@fugetaboutit interesting post, I have a few thoughts I'd like to share. You've made a nice reading of these three paintings and interpreted the artist's compositional choices in generally clear ways, nicely done. The discussion of these three examples of painting (one drop in the bucket) between the early 19th century and the late 20th century as 1.) exemplars of artists either forecasting or informing the present about the future, and 2.) encapsulating how humans relate to nature and how human culture creates an understanding of nature are both simultaneously way too general and reductionist. What would you make of all the abstract paintings between these times, or the Dutch Still Life Paintings and their mimetic semiotics? Robert Bechtle's paintings don't have anything to do with nature generally and your reading of his painting, while "logical" has nothing to do with his own stated, and interpreted interests. This painting is much more about amateur photography, the everyday narrative of the American family, and the fascination of transference from one artistic media (photographs or slides) to another (canvas). Cherry picking a few paintings and calling them a means for evaluating change does a disservice to these artists. The final question I have though is with your first and broadest assertion: "I believe that these paintings can encapsulate how human culture creates our understanding of nature, but also the important role which nature plays in our culture." What other understanding of nature could humans have other than the one their culture has supported? Maybe the question is Why does culture see nature in certain ways? If you were to compare a few different cultural viewpoints about nature across centuries, continents, etc, that might make this idea compelling. However, the assertion is neither profound, nor meaningful. Of course nature influences us, and of course we see nature through our own eyes. How could these three paintings encapsulate anything so broad? Art isn't a set of statistics, facts, or philosophical statements that equate to a hypothesis. Even if all of what you've claimed is perhaps legible and readily accepted, what is the point such of the few general statements you've made? What do these really tell us? I apologize if this seems harsh, or unduly critical. It is a part of my work to ask for rigor around the interpretation and instrumentalization of art. There is something to your conclusion, but it has nothing to do with nature, or painting, or the spirit of our times. Art is a means of evaluation and critical reflection, but rarely is it so simply defined as you've attempted to do so here. An artist (painter) like Alexis Rockman might give some credence to your argument about nature and culture, especially around destruction and pollution. I think you can make a more nuanced argument, by looking at more examples. Reading some scholarly writing and/or museum exhibition texts or catalogue essays about these artists could help greatly. Artist's make work about very specific things, often culturally or historically specific. Start where the artist starts, not with your own ideas. Again, apologies on being harsh, I'm mostly trying to push you and this platform into a more critical and rigorous space for discussion around art!