Nature has remained one of the greatest influences on art since the genesis of creative expression. Tracing the relationship between the two all the way back to ancient cave paintings’ all-encompassing use of natural elements for media, canvas, and subject, there is little dispute regarding the continual presence of nature in art. However, though the influence is undeniable, the relationship has not remained monotonous and static throughout the centuries. Simply focusing on the evolution of the relationship in the context of American history supplies and understanding of the many nuances in the style, media, focus, and intention of nature-related art and the influences these have had on modern Eco Art.

            The Hudson River School was the first prominent art movement to be strictly classified as American. It is not surprising that, once free of the need to fight for space under the umbrella of European art, American artists chose to focus first on the grandness of the natural and wild (or perhaps simply less-subdued) American landscape (Strazdes 333). Spanning from 1825 to 1875, artists of the movement such as Thomas Cole, Asher Brown Durrand, Frederic Edwin Church, and Albert Bierstadt painted and exhibited works depicting dramatic landscapes of, but not confined to, the Hudson River—other settings such as Niagara Falls, Newport Harbor, the Catskill mountains, and Mount Desert Island were quite popular as well. Having evolved after several centuries of colonizing this new world from viewing the land, as William Bradford and many pilgrims did, as savage, frightening, and something to be conquered, the Hudson River School portrayed a more Romantic view of the natural world. Nature became smooth and pristine, unaffected by human inhabitance and glorified for its immensity and grandeur. Diana Strazdes points out in her article “Wilderness and Its Waters” that although tourist lookout points and amenities were built in many of these landscapes, the artists took “care to erase the signs of tourists from their paintings, to emphasize the sites as pristine wilderness” (Strazdes 335). Though definitive conservation and preservation movements were not yet common in American society, this desire for pristine, uninfluenced nature evidenced in the Hudson River School paintings indicates an elevated value of nature and an idealized landscape in which humans remain unable to be detrimental to the scene’s grandeur.

            Broadening the scope from the narrow view of one movement, other nineteenth century artists can be referred to for their depictions nature as the primary subject. Naturalist artists such as George Caleb Bingham and George Catlin, among others, deemed the goal of their art to be to represent nature (including humans) in the most realistic way possible. In the eyes of the Naturalist, nature was sublime, and art was what stood in between the artist and nature. Since art was viewed in a sense as a barrier, the most valuable use of art became to represent nature as accurately as possible. Art would never be able to match up to physical nature, but “art as nature processed for the drawing room” (De-Definition 21) was able to, like the Hudson River School, bring viewers’ attention to the magnificence of the natural world. In the 1890s, a new movement, Symbolism, arose from Naturalism. Whereas Naturalism “depicted a mood that arose out of particular light and atmospheric effects in nature” (Mystic North 10), Symbolism became “a freer stylistic approach that would willingly transform the natural motif in a formal way to make it convey a mood, feeling, or idea that originated in the heart, soul, and mind of the artist” (Mystic North 10). With Symbolism, artists were able to deviate from the necessary Realism of Naturalism so that they might represent a more personal idea or goal for the artwork.

            Though the majority of Hudson River School, Naturalist, and Symbolist artists were painters who created their art with the intention of having it displayed in a home or a gallery, these nineteenth century movements also gave rise to “anti-art.” This anti-art was not classical art created to be framed and displayed indoors, but instead it desired to display “the reality of beauty in nature as is” (De-definition 22) without the interference of the artist’s personal rendition. This introduction to anti-art in the late eighteen hundreds paved the way for anti-art of the next century, where art was not confined to an artist’s representation of something through the use of a medium. Instead, the display of purposefully unaltered or slightly altered objects was promoted as art.

        Another example of anti-art materialized in the form of Earthworks art. By rejecting the preconceived concept that art must have the ability to be displayed, sold, and moved, Earthworks art resisted the “museum-dealer-collector system” (De-Definition 27) and allowed artists to physically engage with nature itself. This new art movement, which consisted of digging ditches, building mounds, and rearranging natural landscapes in other ways, focused primarily on the art experience and was used to inform viewers about various things (De-Definition 32). Though many Earthworks art pieces are not considered to be environmentally friendly due to their disruption of ecosystems and natural habitats, this 1960s movement is considered to promote the start of the Eco Art movement. Despite the Earthworks’ occasional detrimental influence, it depicted art as something that could directly impact an environment. Art was no longer constrained by gallery walls and picture frames—the way had been paved for a movement able to encompass a broad array of approaches and methods for dealing with the environment—approaches “from passive commentator or enquiring researcher to visionary innovator or active interventionist seeking social or political change” (Brown 7). Not only did the 1960s mark the birth of Earthworks, but the decade also witnessed the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and the reinvigorated American environmental movement that blossomed from Carson’s text. In a society where environmental consciousness is commonplace, the idea of creating art relating to the movement naturally becomes more obvious. As Eco Art progressed through the 1970s, much of the work was influenced by thoughts of artists such as Michael Asher, Marcel Broodthaers, and Daniel Buren who attempted to understand cultural institutions, their effects on the environment, all-the-while promoting the idea that every single person is an artist (Brown 12).

Steadily, sometimes slowly, gaining momentum through the years, Eco Art has seen an explosion of activity in the six years since 2009. Though evident since the mid-twentieth century, the number of artists choosing to use their artistic expression to address an environmental issue has recently skyrocketed across the world (Brown 7). ). For China’s 2015 International Garden Expo, architects Chris Precht and Dayong Sun have created a sunken pathway garden exhibit called “Where the River Runs.” This interactive exhibit focuses on the importance of water in a world where clean water is not an unlimited resource and poses the questions: "How will global warming affect the natural resources?" and "Will there be enough clean water, if the pollution and population of our planet continuous to grow as expected?” (Dezeen). In South America, Brazilian conceptual artist Rivane Neuenschwander attempts to remind viewers of the unyielding forces of nature. One of her best known works, "Rain Maps," is a series in which Neuenschwander left fourteen maps of her country outside during the rainy season, allowing them to become diluted and deformed. She then attempted to "re-map" them based upon their new forms, creating striking images but ultimately conveying the message that human boundaries, borders, and desire for order mean nothing to natural forces (Brown 92).

Eco Art is flourishing in the United States as well. Minnesota artist Miranda Brandon photographs birds that have died from the impact of flying into human-made objects such as glass, concrete, and metal. Hauntingly beautiful, these birds are arranged as they might have appeared on impact with the object, or soon thereafter. Through these images, Brandon hopes to call attention to the deadly impact that human-made structure can have on other living organisms (Brandon). Another American Eco Artist, Kate MacDowell, currently resides in North Carolina. MacDowell works with porcelain to create delicate sculptures that represent both an ideal union between nature and humanity as well as the less-than-ideal reality of that relationship. Many of her sculptures depict animals with human skeletons or fetuses inside them, other portray human body parts encompassing natural elements (MacDowell).