What I still can't understand is why Mat's so hung up on the word "sublime," which, standing by itself is as meaningless as "nice." In fact some people think those two words essentially are synonymous and that the difference is a matter of degree. Mat may need professional help to get to the bottom of this quest.
Sublime is a real concept not to be dismissed though it can be quite subjective in its interpretation.
My understanding is to find a way to evoke a bigger than life aspect to imagery that has a down to earth central focus and story to contrast against and thus enhance the bigger than life feel.
After viewing Mat's gallery I can see why he got the "picturesque" comment. Every image in his gallery shows a technically perfect looking sameness image to image with none offering any contrast to lift it out of its sameness. Also there's too many images that support this sense of repetition.
Each image primarily depicts shapes, lines and shadows of baron landscapes taken at different times of the season. Where's the story? Why am I looking at it? What do I look for? Where's the central focus that tells the viewer they're not just looking at baron landscapes? Is there more to those landscapes than meets the eye? Thus those images don't communicate sublime qualities.
But I bet the ancient philosophers that discussed such concepts would have their minds blown by Mat's landscapes because everything is relative according to each person's sensitivities influenced by what they've become used to.
My gallery doesn't evoke sublime qualities either, but I'm not concerned with other's criticism of my work or whether or not they see them as sublime.
Most photographers that can capture that quality primarily have to be in the right place, at the right time. And a lot of that is based on whether they have the resources to make that happen.