Annalise Nurme
Writing Assignment 02
September 26, 11
In noting the various differences between the dated images assigned and the
real-life scenes as they exist today, I came to several conclusions concerning the
artistic representation of landscape in relation to architecture and the passage of
time.
Upon locating the estimated viewpoint of an antique snapshot of the octagon
from the town common, I found that the landscape had since changed to the point of
obscurity. The fact that the original image was a photograph indicated limited
artistic manipulation, and yet it was apparent that the photographer had skillfully
selected the location for the focalizing, sloping angles of the treetops on either side
of the octagon, and the corridor of young trees leading up to the building. These
subtle, defining factors had all but vanished in the present day, obscured not only by
bigger and more numerous trees, but for the fact that the surface of the lawn
seemed to have been excavated into a skewed, bowl-like depression, so that it was
much less uniform than the even field seen in the photograph. This was strikingly
disorienting, and sparked some debate over whether the alteration of earth could be
artificial or natural. It was also distressing that what had once been such a beautiful
view was now distorted and overgrown.
Disparity in vegetation and elevation seemed to be the theme in all three of
our images, but these were not the only defining factors. The other two
representations – serene etchings of the rear of Johnson Chapel, which likely were
subject to artistic interpretation, due to their overly groomed and countrified
appearance – were as barely recognizable in present day as the photograph, save for
the perspective of what could be seen of the buildings behind many more trees and
a significantly more sculpted and uneven landscape. My partner and I had difficulty
finding the exact altitude of the artist’s view, because the elevated ground that must
have been present in the past (or in the artist’s imagination) had now been
excavated into terraced hills. What was most striking about these etchings was the
expansive view contained in each of their backgrounds, which held open green
fields and many fewer buildings than are present today.
The excerpt of Turner’s In Campus: An American Planning Tradition provided
a third, illustrative perspective to my thoughts on the images of the campus today as
compared to the past. The rather sparse, agricultural background scenery of the
etchings certainly seemed to emphasize the fact that Amherst was in a rural
location, as Turner confirmed was a mid-19th-century trend. That sense of bucolic
serenity and isolation remains present today, but to a lesser degree, what with the
proliferation of other buildings surrounding the original Johnson Chapel flanked by
North and South. This disparity was clearly due to gradual and somewhat natural
changes in architectural planning and agriculture over time. Conversely, one
overarching theme of Turner’s article was the fact that many college authorities and
architects went to extreme lengths in order to sculpt the campus to their
satisfaction. In my home city of Boston, I knew of a major example of hillside
manipulation known as Beacon Hill, a significant portion of which was shaved off
and used for fill elsewhere. This gave me confidence that Amherst might also have
invested in the reshaping of hillsides in order to create a “college on the hill” – a
more abrupt and artificial alteration rather than one that had developed with the
passage of time. In reading Turner’s article, tangibly acknowledging the various
alterations of my college, and speculating whether they are due to the passage of
time or artificial means, I have gained richer suppositions on the values of the
societies and constructs that once inhabited and currently inhabit the area.
Turner Abstract
In the article, “Expansion and Mythmaking,” excerpted from In Campus: An
American Planning Tradition, Paul Venable Turner explores the various architectural
trends that occurred during the 19th-century development of higher education. He
begins with a brief background: around 1820, most colleges were strict, non-secular
institutions where students were beginning to shake the bounds of the traditional
classical education to widen and diversify the college experience. Student rebellion
sparked a reactionary mythology of nobility, tradition, and close-knitted-ness, which
in turn influenced the character of abounding campus construction. Turner touches
chronologically upon the many styles of edifice – classical revival; symmetry; wide,
isolated spacing of grand buildings holding multiple functions in one; natural over
urban location; religious influence and later Gothic (Oxford-Cambridge-style)
revival; and the American modifications throughout – in order to organize and
illustrate the societal catalysts behind these structural choices. Turner’s
fundamental insight is that college authorities focused on conveying an orderly,
traditional, and stately architectural environment, and sometimes even sacrificing
academics, for the sake of reinforcing an aging classical idealism, through wistful
reinterpretations of ancient and English collegiate environments. Though this article
gave me an entirely new, enlightened perspective on classic college environments, I
found myself repeatedly distracted by overly specific references and an
overabundance of illustrations.