The Marginalian
The Marginalian

The Heart of the Andes and the Invention of Virtual Reality: Frederic Edwin Church’s Immersive 19th-century Paintings of Natural Wonders

In the spring of 1859, as On the Origin of Species was going to press, New Yorkers flooded the first studio building for artists to see The Heart of the Andes — a single painting exhibited by itself in an unknown young artist’s studio.

Alexander von Humboldt’s account of his time Latin America, which had sent Darwin on his epochal voyage, had sent Frederic Edwin Church (May 4, 1826–April 7, 1900) in Humboldt’s footsteps and returned him enraptured, transformed, restless to render the experience palpable, to transport others who would never have a chance to contact such ravishing wildness — a place of “perpetual spring,” as Humboldt had written in Cosmos, where “the depths of the earth and the vaults of heaven display all the richness of their forms and the variety of their phenomena,” where the laws of nature “stand indelibly described on the rocky walls and abrupt declivities of the Cordilleras.”

Quiet and introverted, prone to melancholy, Church had always been drawn to the wild wonders of nature, saved and set free by them. An earlier painting of Niagara Falls had prompted a London paper to declare that “art wasn’t limited to Europe” and that “it was not necessary for genius to study in any school but that of nature.” His cloudscapes surpassed even those of his Norwegian contemporary Knud Baade.

Niagara by Frederic Edwin Church, 1857. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
Twilight in the Wilderness by Frederic Edwin Church, 1860. (Available as a print and a postcard.)

But The Heart of the Andes was something else entirely.

On the immense canvas, occupying nearly the entire wall of his studio, the thirty-two-year-old artist had painted not what he had seen in the Andes but what he had felt — the “unparalleled magnificence” of this lush land, he gasped in his diary, proclaiming it “one of the great wonders of Nature.” The setting was a real place just outside Quito, but Church had infused it with elements of other Andean landscapes that had impressed themselves upon his soul during two separate trips four years apart — a composite of the enchanted imagination he spent more than a year composing.

The Heart of the Andes by Frederic Edwin Church, 1859. (Available as a print and a postcard.)

Peak by peak the mountain cascades toward the clouds until it merges with the sky as its foot melts into a waterfall. Details of exquisite aliveness punctuate the vista — a blue-blooming shrub, a pendulous bird’s nest, a resplendent quetzal perched on a branch, lichen on the bark of a broken tree, two people kneeling before a white wooden cross — all of it awash in light that only consciousness can see, impossible for a camera lens to capture.

Detail from The Heart of the Andes

Rebelling against the stale convention of gilded frames, Church had invented a new kind of frame made of walnut wood, onto which he draped curtains to give the illusion of a window opening when the painting was being revealed. Silver reflectors focused gas lights onto the canvas to emulate the sunlit atmosphere of the landscape itself. The effect, The New York Times wrote, was “simply magical” — “a new sensation in art, giving a reality of atmospheric space to the picture, and a delicacy to the tones of the coloring, which must be seen to be at all appreciated or understood.” Before the days of easy travel, before color photography, most of the visitors had never seen and would never see with their own eyes nature so wild, mountains so majestic. Here was virtual reality — an immersion in light, color, and feeling that speaks not just to the eye but to the entire system of being we call soul.

Detail from The Heart of the Andes

For three weeks, people packed into Church’s studio, sometimes more than two thousand per day, gasping each time the curtain was drawn open, shuddering with the vertigo of the sublime. On the closing day, the line for admission curled around the block, around the clock. An influential art collector who would help found the Metropolitan Museum of Art a decade later ended up purchasing the painting for $10,000 — more than anyone had ever paid for a work by an American artist.

The Heart of the Andes was also an emblem of the cruelties of chance and the mercies of chance. Just after the exhibition opened, Church received devastating news of his hero — 89 and weakened by a stroke, Alexander von Humboldt had greeted death the way he had lived life: “How glorious these sunbeams are!” were his last words, “They seem to call Earth to the Heavens!”

He could have been describing Church’s painting; he could have been describing that incandescent cosmos of connection two people enter when they fall in love — the cosmos Church what thrust into without warning when he encountered among the thousands of spectators the woman who would become the love of his life. Within a year, he had married Isabel at the picturesque Hudson Valley mansion he bought with his earnings from The Heart of the Andes.

Frederic and Isabel

At forty-four, on the insistence of Central Park creator Frederick Law Olmsted, Church became Park Commissioner of New York — the closest thing to a guardian angel of the urban wilderness. He would devote the rest of his life capturing nature’s wildness and wonder in transportive paintings of rainbows and volcanos, waterfalls and icebergs, numberless cloud studies and sunsets, moonrise and the aurora borealis, all of them rendered with that rare combination of passion and precision that makes anything — a painting, a poem, a person — great.

Cotopaxi by Frederic Edwin Church, 1862. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
Iceberg and Ice Flower by Frederic Edwin Church, 1859. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
El Rio de Luz (The River of Light) by Frederic Edwin Church, 1877. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
Cotopaxi by Frederic Edwin Church, 1867. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
Moonlight at Church’s Farm by Frederic Edwin Church, 1860s. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
Nightfall Near Olana by Frederic Edwin Church, 1872. (Available as a print and a postcard.)

And much of it he shared with Isabel, who sat with him sunset after sunset over the Hudson Valley, pressed ferns into an herbarium alongside him while he painted in Jamaica — a living reminder that there is no greater form of love than looking together in the direction of wonder.

Aurora Borealis by Frederic Edwin Church, 1865. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
Rainy Season in the Tropics by Frederic Edwin Church. (Available as a print and a postcard.)
BP

The Coziest Place on the Moon: An Illustrated Fable about How to Live with Loneliness and What It Means to Love, Inspired by a Real NASA Discovery

The Coziest Place on the Moon: An Illustrated Fable about How to Live with Loneliness and What It Means to Love, Inspired by a Real NASA Discovery

On July 26, 2022, as I was living through a period of acute loneliness despite being a naturally solitary person, NASA reported that computer modeling of data from its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) had revealed several cylindrical pits on the Moon with just the right shape to be shaded just the right amount to offer shelter from the extremes of the lunar surface. Because the Moon has no atmosphere to act as its thermostat, its temperature fluctuates dramatically as it faces and turns away from the Sun, rising to 260°F (about 127°C) in the daytime and plummeting to -280°F (about -173°C) at night. But these unique nooks, which are most likely collapsed lava tubes, are a cozy 63°F (17°C) inside — he feeling-tone of a crisp autumn day in Brooklyn, where I live. Images from the LRO suggested that these pits might unfold into caves that would make perfect sites for lunar exploration — campsites with a stable temperature, more protected from cosmic rays, solar radiation, and micrometeorites.

There is something poetic in knowing that we evolved in caves and might one day inhabit caves on another celestial body, having invented the means to get there with the imagination that bloomed over millions of years in the lonely bone cave of the mind.

There is also something poetic in knowing that as we fantasize about leaving for the Moon, the Moon is leaving us.

The prolific English astronomer Edmund Halley first began suspecting this disquieting fact in the early 18th century after analyzing ancient eclipse records. Nobody believed him — the Moon looked so steady, so unlosable. It took a quarter millennium for his theory to be vindicated: When Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the lunar surface and when laser beams were beamed a them from Earth, it was revealed that the Moon is indeed drifting away from us, at the precise rate of 3.8 centimeters per year — more than half the rate at which a child grows.

The Moon is leaving us because of the gravitational conversation between it and the Earth: the ocean tides. The drag they cause slows down the planet’s spin rate. Because gravity binds the Moon and the Earth, as the Earth loses angular momentum, the Moon overcompensates in response; as it speeds up, it begins slipping out of our gravitational grip, slowly moving away from us.

We know this thanks to Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity — the revelation that space is not flat, time is not absolute, and spacetime is a single fabric along the curvature of which everything, including light, moves.

I thought of Einstein, who at sixteen, lonely and introverted, began wondering about the nature of the universe by imagining himself chasing a beam of light through outer space; I thought of the poet Rainer Maria Rilke, also lonely and also dedicated to the light, who at the same time was formulating his general theory of love as “two solitudes that protect, border, and greet each other.” And I thought about how love is simply the solitary light between people, neither partitioned nor merged but shared, to light up the sliver of spacetime we have each been allotted before returning our borrowed stardust to the universe.

Somehow it all felt like a children’s book that didn’t yet exist. So I wrote it, having always believed that every good children’s book is a work of philosophy in disguise, a field guide to the mystery we are a part of and the mystery we are — in the language of children, which is the language of curiosity and unselfconscious sincerity, such books speak the most timeless truths to the truest parts of us by asking the simplest, deepest questions to help us understanding the world and understanding ourselves so that we may be more fully alive.

By one of those wrinkles in time and chance that we call luck, shortly after I sent the manuscript to my friend Claudia at Enchanted Lion Books, I received a lovely note from a stranger named Sarah Jacoby in response to my essay about Margaret Wise Brown’s complicated love with Michael Strange. Sarah told me that she too had fallen under the spell of their singular love while illustrating a picture-book biography of Margaret. I ordered it and, enchanted by Sarah’s soulful watercolors and tender creatures, spontaneously invited her to illustrate my lunar story of loneliness and love on nothing more than an instinct of creative kinship. She must have felt it too because, felicitously, she said “yes.”

And so The Coziest Place on the Moon (public library) was born.

This is how it begins:

It was on a Tuesday in July that Re woke up feeling like the loneliest creature on Earth and decided to go live in the coziest place on the Moon.

At exactly 7:26 — a pretty number, a pretty hour — Re mounted a beam of light and sailed into space.

It took exactly 1.255 seconds, because light travels at the speed of dreams, to land exactly where Re wanted to land.

Across Sarah’s enchanted spacescapes, Re has a surprising encounter that takes the story to where it always wanted to go — a reckoning with how to bear our loneliness and what it really means to love.

BP

Arundhati Roy on the Deepest Measure of Success

Arundhati Roy on the Deepest Measure of Success

Evolution invented REM sleep, that ministry of dreams, to give us a safe way of practicing the possible into the real. The dreams of the night clarify our lives. The dreams of the day complicate them, charge them with the battery of fear and desire, quiver them with the urgency of our mortality and the fervor of our lust for life. To dream is to dare traversing the roiling ocean between what is and what could be on a ramshackle raft of determination and luck. The price we pay for dreaming is the possibility of drowning; the price we pay for not dreaming is the surety of coasting through life in a stupor of autopilot, landlocked in the givens of our time, place, and culture. The dreamer, then, is the only one fully awake to life — that bright technology of the possible the universe invented to prevail over the probable amid the cold austerity of eternal night.

But what may be even harder than getting what you dream of is knowing what to dream of, annealing your imagination and your desires enough to trust that your dreams are your own — not the second-hand dreams of your parents, not your heroes’ costumes of achievement, not your culture’s templates of success. “No one can acquire for another — not one,” Walt Whitman reckoned with how to own your life, “not one can grow for another — not one,” while two hundred miles north Thoreau was reckoning with the nature of success, concluding: If the day and the night are such that you greet them with joy, and life emits a fragrance like flowers and sweet-scented herbs, is more elastic, more starry, more immortal — that is your success.”

They are nothing less than patron saints of the human spirit, those who protect our dreams from the false gods of success.

Arundhati Roy

Arundhati Roy is one such modern patron saint. Half a lifetime before taking up the complicated question of success in her exquisite memoir Mother Mary Comes to Me (public library) — what success means and looks like in the deepest sense, how its shallow metrics can turn a person into “a cold silver figurine with a cold silver heart,” why “making friends with defeat” is “the very opposite of accepting it” and so-called failure might actually be worth striving for — Roy captured the crux of our confusion about the real metrics of our lives a passage from her 1999 book The Cost of Living (public library).

Recounting a conversation with an old friend in the wake of the disorienting success of her novel The God of Small Things, Roy finds herself suffocated by the intimation that “the trajectory of a person’s happiness… had peaked because she had accidentally stumbled upon ‘success'” — a notion “premised on the unimaginative belief that wealth and fame were the mandatory stuff of everybody’s dreams.” She tells her friend:

You’ve lived too long in New York… There are other worlds. Other kinds of dreams. Dreams in which failure is feasible. Honorable. Sometimes even worth striving for. Worlds in which recognition is not the only barometer of brilliance or human worth.

The people who are less successful “in the most vulgar sense of the word,” she observes, are often more fulfilled — like her beloved uncle, who had become one of India’s first Rhodes scholars for his work in Greek and Roman mythology but had chosen to give up his academic career in order to start a pickle, jam, and curry-powder factory with his mother and build balsawood model airplanes in his basement.

Card from An Almanac of Birds: 100 Divinations for Uncertain Days

When Roy’s friend meets her point with raised eyebrows awning a look of slight annoyance, she takes a moment to distill her thoughts, then writes them on a paper napkin for her friend to hold on to, formulating with that rare and exultant combination of passion and rigor what success really means:

To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never to forget.

Couple with Henry Miller on the measure of a life well lived, then revisit John Quincy Adams on impostor syndrome and the true measure of success.

BP

Virginia Woolf on Love

“I think we moderns lack love,” Virginia Woolf (January 25, 1882–March 28, 1941) diagnosed us in the first year of our deadliest war.

The paradox is that when we lack something long enough, we forget what it looks like, what it means, how to recognize it when it comes along. And so we love without knowing how to love, wounding ourselves and each other.

Over and over, in her novels and her essays, in her letters and her journals, Woolf tried to locate love, to anneal it, to define it in order to reinstate it at the center of life.

Virginia Woolf

“To love makes one solitary,” she wrote in Mrs. Dalloway a generation before Sylvia Plath contemplated the loneliness of love — because “nothing is so strange when one is in love… as the complete indifference of other people.”

Two years later, she set out to “throw light upon the question of love” in To the Lighthouse, to illuminate its “thousand shapes.”

Nothing, she wrote, could be “more serious… more commanding, more impressive, bearing in its bosom the seeds of death.”

Against “the heat of love, its horror, its cruelty, its scrupulosity,” she pitted the kind of love “that never attempted to clutch its object but, like the love that mathematicians bear their symbols or poets their phrases, was meant to be spread over the world and become part of the human gain.” She found it “helpful” and “exalting” to know that people could love like that.

At its best, at its truest, the experience of falling in love partakes of that exaltation, that transcendent participancy in the order of things. She captures the phase transition as her characters flood with “being in love”:

They became part of that unreal but penetrating and exciting universe which is the world seen through the eyes of love. The sky stuck to them; the birds sang through them. And what was even more exciting [was] how life, from being made up of little separate incidents which one lived one by one, became curled and whole like a wave which bore one up with it and threw one down with it, there, with a dash on the beach.

Above all, perhaps, love is a function of time and chance, time and choice — an equivalence that Woolf conjures up on the pages of Orlando, drawing on her relationship with Vita Sackville-West to compose what Vita’s son would later call “the longest and most charming love letter in literature, in which [Virginia] explores Vita, weaves her in and out of the centuries, tosses her from one sex to the other, plays with her, dresses her in furs, lace and emeralds, teases her, flirts with her, drops a veil of mist around her.” Here, to love someone is to choose them again and again day after day, century after century, as they change and morph and fluctuate across the spectrum of being, to continue to see and cherish the kernel of the person beneath the costume of personality, the soul beneath the self. In this sense, love is a revelation of the essence — “something central,” she wrote in Mrs. Dalloway, that permeates the fabric of a person, “something warm” that breaks up the surface and ripples the “cold contact” between people:

It was a sudden revelation, a tinge like a blush which one tried to check and then, as it spread, one yielded to its expansion, and rushed to the farthest verge and there quivered and felt the world come closer, swollen with some astonishing significance, some pressure of rapture, which split its thin skin and gushed and poured with an extraordinary alleviation… an illumination; a match burning in a crocus; an inner meaning almost expressed.

The great tragedy of human life is that we ask of love everything and gives us an almost; the great triumph is that we know this, know the price of the illumination, and we choose to love anyway.

Card from An Almanac of Birds: 100 Divinations for Uncertain Days
BP

View Full Site

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy. (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)