The "Vulgar Thread of the Canvas": Revolution and the Picturesque in Ann Eliza Bleecker, Crevecoeur, and Charles Brockden Brown
The "Vulgar Thread of the Canvas": Revolution and the Picturesque in Ann Eliza Bleecker, Crevecoeur, and Charles Brockden Brown
复制标题
“画布上的粗俗线索”：安·伊丽莎·布利克、克雷维科尔和查尔斯·布罗克登·布朗的革命与风景如画
DOI：
10.1353/eal.2001.0027
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
Larry F. Kutchen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Larry F. Kutchen
这篇文章的中心目的是找到美国风景如画的风景的起源，并开始追踪其演变。在布莱克·内维斯（Blake Nevius）、贝丝·L·卢克和（最重要的）丹尼斯贝特霍尔德，美国风景如画的定义，基本上，作为一个审美调解的荒野。关注库珀作为一个创新者，内维斯认为，通过风景如画的小说家创造了“一个新的公约，通过他的同胞可以看到他们的原始牺牲”（库珀）。贝特霍尔德在查尔斯·布罗克登·布朗的《埃德加亨特利》（《亨特利》）中找到了这种18世纪英国和欧洲美学在美国改编的起源，他断言，美国的绘画在“自然”和“自我”之间、在视觉的“眼睛”和自我的“我”之间起着中介作用，因此一方面帮助平衡了野性和无序的冲突，文明和秩序的人在另一边”（《圣经》）。卢克以贝特霍尔德的作品为基础，关注19世纪的作家，他观察到，风景如画的风景帮助作家们将“国家独特的风景和地理”作为“国家身份”的“组成部分”。然而，由于他们不合时宜的观点，这些评论家对这幅图画在北美的起源（以及后来改编的关键方面）的描述具有误导性：依赖于浪漫主义的自然观念和特纳式的国家发展定义--自我与野性之间的辩证法--他们对这幅图画的帝国主义基础和维度关注太少了。这篇文章的任务是证明帝国主义的延伸到十八世纪，
This essay’s central aim is to locate the origin of an American picturesque landscape and to begin to trace its evolution. In the work of such scholars as Blake Nevius, Beth L. Lueck, and (most important) Dennis Berthold, the American picturesque is defined, essentially, as an aesthetic mediation of wilderness. Focusing on Cooper as an innovator, Nevius argues that through the picturesque the novelist created ‘‘a newconvention through which his countrymen could view their primitive landscape’’ (). Berthold, locating the origins of American adaptations of this eighteenth-century English and European aesthetic in Charles Brockden Brown’s Edgar Huntly (), asserts that the American picturesque mediates between ‘‘nature and the ego, the ‘eye’ of vision and the ‘I’ of selfhood, and so helped balance the conflicting claims of wildness and disorder, on the one hand, with those of civilization and order on the other’’ (). And Lueck, building upon Berthold’s work and focusing on nineteenth-century authors, observes that the picturesque helped writers make ‘‘the nation’s unique landscapes and geography’’ an ‘‘integral part’’ of ‘‘national identity’’ (). Yet, because of their anachronistic perspective, these critics’ account of the picturesque’s origins in North America (and thus of key aspects of its later adaptations) is misleading: relying on romanticist notions of nature and a Turnerian definition of national development—the dialectic between self and wilderness—they devote too little attention to the picturesque’s imperialist founding and dimensions. The task of this essay is to demonstrate the imperialist extension of the picturesque into eighteenth-