Conservation Economics

The works in Mt. Morris’ New Deal Gallery have been neglected because of a lack of economic incentive for their restoration and upkeep. They are an example of what we lose when beauty, or even historical value, is no longer enough. After decades spent in a basement without climate control or routine care, once-vibrant colors are now dulled and many of the canvases have been damaged. Though not so blatant as the over-farming that caused the Dust Bowl during the era in which the Federal Art Project was conceived, inaction has caused harm to this collection.

First, let’s take a look at Isaac Fastovsky’s 1937 painting, Tunnel by The Hudson before exploring the historical and contemporary context around conservation economics. The story map can be viewed at full resolution by following this link.

Beauty did not always need an economic incentive to guarantee its future. The earliest conservation movement in the United States began in the late 19th century, concerning land that eventually became Yellowstone National Park in 1872. It was motivated by a desire to preserve for beauty’s sake, and aligned with the values of John Muir, a naturalist known as the Father of the National Park System. Muir, heavily influenced by Henry David Thoreau, viewed nature as superior to civilization and sought to convince Americans of the wonders that Yellowstone had to offer. Muir’s beliefs came into conflict with those of the Father of Conservation, Gifford Pinchot—a forester who served as the Chief of the United States Forest System from 1905 to 1910. For Pinchot, the purpose of conversation was less to preserve beauty than to protect the public interest by ensuring adequate access to natural resources. We have saved, even revived beauty from this anthropocentric stance on conservation, but we also have lost beauty because of it. 

We see economic tensions still impacting modern conservation decisions, for example in a new local initiative centered on Letworth State Park and its surrounding communities. The Letchworth Gateway Villages is a recent example of highlighting beauty for the sake of economic prosperity; because the effort includes Mt. Morris, the New Deal Gallery has been a part of this process. According to the LGV website, it is “a collaborative initiative designed to catalyze economic growth and new tourism-related market opportunities for the communities that serve as ‘gateways’ to Letchworth State Park.” The differing perspectives of Muir and Pinchot still shape future decisions as to value, and this includes the “beauty” of New Deal Gallery paintings. Must a place be useful or profitable for its beauty to be preserved? Will present necessities come with the cost of future consequences? Short-term economics led to devastating effects including the 1930s Dust Bowl, or nearer to home Onondaga Lake in Syracuse—known as the most polluted lake in America. Paintings, for all their beauty, participate in the same economy. Alhough losing New Deal art to a neglect of care will not cause death or adverse health effects, we must recognize that we would suffer a loss. Like a forest disappears for its lumber, this piece of history may be lost so that money can be allocated to something more profitable.

Works Consulted

—“A Passion For Nature.” National Park Service.

—“Gifford Pinchot: A Legacy of Conservation.” 2017. U.S. Department of the Interior.

—Hughes, Jonathan R. T. The Governmental Habit Redux: Economic Controls from Colonial Times to the Present. Princeton University Press, 1991.

—“Railroad Depot.” 1938. National Archives Catalog.