that it had on the organization structure of these factories. The idea that so many accidents that lead to death or severe injury that went unnoticed is baffling. --Kendell Jenkins
 I found it interesting how McEvoy compared nature and workers as “close cousins working on opposite sides of the factory gate:” (81) He follows up his statement saying “one destroys the productivity of air, water, and other natural systems, while the other destroys a human body’s biological capacity to work.” (81) I never would’ve thought about these two parts of industry to go hand in hand with each other because just as the argument McEvoy was making, it’s usually overlooked and both parts (nature and workers) are interchangeable just like the machines that they are being used for. – Jessie Cavolt
-McEvoy's take on the connection between "the damage that industrial accidents and disease do to workers' bodies is very much like the damage that industry does to the natural environment." (81). Which McEvoy blames the society of the 19th century to thinking, that depletion or damaging effects industry has on the environment is considered inevitable side effect of industrialization. What is important to take from this is thanks to activist who worked to end child labor or Upton Sinclair's expose of the meat packing industry, that we think differently and take steps to have environment and other government regulation agencies such as the USDA, which their function is to protect consumers and workers from dangers of industrialization, and even agriculture during the 19th century moves from individual farms to mass produce industrial farms. - Laurabeth Downs
+McEvoy's take on the connection between "the damage that industrial accidents and disease do to workers' bodies is very much like the damage that industry does to the natural environment." (81). Which McEvoy blames the society of the 19th century to thinking, that depletion or damaging effects industry has on the environment is considered inevitable side effect of industrialization. **What is important to take from this is thanks to activist who worked to end child labor or Upton Sinclair's expose of the meat packing industry, that we think differently and take steps to have environment and other government regulation agencies such as the USDA, which their function is to protect consumers and workers from dangers of industrialization, and even agriculture during the 19th century moves from individual farms to mass produce industrial farms.** - Laurabeth Downs
-I found this article by McEvoy to give a big significance on how the technology in the work environment had a huge interaction with the human beings that work on technological machines. We need to give respect to the machines that we give the same respect our own biological bodies.  He argues that “The relationship between people who work and the technologies that they operate is a complex, dynamic, ecological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health”(McEvoy, 73). I think that it is important for workers to work in a safe environment and be able to sustain from getting injured from the machines. He gives an example of a worker named Nicholas Farwell who “lost his arm when a a negligent coworker caused a locomotive to derail”(McEvoy, 79). The unfortunate thing about this case, is that farewell could not get justice for his injuries because the company was not responsible workers who get injured on the job. From McEvoys overall argument in this chapter he really stresses that “. . . particular machines and processes may direct hazards to worker health and safety” (McEvoy, 83). We need to remember that these workers are “real people” and need to be respected as employees. Therefore, if something horrible happens in that environment, the head employers should not throw their employees under the bus. - Rachel Kosmacki
+I found this article by McEvoy to give a big significance on how the technology in the work environment had a huge interaction with the human beings that work on technological machines. We need to give respect to the machines that we give the same respect our own biological bodies.  H**e argues that “The relationship between people who work and the technologies that they operate is a complex, dynamic, ecological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health”(McEvoy, 73).** I think that it is important for workers to work in a safe environment and be able to sustain from getting injured from the machines. He gives an example of a worker named Nicholas Farwell who “lost his arm when a a negligent coworker caused a locomotive to derail”(McEvoy, 79). **The unfortunate thing about this case, is that farewell could not get justice for his injuries because the company was not responsible workers who get injured on the job.** From McEvoys overall argument in this chapter he really stresses that “. . . particular machines and processes may direct hazards to worker health and safety” (McEvoy, 83). We need to remember that these workers are “real people” and need to be respected as employees. Therefore, if something horrible happens in that environment, the head employers should not throw their employees under the bus. - Rachel Kosmacki
 I found McEvoy's discussion of the role of public action in controlling industrial hazards interesting. He states that we are trying to control the hazards that "appear" controllable. I was also confused he distinguishing between a fishery and a workplace. That "[the workplace's] biological heart is the worker's body itself." (McEvoy 83) -Madison White
-In his conclusion, McEvoy states that because "we call workplace injuries 'accidents' rather than, say, 'production costs' [we tend] to think of them as somehow peripheral and not central to the role of technology in our lives" (89). I think this quote does a nice job of connecting society's attitudes toward factory workers and the environment, since both the negative human and environmental results of technological progression are seen as accidental, peripheral occurrences, as opposed to a direct result of the our production and use of technology. - Megan P.
+**In his conclusion, McEvoy states that because "we call workplace injuries 'accidents' rather than, say, 'production costs' [we tend] to think of them as somehow peripheral and not central to the role of technology in our lives" (89)**. I think this quote does a nice job of connecting society's attitudes toward factory workers and the environment, since both the negative human and environmental results of technological progression are seen as accidental, peripheral occurrences, as opposed to a direct result of the our production and use of technology. - Megan P.
-While McEvoy's analogy comparing a worker's body to the environment (74) is thought-provoking, I found it to be a bit romantic. The difference to me lies in the fact that employees have free will to work where they choose whereas the environment has no domain over those that abuse it. McEvoy writes that labor "is the manifestation of the worker's life force, the expression of which makes human life distinctively human" (89). I struggle to juxtapose McEvoy comparing the body of a laborer to the environment with his quote that the expression of life force "makes human life distinctively human." I think McEvoy's analogy may be characteristic of labor, technology and occupational hazards in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would be curious to learn about what modern technology McEvoy might point to in the 21st century as being potentially hazardous to workers. In the the 21st century, I see laborers having more occupational mobility relative to 19th and 20th century workers. In contrast, the environment does not have the option to choose its inhabitants. -Yousef Nasser
+**While McEvoy's analogy comparing a worker's body to the environment (74) is thought-provoking, I found it to be a bit romantic. The difference to me lies in the fact that employees have free will to work where they choose whereas the environment has no domain over those that abuse it.** McEvoy writes that labor "is the manifestation of the worker's life force, the expression of which makes human life distinctively human" (89). I struggle to juxtapose McEvoy comparing the body of a laborer to the environment with his quote that the expression of life force "makes human life distinctively human." **I think McEvoy's analogy may be characteristic of labor, technology and occupational hazards in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would be curious to learn about what modern technology McEvoy might point to in the 21st century as being potentially hazardous to workers. In the the 21st century, I see laborers having more occupational mobility relative to 19th and 20th century workers.** In contrast, the environment does not have the option to choose its inhabitants. -Yousef Nasser
 ===== Document: Edison Bowers, "Is It Safe to Work?" =====