As Far As I Could See 1997

Editor: Here we have Eyvind Earle's 1997 acrylic painting, *As Far As I Could See*. The horizontal lines slicing through the landscape create a unique perspective. It feels almost like viewing nature through a fractured lens. What strikes you most about this piece? Curator: The layering effect immediately suggests a fragmented and perhaps even contested space. These aren’t just decorative horizons; they are actively interrupting our view, posing questions about the very idea of landscape, tradition, and ownership. Considering that Earle was creating this in the late 90s, how does it relate to the emerging discourses surrounding environmentalism and globalization? Editor: So, you're saying that the artist's approach might be less about idyllic nature and more about questioning our relationship with it? Curator: Precisely! Think about the title, *As Far As I Could See*. Is this a statement of fact, or a lament? Whose perspective are we adopting, and what limits that vision? The formal constraints in the painting become metaphors for the real-world constraints impacting both nature and society. Do the bands evoke censorship, borders, environmental damage? Editor: I never thought of it that way, but I see how the abstraction can represent broader concerns, the color too! Like something that is sickly versus something that is verdant. Curator: Absolutely, and considering Earle’s involvement with Disney, what tensions might exist between his commercial work, these abstract visions of nature, and our modern understanding of natural history? Editor: I see your point, his design-heavy style perhaps downplays any realistic ecological threat. Now I want to consider other fantasy artists and their socio-political statements. Thank you! Curator: It’s crucial to consider how the seemingly innocent act of representing landscape can become deeply intertwined with ideology, power and culture. I'm glad this artwork is making you think that way too!