Wells discusses in her book the idea of landscape being
socially constructed and that there is a difference between land and landscape.
I think this is absolutely true. In typical landscape photography we see a
pretty chunk of land that fills the frame. There is a distinct foreground,
middleground and background; maybe there is inclusion of a river cutting
through the pristine land or distant mountains shooting up into the sky.
As the world becomes more urbanized and fewer of these pristine
mountainous landscapes exist the definition of landscape changes. What we as
photographers now include into the definition of landscape is far greater than
what was considered landscape during the early and mid-20th century.
Here we see the socially constructed part of landscape as a genre. It can
really be anything that society includes into the genre. As Wells states in her
book, “Landscape can be defined as vistas which encompass both nature and the
changes which humans have effected in the natural. Broadly interpreted this
includes sea, fields, rivers, gardens, buildings, canals and so on.” As humans
leave more of a footprint across the globe the emphasis on landscape will
inevitably shift to be more about “the changes which humans have effected in
the natural” rather than nature itself.
6 comments:
I agree, and I even think this shift in the definition of landscape is interesting and valuable. Throughout history, photography has been used to document and create art, and the inclusion of humanity's footprint on nature within landscape photography sort of blends both documentary and art photography. When you photograph nature changed by man and call it a landscape photograph, what you're really doing is emulating the traditional landscape photograph and also recording the human footprint at the same time.
I too agree that our definition of a landscape is changing and I think Kelsey's point about landscape photography becoming more and more documentary is very important. It seems as though some of the best landscape photographs today are either of beautiful ways in which human kind has meshed with nature or they are of ways in which humans have destroyed the land.
I find it very interesting how the definition of landscape varies so much. Landscapes used to have such a specific definition before the modernization of the land around us. Lush pastures with fragrant flowers and the warm wisp of wind passing through the trees and endless sky. Now, a landscape can be a deteriorating brick building surrounded by hot dog stands and endless skyscrapers all cramped within the horizontal snapshot of a camera. Landscapes have more of a socio, political, or economic statement as we have reached this age of modernity. Now landscapes seem to "say something" about what is within them. Instead of simply portraying beautiful they have become a symbol of a lack of said beauty. I think once we contextualize the human presence within these landscapes, we find that they serve a different purpose. They have more of a message about our need to deconstruct our surroundings in order to "fit our needs better". I appreciate every kind of landscapes but there will always be a special place in our hearts for the mystical oil paintings of those all-to-familiar pastures and endless blue skies.
-Morgan Kirol
Never before has our landscape changed so dramatically. Just take a look at Uconn. When I was a freshman and lived in Shippee, Storrs Center didn't exist for example. Things change and the pace is alarmingly fast. It's almost as if we have to take pictures of landscapes more and more often because they are changing so rapidly. Landscape as a genre will always seek to document and display the beauty of the world
The above ^ comment was made by Matt, sorry I forgot to add my name this time.
I agree that the definition of what a landscape is changes with the time period that we live in. What our society does and changes throughout the land will change the idea of makes up a landscape. What traditionally was seen as a landscape such as fields, mountains, oceans, or lakes, etc... have mostly now been touched by the hand of man. If we don't include our societies impact on nature and the world around us then I don't believe it would be an accurate portrayal of the world that we live in.
Post a Comment