Using what you have learned about Frederick Law Olmsted from the readings and the videos, discuss the similarities and differences that the view of nature that underlies his design of the park has with that of the artists of the Hudson River School, or Washington Irving, or transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson, or Walt Whitman.
19 thoughts on “Central Park”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Although Frederick Law Olmsted shared many transcendentalist’s ideals of men such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman, he disagreed about the manner in which nature should be used to change society.
Some of the major transcendentalist ideas that both Olmstead and Emerson shared was a focus on nature. In chapter one of Emerson’s “Nature,” he begins with an homage to the stars. He goes on to say that not many people see nature but when one does, they are lifted up into heaven, become eternally youthful, and everything that was once important doesn’t seem so anymore, similar to the Taoists. He calls a forest, “the plantation of God.” Meanwhile, Olmstead, who read Emerson’s “Nature,” believed that not only is nature important, it also has the ability of healing and rejuvenating the masses. He felt that a city like New York had a very great need for nature. He was a firm believer in Emerson’s words.
In addition, both Olmstead and Whitman desired for a democratic country in the fullest sense. Simply put, both men wanted a mingling of classes and they believed that only through nature it could be possible. Olmstead wanted his parks to be a place where the poor would mingle with the rich, so much so that they would be indistinguishable. Olmstead knew this was possible because it was done in Europe. Moreover, no one class has any more of a right, Olmstead decided, to enjoy a park than another and despite the fact that the major donors were the wealthy, Olmstead designed his parks for the poor. He envisioned that men and women would flock to these areas to renew themselves and thereby creating a more democratic country. Whitman similarly embraced the poor immigrant class in his poems. In a time when it was unthinkable, he saw the good in them and wrote poetry extolling their goodness and celebrating the great things they brought to America.
While embracing certain aspects of transcendentalism, Olmstead disagreed on the subject of how nature would generate change. Emerson simply wanted to bring people out to nature but Olmstead wanted to bring the nature to the people. Furthermore, while Emerson and Whitman were pure academics, believing that their books and poetry would spur people to the hills and focused mainly on the intellectual level, Olmstead believed that one must also attack the issue from a physical level as well. Olmstead wanted to use his great park, his park of democracy, to uplift the poor and bring them more on par with the wealthy. He did not think that academia was an effective way to spur the poor to seek out nature.
Fredrick Law Olmsted and the Hudson River School both share similar ideas about keeping man and nature separate in a sense, but Olmsted goes deeper into the purpose of nature. On top of the charming qualities of an environment, Olmstead believed in the benefits it can provide to humans and democracy altogether.
Fredrick Law Olmsted and the Hudson River School would both agree that mankind can soil nature. Olmsted, eager to preserve the park’s natural feel, placed roads under Central Park. By keeping traffic out of sight, Olmsted was preventing the outside distractions of urban life from disturbing the natural setting he was attempting to create. Similarly, the Hudson River School was known for drawing landscapes in an attempt to capture natures true glory. In Thomas Cole’s painting “The Oxbow View”, a natural setting is contrasted with fields cleared by presumably humans through the use of dark and light colors respectively. Thomas Cole and the Hudson River School thus believed that there must remain some sort of divide between man and nature.
Olmstead design for the park, however, goes way beyond the simple romanticized view of the Hudson River School. Olmstead designed the park to be a democratic example and to provide health benefits. Central Park was inspired by European models in which all social classes were brought together. Olmstead believed that he was creating a more advanced democracy by having socioeconomic classes put aside their differences to appreciate nature together. Additionally, Olmstead created the park to provide physiological benefits for spectators. Central Park can be described as being seemingly infinite. The vast sense of the park allows for people to relax and escape the busy city streets. By leaving their worries behind, spectators could take the time to mindlessly absorb the view which Olmstead viewed as particularly healthy for the human physique. Along with the large demeanor, Central Park also contains different sights in order to provide varying experiences. The distinctive sights would allow for people to select the optimal one to unwind at. Olmstead’s design for the park was meant to have a more profound effect on its visitors than a mere pleasant view.
Olmstead believed that the nature in parks evoked mental emotions within people, such as the fresh air, sunlight. Urban living people faced tensions and pressure every day and the park was a way to release from that overbearing stress. It gave them “mental tranquility and rest” (Elegance and Grass Roots). The Hudson River School paintings also feature that quality of tranquility and open space. The paintings show big open landscapes and beautiful clear skies. Both Olmstead and Hudson River School had landscaping architect as a basis for their projects.
This can also be seen as a place that urban New Yorkers may seek out to for distraction from their stressful lives.
However, some of the art in the Hudson River School paintings were of parks that are not meant for the people. Whereas Olmstead thought that parks should be a place where people go and relax and mingle with other classes. His primary purpose for constructing Central Park was to bring people out of the city and to transport them somewhere else far from the tall buildings.
Both Olmstead and the Hudson River School paintings show the effect that nature can have on New Yorkers. It can bring them to a mental state they were unfamiliar to.
Frederick Law Olmsted, the designer of Central Park, and transcendentalist writer Ralph Waldo Emerson have some overlap in their beliefs surrounding nature. For both men, nature is a source of wonder and healing. Both also believe that nature effects society. However, it is the details of their beliefs that mark their differences.
Their ideas of how one should experience nature are their first point of divergence. Emerson feels that people should try to go out and experience nature. In his essay “Nature,” he refers to the woods as being a transformative place. The woods are natural and far away from the city; one has to bring themselves to nature. Olmsted, on the other hand, wants to bring parks into cities for people to witness nature. One might consider a park in the middle of a city as a manmade restoration of nature. Emerson sees pure nature as an escape from the city, while Olmsted sees a park as an escape within the city.
Both also have different views on how nature should effect society. For Emerson, the solidarity one experiences in nature erases constructs such as class and allows one to explore their own nature. Olmstead, however, believes that nature can make society more democratic and civilized. For Olmstead, a park is a social experience that unites people from all classes and backgrounds as neighbors and friends. A park serves as a way to bridge pride and jealousy. He also believes that parks could help to reduce crime, teaching citizens self-control and respect. Emerson views nature as an escape from the chains of society and a way to explore oneself. Olmstead views nature as a uniting force within society, bringing together people of all different backgrounds.
Additionally, while Emerson considers himself a transcendentalist, Olmsted does not accept this label due to his beliefs regarding religion. Emerson sees nature as a representation of and a link to God. When Emerson immerses himself in nature, he feels as though he was in God’s presence. Olmsted holds drastically different beliefs: he rebukes organized religion, seeing it as a dividing force within society. He does not believe that religion and intellect could reform society; nature’s effects on human actions could help to reform and democratize society.
In conclusion, while Emerson and Olmsted shared the same basic admiration of nature, their ideas are quite distinctive. Emerson believes that one should put themselves within nature, while Olmsted believes that nature should be brought to people as a retreat. Emerson sees nature as an individual experience, but Olmsted views it as a uniting force. For Emerson, nature is a way of building a relationship with God. In contrast, Olmsted rejects God, viewing nature as a way of building a better society. And so, while both men feel passionately about nature, they have different beliefs regarding the experience and its effects.
Frederick Law Olmsted was adamant in his work with landscaping, to bring nature to the Americans living in an unnatural urban environment. Similarly to how artists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and those at the Hudson River School focused on this natural beauty in their work, Olmsted wanted to bring out such features and allow New Yorker’s to live harmoniously with nature. Olmsted worked tirelessly to create such an environment, in the building of Central Park as a place of escape for any person. This undertaking created a unique place in New York City, that allowed even the poorest of people to withdraw from the atrocities of their living conditions and become one with the nature around them. The romantic perspective that was common in the work of transcendentalists of the time, was also clear in the creation of the park and the emphasis on the how the individual is impacted by nature.
Although Olmsted inserted many transcendentalist ideas into his plan for Central Park, he also strayed from some of the ideologies of the time. Viewing nature as a “means of serving the public” rather than an “object of philosophical contemplation,” Olmsted accepted a democratic view of all aspects of life, beyond just politics. He strayed from conditions which highlighted differences among individuals, and sought a connecting force for all people. This is how Olmsted saw nature, as the unifying force which erased differences that were cause of rifts in society. He did not romanticise an unrealistic beauty and power of nature, but rather emphasized what nature realistically had to offer. Through doing so, he created a safe place for individuals to connect with nature and his ideal vision of a more civilized and democratized American society.
While Frederick Law Olmsted clearly took inspiration from transcendentalist philosophy, his views often strayed from the views of notable transcendentalist figures such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, or Walt Whitman.
All three men shared an adoration of nature. Olmsted read Emerson’s “Nature” and Carlyle’s “Sartor Resartus” and seemed to be impacted greatly from both works. Olmsted and transcendentalist both maintain that nature possess great power over man. They agree that nature has healing capabilities and serves as an effective means of escape from the stress of society. Moreover, Olmsted and Whitman maintain that not only does nature have vast power over human emotions, but also that nature satisfies the “practical needs of urban and rural life as the way to create a democratic society” (Nicholson). Here, they agree that nature acts as a unifying force for men by increasing personal interaction. Olmsted hoped that the park would be a place for people to mingle, regardless of income, social class or religion, thereby furthering the atmosphere and ideals of democracy. Unfortunately, due to the travel expense to visit Central Park, it was mostly used by the wealthy and the men who built it were not able to utilize it as often.
Olmsted views were far more “secular” than those of Ruskin and Whitman (Nicholson). Ruskin and Whitman believed that an important theme of nature was a spiritual connection with God. For instance, Ruskin described himself as “nature’s priest” (Clark). This implies that the holiness of nature is so powerful that it almost has its own religion. Whitman also characterizes nature this way by using language such as “indestructible” and “eternal”. In contrast, Olmsted rejects any form of religion because he suggests that it only serves to highlight the differences between individuals and hinder democracy. Therefore, he effectively rejects the spirituality of nature that is often emphasized in transcendentalist literature. Instead, Olmsted views nature more as a tool to psychologically alter human behavior in order to make people more civilized. His view of nature is more systematic and based off of psychological principals than those of transcendentalists.
Although Olmsted agrees with Whitman, and other notable transcendentalists, that nature is vastly powerful and a unifying democratic force, he disagrees with Whitman’s argument that nature should be a spiritual experience rather than a tool to alter human psyche.
Although Frederick Law Olmsted never fully supported Utilitarianism or Transcendentalism, he took ideas from both philosophies and integrated them into his design of Central Park. Like Walt Whitman, Olmsted appreciates the simpleness and beauty of nature and praises its healing effects as well as its potential for social communing benefits. In Walt Whitman’s “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry,” Whitman related the enjoyment of other’s company and the simple union he feels with these strangers on the ferry, amidst the water. He says “Just as any of you is one of a living crowd, I was one of a crowd” (139). Similarly, Olmsted recognized the same necessity of having people come together, regardless of class or race, and enjoying each other’s companies and having each presence build on top of one another to foster a feeling of comfort that he calls “neighborly.” This idea of people coming together was a central idea of Olmsted’s planning of Central Park because he wanted people from the upper and lower working class to share a single space together and foster a kind of democracy that Olmsted craved. In Carol J. Nicholson’s “Elegance and Grass Roots: The Neglected Philosophy of Frederick Law Olmsted,” Olmsted says “each individual adding by his mere presence to the pleasure of all others, all helping to the greater happiness of each” (339). This quote perfectly encapsulates the similarities between both Whitman and Olmsted’s view on how nature can provide for the communion of people and the beneficial effects it has socially, mentally, and morally.
On the other hand, Whitman, a Transcendentalist, and Olmsted have differing views on religion and nature. Olmsted didn’t rely on religion to reform the society in which he lived rather he depended on the powers and potential that nature provided (342). Furthermore, Olmsted rejected organized religion as he believed it contradicted his beliefs in a democracy which the separating powers of a church would interrupt (341). However, Whitman associated nature with God and actually believed that religion formed the “core of democracy,” something Olmsted would have rejected almost immediately (342). This disagreement between the two literary figures is understandable since Whitman is identified as a Transcendentalist and Olmsted prefers to be unassociated with any single philosophy or movement.
Olmsted’s view of nature is very similar to that of Emerson because both view nature as a sanctuary from society and its constant demands. Emerson believes that solitude, the kind any one would wish to achieve, is not found by being alone in one’s room, but rather by being in nature. Olmsted’s discovery of the solitude within nature came from his childhood experiences in the Connecticut woods and his connection to nature was strengthened by the comfort he found in Nature even when he had been sent away from school. Even in one of the most devastating experience Olmsted had to face, the death of his beloved brother, he found solace through nature. Emerson however had a more deliberate experience discovering this sanctuary because he set out with that very intention.
Olmsted also shared the transcendentalist view which valued awe-inspiring experiences brought on by the greatness of nature over the rationalist thinking of the enlightenment period. This is evident in how adamantly he wanted to be the one to bring the wonders of nature to the general public by being the one to supervise and design Central Park. His opinions differ from the Transcendentalists however because he felt the need to bring social reform with his work whereas they were concerned mostly with reform on an intellectual level.
Olmsted’s belief that parks were necessary to the success of a democratic society was utilitarian-esque but he was not thinking solely of the immediate functionality of the park but also of how a park could shape the future of a city. Olmsted shared this idea of American pragmatism with Walt Whitman who is seen to be the pioneer of this ideology. Whitman and Olmstead both saw the need for both the urban and the natural in order for a democratic society to thrive.
The Hudson River School artists and Frederick Law Olmsted both emphasized the sublimity and enchantment that lies within nature in their works. Olmsted grew up surrounded by nature and was able to design and envision his parks with personal experiences and what he was familiar with. As for Hudson River School artists such as Asher Brown Durand, Thomas Cole, and Fredric Edwin Church, fostered a new appreciation for nature in the art community. Both Olmsted and the School understood nature’s wonderful and natural aesthetic had a power to change the viewer, yet Olmsted used nature to unite a bigger disjointed group and had more success than the Hudson River School artists.
Olmsted’s goal for his park was a ground where people of all backgrounds can escape the noises and commotion of the city. Especially during Olmsted’s time period, New York was growing far too rapidly for the city or the country to handle. As life changed and progressed right before the eyes of New Yorkers, Olmsted saw the crumble of unity and society as a whole for New York. Thus he wanted his park to reunite and to reform the New York civilization. Olmsted emphasized that the aesthetics of gardening and landscaping were crucial elements for creating civilization. As the social gap between the wealthy and the common was widening, Olmsted was certain that the purpose of this future park was to create a space where both groups can enjoy in harmony.
In contrast, the artists of the Hudson River School weren’t necessarily trying to unite the people of New York but rather redefine the art from the current rationalism movement from the Enlightenment. Founding the movement, Thomas Cole encouraged more well known artists such as Frederic Edwin Church to capture the beauty of nature’s divinity. As Church painted his famous works such as “Niagara”, he was able to shine a new light on nature for the public to enjoy and to have a different appreciation and reaction to a landscape work. The size and specified details these artists chose to highlight in their works allowed spectators to notice things that they have never noticed before in the same view or ever in their lives. Though nearly 90% of the country were still in rural and suburban areas, nature did not have the same pure and captivating power as it does in perhaps a more remote location, where man has never set foot in. Thus when the artists of this movement began to show observations and often overlooked details of nature, people were able to set themselves for that moment into the landscape as if they were seeing those details with their own eyes.
Both Olmsted and the artists of Hudson River School however, did not confine themselves completely into the Transcendentalism movement. Though both parties agreed to focus on more Romantic views such as an emphasis of nature, both Olmsted and the School did not emphasize all the characteristics of nature. For example, nature’s beauty can be sublime for the viewer as both Olmsted and the artists wanted to transport the spectator to feel a sense of wonder and warmth. However, Transcendentalism could also emphasize the darker sublime side of nature, where the vastness of nature could also be frightening and make one feel minuscule in comparison to the world. Olmsted preferred to transfer New Yorkers into a secret garden where they can escape the emotions and difficulties that urban living has brought upon them. As for the artists, they chose their subject to be nature but chose rather warmer colors and inviting scenes as well to transport the viewer to a sanctuary.
As Olmsted’s park brought in a new bond for New Yorkers to share in their city and the artists of the Hudson River School popularized what we consider traditional art subjects today. Both groups highlighted and reminded Americans that nature is always present and a part of the country, no matter how fast the country urbanizes its land or its people. Nature will always reign supreme.
Fredrick Law Olmsted and transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson all share similar ideas about the importance of nature and how it can transform societies into a more democratic states. In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Nature”, he says. “To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society. I am not solitary whilst I read and write, though nobody is with me. But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches.” Here he explains how nature is his escape from the real world. It is how he relaxes and looks at his problems in a bigger prospective. The “rays” symbolize the effects of being in nature and he says that it takes him away from more tangible things or “what he touches”. Fredrick Law Olmsted share similar beliefs of nature with Emerson. He believed that the city of New York needed an escape from the everyday hardworking labor that most New Yorkers endure, one reason why he was so passionate about creating Central Park. He believed, just as Emerson had, that nature was the city’s escape.
Fredrik Law Olmsted took it one step further by strongly believing that the park can bring people from all classes together. He considered himself a “socialist democrat.” After visiting parks in Europe and seeing it first hand, he truly wanted to create a park where everyone was equal, no matter how rich or what race.
Frederick Law Olmsted, known primarily for his creation of New York City’s Central Park, was inspired by utilitarianism and transcendentalism; however, he followed a more practical approach rather than philosophical. Olmsted was significantly inspired by transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman, and he used their view of the power nature holds to create a more democratic society. Emerson begins Chapter 1 of “Nature” by stating, “To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society.” This view of nature being a sanctuary where one can find serenity and enjoy the absence of urban stressors is the basis on which Olmsted designed central park. Olmsted sought to achieve his vision for Central Park by maximizing the drastic contrast between the park and the city that borders its perimeter.
Olmsted believed that if his vision for the park becomes a success, the result will ultimately be a vast array of nature that will produce psychologically soothing and healing effects. It is important to note that Olmsted wanted everyone – regardless of social class, race, ethnicity, age, etc. – to be able to benefit from his creation. Emerson would agree that the core of transcendentalism is simply put, man being inspired by natural creation. Nonetheless, Emerson refers to nature as being “divine” many times throughout his writings. Emerson states in his writing, “the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.” This view is contrasted in Carol Nicholson’s, “Elegance and Grass Roots: The Neglected Philosophy of Frederick Law Olmsted.” According to Nicholson, “Olmsted never accepted the Transcendentalist philosophy of nature as a substitute for God.” Instead, Olmsted valued true democracy and to him, religion was another means of separating people. Olmsted wanted nature to serve all people by giving them the means of coming together and finding refuge in Central Park.
Olmsted wanted a place within the city where people could relax and disconnect from the city. He fondly remembers being in tune with nature in the Connecticut Valley from his childhood. This childhood vision he had of nature is what inspired his design for Central Park. Because of the various schools he attended in his childhood, the one constancy he had was nature, which made it even more important to him. Olmsted’s experiences allowed him to think of the urban life and also for the common man. This connection to the common man in particular is absolutely crucial because of Olmsted’s support for a democracy. He believed that this was the way in which people from truly stratified classes could come together in a common place intended to connect with anyone who walks its trails. Later in his life, in Liverpool, Olmsted was inspired by a park which influenced his vision of Central Park because of the winding paths and the different types of experiences in different parts of the park. Eventually when Olmsted became superintendent of the Park, he paired up with Calvert Vaux. Their design was narrow and long, which created a sense of infinity for the people who did walk the trails of the park or just enjoyed the atmosphere. His time in Europe gave his park a political purpose as well. He stated that the a park like the ones in Europe, particularly the one he loved in Liverpool, would be perfect for a democracy like America.
The parallels between the Hudson River School Artists’ works is apparent. Their art is the opposite of what the typical scenery in New York City is/was, and this is exactly what Central Park is: it is a place where one can escape from the typical lifestyle of the city into a seemingly different area of the country all together. The only thing city-like about the park is the surrounding sky scrapers, but the park in and of itself is completely mentally and intentionally detached from the culture of New York City. This is a similarity between the visions of Olmsted and the Hudson River School Artists’. One can see Central Park in Thomas Cole’s “The Oxbow View,” simply because of the winding river and the flatland, a typical image of Central Park from an aerial perspective.
Though Olmsted had no philosophical allegiance like the Transcendentalists Whitman and Emerson, he did have a philosophy to “help us grasp the contemporary relevance of his work” (335, Nicholson). Influenced by Utilitarianism and Transcendentalism in different ways, Olmsted combined the two to create a unique perspective which made the Park have greater purpose than one would otherwise note, i.e. his main purpose for the park was to bridge the gaps between the classes in New York City. This has had a lasting effect, because today when one walks through Central Park, there are various classes of people enjoying the detachment from the city, just as Olmsted intended.
While Frederick Law Olmsted and transcendentalists like Walt Whitman shared beliefs about the potential for Central Park to transform the lives of New Yorkers, certain specifics about the park’s effect set apart Olmsted’s opinion on New York nature.
Olmsted certainly supported the transcendental ideology that nature was essential and had to co-exist with the busy landscape of Manhattan. He also argued that nature would have the power to heal and relieve stress, bringing “mental tranquility and rest” (Elegance and Grass Roots) to New Yorkers. Olmsted envisioned a Central Park that appeared endless, fostering long walks from 59th Street that would take people away from world of Wall Street commerce. He shared Whitman’s belief that nature had a place in the city, and a role to provide its people leisure and relief. Olmsted and Whitman also took a democratic stance on imprinting nature and its effects on the city. Both were adamant that Central Park would allow the different social classes to mingle in New York’s first true public park. Olmsted and Whitman both designed to uplift the poor and bring people together through nature.
However, Olmsted set himself apart from other transcendentalists through his concrete visions for Central Park. He wanted the park to serve the public; he wanted every New Yorker to feel like it was his/her park to roam. Moreover, Whitman held spiritual views that influenced his vision of the park – views that coincided with several other transcendental figures of the time period. In contrast, Olmsted defended his democratic views of the park, because he believed religion would interfere with the unifying force he envisioned for Central Park.
A similar belief that both Olmstead and many of the transcendentalist writers had was their belief in the positive effects nature had on humans. They believed in the mystical and healing effects nature can have on both human and on society. One transcendentalist that Olmstead shares views on nature with is Ralph Waldo Emerson. In Emerson’s essay, “Nature”, he praises nature as something that can transform people and evoke emotions in those that witness it. He believes that entering into the woods is like a sanctuary. As soon as one enters one, there is “perpetual youth” and one will “return to reason and faith”. Similarly, Olmsted believes that nature can heal and rejuvenate those immersed in nature. For that reason, Olmsted wanted New York City to have that kind of power to be centered right in the middle of the city.
Although many of Olmstead’s views were consistent with Emerson’s, there were some aspects about nature Olmstead did not necessarily agree with. Emerson views nature as a phenomenon everyone should witness for themselves. He invited people to go out and explore nature. Olmstead, on the other hand believes that nature can be used as a means to unify society. He believed that having a piece of nature in the city will allow social classes and background to mingle together. Nature will be able to merge these very different groups together and erase these social barriers.
Frederick Law Olmsted’s view of nature which underlies his design of Central Park is one of a kind. When his views are paralleled to Walt Whitman’s, it becomes clear that they shared some common interests.
Whitman received such a strong sense of enjoyment from the beauty and tranquility of nature, which explains why he visited Central Park every day at a certain point in his life. Nature and parks gave him that sense of fullness and exaltation that Olmsted also appreciated. He felt that the power that nature gives off creates a means for improving the society that all types of people can benefit from. Since he was always a man that gained satisfaction from the presence of other people, whether he knew them or not, he thought that having places in the country where people can come together is essential. Olmsted too believed in this idea of unity, and being a man who grew up constantly going on rides through the beautiful greens with his father, he knew that the park was the perfect place for this. A place where people of all different backgrounds can get away from the city life and relax in nature’s beauty, getting to know the new people surrounding you.
Although the two shared similarities regarding the view of nature that underlies the design of the park, their opinions opposed when it came to the coexistence of religion and nature. Olmsted never thought that the philosophy of nature being a substitute for God. Yes, he did believe that philosophy should be used as a force for change, but he wasn’t satisfied with the notion of intellectual refinement. He believed that nature was something used to benefit the community and their needs, and not something of “philosophical contemplation”. On the other hand, Whitman believed that nature correlated with God, that the two were connected.
Frederick Law Olmsted views of nature, which can be seen by his objectives in designing Central Park, has both similarities and differences to famous transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and also artists a part of the Hudson River School movement. The Hudson River School body of work was about nature and centered around the natural beauty and wonders that nature possesses. Similarly, Olmsted’s work at Central Park relate to this theme of the natural beauty of nature. The Central Park was Olmsted’s sanctuary for people seeking to leave the “hustle-and-bustle” fast-paced city life in order to sit down on a bench, walk around Central Park for an hour and view the aesthetically pleasing landscapes around it, in order to escape from their everyday, mundane lives. Thus, both Olmsted and the Hudson River School believed that nature, with its vast beauty and peacefulness, can be a sort of appeasement for people to escape the monotonous events in a routine life.
Furthermore, Olmsted’s view of nature is similar to also famous transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson. Although both believe in the great respect for the beauty of nature, their viewpoints can ultimately be distinguished by the means of achieving harmony with nature. Olmsted, by creating Central Park within the city, believes that nature and people can be seemingly intertwined with one another; however, on the other hand, Emerson is slightly different. Emerson wants people to appreciate nature to a greater extent and that they should seek out and explore nature more.
Frederick Law Olmsted’s view of nature was similar and different in many ways when put next to the views of the transcendentalists and the Hudson River School artists. Although all three appreciated and celebrated the aesthetic within nature, they carried out their actions in different ways. Transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson saw nature as a powerful source that left the human mind in complete awe. They wrote about nature in such an artistic way, as if they were illustrating the real life beauty of everything they saw, with words. Looking at Olmsted’s work, we can see that his ideas of creating Central Park incorporated many of these ideas. He made the park not only aesthetically pleasing, but an inspiring piece of geography. The Hudson River School artists held a similar perspective. They gave nature a romantic quality through actual illustrations this time, not words.
Olmsted however, saw nature as more than just an aesthetic. Although he designed the park with its beauty and romantic patterns, the park serves a deeper purpose. With its difficult to navigate pathways or non-gridlike structure of the streets within the park, Olmsted wanted to bring people together. Experiencing areas like Europe and the South around the time of the Civil War, really inspired him to create a project in which assimilation for the common man would be easy. Olmsted also believed in nature’s powerful source. He saw how nature could make our moods change drastically. How fresh air and sunlight can change a person’s emotions both physically and psychologically. He realized that he needed to design a park in which people could come to de-stress from the urban life that they are all wrapped up in.
Fredrick Law Olmsted, through his many travels across the United States and the Pacific, came to the realization that something needed to be done in regards to the heavy weight northern cities placed on their citizens.
While designing the plans for Central Park, Olmsted held two main beliefs very close to heart: that nature directly tied to psychologically restoring individuals and their emotions, and that “nature is a civilizing source in society” through its soothing and unwinding qualities. From these two firm beliefs, it is safe and easy to conclude that Olmsted’s view of nature was essentially of social philosophy. Central Park would provide an easy escape from the harsh, taxing, and artificial urban life, while desegregating the different classes on one level playing field.
Transcendentalism proved influential in Olmsted’s design of Central Park. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a chief Transcendentalist, explains in his essay “Nature” that “all natural objects make a kindred impression” and that “the mind is open to their influence.” We clearly see this similarity between Emerson and Olmsted: nature influences our thoughts and emotions. Furthermore, Emerson explains that while people can own property, the landscape can never be bought and belongs simply to those who look. This theme parallels one of Olmsted’s social goals to distance the North from capitalism and profit, as landscape is accessible to all and there is no profit to be made from it.
Despite Transcendentalist influence, some differences on the view of nature persist. To begin, Emerson describes nature as “a perfect exhilaration” whereas Olmsted views nature more for its soothing and unifying effect on society. This perfectly transitions to the fact that Emerson’s view of nature only extends to the individual, whereas Olmsted instead takes the idea one step further and applies nature to society and politics as a whole. Although for the most part, Transcendentalism and Olmsted share similar views on nature.
Fredrick Law Olmstead and the transcendentalist writer Ralph Waldo Emerson, both realized the importance of nature in the growing urbanization of America. They saw nature as a refuge, a place of peace from the constrictions of the everyday struggles. It is where a man could free himself from the bonds of every-day struggle and transgress back into natural unity with his surroundings.
However, there is a marked difference in how these two men approached the idea of how a man should interact with nature. With his experience in landscaping, Olmstead believed in bringing nature from the wild to the public to be enjoyed in a democratic fashion. He sought to make nature a unifying force of human experience by having it being experienced in park in the middle of New York city and thereby erase the social class distinctions In New York City. He designed his park in way did not follow the conventional rules of order and planning that was so prevalent in the New York grid system because he wanted to create the whimsical eternity of relaxation and serenity that seems to be prevalent in an undisturbed area of nature. He wanted his park to be a respite from city life and a transgression into the serenity of nature.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, unlike Olmstead, viewed nature as a place of mysticism and personal solitude that one has to enjoy for himself alone. In his writing nature, he makes several mentions of man enjoying unity with the world and serenity when he abandons his ties to society and instead gives himself to nature. He believes that there is an innate harmony between man and nature and man has to venture out into pure nature to rediscover this harmony. Unlike Olmstead, Emerson believes that man can achieve his serenity and relaxation in nature by venturing out and getting it in its authentic form the wild, not in a park in a city.