James Broadhead Senior Thesis 2024

Representations of Urbanization in 19th Century American Art

James Broadhead Senior Thesis | 2024

James Broadhead Ms. Kamen Senior Thesis March 4, 2024 Representations of Urbanization in 19th Century American Art Introduction In the late 18th century urban settlements were quietly beginning to develop across America. But how, in the early 19th century under an outspoken anti-urban president in Thomas Jefferson, did the nation see the meteoric rise in the number of cities and urban inhabitants? References to urbanization in art help us to understand this shift. Not only do these artworks reflect a growing progressive attitude towards cities in their artists, but likely helped sway the public on a political subject that had reached an impasse. In this paper I will focus on the works of three different artists who likely contributed to contemporary public

perception of urbanism. William Russell Birch and John Lewis Krimmel are two immigrants to America whose detailed etchings and paintings of Philadelphia make the city appear extremely enticing. Later, American landscape painter, Asher Brown Durand, also contributes a progressive, allegorical representation of industrialization. I will start, however, by explaining urbanism’s political role at the turn of the century.

Turn-of-the-century Opinions on Urbanization in America Urbanization was a polarizing subject in America at the turn of the 19th century. Federalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who believed in a mercantile economy, became enthusiastic about urban trade centers.1 On the other hand, anti-federalists like Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams believed in a more agricultural America and opposed the development of cities. At the time this party was also often referred to as the Jeffersonian Republican party, and later became the Democratic-

1

Hallam, John S. 1997. "William Birch's City of Philadelphia: The Politics of the Picturesque and Urban Life in the Early Republic." Journal of American Culture 20 (4) (Winter): 25-40. https://ezproxy.bu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww .proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fwilliam-birchscity-philadelphiapolitics%2Fdocview%2F200646905%2Fse2%3Faccountid%3D9676.

Republican party. However, despite what its name may suggest, it is not analogous to the modern Republican or Democratic parties.

Urbanization was central to the fierce rivalry between these two parties, but their differences extended to other topics as well.

Federalists supported a positive relationship with Great Britain, and favored a large national government. This partially explains why most of them chose to live near ports in densely packed cities on the east coast. Federalists’ belief in international relations and investment in the development of trade centers also meant that they had the support of successful merchants. This large constituency of elites meant that the party also supported a more aristocratic government.2 Anti-federalists strongly opposed their opponents’ fondness of the British. They believed that this affinity, in tandem with the

2

Foner, Eric, Kathleen DuVal, and Lisa McGirr. Give me liberty! New York, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2022.

federalists’ tendency to live close together in urban areas, limited free thinking and therefore threatened American democracy.3 Instead, anti-federalists stood by individualism and small, local government.

William Russell Birch and the First American City Portrait The early American art world was dominate by commissioned portraits and landscapes. Portraits were a way for elites to flaunt their wealth. Sometimes these were merchants who had themselves depicted in bespoke garments and ensured that their ships were in the background. Puritans also commissioned these works, but it was the very fact that they were able to afford portraits that demonstrated their wealth, rather than the depictions themselves.

3

Cornell, Saul. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828. University of North Carolina Press, 1999. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807839218_corne ll.

However, as urbanization became an increasingly inflammatory subject, representations of cities began to appear more frequently in art. While earlier portraits of merchants and pioneers often included depictions of urban centers and ports, the turn of the 19th century saw the first works that centralized cities.

Many people credit William Russel Birch with creating the first city portraits. By idealizing urban areas, Birch’s art identifies itself with federalist values. However, he also took measures to make cities more appealing to the Republican viewer. This persuasive quality about his works made them instrumental in changing public opinion on urbanization.

Birch was born in Britain in 1755, and began his career as an artisan there.4 He established himself as an engraver and

4

Soltis, Carol Eaton. “Birch, William Russell (1755-1834), Enamelist, Engraver, and Painter.” American National Biography Online, February 2000. https://doi.org/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.170007 2.

enamelist in London, frequently choosing to tackle landscapes and topographical subjects. One of his biggest undertakings in his early career was a series of 36 engravings of scenes from the English countryside. This included miniature copies of larger master works, as well as some of his own original illustrations. Birch made these engravings available to paying subscribers one-by-one as he completed them. This subscription model proved successful, and he managed to garner the support of a large, diverse audience.

Due to growing political tensions in Britain and the promise of greater economic opportunity in the United States Birch chose to move to Philadelphia in 1794. Here he capitalized on the growing market for landscape artworks in America and began an ambitious project that resulted in his creation of the American city portrait. Birch’s new publication, The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania as it Appeared in 1800 (or The City of Philadelphia), functioned very similarly to his subscription service in Britain. The first of the series was made up of 29 engravings,

and each similarly-sized edition was sent to subscribers when it was completed. Each iteration contained a written introduction alongside illustrations of urban Philadelphian scenes. Birch explains that, with both the written and visual aspects of his publication, he hoped to bring positive attention to trade and commerce. He especially aimed to convey this message to a British audience, hoping that they would become more keen on trade with America or even decide to immigrate. His engravings accomplish each of these ambitions, and therefore clearly align themselves with federalist thought. Simultaneously, they present a blend between the urban and the rural that could appeal to viewers of any background or political party. For this reason, Birch’s subscription base was even larger for The City of Philadelphia than it had been for his previous series, even stretching to include Thomas

Jefferson. That being said, these subscribers were presumably all members of the elite class.5 None of William Russell Birch’s engravings for The City of Philadelphia exemplify his works’ persuasive qualities quite as well as the first one, The City and Port of Philadelphia on the River Delaware from Kensington (See Appendix). As its title suggests, this etching depicts the busy port of Philadelphia with the city itself on the horizon. Mercantile ships ranging in size are peppered across the water, and in the near foreground we see laborers constructing even more boats. The city in the background is vast, dense, and diverse. This beautiful depiction of a mercantile economy operating smoothly clearly aligns this etching with federalist thought.

5

Snyder, Martin P. “William Birch: His Philadelphia Views.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 73, no. 3 (1949): 271–315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20079505.

However, surrounding these angular, inorganic images of commerce is the sweeping organic form of Penn’s Tree. This tree would have been immediately recognizable to the period viewer as a piece of American mythos. Its dominance in the composition also recalls the rural state that Republicans so desperately wanted to preserve. Accompanying the tree are a handful of images addressing anti-federalist concerns about cities. Firstly, two genteel figures and their small dog are shown enjoying the shade provided

by Penn’s tree. Further back there is a couple who seem similarly to be enjoying this hybrid landscape. This demonstrates that, even in an urban environment, there are opportunities for leisure and connection with nature. Another character shown next to the tree is a young man holding the reins to a horse. His attire is somewhat ambiguous, consisting of a top hat with plain pants and a light colored shirt. This makes it difficult to assess his social class or profession. However, the fact that he is carrying a single horse suggests that he might be a more rural character than the others in

this etching. By including him, Birch suggests that even an urban America will retain a partially agricultural identity, thus addressing another anti-federalist worry. This diversity of profession and class in the figures shown also contradicts the claim that urbanization threatens democracy. This diversity illustrates that, despite their close proximity, different social groups maintain their individuality. Furthermore, we can assume that their independent thinking extends to their political beliefs. Behind the tree there is also an American flag shown. This, along with the historical significance of Penn’s tree itself, codes this image as American and assuring Republicans that cities pose no threat to America’s identity.

This persuasive nature is common to almost all of Birch’s etchings for the publication. The geometric, architectural forms of the busy city exist in harmony with the organic forms of lingering verdure. This provides familiar content for viewers of any kind.

It is also important to acknowledge one of the more problematic arguments in favor of urbanization that William Birch and many of his contemporaries made. In his written introduction to the first edition of The City of Philadelphia Birch writes, “the ground on which [Philadelphia] stands, was less than a century ago, in a state of wild nature; covered with wood, and inhabited by Indians. It has in this short time, been raised, as it were, by magic power, to the eminence of an opulent city”.6 This passage paints Indigenous Americans as wild or inhuman, and implicitly perpetuates the white saviorship and vanishing Indian narratives.

Many others in this period also thought urbanization was an improvement upon ‘wild’, pre-colonial America. This belief was not always consciously anti-indigenous or white supremist, but its implications were always harmful.

6

Birch, William R. The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania as it Appeared in 1800. December 1800.

John Lewis Krimmel John Lewis Krimmel is another artist who sought to capture American city scenes. As a genre painter, he takes a very humanistic approach to the task. That being said, his works also include infrastructural elements and urban functions that characterize the rapid development of 19th century America.

Krimmel was born in Württemberg, Germany, but left home as an adolescent for a variety of reasons.7 His parents, who had funded his training in the arts, both passed away before he turned 18, and money quickly became a concern for the Krimmels.

Rising political tensions in the area due to Napoleon's rise forced the three surviving Krimmel siblings to leave home. John Lewis Krimmel traveled Europe for several years, at one point settling in London for further training in the arts. Then, at 23 years old, he made the long voyage to America and settled in Philadelphia with

7

Naeve, Milo M. 1987. John Lewis Krimmel: An Artist in Federal America. Associated University Press.

his brother. He began his professional artistic career in 1810, working as a portrait painter at first. He later, however, developed into a prolific genre painter.8 It was with his paintings in this style that he made his name, producing them for a decade before his tragic death.

Genre painting is a style that concerns itself with recognizable, and even mundane subjects.9 These works depict real, embellished, or imagined scenes, but typically aim to convey a lesson. Many of them also include characters or figures belonging to certain archetypes that a period viewer would recognize. Krimmel frequently incorporated these characters, but

8

Johns, Elizabeth. 1991. American Genre Painting: The Politics of Everyday Life. Yale University Press.

9 Wedmore, Frederick. 1880a. The masters of genre painting: Being an Introductory Handbook to the Study of Genre Painting. London : C. Kegan Paul.

lessons were often humorous and sometimes absent in his paintings.

One of his genre paintings that contains more complex imagery and exemplifies his fondness for his new home in Philadelphia is his rendition of the Fourth of July in Centre Square (See Appendix). As its name indicates, this image depicts an Independence Day celebration in a busy square. The diversity of the group, the joy throughout the scene, and the prominence of the fountain and Water Works are central to this painting’s message and help us to understand it as a complex, but ultimately positive take on urbanization.10 More than half of this painting is taken up by the crowd. At first it appears to be a homogenous mob of wealthy white men

10

“John L. Krimmel, ‘Fourth of July in Centre Square’ | PAFA - Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.” 2014.

PAFA - Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. December 28, 2014. https://www.pafa.org/museum/collection/item/fourth-julycentre-square.

sporting top-hats, but further inspection reveals a much more diverse array of figures . One archetype that is represented by multiple figures throughout the composition is the dandy. The dandy is a caricature that draws on self-conscious, fashion-focused young men of the period. They are identifiable in many genre paintings by colorful coats or ascots and top-hats with an accentuated curvature in the brim. They are also very frequently shown taking part in frivolous or vain activities. All of these tropes are included in Krimmel’s painting. On the right side of the work a gaggle of dandies in bright jackets have approached a group of young women, and on the left side of the composition a pair of them can be seen purchasing drinks. Krimmel’s depiction reflects the early nineteenth century viewer’s notion of the dandy as a laughable figure. The artist also depicts older genteel figures, who contrast their younger counterparts. The aging elite is another character that can be seen in many American genre paintings. This figure is almost always characterized by black-tie clothing that is

stylish but reserved. Their behaviors in these representations are normally similarly classy. Two pairs of them can be seen conversing in the left side of Krimmel’s composition. Other members of the elite can be seen throughout this painting as well, but some of the most intriguing representations are of more diverse figures. This includes a wealthy black family, a lower-class older woman selling fruit and alcohol, and children of various backgrounds and ages. The most intriguing of these figures, however, can be seen near the center of the composition. He is identifiable as a slightly older man by his face and hair.

Furthermore, he is wearing Revolutionary War-era stockings that indicate his age and could suggest that he is a veteran. His less extravagant clothing, especially his shallow hat, make him stand out against the wealthy crowd as a clear member of the middle or lower-middle class. He is also the only figure in this painting who appears obviously unhappy. In fact, he is directing his family away from the celebration.

The range of wealthy figures shown in this work would entice elites from any walk of life into urban celebrations like this.

However, the inclusion of the middle-class Revolutionary War veteran, if we are to understand him as such, may reveal the festivities’ less enticing nature and the paintings satirical message.

The fact that young dandies and middle-aged elites are seen enjoying themselves at a celebration of the successes of the Revolutionary War, while an older figure that lived through and possibly fought in the war is uncomfortable and upset, indicates that this event has become abstracted from its subject. This message is clearly critical, but is moreso a satire on the Independence Day holiday celebration than it is a criticism of the urban setting.

Krimmel does, however, offer another message that directly addresses urbanization and promotes city dwelling. This message is concerned with infrastructure, and responds to one of the common anti-federalist concerns about cities. The symbols of

urban function included in this painting are the fountain in center square and the Philadelphia Water Works. Although these objects are tucked behind many figures, they still exist relatively high in the work’s hierarchy. The fountain is at the very center of the composition, and its bright white sculpture harshly contrasts the darker, wooded backdrop. The Water Works building is more similar in color to the background, but its brick texture differentiates it. It is also a very large component of this composition, taking up about a sixth of the canvas. The inclusion of these two structures is a deliberate choice by Krimmel, who would have recognized them as engineering feats but also images of the city’s resilience. They came to represent resilience and relief during Philadelphia’s yellow fever epidemic in 1793. Failing public works, especially the dirty water supply, allowed for the outbreak to occur and forced thousands out of the city. The Water Works’ creation, however, restored Philadelphians’ faith in their city. Although Krimmel arrived in Philadelphia after the turn of the

19th century, he would have almost certainly known about the epidemic and the creation of the Water Works, as these events would have still been in recent memory for many. His choice to include the Water Works demonstrates his appreciation for the city’s public works, and solidifies the building as a triumphant symbol of strength. The fountain that Krimmel places in the center of the composition is also highly symbolic. The fact that there are children of various ages playing in it speaks to its cleanliness, directly responding to one anti-federalist concern about urban areas. The fountain’s high position in the painting’s hierarchy is also significant to the work’s pro-urbanist message. Its centrality in such a joyous image demonstrates the impact of communal space and public works on community and morale.

Asher B. Durand’s Progress Half a century after William Birch published the second edition of The City of Philadelphia, landscape painter Asher B

Durand, tried his hand at depicting urbanism in his painting, Progress (See Appendix). Durand was the foremost landscape painter during his time.11 He was born in New Jersey in 1796, but was based in New York for most of his career. Unlike Birch’s etchings, Durand’s work is far more allegorical and, while still painting cities and industry in a positive light, it does not align itself as strongly with a political movement. Instead, the distancing from wildness is central to his message. Though his work does not respond to any anti-federalist criticisms of cities, it represents a shift in the artist’s opinion on urbanism. Landscape painting is a genre that typically perpetuates ideas of traditionalism, but this later work by Durand takes a for more progressive stance.

11

Avery, Kevin J. “Asher Brown Durand (1796–1886).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dura/hd_dura.htm (October 2009)

Progress uses beautiful imagery and clever allegory to explain American urbanization and industrialization. The viewer’s eyes follow a river towards the horizon, where the sun is low in the sky. The water divides the composition into two sides. The left side represents nature and wildness, and the right represents the development of American urbanism. It is important to note that this landscape does not exist and was imagined by Durand to convey a message. That being said, it is likely that, being a welltraveled landscape painter, Durand drew on previous works and his memory of existing spaces to create this space.

In the left side of the composition, the artist uses multiple symbols to represent pre-colonial America as a wild landscape.

The thick verdure is the most obvious illustration of unkempt nature, but blasted trees and sharp rocks add a perilous edge to the terrain. The left side of the water is also far more mountainous, and includes multiple harsh cliffs. Value is another important aspect of this work. The large trees on the left side of the composition

appear to be blocking the light from the setting sun, leaving this natural side in shadow. In addition, Durand problematically uses Indigenous figures to represent wildness in the left side of the painting. They are included amongst the dense foliage and rocky terrain and are in the shadow of two large trees. This Appalachianesque terrain along with the Indigenous figures’ hair indicates Durand may have drawn on the Mohawk tribe for this depiction.

The right side of the composition is not obscured by natural elements, and is illuminated by the sun. In the foreground we see the beginning of a dirt path, lined with telegraph poles. As we follow the path and telegraph lines, we see the advance of colonial America, from a pastoral settlement, to a small, church-centric village, to a commercial, industrial city. Nearest is a farmer herding cattle outside of his small wooden shack. Further down this dirt path there is a traveler with a carriage, indicating a slight technical advancement. While the farmer is mostly shaded from the sun, the traveler is partially illuminated. Beyond these figures

we begin to see many representations of early infrastructure. Two small streams break from the larger body of water. These narrow, tidy canals are evocative of irrigation and agricultural engineering.

Further back we also see a bridge, under which small boats pass and illustrations of more developed housing. The next layer of the foreground includes a large house by the water and indications of a village poking through a wooded canopy. One of the buildings that can be seen through the trees has a steeple. The large structure, surrounded by smaller gabled houses, is very reminiscent of one of America’s early puritan villages. The next layer shows a steampowered train crossing a bridge into a more developed seaside town. On the water there is a sailboat. Behind this settlement is a densely populated peninsula, containing many images that would have reminded the period-viewer of port cities like Philadelphia.

The multitude of church steeples illustrates the large number of neighborhoods that make up this vast city. Smoke stacks represent

industry and commerce, and steamboats imply mercantilism. This final settlement is basking in the sunlight.

The sun and sunlight are the most important allegorical agents in this piece. The image of the sun on the horizon is used throughout American art to represent revolution and rebirth, and almost always carries positive implications. Durand’s choice to include this symbol reveals his fondness for the developing urban landscapes of America. Furthering this notion is the use of light in this painting. The left side of the painting that is designed to exemplify wildness is entirely in shadow, while on the right each settlement becomes progressively more illuminated as they become more developed. This deliberate use of value makes it clear that illumination is being used to illustrate the departure from wildness. Understanding the light in this way, we can understand the silhouetted landscapes in the background as further developed cities that have yet to come. This positive outlook, especially

coming from an enjoyer of natural landscapes like Durand, may indicate a shift in public opinion on urbanization.

Conclusion All of these works contain persuasive elements that represent cities in a positive light, but they are also all ultimately realistic and not propagandist. With this in mind, we can understand these fond depictions of cities as representations of the general public’s shifting opinions on urbanization in the 19th century. It is also possible that, given the popularity of the artists and discussed earlier, these works may have played a role in the public’s increasing openness to urbanism.

Appendix

1. William R. Birch, The City and Port of Philadelphia on the River Delaware from Kensington, 1804, Philadelphia Museum of Art

2. John L. Krimmel, The Fourth of July in Centre Square, 1812, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts

3. Asher B. Durand, Progress, 1853, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

Bibliography 1. Hallam, John S. 1997. "William Birch's City of Philadelphia: The Politics of the Picturesque and Urban Life in the Early Republic." Journal of American Culture 20 (4) (Winter): 25-40. https://ezproxy.bu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pro quest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fwilliam-birchs-cityphiladelphia-politics%2Fdocview%2F200646905%2Fse2%3Faccountid%3D9676.

2. Foner, Eric, Kathleen DuVal, and Lisa McGirr. Give me liberty!

New York, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2022.

3. Cornell, Saul. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828. University of North Carolina Press, 1999. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807839218_cornell.

4. Soltis, Carol Eaton. “Birch, William Russell (1755-1834), Enamelist, Engraver, and Painter.” American National

Biography Online, February 2000. https://doi.org/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.1700072.

5. Snyder, Martin P. “William Birch: His Philadelphia Views.”

The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 73, no. 3 (1949): 271–315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20079505.

6. Birch, William R. The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania as it Appeared in 1800. December 1800.

7. Naeve, Milo M. 1987. John Lewis Krimmel: An Artist in Federal America. Associated University Press.

8. Johns, Elizabeth. 1991. American Genre Painting: The Politics of Everyday Life. Yale University Press.

9. Wedmore, Frederick. 1880a. The masters of genre painting: Being an Introductory Handbook to the Study of Genre Painting. London : C. Kegan Paul.

10. “John L. Krimmel, ‘Fourth of July in Centre Square’ | PAFA Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.” 2014. PAFA Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. December 28, 2014.

https://www.pafa.org/museum/collection/item/fourth-julycentre-square.

11. Avery, Kevin J. “Asher Brown Durand (1796–1886).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dura/hd_dura.htm (October 2009)