Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Arctic Spectacles

Life reflects art reflects life -- at least sometimes -- and this is never more so than with the Victorian fascination with places that were the hardest to actually visit, such as the Arctic. Referred to in many texts of the day as "those almost unseen regions," they were as exotic in their time as images of the Moon or Mars are to us today. And yet, perhaps paradoxically, since so few knew what they looked like, they were liable to all sorts of fanciful picturings; who, after all, would be able to compare any of them to their own actual experience?

Here art played a pivotal role, especially in the era before the invention of photography, but also after. The Panorama catch phrase -- "painted from sketches made upon the spot" -- put a premium on the works of explorer-artists such a Samuel Gurney Cresswell, whose image of HMS Investigator heaved up by the ice has become so iconic that, even today, it's a go-to for the cover of any book on an Arctic subject. Later in the century, fine art painters decided that they, too, must learn to paint icebergs from life; one of them, Frederic Edwin Church, bought passage on a ship to Labrador, while others, such as Willam Bradford, chartered their own ships in order to be able to sail yet further north.

And sometimes, despite the limitations of the pre-photographic world, the Victorian's notion of life in the Arctic turns out to be more real than one might imagine. Before I headed north this year, friends of mine gave me a colored print depicting a polar bear attacking a seal; the print came from a nineteenth-century edition of Buffon's Natural History, General and Particular. Imagine the strange shock of recognition when, a week or so into my Arctic sojourn, I beheld almost the very same scene upon the ice. I have only one criticism of the artist who depicted this scene for Buffon -- there is not enough blood.

There were other "unseen" worlds that drew the Victorian gaze in their direction, of course. Microscopes revealed the teeming life in a "Drop of London Water," while one of the earliest films in history depicted the microscopic life within a Stilton cheese, which is quite literally teeming with cheese mites (the film led to a lawsuit from the London Cheese Council). And, just as it is for us, the vast range of distant planets and outer space was a great draw for Victorian spectators; many of these images drew from the Moon as imagined in Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon (1865). And yet it was the earthbound vision of the Arctic, with massive icebergs so monumental that one critic compared the one in Frederic Church's "Icebergs" (1861) to "the great white throne of the Apocaypse." The peoples of the Arctic also drew interest, not only in panoramas, dioramas, and lantern slides, but also in the form of human exhibitions at world's fairs and carnivals, where fairgoers could gawk at actual "Esquimaux" people (whom today we know as Inuit).

So read the chapters of my book Arctic Spectacles (linked near the top of the liks list at right), and do a quick self-check: when you think of the Arctic, what images come unbeckoned to your mind? Might some of these, indeed, be similar to those conjured up by your great-great-grandparents? Do these Victorian versions of the north still cast their shadow upon today -- and if so, what does that tell us about our own ways of seeing?

4 comments:

  1. When I think of the arctic, the image or feeling that I get is one of a barren landscape. I'm sure running into a polar bear would be terrifying, but what freaks me out is the emptiness. We're so used to densely populated areas, both in terms of population and trees and buildings and roads. There is one description in chapter one about how the men weren't allowed far away from the ship, because there was no way to discern distances with this landscape. Also, I find disturbing the idea of voices carrying a mile because of the absolute quiet of the environment.

    I'm sure this was similar to what people would have felt a century or two ago, but it must have been worse for people back then because they wouldn't have any images of the area that weren't somewhat terrifying. Beautiful maybe, but still terrifying. Today, we have pictures of smiling tourists or scientists in the arctic, as well has movies and tv shows that ventured there. It is a much more "discovered" or "settled" place for us, at least in many ways that it is depicted. In terms of "how we see," this is in stark contrast to the Victorians whose only way of picturing the arctic was through the eyes of people whose lives were constantly in peril.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The image I used to conjure up in my mind when I heard the word "Arctic" was of a never ending white void. Everywhere I would look, it would be white, perhaps even blinding. However, I know that is not the case. For the longest time, I didn't think the Arctic was inhabitable. I thought ice, snow, and polar bears. No birds, no people, and what? SEALS?? A Victorian audience didn't seem to have the foresight either. I really wish I knew what my great-great-grandparents imagined if I asked them about the Arctic, or even my grandparents! I would think that their image of a place they have never actually seen would be the same as mine and other Victorians.

    To some degree I think Victorian versions of the North still cast their shadow upon today, despite the advancements in technology that would allow us to see better and more clearly the images of what the Arctic is really like. I will say though, that our more modern experiences with the Arctic have come a long way. Imagine being James and John Ross, or even Sir John Franklin and sailing into that unforgiving territory with no modern technology to call for help. They would have to wait until their journey was noticed to have gone on "too long" before being rescued. Or wait until the ice thawed enough to move just a little bit. We have better equipped ships and better technology that would allow a smoother journey...hopefully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we're much better equipped today, to be sure. But the hazards of then are still potential hazards today; like Sir John's ships, the vessel I was on had to have a specialized "Ice Master" to help navigate the ice. He had the benefit, of course, of things that Franklin's Ice Master James Reid did not -- daily charts and satellite reports -- but there's always some elemnt of the unknown. You can read about the ice pilot I've worked with on a couple of my recent voyages, Ray Jourdain, at this site.

      Delete
  3. When considering the idea of the "Arctic Spectacle" I think of a barren frosty land, unreachable by the ordinary human. I think of the icebergs, and the Titanic. I think of huge glaciers, spotted with no vegetation, but with life like a polar bear or a seal. And I also think of the movie "Happy Feet" because they use cartoons to show children what it may be like in a land little more than Penguins.

    For my ancestors, I feel as though they may have had the same ideas of what the Arctic is. Aside from the modern things I have mentioned, nothing has really changed about what the Arctic holds. It has been pictured the same way, it seems, for quite some time. I simply can not imagine my great-great grandparents ever even wondering about the Arctic, although I'm sure they did.

    I feel like the mystery of the Arctic is still present today, because we surely have not explored it all. But there is a lot more that we know about it now than we did in Victorian times. I would not equate it to our little knowledge of space, because it is slightly more reachable, but I can see the commonalities.

    In short, I know that there are many things we don't understand, but I know that we are becoming more and more educated about the details of the Arctic.

    ReplyDelete