Category: 19th Century

Édouard Manet is known and celebrated today for being pioneer of the Impressionist movement in 19th Century France. He was born in Paris in 1832 and grew up in an affluent family with ties in politics. He was expected to pursue a career in law, but instead decided to explore the world of art. After years of training with Thomas Couture in Paris, he began his art career. Through his years of work, he produced many famous and well-known pieces of art, such as Olympia in 1863, and Le Dejeuner sur l’herbe in 1863. ‘Le Balcon’ is another one of Manet’s most celebrated paintings. Painted in 1868, it was first presented to the public at the Paris Salon in 1869. In my essay, I will analyse the form of the painting, and examine what Manet possibly hoped to represent through this piece.

While analysing a painting, the viewer must consider what category it could belong to. In the 19th Century the subject matter of art was very important, as it denoted the importance and in turn, the value of the piece. “The Academy deemed that only “history painting” was great painting. These young Realists and Impressionists opened the door to dismantling this hierarchy of subject matter.” (Gersh-Nesic, n.d.) Le Balcon could be labelled a genre painting, in which it depicts contemporary life in France at the time. Impressionist paintings were revolutionary for this reason, as they showed us scenes of modern life in Paris at the time, painting ordinary life rather than royal portraits or historical scenes. There are many aspects of this painting which allude to the modern life; the clothing of the ladies, the balcony scene of modern Paris, and the casual nature in which the people are displayed. In 1869, Paris was a new city – redesigned by Baron Haussmann. The namesake of the piece, ‘the Balcony’ is a characteristic of Haussmann’s classic design. The persons in the painting are likely looking out onto a brand-new city, with sparkling limestone walls, gas lamps lining the streets, a bustling centre to France. Though this is only implied: the painting takes the form of a closed composition – the viewer feels as though they are outside the scene looking into the balcony. Behind the balcony sit three of Manet’s acquaintances – the artist Berthe Morisot, another artist Antoine Guillemet, and violinist Fanny Claus. This group of people are clearly belonging to the upper class, dressed in fashionable, current clothing. The women are wearing white, sheer dresses, with tasteful accessories such as Claus’ gloves and parasol, and Morisot’s ribbon choker necklace. There is a sense of leisure in the painting: the people in the piece seem to be relaxing and observing their surroundings.

In fact, each person is looking in a different direction: Morisot looks broodingly to the left of the piece, Guillemet looks upwards into the distance, and Claus seems to gaze past the viewer. In this way, these people are disconnected from each other, as they do not interact, but simply exist in the frame of the balcony together, as if they were still-life objects. Therefore, while there is clearly a message here, it is not immediately obvious as to what the message is. This frustrated the critics of the time, who could not see the importance of a painting which didn’t seem to tell a story. Paintings and portraiture of the high class were not unusual, but they usually had meaning behind them. Today, the meaning is easier to understand, as we are not limited by hierarchies of art. In ‘The Balcony’, the balcony in question depicts a sort of barrier between interior and exterior. The disconnect between the people, and the outside world, and furthermore, the disconnect between artist and critic. While the painting received negative reception at the time, contemporary art such as this, and others by Manet developed the first paintings of Modernism.

The use of colour in The Balcony is also important in analysis. The Balcony scene itself is a clear reference to Francisco Goya, and his piece ‘Majas on the Balcony’. Both paintings depict balcony scenes, each with four figures. However, the use of colour contrasts in these paintings separates them and distinguishes Manet’s Balcony as an impressionist piece. While Goya’s Balcony uses muted colours that work harmoniously, Manet uses a striking contrast in colours. The bold, vibrant green of the railing and shutters catches the eye of the viewer immediately, alongside the bright white dresses of the ladies. This white colour is visually striking against the dark, shadowy colours used for the interior. Manet employs the use of accent colours, such as the bold blue of Guillemet’s tie, Claus’ yellow gloves, and Morisot’s red fan. Visually, this was a shocking piece to critics, and even viewers today. Impressionist art such as this plays with colour – instead of using harmonious, visually pleasing colour combinations, contrasting colours are used to catch the eye of the viewer. Contemporary critics deemed the piece unaesthetically pleasing, and when unveiled to the Paris Salon in 1869, famous caricaturist Cham (Amédée de Noé) sarcastically exclaimed ‘Close the shutters!’**

Furthermore, Manet’s use of colour seems to draw attention away from what was deemed at the time the most important aspect of the painting – the human figures. The viewers attention is drawn to the smaller detailed objects, such as the delicate blue hydrangea in the left of the piece, and the small dog at Morisot’s feet. In fact, it seems as though Manet has put more detail into this flower than he has the faces of Guillemet or Claus. Additionally, the interior of the building beyond the shutters is obscured. Here, there is a fourth figure, suggested to be Manet’s son, Léon. The rest of the interior however lacks detail or is possibly considered ‘unfinished’. This once again would have frustrated art critics – to intentionally leave an area of a painting obscured or undetailed could have been seen as disrespectful to the viewers. This was a commonly used technique in impressionism and is employed here in order to bring focus to the balcony scene in the foreground. However, this was not appreciated at the time. German critic Albert Wolff was particularly harsh in his review, describing it as ‘coarse art’ ‘at the level of house painters.’** This odd stylistic choice seems to have once again been intentional, in an attempt to fight the standards set in place by critics and the Academy.

Throughout the years of his art career, Manet never seemed to please the critics of the time. While other impressionist artists chose to set up independent expeditions, Manet continued to submit his artworks to the French Salon.

The particular themes analyzed in this reporting helped to introduce some interesting concepts into this work. In seeking to harbor a deeper understanding of the connection within the framework of contemporary artists working in Leipzig as well as between a larger framework of art history in general, we feel that the visual results of our analysis provide ample evidence for strong interconnection across both time and space. This kind of interconnection of themes was seen as a way to connect the works of many classical artists to the work of new artists. The concepts discussed are not necessarily in conflict with the theme of the time-gap between the Old Masters and contemporary art itself.

Notably, the thematic elements and overall aesthetic design in the work of A. Beau were found to be manifest across multiple data points historically and presently. Beau’s work also shows that visual elements can be seen as an extension of more important or arguably more original themes that, we predict, will continue to mature and appear in other works of art throughout the twenty-first century. Beau’s work, along with his contemporaries, seem to consider the concept of a world between worlds, but without knowledge of the best textual language to express it. That is the task we have chosen to undertake through the reporting of these results. In electing to use the term Beauism, we hope to signify seemingly evident parallels that emerge when observing the works of past and contemporary artists, and perhaps even shed light onto a new consciousness emerging in the ever-developing artist community.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, we would expect that the creation of an art that is considered to be art by other artists would involve something that was new. This would be because it would not have been invented in the past. The creation of art would have appeared so radically different that everyone would have recognized it as such.

The data suggest that Beauism has been a latent aspect that has been crucially relevant to many aspects of the historical development of artistic expression and aesthetic innovation. Understood in this manner, one could, in agreement with the result, suggest a form of proto-Beauism throughout art history. There is an interesting comparison with contemporary art, for it involves a complex network of relationships between people (or communities) that includes art in its development. This is not all: there can also be an art history in which art develops only through individual expression. We offer a new, rigorously scientific manner of understanding the historical advancement of artistic creation. Understood from an evolutionary perspective, one must begin to comprehend the reverse hierarchy clearly presented throughout this report. Rather than maintaining a conventional, perhaps expired understanding of art history, the concept of proto-Beauism, in sum, is that the thematic aesthetics utilized by Beau and other contemporary Beauists signifies the culmination of an otherwise undiscovered reverse-lineage of artistic thought throughout history. It is this opposite approach to understanding Beau that renders the work of contemporary Beauists highly interesting and innovative. Beau-style aesthetics have the potential to expand, to redefine, and to transform, classical Western painting in myriad ways. Beauism should be studied with particular scrutiny of his own, and the work of contemporary Beauists is worth exploring to understand Beau’s own perspective.

This is art, as such, which is developed through the activities of individual artists. Here we are dealing with an art history of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. One point on which we can draw the connection between the emergence of an artistic expression as being associated with art can be found in the empirical emergence of this art-as-data, and thus the emergence of a sort of artistic consciousness. This occurs as the expression of a particular aesthetic sentiment, and has the potential to reshape the ways in which art has been classified, thus understood. In this case, this can be seen on two very narrow levels: first, as an activity that is characterized by an aesthetic interest, and second, in the way in which it engages the imagination. In both instances, what we need to understand is that art is a creative process — a process that creates and reproduces an impression, one that has been created by a particular form of thought — in this case an artistic expression. The idea of art as art takes us to another level which deserves further research and critical inquiry in order to expand upon later in the work of art classification: that of the emergence of an aesthetic, or a creative, attitude rather than a mechanical action as such.

Zoos are a popular attraction amongst children and adults. It has been suggested that animals have been kept in captivity for thousands of years, with the first zoo being established in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However there is split opinion on having zoos within local communities. Some of the positives are it’s a place of education, conservation, rescue and breeding programmes. The negatives are animals may suffer physically and mentally, the environment doesn’t meet their natural habitat.

Zoos biggest role is to educate the public on animals, the various species, the wildlife and what they do to protect them, as getting zoos together with the public and animals gives them the possibility to educate the public according to learnenglishteens. Furthermore this leads to zoos having conservation and breeding programmes to help protect the endangered species. By having breeding programmes good zoos can release the species back into the wild which can reduce the cross over of genetics and prevent the extinction of those particular species.

It could be argued that some zoos and animal sanctuaries rescue animals from laboratories, illegal pet trades or as circus animals. For instant Monkey World (2019) in Dorset rescue chimpanzees from various countries where they have been abused in laboratories for animal testing or they have been used as exotic pets in family homes or as a photographer’s prop in European holiday destinations. These zoos go on to help rehabilitate these animals by reintroducing them to similar or the same species allowing them to live out the rest of their years in large enclosures, being fed the correct diet and being cared for in a compassionate way. Good zoos have hospitals and vets on site to help with the rehabilitation and intervention if it’s required.

On the other hand there are groups of people who see zoos as animal prisons and feel animals suffer physically and metally, by not having enough room in their enclosure, which leads to animals appearing bored and depressed, with some animals showing unhealthy behaviours such as repetitive behaviours for example rocking back and forth, pacing or self mutilation according to peta.org Priya S ( 2018). Consequently this can be seen as unethical to animals as their behaviour in zoos does not match their natural habitats like those in the wild, which could lead to performing unnaturally, such as dolphins or seals being trained to perform tricks. According to peta.orgPriya S (2018) in 2010 an elephant at Woburn safari park was shocked using high voltage electric shocks to obey the keepers commands. One tour operator, Responsible Travel made the decision in 2017 to axe all trips that included zoo visits, the reason being as they are uncertain how much value for education the public receive when visiting zoos, how much is invested into conservation and how many animals are actually endangered being cared for in zoos.

It has been suggested that some may find zoos conservation programmes claims extremely sceptical, the charity Born Free are asking the Government to look at the Zoo Licensing Act (1981) which is 40 years old and amend zoos conservation programmes to a more measurable criteria implementing zoos to be accountable for conservation programmes and the running of zoos according to labnews (2021). As it has been suggested only 10% of zoo animals are actually endangered according to Responsible Travel (2021).

Mental illness affects a big portion of the US population. The National Alliance on Mental Illness claimed that roughly one in five American citizens experience mental illness at some point during their lives, which is almost 20 percent of the total population (NAMI, 1). With such data available, it is no surprise that the approach toward mental health has changed recently as it is estimated that almost 90 percent of Americans value physical and mental health equally (Ansari, 1). However, this has not always been the case as mentally ill individuals in the 19th century, for instance, were treated poorly. A short story ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman shows the way doctors viewed patients with mental problems at the time. The narrator, who suffers depression after she gave birth to a child was prescribed to just rest and stay in the house, which led to the further deterioration of her condition. The culture of that time was the main reason why society wanted to isolate itself from people with psychological disorders, who were put in asylums.

For most of history, mentally ill people have been treated extremely bad since society commonly believed that mental disorders were caused by witchcraft or demonic possession. In the early 19th century, there was almost no care for the mentally ill individuals as they were usually sent to almshouses, prisons, or stayed under the supervision of their families (Holzman, 24). That harsh attitude towards people with mental illnesses was heavily influenced by the perception of those individuals in the culture of the period. The madness was still seen as an organic physical phenomenon, while the mentally ill were typically perceived as wild animals. With the emergence of the Industrial Age and the rapid growth of big cities, most of the people feared individuals with mental disorders who were considered as a significant threat to society (Holzman, 24). In those days it was expected that people who had behavioral disorders or delay in cognitive development should be taken care of by their families (Gilman, 2). The most severe cases were often shut up in a room to protect the other members of the family and if the individual was too dangerous, he or she might even live chained in a shed (Gilman, 5). And if the family eventually could not care for the ill person he or she could be confined to an insane asylum. So, in the 19th century, the attitude towards mentally ill individuals was extremely disrespectful as society does not want to have any connection with them.

Asylums were the predecessors of modern hospitals that often looked more like prisons than medical centers. It became the early facilities made to shelter people who suffer from psychological problems. However, the primary objective of such places was rather to outlaw them from society than treat their disorders (Reiss, 26). These institutions have seen an ineffective and cruel therapy of those who were hospitalized as psychiatrists at the time when spoke of mental illnesses often stated that this expression was a figure of speech or metaphor, which means that they do not even bother themselves about finding ways to properly cure patients (Pies, 1). Most of the asylums built in the US were located in rural settings, far away from city life to protect society from those who were mentally ill (Smith, 1). Therefore, society at the time does not even consider the possibility of treating mentally ill individuals as it just wanted to get rid of them.

The situation started to change thanks to a couple of brave activists. Journalist Nellie Bly who spent ten days in the asylum was struck by the unsanitary, unscientific, and inhumane conditions in which the patients were held. She then wrote that most of the day the patients were in a bound state, they were fed with spoiled beef and stale bread (Reiss, 26, 40). Furthermore, patients did not receive any treatment other than punches. Her materials, along with the enthusiasm of the activist Dorothea Dix, led to the fact that authorities began to allocate significantly more funds for psychiatry. Consequently, hospitals and asylums began to be inspected regularly, and treatment methods began to change rapidly. Women initiated the transition from medieval medicine to the modern one, and patients began to feel all the consequences of their struggle in the 20th century.

The state of diagnosis and treatment of individuals with mental illness was extremely harsh and poor in the 19th century. It was mainly caused by the perception of such individuals who were considered not sick but possessed by a devil. As a result, society was not only uninterested in curing mentally ill people but it wanted to isolate them from healthy citizens. Taking into account the lack of attention and consequently, poor financial support from the government individuals who were kept in asylums were suffering horrific conditions of the place.

Plants, trees, forests, soil, animals. These are some common words that people hear when the environment is mentioned. The existence of these trees, plants, and animals adds to biodiversity and serves many important roles such as attracting visitors, generating revenue, and contributing to slow climate change. Over the years, many trees are felled and forest areas are disappearing at a fast rate. According to Earth Day Network, deforestation has been reported to be the second cause of global warming and it produces about a quarter of the global greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions (“Deforestation and Climate Change”, n.d.). In view of this, countries have been putting efforts into conserving the environment and forests. This essay will talk about environmental conservation both in the nineteenth century and the past, and how the discourse differs.

There are, undeniably, similarities between the nineteenth-century conservation discourse and how people thought of the environment and that of today. In the nineteenth century and today, people perceive that forests act as an important economic role for some countries. In the past, many people depended on hunting and selling products for a living. Forests provided great sources of raw materials such as fuelwood for cooking and timber which were sold to make furniture or construct houses etc., generating revenue and income, especially for people living in rural areas. An example would be India where a large number of trees in the forests were chopped off to meet the demand for timber and raw materials needed to build the railways during the Madras Presidency in the nineteenth century (Saravanan, 2008). In Singapore, the rate of deforestation was shocking as around 90% of forests had been destroyed by 1900 (Yee, Corlett, Liew & Tan, 2011). This indicates the enormous number of trees that have been chopped down to fulfill various economic purposes. Similarly, in the United States as well, it was estimated that 20-25% of annual timber was used in building railways (Pisani, 1985). Furthermore, the author mentioned that expenses were much lower compared to the revenue, implying that forests were used to generate revenue which threatened sustainability as it affected the forest area. Scholars who have looked into India’s environmental history found that the conservation of forests was not a priority as officials actually supported deforestation so that there would be enough timber supply to meet the demand (Saravanan, 2008). All this suggests that some countries viewed deforestation as an opportunity for economic gain instead of conserving the forests. Likewise, people still see forests as a useful economic resource today. Many countries including the United States and other industrial countries still consume large amounts of timber which makes it inevitable to chop down trees to meet the demand. The conservation efforts of some countries are also geared towards the sustainable growth of forests so as to ensure a constant supply of resources. As the world grows, there will also be an increase in the trade of forest products for the production of other wood-based items. Furthermore, forest areas serve as potential tourist attractions and draw visitors from different countries to visit. Such examples of forest areas that act as tourist sites include the Black Forest and Amazon Forest (although it is faced with deforestation now). This can boost tourism receipts and improve the country’s Gross Domestic Product, stimulating economic growth in the country if forests are well managed and preserved. As such, the conservation discourse in the nineteenth century and today are similar in terms of the perception that there are economic advantages that can be reaped from forests.

Another similarity is that the forests and trees have been used to meet the changing demands of the population. In the past, countries with high populations depending on agriculture would destroy forests to make space for the cultivation of plants and crops as a means of earning a living. For example, in Singapore, large areas were cleared to plant crops such as gambier, pepper, and rubber. However, these profitable crops caused the land to be infertile which caused further deforestation since farmers need new space to grow the crop after the plants die (Kim, 2018). It has been estimated that less than 10% of the forests remained which resulted in the loss of many varieties of animals and plantations (Chunneng & Lay, 1970). However, as a country continues to attract more immigrants or the population increases, naturally, the demand for more housing would also rise. Thus, due to the influx of immigrants, Singapore had to find ways to meet the growing demand for houses. Hence, people in the past emphasized development more than conserving forests as forests and plantations need to make way for these developments when more space is required to build shelters, shops, and community spaces for these people. As countries continue to develop and move away from agriculture, the land previously for agriculture would also be converted for constructing buildings, such example is Singapore (Chunneng & Lay, 1970). Similarly, today, many countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong face the issue of land scarcity. While having forests may bring economic benefits, the more important and pressing issue is to ensure that people have a place to live in. As such, countries resort to urban development at the expense of clearing forests. However, land use planning adopted by countries can help to ensure sustainable development and make sure that certain portions of green forests are kept intact. In Singapore, the Urban Redevelopment Authority has a long-term plan regarding land use. In view of this, many started to realize the impact of deforestation and knew that the forests and plant life were threatened and a change would be needed. Hence, this shows a similarity as it was thought that the conservation of forests was less of a priority and they can make way for developmental needs – demand for agricultural land and housing in the nineteenth century and the demand for housing and industrial space today.

In the past, conservation measures were thought to be in the interests of the government while today, the measures and efforts by the government are meant to really conserve the environment and thus, thought to be more desirable. By conserving the forests and biodiversity, the government could reap profits as they sell off the supply of timber and other products. An example would be the Forest Department which was established to conserve the forest environment and biodiversity in India (Saravanan, 2008) but put forests into commercial use by trying to yield a high amount of produces, chopping off large numbers of trees for timber, and selling them for high revenue (Tamil Nadu Forest Department, n.d.). Furthermore, in Singapore, the reserves are also mainly for timber but maintenance was costly and the government was not gaining as much hence, they reduced the support (Kim, 2018). This shows that in the past, some conservation efforts were implemented in the interest of government officials to exploit the forest resources for economic benefits instead of purely wanting to protect the environment. Moreover, the ‘Charter of Indian Forestry’ was issued stating that forests which do not belong to anyone would be state-owned. (Barton, 2001). Hence, this shows that past efforts to conserve the environment were usually controlled by the government and people do not have much say in it, resulting in the government exploiting the resources for their own interests. In contrast, today, many people and governments realize the advantage of having forests and a variety of plants and animals in the environment. Forests have been shown to have a positive impact on temperature as trees absorb carbon dioxide, reducing global warming and there are other benefits such as economic, social, and psychological. There are concrete ways to protect forests such as setting up reserves and establishing protected areas so that there will not have a human impact and the areas would not be converted for other purposes. For example, in 2012, the southern state of Karnataka has about 2600 square kilometers of protected forests (“How India is building Asia’s largest secure forest network,” 2014). By doing so, it can maintain the tranquillity of these forest areas, not allowing human destruction. As more trees take over land, it can provide a place for animals to live in and promote reproduction, thereby reducing the probability of certain species of animals becoming extinct. The Indian government has also established schemes to grow back trees, such as the National Afforestation Programmes and National Mission for Green, which aim to increase the number of trees and plantations on previously deforested land (Pandurang, 2017). Other countries like Singapore and Australia have adopted similar approaches. Singapore’s government still set aside nature reserves to preserve the trees and plant species to ensure that people have green spaces where they can visit for recreation and spot rare species of animals or plants (Tan, 2016). Australia’s forests protected in nature reserves have increased over the years as well (“Conservation of Australia’s Forests”, n.d.). This shows the efforts of countries to keep some of their forest area protected and truly untouched to promote biodiversity and provide space where people can enjoy nature. Thus, there is a difference in the conservation discourse in terms of the purpose of promoting conservation.

Next, conservation was perceived as the government’s responsibility in the nineteenth century given that the power and resources they have to conserve the forests but now, conservation is perceived as a shared responsibility amongst various stakeholders and government efforts are more successful. In the nineteenth century, many conservation efforts were undertaken by the government such as reforestation and setting up of reserves. Furthermore, since most of the time it only involves the government, some concerns regarding land use and forests were being overlooked such as in America (Pisani, 1985). These efforts did not include individuals as they did not have ways to contribute to saving the environment. Hence, this could result in limited effectiveness in promoting conservation. However, recent conservation efforts allow other stakeholders to be responsible for protecting forests and the environment by increasing awareness and involvement. Many countries support the Sustainable Development Goal where goal 15 relates to life on land, tackling deforestation and land degradation, and sets targets to achieve the goals while conducting milestone checks which show international effort in combating deforestation. India also participated in international events such as World Forestry Day to increase people’s awareness of the importance to conserve forests and share ways people could help to ensure sustainable growth (International Day of Forests, n.d.). While there are programs where government support is more crucial such as species recovery programs in Singapore to increase population by protecting species in safe areas and enhancing habitats (Strategies and Actions, 2019), conservation efforts could involve the community and individuals to make it more sustainable. Volunteering programs can invoke passion in people to help protect the environment. For example, in Singapore, volunteers can act as guides for tours in nature reserves, educating young and old on the rare species of plants and flowers, emphasizing the importance of environmental conservation to motivate them to make a difference and protect the precious forests and plants (Strategies and Actions, 2019). Furthermore, Wild Singapore Online! is a website where Singaporeans can learn about nature and provide opportunities for people to create a positive impact on the environment (Strategies and Actions, 2019). Moreover, the efforts are also more effective in recent years. The area of forests present has seen an increase in some countries such as India, where it increased by 6778 square kilometers from 2015 to 2017 as reported by India State of Forest Report (State of Forest Report, n.d.), highlighting that the measures taken by India have paid off. National Parks Board has efforts to conserve forests and make Singapore greener through the Forest Restoration Action Plan (“NParks unveils Forest Restoration Action Plan for nature areas”, 2019) by regenerating forests which gives people more green spaces and at the same time, makes people cherish these green spaces. Of course, the government and stakeholders need to work hand in hand to achieve better results in conservation. Thus, this was different from the past due to the fact that modern conservation efforts involve more stakeholders instead of the government alone and have been more effective as compared to the measures in the past.

Lastly, in the past, conservation was perceived to be done through common methods such as reforestation and setting up reserves but, in recent years, more innovative and interesting methods of conserving forests and the environment has been utilized. In the past, the most common way to preserve forests was to set up reserves and plant back more trees as seen in many countries, or to implement schemes and policies to protect these forests. Today, due to the advancements in technology, countries have adopted technology into their conservation practices. One such example would be in Singapore where there is Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015 where one solution proposed is Skyrise Greenery (“Our Targets”, n.d), blending greenery in our city by planting trees or plants at rooftops or through vertical planting. Furthermore, in a technologically-savvy population, innovative ways such as incorporating the use of technology in raising awareness and love for the nature and environment have been developed. Improving the learning experience for students through the wireless learning trail at Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve is a unique way to educate students about nature through the scanning of codes and participating in activities. This could promote love for forests and animals, sparking students’ interest in the conservation of the environment so that they can enjoy recreational activities. Furthermore, technology has been used to gather information regarding tree growth and health in countries like Singapore (known as the Ecological Network of Tree Sensors) and Australia which systems such as multispectral imaging (Sin, 2019) so that conservation efforts can be altered to better protect the trees. As such, more innovative and technological ways to conserve forests have been used which are different from that of the past.

In conclusion, the rate of deforestation and the disappearance of animals and plant species are concerns and we can only hope that countries can try to balance the environment and development. In the past and today, countries have always tried to conserve the environment. The conservation in the two time periods is similar in terms of the perception of forests as having an economic role and in meeting the demand of the population but yet, they are also very different in terms of the purpose for conservation, involvement of stakeholders, and change in methods in protecting the environment. Hence, to a larger extent, the nineteenth-century conservation discourse differs from that of today since there are many changes over the years for any country and so it is predictable that many conservation discourses would have changed as well.

Early into the nineteenth century, the railroad business started flourishing. With that came steel, wood, coal, and other industries. A few who were successful in these businesses were called entrepreneurs and robber Barons. ‘Robber Baron’ is a specific term that was given to business tycoons in the nineteenth century. All of them were entrepreneurs, but some were called robber barons due to their selfish and pitiful practices. Entrepreneurs were and still are those who had an innovative idea and organized or created a business with that idea while taking some financial risks. Robber barons, on the other hand, were those who had innovative ideas and organized businesses, but used all kinds of methods, both good and bad, to be successful and to be at the top. They treated workers harshly, made them work long hours with low pay, did not care for how the women and children were treated, did not care if there were injuries, increased the prices of goods extremely, crushed any kind of competition, used vertical integration (control all the aspects from beginning to end) to gain full authority of the business, etc. Jay Gould was one of the first railroad business tycoons who was considered a Robber baron. He bought cheap railroads, did not improve them, and sold them for higher prices. He demanded farmers and businesses pay the high price that he asked for in order to use his trains. Later, he controlled thousands and thousands of tracks across the United States. Andrew Carnegie was a steel magnate who came from nothing to everything. Joining the Pennsylvania Railroad, Carnegie eventually brought himself up to the position of the President of the company. Later, he started his own company of J. Edgar Thompson Steel Works, and eventually bought out the new Homestead Steel Works. Carnegie was a believer in the idea of ‘help those who help themselves’ as per his essay ‘The Gospel of Wealth’.

John D. Rockefeller grew up in modest means. When he moved to Cleveland, Ohio, he heard about oil drilling and how people were searching for oil through risky means. But Rockefeller decided that he was going to focus his attention on something less risky and more certain: refining crude oil into kerosene. Soon enough, kerosene replaced whale oil in many businesses and homes. As time passed, Rockefeller became more and more ruthless in his way of business. As other businessmen came to the area seeking to gain quick wealth, he started crushing his opponents. He gained fake agreements from several railroad companies to ship his products at a discount rate. Since he could deliver kerosene at a lower rate, he bought other competitors out of business. Those who did not sell theirs to him, he pursued them relentlessly without any mercy, till they were gone as well. Even though Robber baron was a term used in the nineteenth century, there are still businesses and business tycoons whose methods are similar to those of Robber barons.

Early into the nineteenth century, the railroad business started flourishing. With that came steel, wood, coal, and other industries. A few who were successful in these businesses were called entrepreneurs and robber Barons. ‘Robber Baron’ is a specific term that was given to business tycoons in the nineteenth century. All of them were entrepreneurs, but some were called robber barons due to their selfish and pitiful practices. Entrepreneurs were and still are those who had an innovative idea and organized or created a business with that idea while taking some financial risks. Robber barons, on the other hand, were those who had innovative ideas and organized businesses, but used all kinds of methods, both good and bad, to be successful and to be at the top. They treated workers harshly, made them work long hours with low pay, did not care for how the women and children were treated, did not care if there were injuries, increased the prices of goods extremely, crushed any kind of competition, used vertical integration (control all the aspects from beginning to end) to gain full authority of the business, etc. Jay Gould was one of the first railroad business tycoons who was considered a Robber baron. He bought cheap railroads, did not improve them, and sold them for higher prices. He demanded farmers and businesses pay the high price that he asked for in order to use his trains. Later, he controlled thousands and thousands of tracks across the United States. Andrew Carnegie was a steel magnate who came from nothing to everything. Joining the Pennsylvania Railroad, Carnegie eventually brought himself up to the position of the President of the company. Later, he started his own company of J. Edgar Thompson Steel Works, and eventually bought out the new Homestead Steel Works. Carnegie was a believer in the idea of ‘help those who help themselves’ as per his essay ‘The Gospel of Wealth’.

John D. Rockefeller grew up in modest means. When he moved to Cleveland, Ohio, he heard about oil drilling and how people were searching for oil through risky means. But Rockefeller decided that he was going to focus his attention on something less risky and more certain: refining crude oil into kerosene. Soon enough, kerosene replaced whale oil in many businesses and homes. As time passed, Rockefeller became more and more ruthless in his way of business. As other businessmen came to the area seeking to gain quick wealth, he started crushing his opponents. He gained fake agreements from several railroad companies to ship his products at a discount rate. Since he could deliver kerosene at a lower rate, he bought other competitors out of business. Those who did not sell theirs to him, he pursued them relentlessly without any mercy, till they were gone as well. Even though Robber baron was a term used in the nineteenth century, there are still businesses and business tycoons whose methods are similar to those of Robber barons.