Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

===== Susan Danly, “RR in American Art” =====

=== What is Danly's argument? ===

Danly seems to form an argument around landscape paintings of areas the railroads were being built, and of paintings depicting the negative effects of the railroads' construction. Her focus was on the beautiful, vast prairies and how devastating the effects of the railroads were on the environment, animals, and Native Americans. Repeatedly through different artists, she cites incidents with Native Americans attacking the railways and killing passengers and conductors while tearing tracks apart. (Danly 21) Danly also includes a painting showing animals on the tracks as they traverse their previously untouched habitat. (Danly 16)  --- //[[kmcgowan@umw.edu|McGowan Khayla J.]] 2017/02/08 21:27//
. 
=== How were railroads represented in American art? ===

Danly argues that paintings were depicted in landscapes; these landscapes include pastoral and rural areas. For instance, in Cole’s paintings Danly argues that railroads and nature coexist. These peaceful scenes emerge into gradually a city-like landscape(5).   However, railroads in paintings were seen to link the country to the city and thus promoted the idea of “technological progress.” Additionally, the West is often portrayed in these paintings to link this area to cities. The idea of travelling was also present in the paintings; the railroads cut through Western landscapes while still living harmoniously with nature(15).  More contemporary artists portray the grimness of city life while incorporating the railroad. The railroad in these paintings begins to clash with nature and feeds into the ‘industrialization’ which in the painters’ view demoralized the country(42).  The painters used darker colors to show this shift (46). 
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2017/02/08 11:14//

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.

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//

Slowly, as trains grew more popular, they became more central parts of the art of the time. Over time, landscape portraits began to include trains and railways, as they had become an important part of the image of the west. But what began as a symbol of progress eventually became an object of nostalgia. By the 1930s, the popularity of railroads were diminishing. And while train companies modernized the look and feel of their trains to suit a modern audience, the image of the classic steam engine that had become an integral part to how people imagined the United States became a relic of the past. While trains and railroads are still around, they are not the dominant force in both transportation and art that they once were. -Nick Skibinski

This section demonstrates how railroad companies like Baltimore & Ohio Railroad were able to incorporate art into their public appeal. This particular railroad company was the first to use this method. They even had someone who was in charge of travel tours in order to draw people into the use of railroads. They also created a special section of the train that was used as a photography studio so the surrounding landscape could be appreciated. Why these railroad companies chose to do this is best explained from an excerpt on page 6, "Through patronage of the arts, railroad companies sought to elevate the train's image from that of a utilitarian invention to a symbol of America's potential for economic growth." Railroads allowed people to actually visit the landscapes that they were seeing in artwork. -Nicole Spreeman [[http://example.com|External Link]]

Artwork depicting the American Railroad system changes between mediums and as time moves forward. Photos often portray the railroads as a demonstration of America stepping into the age of technology (PDF page 13). Early paintings depicted images of the railroads as a part of nature, the railroad mixed harmoniously with nature. Some of the painting expressed a different idea. One that put the railroads at odds with nature with the painting of the deer on the tracks or the Native Americans taking the tracks apart (PDF page 19-20). Painting allows the creator to take more creative liberties with their work than photos, enabling them to demonstrate multiple ideas in their works. As time progressed and the Railroad industry evolved, the art evolved as well. --Kasey Mayer

The impact that the railroad had on America is undeniable. It transformed the speed of transportation and the economy at rapid rates. This transformation was showcased through different landscape art, capturing the visual impact the railroad had on the land as well. I think it is interesting that the artists captured the negative sides of the railroads in the artwork as well. Several of the paintings displayed the stress the railroads put on the Native Americans. The Native Americans relied on buffalo for survival. Now the buffalo were fleeing at the sounds of the train or were killed by hunters now hunting from the trains for amusement. I think it is important to discuss and showcase all the effects of the railroads, positive and negative.--Kelsey Dean

Railroads were represented in American art in a number of different ways. At first they were shown off to the world. It was a new and exciting form of travel, so artists romanticized the trains and the railroads in their art. Railroad companies were also trying to sell tickets, so they were paying artists and photographers to make them look as amazing as possible. Daily talked about how some companies payed artist to paint from the perspective of inside the train cars to show people the wonderful views that they would get to see by taking the train. As time went on, trains were portrayed in a different light. Daily has an example from the great depression, making railroad stations seem obsolete. They also portray trains as a monster that disturbed the piece. The evolution of how trains and railroads were represented in art follows the evolution of the railroad itself. - Heidi Schmidt

In America railroads was one of the most important phenomena of the Industrial Revolution. With their formation, construction and operation, they brought profound social, economic and political change to a country only 50 years old. Over the next 50 years, America would come to see magnificent bridges and other structures on which trains would run, awesome depots, ruthless rail magnates and the majesty of rail locomotives crossing the country.
===== 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

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

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 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

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?" =====
=== How does this document relate to McEvoy's article? ===

I feel that McEvoy's article only explores the idea of 'human expenditure for the sake of progress' from one viewpoint, however Bower's document "Is it Safe to Work?" presents other variables that are involved in workplace injury.The main statistic for me that stuck out was "only about 10 per cent of accidents are due to physical and mechanical causes, whereas nearly 90 per cent are attributable to the human factor" whether that be "faulty instructions, poor discipline, unsafe practice, and so forth" (Pursell 103). When addressing the "human factor", it is critical to keep in mind that this included both the employees as well as the employers. Aside from the kind of workers who would be "tired of getting up and walking around the shears" while deciding to "put his hand under the shears just in time to have the big blade sever his right hand", the managers were also largely to blame for not ensuring safer working conditions (Pursell 103). Most employers neglected to create better conditions for workers out of fear that "the expense involved will reduce profits"; the sacrifice of one type of capital (human workers) for the sake of another (Pursell 104). By looking deeper into the issue of industrial safety in the late 19th and early 20th Century, it is clear that the risks of production lie mainly with an inappropriate lack of concern for safety from workers and factory owners alike. The machines were only a catalyst that propelled their negligence further. The only thing that was ever on anyone's mind was money. --- //[[htaylor2@umw.edu|Taylor Heather L.]] 2017/02/08 17:38//

McEvoy takes on an environment-based argument, comparing workers' experiences to nature's experiences due to industrialization. Both are polluted due to factories and industry's apathy toward them. Bowers does not mention nature, but he does focus on the injuries that employees constantly face. Bowers believes that injuries in factories are due mostly to workers' mistakes, but companies have to take responsibility for the education and care of all employees in relation to dangerous machines. Lack of instruction or safety in the workplace creates an environment in which workers are prone to injury and rendered incapable of work, which leads to thousands of "man-years" or years of labor to be lost (Pursell 102). This massive loss contributes to increased labor cost and a constant cycle of unskilled labor. Just as McEvoy discusses industry's detriment and corruption of nature, Bowers highlights industry's roles in destroying able-bodied workers and polluting the human ecosystems.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2017/02/08 22:59//

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International