| OCR Text |
Show 79 patron Maximilian, had hoped to establish a name for himself through his American work. Critics and the public who reviewed his American paintings, however, were at best patronizing, mildly interested, or polite; at worst, they dismissed his work outright. More indirectly, the documentary inaccuracies observed in the aquatints may be linked to the format in which Maximilian had chosen to publish his work. Although Maximilian had followed the accepted method for publication of his account, the travelbook format guaranteed that Bodmer would have to produce more than strictly documents, since the travelbook was intended for a broad audience and his aquatints necessarily would be expected to meet the conventions established for book illustration. These conventions, designed to satisfy the romantic expectations of the reading public at whom the travelbook was aimed, imposed a set of conflicting demands upon Bodmer. Since Maximilian had also chosen to publish his work as an elaborate, costly, and time-consuming deluxe edition, the pressures on Bodmer were compounded. However, it is in the much broader issue of nineteenth-century romanticism-with its influence on both art and science--and in the problems connected with the interpretive function of art that the fullest understanding of the documentary inaccuracies of the aquatints can be found. Bodmer's personal frustration, the format chosen for publication of Travels, and the influence of the nineteenth-century romantic movement on the production of Maximilian's travelbook, are interconnected issues that can best be illustrated through an examination of the landscapes Bodmer painted during the expedition and of the aquatints reproduced from these paintings after he and |
