UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO the US Imagination of Maya
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO The U.S. Imagination of Maya Ruins: Critical Reflections on Art and Architecture, 1839-1972 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Art History, Theory, and Criticism by Elizabeth Deen Miller Committee in charge: Professor Mariana Wardwell, Chair Professor William Norman Bryson, Co-Chair Professor Grant Kester Professor Elizabeth A. Newsome Professor William Arctander O’Brien 2018 Copyright Elizabeth Deen Miller, 2018 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Elizabeth Deen Miller is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Co-chair _____________________________________________________________ Chair University of California San Diego 2018 iii DEDICATION I dedicate my trek down the rabbit hole to my Uncle Stanley and my writing to the Flaming Creatures. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page…………………………………………………………………………………………...iii Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………………iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………..…………...…….….....v Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..……..vi Vita……………………………………………………………………………………………………..….vii Abstract of the Dissertation.…………………………………………………….………...…….……..viii INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..……………………….…………….1 CHAPTER 1. Ruins Naturalized: Frederick Catherwood’s Architectural Landscapes..……...….15 CHAPTER 2. Indigenous Modernism: Frank Lloyd Wright and Mayan Revivalism…………..….61 CHAPTER 3. Confronting the Ruinscape: Robert Smithson’s Mexico Projects………..………112 CONCLUSION. Ruins Reckoned……………………………………………...……………...……..165 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………….…181 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first and foremost acknowledge the unwavering support and guidance of my mentor and the chair of my committee, Professor Mariana Wardwell, who has encouraged my work more than any other individual I have encountered thus far in my lifetime of education. I would also like to thank my co-chair, Professor William Norman Bryson. Meetings with Professor Bryson have provided me with the consistent feedback and intellectual inspiration to complete my academic work here at UC San Diego. I would also like to extend thanks to the other members of my committee—Grant Kester, Elizabeth Newsome, and William Arctander O’Brien—for sharing their expertise and offering direction when and where I needed it. My dissertation would not have been possible without financial support from: the UC MEXUS Dissertation Research Grant, the UC Institute of Arts and Humanities Summer Fellowship, the UC San Diego Department of Visual Arts Russell Foundation Grant, the UC Humanities Research Institute (UCHRI) Studies Consortium Award, the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Study Award, the UC San Diego Friends of the International Center Ruth Newmark Scholarship, the UC San Diego Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies (CILAS) Travel Grant, and one quarter each of research and writing support from my home department—the UC San Diego Department of Visual Arts Dissertation Completion Fellowship and Field Research Fellowship. Additionally, the opportunities to present my work over the years at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Georgia Museum of Art have provided helpful feedback during the drafting process. I am indebted to my colleague and friend, Sascha Crasnow, for her constructive feedback along the way, as well as the other members of my cohort, Tim Ridlen, Kristen Gallerneaux Brooks, and Samara Kaplan, without whom I may not be here. Finally, I want to thank my parents, who have provided emotional (and, on occasion, much needed financial) support throughout the process of the advanced degree. vi VITA 2008 Bachelor of Arts, Art History, Arizona State University, Tempe 2008 Bachelor of Arts, Global Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe 2010 Master of Arts, Art and Museum Studies, Georgetown University, Washington D.C. 2018 Doctor of Philosophy, Art History, Theory and Criticism, University of California, San Diego vii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The U.S. Imagination of Maya Ruins: Critical Reflections on Art and Architecture, 1839-1972 by Elizabeth Deen Miller Doctor of Philosophy in Art History, Theory, and Criticism University of California San Diego, 2018 Professor Mariana Wardwell, Chair Professor William Norman Bryson, Co-Chair Divided into three episodes between the 1830s and 1970s, the dissertation explores the U.S. imagination of Maya ruins vis-à-vis the works of three salient figures in American cultural history. The first point of interest is the nineteenth-century expeditionary tradition and the politics of ruin gazing in southeastern Mexico, concentrating on the illustrated texts of the citizen- diplomat and travel writer, John Lloyd Stephens, and his counterpart, the English architect and draftsman, Frederick Catherwood. Stephens and Catherwood were the first to thoroughly document Maya ruins for a U.S. audience with the two-volume Incidents of Travel in Central viii America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (1841), Incidents of Travel in Yucatan (1843), and Catherwood’s self-published folio of lithographs, Views of Ancient Monuments in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (1844). Mayan Revival (also known as “Neo-Mayan”) architecture is the second subject, focusing on Frank Lloyd Wright’s use of ancient American aesthetics in the 1910s and 1920s to create an “indigenous” modern American architecture in examples like the Ennis House (1923-1924). The third and final subject centers on the long sixties and the configurations of ruination (and ruin gazing), landscape, and the indigene in selected projects and writings of the celebrity of American land art, Robert Smithson. I address examples like “Incidents of Mirror-Travel in the Yucatan,” a 1969 photographic travel essay, and Smithson’s comedic slide lecture, Hotel Palenque (1969-1972). The recuperations of Maya architecture in U.S. contexts provide insight into the ways the imperial behaviors of the nineteenth-century United States can be traced through the aesthetics of modernity that emerged in the early to mid-twentieth century. The import of indigenous aesthetics and subject matter on Anglo-American aesthetic traditions—whether in Catherwood’s illustrations of the continent’s ruins, Wright’s Mesoamerican revival architecture, or the putatively radical de- sublimation at work amongst the American neo-avant-gardists like Smithson—sheds light on the unusual and occasionally overlooked relationship between ruination, U.S. art and architectural modernism, and the hierarchies that in many ways define the American landscape. ix INTRODUCTION The word “history” stands written on the countenance of nature in the characters of transience. The allegorical physiognomy of the nature-history . is present in reality in the form of the ruin. In the ruin history has physically merged into the setting. And in this guise history does not assume the form of the process of an eternal life so much as that of irresistible decay . Allegories are, in the realm of thoughts, what ruins are in the realm of things. - Walter Benjamin, The Origin of German Tragic Drama, 1925 Landscape is neither inert nor neutral. Rather, it is subject to various cultural and social processes, a reminder of the etymological ties between the morpheme, “-scape,” and the Old English sceppan or skyppan, meaning “to shape.”1 In Critical Landscapes: Art, Space, Politics, Emily Eliza Scott and Kirsten Swenson observe that landscapes taken as the property of “nature” often “sanitize, obscure, and/or naturalize spatial conflicts.”2 Architectural landscapes are no exception to this; for example, the depiction of ruins in the history of art—a “ruinscape,” if you will—has strong ties to conceptions of the natural world. And, as Raymond Williams reminds us in Keywords, “nature,” “native,” and “nation” are all words derived from the Latin natus, “to be born.”3 It may then come as no surprise that nascence and rebirth, life and death are also tangled in the constellation of landscape, nature, and the architectural ruin. Perched in a liminal state between permanence and decay, ruins communicate the desires and power struggles in man’s relation to both the natural world and fellow man. Ruins, however, are entities that occur long before they appear; that is, they—bosom friends of landscape—are the province of the gaze. The “ruin gaze”4—a process, according to Gustavo Verdesio, through which ruins come to be seen as objects of study—remakes architecture-as-image. As such, ruins are actively evoked and shaped by their spectators. Symptomatic of hegemonic structures, ruin images are continuously renegotiated—caught in a distant past as frozen, nostalgicized remnants of “archaic”5 civilizations or repositioned (as needed) as harbingers of epochal change tied to conflict and war, industry and modernization. 1 Historically, architectural ruins supplied affirmation of the processual nature of the human event.6 By the nineteenth century, ruins became malleable to the purposes of the nation- state—built into the majestic territory of national memory or, conversely, rendered obsolescent as ideological obstructions to “progress” and/or expansion.7 Their performance as and rehabilitation through ruinscapes—those