Bodmer_Publication

at the time, after all) we may assume that he is referring above all to the second
stage. It is less the first encounter with an object that is “pleasant” than its ensuing
contemplation in the tranquillity of the study. 9
Representation means working-through, processing. It results from a moment
of interpretation through contemplation, it produces one perspective at a time
that can be distinguished from others. Undoubtedly Wied’s texts and Bodmer’s
plates, in word and image, strive for the greatest precision attainable. Still, the
result will be shaped by the momentary interest of the author or artist: An object
can be represented in a precise manner in more than one way. This is important,
because the distinction between object and convention of representation, which,
for example, Ruud’s monumental book 10 engages without very convincing results,
must be prevented from slipping into the opposition correct / false. There is no
representation that does not employ conventions that a culture offers for such
occasions. Thus, a single glance at Bodmer shows that there are pastoral and
sublime landscapes and that sometimes a picturesque perspective attempts to
combine traits from both. It also shows that apart from many nobilitating images
of Indians (nobilitating to different degrees, it is true) there are also a few that
demonize them.
In how far such effects were intended and the use of the respective conventions
a conscious one, cannot be determined with a sufficient degree of certainty.
We know precious little about Wied’s and Bodmer’s views regarding their own
work. Both are practitioners who theorize their activity scarcely, or not at all,
n either in regard to the unity of art and science nor to the employment and affect
of the conventions they use. 11 Wied’s guiding interest remains largely implicit, or
it remains an unstated premise of his work, and so do his thoughts regarding
the relationship between art and science. And the historical import of Bodmer’s
prints largely accrues to them as they become part of the Travels as a whole.
Wied’s use of the term schön, however, points towards an understanding of this
relationship. It is not used haphazardly, nor do only traditional topoi that link art
to knowledge, such as prodesse et delectare, stand behind it. Rather, the concept
has a specific place and significance in the intellectual milieu in which Maximilian
receives his scientific training and to which he belongs all his life. A towering
figure in this environment is Alexander von Humboldt, who turns up as Wied’s
model in Bodmer criticism again and again. An important work in this context is
the intro duction to the unfinished Kosmos of 1845, 12 in which Humboldt, approaching
the end of his life, takes stock of his scientific endeavors and of his theoretical
reflection. 13 The introduction is programmatic in nature and attempts to characterize
the scientific culture in which both Humboldt and Wied moved freely and
which they shaped in different ways, and obviously to different degrees.
At issue is not the question if one can ascribe any influence on the travels and
writings of Wied to Kosmos as a programmatic text – that is impossible, already
because of the date of publication. We are not concerned here, either, with
Humboldt’s decisive influence on Wied’s scientific ethos, though such an influence
is not improbable at all in view of their respective ages and personal relation ship.
Nor, finally, is this argument concerned with the origin of the two scientist’s view
of their activities in one single source, although much can be said for this
view, since both studied in one and the same place (Göttingen) under the direction
of one teacher (Johann Friedrich Blumenbach). 14 At this point, the hypothesis is
96