SUSAN DANLY, “RR IN AMERICAN ART”

Kaden - The place of railroads is dichotomous. While a technological marvel, they disrupt the land. Facilitators of change perhaps, but not all good.

One of her central arguments is the emphasis on the relationship between works of art that depicted landscapes and railroads, on the one hand, and spatial expansion, domination over nature, and the development of capitalism, on the other. In my view, the most compelling aspects of her analysis is the dilemma that was encountered by many artists throughout the nineteenth century. In particular, the choice (or the absence thereof) between embracing mechanical power, invention, and expansion, or an admiration of the sublime as embodied in the grand landscapes of the American West. - Nikolai Kotkov

Danly’s argument is that railroads defined the perspective of American society and culture, and that that fact is best demonstrated through the art of the period. - CJ Nemetz

Susan Danly argues that the railroad profoundly shaped American art, serving as a symbol of technological progress, national expansion, and cultural change. She shows that artists used railroad imagery to explore modernity, including the tension between nature and industry, societal impacts of technology, and evolving American identity in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Essentially, the railroad became a central motif reflecting America's industrial and cultural transformation.– Caitlyn Edwards

Danly argues that art depicting the railroad during the transportation revolution encapsulated the nuances among people’s reaction to the growing railroad industry. The art reflects people’s optimism in terms of the cultural impacts of movement westward but also the concerns in terms of environmental impacts. - Grayson Donohoe

Danly argues that railroads changed how Americans saw their land and future. Artists showed both excitement for progress and concern about nature being destroyed. –James Clayberg

Danly's argument is that depictions of railroads made in art of the mid 1880s directly corresponds with the way the industry boom was perceived by the general population. These landscapes were almost like advertisements of the time, showing society that the railroad industry was a new, beautiful innovation that could coincide with the vast American landscape. – Izabella Martinez

This reading explores the publics perception of nature and technological expansion, and how society articulated the complex feelings of both. Danly argues that the art of the mid to late 19th century was tool for this artiuclation of contradictory sentiments of American expansion. - Ava B

I find it particularly interesting that railroad imagery becomes this tool for negotiating the contradictions of American expansion. Railroads as a cultural symbol were both optimistic and cautionary. - Callie H.

Danly argues that railroads, and their depiction in American art in the late 19th century are directly reflective of the American sentiment toward the industrial boom occurring in the country at the time. In particular, the complexity of the industrial boom and railroads as they relate to nature and it's resources. - Abby Firestone

Danly argued that the landscape art framed the peoples attitude and perspective on railroads in the 19th century. -Izzy Ellenberger

Kaden - They were often depicted as the fingers of manifest destiny, an interpretation I personally make. Often, painters adored trains and depicted them with rolling steam clouds passing by a glorious landscape.

Initially, the first paintings of railroads were associated with the Hudson River School. Some members of that movement sought to illustrate a coexistence between industrial development and pastoral landscapes. Other artists were inspired by the “machine aesthetics” and created works that reflected this romanticized image. Even though there were many developments in between, the broader trend of imagining railroads in a positive light came to an end by the 1930s, when artists could no longer ignore the increasingly deleterious impact of railroads and industrialization on multiple facets of modern life. - Nikolai Kotkov

Railroads represented the outlook of American life at the time. Originally, they were seen as synergy between man’s invention and nature, as well as the embodiment of manifest destiny; the expansion westward and the representation of power. As the Great Depression set in and the dreams of rapid industrialization came crashing down, the railroad, now empty, began to represent loss, and the absence of what made them great in the past. - CJ Nemetz

Early on, the railroads were represented in a fairly romanticized way from my perspective. They are depicted as the force that was moving American progress forward, especially considering the growing popularity of ideas surrounding Manifest Destiny in American culture at the time. Later on, we see railroads as being the forces of destruction in the art. - Grayson Donohoe

Early art showed trains as symbols of hope and growth. Later, they were seen as harmful to nature and signs of lost dreams. –James Clayberg

Railroads in art, much like in our idealized vision of the past, were incredibly romanticized and portrayed the “machine aesthetic” that we now associate with the time period of industrialization. In order to depict trains as beautiful and progressive, they were frequently shown in unison with stunning natural landscapes to imply that the two coexist peacefully. - Noah Rutkowski

The depictions of trains were often depicted as something romantic and majestic. In early paintings the pastel colors and soft brushstrokes blend the trains into nature, presenting the idea of technology as something easily integrated into. As opposed to the menacing force or steel that it transitioned into as railroad expansion continued. - Ava B

The depiction of railroads in early American art was no doubt romanticized. These landscapes were beautiful, depicting the coexistence of the previous untouched and vast wilderness and fields of the American countryside, with puffs of smoke blending in with the clouds. There were mountains, rainbows, beams of light shining from above. Highly idealized visions of what was still a very early concept in America’s technological innovations. Photographs ushered in a new tone, depicting the dark, gritty, moody nature of reality. Thus, painting followed this modernist view of a completely mechanized life, no longer picturesque. – Izabella Martinez

Railroads, as depicted in the art present in this reading, are romanticized, and represent what may have been considered an ideal relationship between the vast natural landscape of America (in particular its “unexplored” regions), and the new technologies that came with increased railroad presences and further industrialization. - Abby Firestone

The railroads were represented as a transformation and relationship with both industrialization and nature. It also depicts expansion and technological change. -Izzy Ellenberger

PURSELL READINGS

Kaden - The safety of factory work had only become more far-fetched with the introduction of further automation and decreased human presence in these regards. Workers had to engage with complex machines, taught only a single facet of its design and hardly of the hazards therein.

Arthur McEvoy’s account presents an elaborate analysis of the workplace as part of the ecological environment. Drawing on a rich intellectual tradition in environmental history, he suggests that industrial injuries should be included in the narrative of technological history, as human bodies serve as a particular type of text that, through Derrida’s différance, can be interpreted as a locus of power dynamics, legal affairs, and biology. - Nikolai Kotkov

McEvoy posits that workers play a biological role in the workplace environment, painting workplaces as ecological constructs. He uses this as basis to argue for workplace injuries to be included in technological history and that these injuries should be more forefront rather than unfortunate consequences; essentially that it should be humans that take importance, not the machines. - CJ Nemetz

It was really interesting to see how McEvoy connects both concerns for the workplace environment with the concerns for environmental impact new technology has. Early on in the article he says, “Workers’ bodies are, after all, biological entities no less than trees or fish and wildlife,” (74). I think oftentimes it’s easy for us to slip into the mindset that humans are beyond subjecting to the forces of nature so by reconnecting the two I think McEvoy’s article makes a very impactful statement. - Grayson Donohoe

It was important to note that while yes, the addition of technology into industry was to make production more efficient and to simplify the skill needed for an individual to perform a task. That doesn't necessarily mean workers weren't being squeezed to their absolute limits. In the reading even saying injuries could be because of lack of sleep or focus or hunger as well as the dangers of mechanized work. When these workers are dispensable and there are not legal protections it adds a dark spot to the glow of the rise of technology. –James Clayberg

McEvoy states that, “The key to the approach is to treat the workplace as an ecological system, of which the worker’s body is the biological core.” I find this field of study so interesting, and like that historians take into account that as human beings, we are interacting with technology in such a way that dangers are likely to arise. I find it interesting that early studies never dealt with these dangers, although they effected much of the population. McEvoy noted, “Early works did not deal with injuries or risk of danger that comes with mechanization, only dealing with metaphorical dangers”. - Hannah Holstrom

My dad actually works in the realm of workplace health and safety, so I found this section particularly interesting and was able to discuss some of it with him. I was somewhat surprised to find out he’d never heard of the Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad case, since the reading discussed how significant the ruling was for workplace safety regulation (or rather, the lack thereof), but luckily regulations have improved quite a bit since the 1840s and there is no longer the concept of “assumption of risk” for agreeing to work at a company. - Noah Rutkowski

Writing candidly, it is crazy to me how long work place injuries wen't dismissed by companies at large. Workers seem to be reduced for their physical abilities and were deemed responsible for their own injuries, which is a stark reminder of the consequences of technological advancements. - Ava B

Something that stuck out to me was McEvoy's discussion of pollution as a catalyst for and product of, technological change, and how that idea relates to the idea of the human body as a factor in the environmental makeup of a workplace. If a technology causes harm or injury to a worker, there then is often a change made to prevent that injury. That change often creates a new or different sort of injury, following which the cycle repeats. So on and so forth until the theoretical “perfect technology” is created. Likewise, technological change causes pollution, and that pollution prompts further change in a bid to make the antecedent cleaner, more efficient, or otherwise improved upon. - Abby Firestone

I thought it was interesting how McEvoy connects the workplace with the environment and how he uses the environment to identify safety concerns. -Izzy Ellenberger

Kaden - Bowers writes from a widely justified point of concern. Factories largely ignored safety standards but, due to a lack of government interference, no change was made.

Bowers does a good job breaking down a lot of his points in this. One thing that stands out to me is how costly workplace injuries are in terms of man years. Though reading that part felt strange as, while he does mention it a bit in terms of morale, it seems to mostly neglect the social impact of having people severely injured or worse in these incidents. - Justin H

E.L. Bowers offers an insightful overview of three types of injuries: the worker’s fault, management’s negligence or indifference, and ambiguous cases where no clear responsibility for the injury exists. Based upon these examples, he argues that all three types share a common feature—they are integral to machine production. Thus, they must be addressed through the use of safety devices. - Nikolai Kotkov

Bowers appeals to factory management from the perspective of the workers by demonstrating how both unsafe practices and mismanagement lead to a reduction in profits. - CJ Nemetz

This document reminded me a bit about the discussion/comments made about the cases where some people made some comments about how there was that lack of regulation from the federal government on these companies from taking this land and using it for their own gain while depleting the resources of the local community. In a similar sense we’re seeing in this document how due to a lack of government regulation pre-Progressive era that the work environment was unsafe and resulted in various injuries. - Grayson Donohoe

Reading this document connected to my father who was a fire marshal, and inspected buildings regularly, and whether they were up to code or not. Even in modern times politics and money play a huge part in what buildings can be struck down as unsafe. This document, looking at this time period highlighted to me how much more significant monetary reasons were to the lack of unsafe work practices. And how there weren't people going around inspecting buildings at all giving no protection to the worker. –James Clayberg

It is interesting to me that Bower's appealed to factory management by bringing in logistical reasoning for enforcing health and safety regulations. It is a practical and sad strategy, that the display of a loss in profits and efficiency is perhaps the only thing that would grab the attention of management. These processes seem so commonplace within the 21st century, that the use of inspections and employee protections seem an obvious forethought in the progress of technological advancements. - Ava B

I hate how economic reasoning has shaped the pursuit of worker safety standards throughout history. Capitalism strikes again. - Callie H.

Bowers talks about how accidents in the work place occur and that it is not solely because of individual mistakes but more of a problem withing the process of the workplace. He broadens the idea of safety beyond individual workers. -Izzy Ellenberger

“Some employers will not make their plants safe because they fear that the expense involved will reduce profits.” is the single quote here that stood out to me the most. In large part because in my own studies of major industrial accidents, this has been the primary cause. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire for example, is one of the largest industrial disasters in American history, and a large part of what went wrong that day was caused by inadequate safety measures and rules put in place by that factory owners. Similarly, the vast majority of nuclear accidents (of which i could talk for hours) are caused by faulty systems and a lack of consistent upkeep in accordance with code and regular safety conventions put in place by organizations like the NRC, simply because the upkeep is so expensive. As Callie said, capitalism strikes again. - Abby Firestone

Kaden - McEvoy writes with similar concern, indicating imminent change in response to rising industry. His article highlights that worker injuries are a product of capitalist steering and that broader ecological damages are also to be blamed on profit-seeking motivations.

In my opinion, E.L. Bowers’s account reinforces the position of A. McEvoy, as both emphasize the biological relationship between the human body and technology (adaptability in Bowers’s analysis and the body as text in McEvoy’s) . Moreover, Bowers presents a couple of cases that seem to confirm McEvoy’s triad of social experience, law, and technology. In this perspective, as an injury is not just the result of an accident, but rather an element of broader social relations.- Nikolai Kotkov

While I do agree that Bowers is arguing for the “life-first” aspect of working conditions, his appeal still lies in a focus on profits and technological centrality that can be seen as opposite of what McEvoy is arguing for. - CJ Nemetz

Both McEvoy’s article and Bowers’s descriptions in this document express some concern for the work environment for the workers. - Grayson Donohoe

I feel like both these articles relate to turning the workplace into more complex systems. Focusing a lot on the environment and key factors in it, and how the interaction between them can influence these accidents. - Justin H

I thought both writers really emphasized the hopelessness of the nature of the industry as mechanization increased. And it helped highlight the biological impacts on workers as well as the societal mindsets of the employees and employers. –James Clayberg

Both McEvoy and Bowers cover the safety concerns of the workplace whether relying on different factors such as data, history, or the environment. -Izzy Ellenberger

Both McEvoy's article and Bower's arguments bring up significant safety concerns as they relate to increasing industrialization, particularly in a society that may not be truly prepared. Both authors also seem to feel that workplace injury is an inevitable fact of technological change. - Abby Firestone