Katy:
What sorts of "urgent demands" did American writers and other artists think they were grappling with?
The urgent demands they thought they were dealing with was the competition of Europe. They wanted to make their artwork production booming and keep in competition with Europe. The American writers and artists wanted to make their work as good, if not better than those works in Europe. With this came more interest from the American people. The artists and writers then had to keep coming up with more work and keep it interesting so that the people would then be satisfied. Also, they chose more European styles for their buildings and works and because of this people flocked to them. An example of this is in the statue "The Greek Slave." Here, an American sculpter imitates the Greek style of sculptures and people come to view it by the thousands and this sculpture becomes very famous.

Historians and other scholars routinely label them "romantics," although they had little or nothing in common with the Pre-Raphaelites. Do you find the label appropriate? misleading? irrelevant?

Yes I find this title appropriate. Romanticism is where emotions are used more in these artworks. Through some of these artworks, there is a sense of emotion showed. In "Crawford Notch" the man is sitting down, and there is a dark onmious cloud in the background. This man seems to be thinking or reflecting about something, and this is enforced by having a light shining down upon him. The Greek-like statues also show emotions. The way the women's head and bodies and positioned, and the faces they are making show emotions in a subtle fashion.

How does Barzun's discussion deepen, complicate and or confuse your understanding of pre-Civil War American art?
"So what dominated the minds of the young American genuises was the religious emotion, the love of nature, the spirituality of art, the value of individualism and the hope of creating a national culture based on the uniqueness of the American experience" (505). This reading helped me understand the pre-Civil War American art. This quote shows that they wanted to show emotion, the love of nature while still keeping an American feel to it. They wanted their artwork to show the American aspects and not any other country. It has to be true to America and the American artists. Emerson wanted to ..."cut loose from European models" (505). He wanted to make the artwork truely American, and keep all other influences from other countries out of it.

Kimberly:

  1. American writers and other artists found themselves grappling with the urgent demand for some type of characteristic associated only with American works. As the United States was a place of much immigration the roots where artists were pulling their inspiration from were based in other countries causing American works to reflect works that had already been achieved or styled somewhere else.  American artists wanted to reflect the inspiration of our nation in their works but until the United States was more solidified in it’s own being there was no true national character to draw from.  More clearly, American artists just hadn’t come into their prime yet and were still being overshadowed by other nations.  Herman Melville summed this up nicely saying, “I was very much pleased with a hot-headed Carolina cousin of mine, who once said,--‘If there were no other American to stand by, in Literature,--why, then, I would stand by Pop Emmons and his 'Fredoniad,' and till a better epic came along, swear it was not very far behind the 'Iliad'.’ Take away the words, and in spirit he was sound.”  In art in particular artists were facing a huge challenge as the art that occupied the majority of homes was directly European and that was the desired look at the time.  For instance, Hiram Power’s “The Greek Slave” was modeled in a very European fashion but for the first time portrayed a moral nude.  It was in this way that American artists and writers were taking European inspirations and trying to make and American name for them.
  2. I find the title of Romantics for American art at this point to be somewhat irrelevant.  While much inspiration may have been drawn from the European style at the time, American artists were shaking things up and making sometimes drastic changes which I feel makes these works more of a different genre although it may reflect strongly at times the genre of romanticism.  Also, I feel that the paintings being done in America at this time more often than not did not reflect romantic genre at all, for instance Cole and his American landscapes.  The big challenge at this point was to not reflect European works and Americans were rising to that challenge rapidly. Based on this alone I do not feel that they should be placed in a genre very much tied to a different country.
  3. Barzun’s reading deepens my understanding of the art that was taking place at this time.  This helps in seeing the European roots and influences in the American works of this nature and also shows that often times art is influenced by other art, for instance Berlioz and Beethoven, not just American art.  It is also very interesting to read about the things that were deemed shocking at the time like the creation of the Waltz.  The reading also gave good background on where America stood at this point and how it had no middle ages and therefore Americans focused much more on individualism to try and create their own national culture that was unique to America. 

Stephanie:
1) What sorts of "urgent demands" did American writers and other artists think they were grappling with?
a) “In Cole's treatment the storm looms in the upper left; stumps and blasted trees in the lower right suggest the efforts of settlers to tame nature even as the small cabin in the lower center contrasts with the immensity of the mountains.”
i) Nature was an “urgent demand” that the American people could have been dealing with, they did not know what to do about it or how to react.
b) “We have listened too long to the courtly muses of Europe. The spirit of the American freeman is already suspected to be timid, imitative, tame”
c) “One of the most influential voices calling for an "American" art and literature belonged to Ralph Waldo Emerson…”
i) These two quotes suggest “urgent demands” of Americans trying to define their own culture, including slang and linguistic habits.
ii) Whitman says this “Of course, we shall have a national character, an identity.”

2) Historians and other scholars routinely label them "romantics," although they had little or nothing in common with the Pre-Raphaelites. Do you find the label appropriate? misleading? irrelevant?
a) I find the label appropriate because the movement in American was similar to the movement in Europe. They were moving towards advancements in literary and arts, similarly the Americans are trying to do the same. The Americans are trying to establish their “social culture”, because all they have up to this point is the political aspect of society. Just because their art work was not similar to those of the Pre-Raphaelite era, I believe the ideas trying to be developed are similar.

3) How does Barzun's discussion deepen, complicate and/or confuse your understanding of pre-Civil War American art?
a) Barzun’s deepened my understanding of Pre-Civil War American Art because he described the works prior to the war. These works created prior to the war were similar in idea to those of American artists after the war. For example, Barzun talks about several artists such as Berlioz, who led listeners “To assist understanding, musical minds that did grasp the form…”
b) The opera, symphonies, and waltz that Berlioz put on was a “hint” of what was to come in American society. “added to the bonanza of popular novelties were the new dances. The waltz had begun the procession; now other countries outside the Occident were drawn on and the repertory of the rustics as well.”

Daniel D.:
The “urgent demands” that writers and other artists were struggling with was identity. Politically America was a free country, separated from Europe, however culturally it had yet to develop its own trends and characteristics, the art that was produced was heavily influenced by European styles. Artists and writers like Whitman, Cole, Bryant, Powers, and Melville wanted to create something that could be defined as truly American, that citizens could identify with and feel was their own. It was felt that it was their responsibility to create works that would be seen as striking, influential, and uniquely American by the international community. Moby Dick is an example of success coming from the time.

It is somewhat understandable as to why these artists were labeled romantics, their works and pieces appeared to be much in the same vein as romanticists. Paintings were done with great attention to detail and were meant to be very powerful, many of the novels were very epic in the way they were written. However I think that the labeling of these artists as romantics is in a way selling them short, the works produced by American writers and artists were really the first of their kind, there wasn’t exactly a pre-existing title for their work. The powerful and epic tones of American art was distinctive of the country, immense, a short history filled with conflict, and an incredibly diverse landscape. The characteristics of American works did share some similarities with that of romanticism but did not come about as a result of that particular movement nor was it intended to be.

I felt that although Barzun’s writing was a bit tough that my knowledge of pre-Civil War American art deepened.  Barzun discussed thoroughly what was transpiring in Paris as well as Europe and what I really took away was that at this time the more powerful nations were really beginning to try to stand out, that nationalism was at a high and that this was established not only though wars but as in France’s case, construction that completely changed its landscape. I thought that Barzun was trying to say that pre- Civil War America was making aggressive strides into developing itself culturally to the international community and itself and that its art and literature was a way in which it went about doing this.

Katie:

Akil:

Giana:
I think Barzun makes the claim that pre-Civil war American art relfects what the artist thought or felt deep inside. But isn't that what all artists do? Don't they start with what's inside? As far as I know no one starts out a project already knowing the outcome or result or what the thing will exactly be. I don't think that the artists are trying to mimic the paintings and writings that the Europeans create.  Art, in some way, reflects a certain kind of sophistication because the people who produce art are the ones who are not worrying about where they are going to sleep or what they will eat or if they will. People who produce art already have these things and therefore have leisure time to produce beautiful things that represent something that's inside the human mind or soul. About calling the art romantic, I usually think of romantic in the Valentine's Day sense. But I think we've been using it in class to mean exaggerate? At some point all art exaggerates because it can also be a person's record of what they percieve. Perception is distorted. However, I do think that the American painters have this raw element to their paintings because they do not glamorize as much as the Pre-Raphaelites, who create painting after painting of virtually the same woman, which is an unrealistic representation of what their life actually is. The Americans could be considered more brazen with their art because they do not "romanticize" their art as much as the Pre-Raphealites, but I do think that they did in some way want to compete or show the world that they have some talent or a statement to make. Maybe they do not want to feel detached from the educated world? Art is a form of communication afterall.

 

Doug: The early American artists struggled to create an "American art", while at the same time almost all Americans were still developing an American identity. As a new nation, full of natural resources and vast amounts of land, it comes as no surprise that nature was a important aspect of early American art, as the country was filled with beautiful natural landscapes, often greatly varying from what the Europeans had witnessed. Still much of the early painting and sculpture was modeled on the European precedent, with a focus on the classical cultures such as Greek and Roman figures.

In terms of American writing, the diversity of America's beginning is seen, such as when Walt Whitman wrote, "with cheerfully welcomed immigrants from Europe, Asia, Africa...with all varied interests, facts, beliefs, parties, genesis -- there is being fused a determined character, fit for the broadest use for the freewomen and freemen of The States, accomplished and to be accomplished". Here he is identifying the character of the United States as a convergence of cultures and ideas from all over the world. The American identity was not a single identity, it was in fact a combination of many identities, drawn together on the promise of boundless opportunity and freedom unlike ever seen before.

I don't necessarily agree that these artists and writers should be considered romantics for several reasons. First, the romantic movement was strongly based in Western Europe, and many early Americans often considered themselves wholly independent and separate from European affairs and ideals. Secondly, romanticism was focused on the experience of emotion, and revolted against the scientific rationalization of the natural world, whereas many of these early Americans, while they certainly focused on nature, did not solely assert that emotional experience was the most worthwhile and authentic experience.

Laura:

What sorts of "urgent demands" did American writers and other artists think they were grappling with?

They thought they were struggling with the “urgent demand” of trying to find their own “American” art. Although the U.S. was no longer a colony of England or Spain, it still remained culturally a colony of Europe. Principles were set in Europe and American writers and artist would travel there to learn the techniques the Europeans used. But the “urgent demand” that was on some American writers and artists minds were to find their own distinct sense of art separate from that of the Europeans. Americans at the time struggled to build a new society and form a unique American identity.

Historians and other scholars routinely label them "romantics," although they had little or nothing in common with the Pre-Raphaelites. Do you find the label appropriate? misleading? irrelevant?

They were routinely labeled “romantics” because the American artists’ visions were influenced by romanticism. These artists routinely painted pictures of landscapes and nature. I think the label could be appropriate because these painting do revolve around nature like most of the Pre-Raphaelites paintings did. The common theme of having a painting of realistic nature with human beings in it is seen in both the American art and the Pre-Raphaelites. But I find the label misleading because in the American art human beings are not the central focus of the painting. Unlike the Pre-Raphaelites, where human beings were part of the main focus, American art’s main focus is on the setting and nature that it is revealing. The people in the paintings are usually off to the side and aren’t as revealing as the mountains or landscape that is being shown. American art also doesn’t seem to care as much about desire or love as much as the Pre-Raphaelite paintings did with the women in them.

How does Barzun's discussion deepen, complicate and/or confuse your understanding of pre-Civil War American art?

Barzun’s discussion didn’t help very much with understanding American art. I felt in his discussion he didn’t focus on the art of the time. He talked more about how drama came about with Shakespeare’s plays and how opera “dominated the century” than about the art of the time. He also focuses more on the philosophy and science of the time period. Barzun did however reveal how the techniques and ideas of American art started and came from Europe. I did however like Barzun’s saying, “So what dominated the minds of American geniuses...the love of nature, the spirituality of art, and the hope of creating a national culture based on the uniqueness of the American experience.” I thought this statement by Barzun was true through art because the American artists wanted to create and find techniques of their own which used the love of nature. I found Barzun was saying it was ultimately their “ambition to embrace and express whatever it is” they wanted.  

Chelsea:

Urgent Demands of American Writers/Artists

American’s as Romantics

To label American’s as “romantics” is an appropriate title because:

To label American’s as “romantics” is a misleading title because:

Barzun

Ryan:

What sorts of "urgent demands" did American writers and other artists think they were grappling with?

A: European Romanticist and American artists and writers felt that they were struggling against years of revolution and the struggles of people. The Romanticists wished to celebrate the individual, thus painting majestically detailed works of art and triumphant symphonies, such as Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique. Barzun states, “Meditating on past and present leads to the estimate of man as great and wretched. But heroes are real and indispensable. They rise out of the people, whose own mind-heart provides the makings of high culture”. The Romanticists embodied this ideal and sought to become the heroes that would address the “urgent demands” of their generation. These views were also shared by American writers and artists. Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass includes the line “I CELEBRATE MYSELF,” which is a true testament to Romanticism as well as individualism. Whitman develops an introspective focus with this line, and he wants the reader to celebrate themselves as well.

Historians and other scholars routinely label them "romantics," although they had little or nothing in common with the Pre-Raphaelites. Do you find the label appropriate? misleading? irrelevant?  

A: I feel that the term “romantic” is sufficient to describe these American artists and writers. J.M.W. Turner’s “Rain, Steam, and Speed” is a piece of art that evokes many romantic emotions. Although it does not portray any people in it, it conveys the same romantic message of progress. The train in the painting almost seems to be a symbol of advancement; a sign of where we are heading as individuals. The blurred background and lack of a horizon seems to represent imagination. I feel as though the train represents an innovation or radical thought of sorts; one that stems from the power of imagination. It is a signal to keep pressing forward and to celebrate advancement.

How does Barzun's discussion deepen, complicate and or confuse your understanding of pre-Civil War American art?  

A: Barzun deepened my understanding of pre-Civil War American art by showing that much of it was inspired by European ideals. I think that as Americans, we often forget our heritage. We live in a world of luxury, pop culture, and rapidity. We rarely take the time to stop and think that America is a mix of European ideals. It is simply our touch (In this case, Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman) that make a Romanticist, European work distinctly American.

Emma:
American writers and artists were grappling with very different “urgent demands” than those of the Europeans that we have study so far in class. Unlike the European Artists from countries like England, France, and Italy, American artists had to struggle with more than typical artists troubles. American artists and writers were trying desperately to create a style that was uniquely American. They did not want to sound like or look like the styles of foreign artisans. They had to work hard to come up with topics and styles that were their own.

I think that labeling the American artists and writers, as “romantics” is somewhat misleading and inappropriate. First, the romantics were European artists that all had a similar and distinct style. The romantic style originated in Europe and it was an attempt by the artists to change the norm and break free from the old way of life. I think that while the romantics may have influenced American writers and artists it is not fair to classify them as such. Perhaps if they were called the “American Romantics” then the title would seem to be more appropriate.

After reading Barzun’s discussion, I felt many different things. It definitely deepened my understanding of pre-Civil War American art. I was able to understand the European art and as a result I had a better understanding of the artists' influences. However, what I found to be confusing and unhelpful was the fact that so much of the discussion was focused on Europe that I wish I could have read more about the Americans.

Brenna:
What sorts of "urgent demands" did American writers and other artists think they were grappling with?
American writers and artists were trying to form their own "American Art."  America was not entirely friendly with Canada or Mexico and was resisting influence from European countries because they wanted to break away from them like they had politically.  Americans wanted to come up with their own original and unique ideas.  They wanted to form their own American culture.  A lot of the artists put together different types of art like roman and European to try something new.

Historians and other scholars routinely label them "romantics," although they had little or nothing in common with the Pre-Raphaelites. Do you find the label appropriate? misleading? irrelevant?
I believe that the name Romantics is a little misleading.  Romantic makes me think of Rome and love and neither of these were an important theme in the art that was made by these people.  Some did have Roman influences like statues but much of the paintings were concentrated on nature which doesn't portray emotions like love and passion.

How does Barzun's discussion deepen, complicate and/or confuse your understanding of pre-Civil War American art?
The Barzun reading confused me.  He jumps back and forth between America and Paris and it was hard to follow his words sometimes.  His words were scattered and confusing and when looking for certain information regarding the questions it was hard to pin point the information I needed.

Tom:

  1. What I’ve gotten out of the readings is that the “urgent demands” that American writers and artists were feeling were those of trying to dignify themselves.  American writers and artists went to Europe for inspiration and help in writing and art.  They now just wanted to put themselves out there as their own style, their own kind of art and writing that was different than everyone else’s.  This was the main goal of basically everyone in America; to become their own once and for all. .
  2. I do find the label a little misleading.  However I’m kind of torn because they do have many similarities.  The thing is that both did have very different works of art but at the same time, they all had the same intentions.  Everyone had the passion of painting something that would mean something to their people.  They just portrayed it differently.  While Pre-Raphaelites painted more emotion and beauty in their art while the “Romantics” painted more glorious and war-related paintings, they all had the same intentions.
  3. Barzun’s passage definitely deepened and kind of confused my views of Pre-Civil War art.  While he was a little sporadic in his ideas, he did teach me how people from different places painted and how their techniques influenced how and what they painted.  He did kind of confuse me a little, just because he’s quite jumbly in his opinions but overall, I learned a lot about Pre-Civil War art.

Jaime:
1) One of the greatest concerns for America at the time was establishing themselves as a separate and independent country. After their liberation from the British, American needed to develop a backbone in case any other nation planned on attacking. In order to this, American had to set up certain aspects that described its own way of life. Some examples were through painting and writing. In the first passage of “Creating an American Art,” by John McClymer, William Cullen Bryant urges Thomas Cole to stick to American themes in his paintings, such as peace, tranquility, and most importantly, nature. With numerous paintings created about the serenity of the land, viewers established a love for the great outdoors of America.

2) I think the title “Romantics” is an appropriate title because the majority of their paintings are of the beautiful scenery of the American land. When the word romantic pops into our heads, we think of calm and peaceful thoughts. In Romantic paintings, almost all have that sense of relaxation and peacefulness to it. When the paintings depict nature, the viewer realizes the serenity and preciousness of the world.

3) After doing the reading, Barzun takes me in too many places. First he will be talking about American culture then jump into British society, then back into art of the era before. He confuses me even more after I read his passages because he has too much information for one person to comprehend at a time.

Tiffany:

            Writers and other artists from America thought they were grappling with “urgent demand” that American writers and artists should created their own identity and have their talents and accomplishments be known forever as the works of an American.  Herman Melville is quoted as saying, “Call him an American, and have done, for you cannot say a nobler thing of him. .. all American writers should studiously cleave to nationality in their writings. ..no American writer should write like an Englishman, or a Frenchman; let him write like a man, for then he will be sure to write like an American.” This quote shows that the true American identity within writing and artwork was a crucial part of being acknowledged as an American writer.

I thought that the label “romantics” worked appropriately with the two paintings in which I researched because the paintings were very tranquil and went hand in hand with nature.  In the images I studied, the women were dressed elegantly in light clothing and were surrounded by flowers and soft colors in the background.  To me, these types of images would be correctly grouped in the “romantic” era.

Barzun’s discussion in the section, “Cross Section: Paris,” really complicated my understanding of pre-Civil War American art.  I found the reading to be very lengthy and for the most part I didn’t even think that the discussion mentioned much about American art prior to the Civil War era.  I did not really grasp the meaning of the reading in order to make a final statement on pre-Civil War American art.

John:
Many of the Americans before the civil war were faced with the urgent and difficult demand of establishing a unique culture of art that can help define America. With so much culture streaming over from Europe, it was difficult for Americans to steer away from this and establish a brand new one.  America was faced with something they have never seen before.   Americans lived in a new land, with no physical reminders of history around them.  It was their duty to establish the first art culture unique from the European one.  Many critics considered America a land “where equality was maintained at the expense of intellect and the arts, both virtually non-existant.”  (Barzun pg. 504)  The basic idea is that many critics didn’t take America seriously because they lacked the arts and “intellect”.  In order to create a sort of identity and unity with the citizens, a culture needed to be established through the art.  Ralf Waldo Emerson was one of the most influential Americans who pushed for an establishment of American art and literature.  For too long were Americans looking at American scenes with European eyes.  

        
I believe that to a certain degree, the label “romantic” can be a somewhat appropriate label for the American people.  Musset is quoted saying about romantics in Barzun’s book, “Everything that was no longer exists; everything that is to be does not yet exist.”  I believe this description can play along very similar with the American situation.  They have no past, and the future is basically in their hands.  It is completely and entirely up to the new Americans to establish the future.  In that aspect, I believe the label is somewhat appropriate.  Other than that, I don’t believe there is a further or stronger connection between the two.  The label can confuse and further puzzle readers trying to piece together this situation.  

        
Barzun’s discussion does a good job describing the movement towards art and a culture especially with respect to the efforts of Ralf Waldo Emerson.  The legitimacy and importance of this need for art and culture is stressed very appropriately in Barzun’s book.  In fact, he goes on to describe the meaning behind the word Walden attributed to conjure with; it means “fleeing the daily grind, living at the heart of nature, free t breathe and contemplate.”  Emerson wants America to no long be puppets of the European culture and to establish the culture and art scenery that they need ever so badly.  

Kara:

  1. America was quickly developing as a nation, and so were the artists and writers who had arrived here. One of the main struggles they faced was to create their own identity without copying what they knew so well: European influences. It was hard for them to create things that were different and separate from their “opponents” in Europe, especially since many of the European artists were already so reputable, they had more to live up to.
  2. This label makes sense in some respects and doesn’t in others. When I think of the “romantics,” I think of rich colors, nature and paintings of women and people. In contrast, the American pieces, particularly those by Cole tend to have more muted colors and often depict meaningful nature scenes or almost tell a story more so than the “romantics”. One similarity is that they do both depict nature scenes often and the statues done by American artists seem somewhat inspired by the women often depicted in romantic paintings.
  3. Barzun helped to deepen my understanding of romantics better. He really dissected the word and its many meanings with reference to the artwork. I was able to understand all of the aspects of it after reading this. However, the reading didn’t really help my understanding of American art much, the website was more helpful in this respect.

Meghan:

  1. I think that the main concern that the early American writers and artists struggled with is that they had to distinguish themselves as American artists and separate themselves from their European influences. They also want to exceed the expectations of European artists, which according to Ralph Waldo Emerson, thought that they would be hesitant and unoriginal, though other American writers and artists, such as Walt Whitman, disagreed.
  2. I think that for historians and scholars to label themselves as “romantics” is misleading because, as Barzun explained in “The Work of Mind-And-Heart”, there were many different meanings to the term “romantic”. Therefore, though they may not be considered “romantics” by most people because they had no similarities to the Pre-Raphaelites, it is unclear if they actually are “romantics” or not because the term is too vague.
  3. I would not say that Barzun’s discussion neither complicated nor confused because I do not think that Barzun actually addressed American Art enough. In this chapter he focused mainly on European art, therefore my understanding of Pre-Civil War Art has not changed.

Dylan:
1. I believe that one of the “urgent demands” of American writers and other artists was to help in creating a new identity for Americans. If they were going to steer away from their European ties, American art would have to acquire some uniqueness. This is especially true considering the impact art had during the 19th century.
 
2. Although historians and scholars labeling themselves “romantics” can be misleading, I feel that there is a certain connection that can be made between the two groups. Barzun states: “The search is for truths, which reside in particulars, not in generalities; the world is bigger and more complex than any set of abstractions, and it includes the past, which is never fully done with.” To draw a parallel, one could say that this concept in Romanticism is related to the historians’/scholars’ constant struggle in understanding the particulars of the past in order to form a greater understanding of the world as a whole.
 
3. Barzun largely managed to deepen my understanding of pre-Civil War American art. Before reading this chapter, I felt that many artists were very much inspired by the works of European countries such as England and France. However, Barzun specifically stated that “The election of the common-man President Jackson in 1828 had eliminated any remnants of the cultivated acquired by the Founding Fathers from the French and English Enlightenment.” Instead, I learned that Germany was beginning to have a greater influence during the 1830s.

Jennifer R.:
1. The urgent demands that American writers and artists were struggling with was the fact that people were changing their standards of life and living. Ernest Henley states how people had “determination to return to truth and nature”. This was a great change in many of the people at this time period. They decided they wanted to change their ideals in life and live life to the fullest and with simplicity. They didn’t want to be changed down with materialistic ideals as expressed by Henry David Thoreau. This was a little problem for the artist because they wanted to express their art differently and the same way artist has been expressing themselves for years.

2. I find the label of  “romantics” a little bit misleading because it covers so many different types of art and different themes that are covered by different artist. Barzun explains that Shakespeare plays are considered to be part of the romantic era. Barzun also explains how “The idea of evolution inevitably appealed to him, chiming as it did with the Romanticist view that everything is alive and in motion.” He then goes on to talk about biology and the race of men. I feel there are many different topics that fall under the idea of Romanticism and there is not a true meaning that can pull everything together.  Barzun explains that “romantic tendency was only a mood” and then at the end of the chapter says that Shakespeare’s plays “fulfilled the Romanticist ambition to embrace and express whatever is”. I feel these are two different meanings of the same word and therefore are very misleading when trying to classify what type of historian or writer a person truly is.

3. Barzun’s discussion about Thoreau and his book, Walden, deepened my understanding in how Americans, such as Thoreau, thought before the Civil War. He stated “That self, confident in its Individualism, tells others to shuffle off communal ties and enjoy a self- made universe in all its purity”. He believes that people in the world take to much time worrying about material objects and they need to take time to enjoy nature and what is always around them. This was called the Transcendentalist movement, which cared a lot about the people and how they live in the world. Thoreau cared a lot about living simply and living with just the main necessities. Barzun also states that people throughout the United Stated stayed true to their deep connection to their religion just as there forefathers have done throughout history.


Bill:
American writers and other artists wanted to create their own culture.  At the start of the eighteenth century, most Americans looked at, “American scenes with European eyes” That is, although Americans were creating art in various forms (painting, sculpture, writing, music) it was with European attitude and style.  Some Americans, such as William Cullen Bryant and Thomas Cole, saw this urgent demand for truly American art and created breathtaking paintings.  Futhermore, these artists, with the aid of others, went on to form the truly American Hudson River School of painting.  The Hudson River School focused on the granger of nature and in comparison, the almost insignificance of man.  Other Americans, such as Walt Whitman, saw the need for truly American literature.  Whitman did this well, producing a unique and never before seen poetry.

It is appropriate to consider American artists of the nineteenth century Romantics.  Just as the Pre-Raphaelites had broken artistic and social boundaries in Europe, Americans were trying to the same across the Atlantic.  Americans simply no longer wanted to have artistic ties to Europe.  To meet this demand for American Art, people such as Walt Whitman and the Hudson River School broke boundaries of artistic norms in almost every field of the arts.

Barzun helped reinforce my understanding of pre-Civil War American Art.  Barzun particularly made the overarching theme of American art much more clear with his commentary regarding Henry David Thoreau.  Thoreau is a wonderful example of American Art in the years before the Civil War.  Just as Thoreau was rebellious, American art was as well.  As Barzun remarked, and similarly to summarize American Art at the time, “To this day Walden is a name to conjure with; it means fleeing the daily grind, living at the heart of nature, free to breathe and contemplate.” (506)