Nature as a Commodity
Allison Lowe
In this paper, Bates points out what he calls the paradoxes
of the picturesque, Bates begins commenting on the commodification of nature.
While picturesque artists claim to paint realistically, they manipulate images
away from something true to nature into somethng that disperses the feelings of
peace, freedom, and belonging. Bates criticizes this with mild repugnance that
such “unnatural” portrayals of nature are in their own way commodifying nature
in an emotional form, pointing out that these paintings are for the benefits of
people, not the landscapes that they portray.
Bates brings up a large amount of these examples found
within paintings, literature, photography, and the basic perception of nature.
To go over a few, Bates critiques the idea of picturesque tourism, taking a
picture of nature that encourages more visitors which in turn destroys its
naturalness because of the new human presence. Once again, people taking in the
beauty of nature as beneficial to themselves, and not nature.
Bates does not spare Wordsworth from the chopping
block, pointing out that for someone who professed to revere nature, he made a
lot of money at its expense. But Bates seemed most hateful of the ideas of the
Picturesque rather than just the writers or artists themselves, Bates seems to
loath what he describes that Picturesque was the first artistic form that
changed a traditional artistic principal that art should follow nature to a new
idea that nature should follow art. Bates goes on to explore the implications
of such a way of thinking. Environmentalists are said to be the children of romanticists.
And while few would criticize what environmentalists do, that does not stop
Bates. He points out the contradiction of conservationism, how “saving” a
beautiful lake is usually more for the benefit of humans so they can commodify
it rather than for the lake.
Bates explores other hypocrisies of environmentalists,
saying that “Any environmentalist will tell you that it is easy to raise money
for the defense of natural phenomena that is regarded beautiful.... It is much
harder to gain interest in un-picturesque but ecologically crucial phenomena.”
(Bates 138).
Bates continues this line of thinking to their
negative implications. What future does the natural world hold if people only
value what they perceive is the beutiful in nature?
1.
Bates gives Sense and Sensibility a good deal of
attention, and compares Edward Ferrar with Marianne, concluding that Marianne
commodifies nature just as much as Edward. Based on your reading of the book
and the paper, do you agree with this? Why or why not?
2.
Bates writes a
large list of paradoxes in the pictureque. Can you think of any yourself?
3.
One of the main dichotomies
that is found throughout this paper is that of art versus nature. Bates paper
argues that picturesque artists value art over nature. Do you see this dichotomy
being dealth with in The Sensitive Plant?
The Thorn? Sense and Sensibility?
4.
Do you think the
picturesque deserves such scathing criticism as found in Bate’s paper?
No comments:
Post a Comment