The Lack of a Camera

As the only real medium readily available, sketching and drawing the Adirondack landscape started out as a practical endeavor, with a focus generally on lines and accuracy. These artists were trying to understand the landscape by creating an identical copy of it on their paper. These images were often copied and used for more business-oriented tasks, such as being included in certain "published reports and surveys" (Mandel, 14) These practical sketches then morphed into something more traditionally artistic, which was created almost entirely for aesthetic pleasure. These artists focused on light and color, with a general goal of connecting with and appreciating the landscape. These artists were a little more idealistic in their depictions of the land, making it appear as beautiful as possible, even if they lost their focus on accuracy. Although the paintings were less realistic, they were hardly ever abstracted.

Looking at this progression caused me to wonder how it would have been changed had the invention and near-perfection of the camera happened simultaneously. Assumedly, out of convenience, the photograph would have been used in lieu of the original, for-practical-use-only, sketches of the Adirondacks. Adirondack painting might have been, from the very beginning, a solely aesthetic form, and, given more time, it's possible that the idealization of the landscape through this form could have grown so much that surrealism could have become more prevalent in the Adirondacks. If realist painters had been competing with modern cameras that could, much more easily, capture the realistic beauty of the landscape, would they have found another form through which to express their feelings about and connections with the Adirondack Park? Was the lack of a camera what kept Adirondack painting so focused on realism, or was this simply the beauty that the painters saw in the landscape as it was?