In short, the emotional essence of farmed land has everything to do with it being farmed.
, maybe, but not for me
. The essence of anything and everything we see lies within our own minds. That which exists externally can evoke a certain emotional and thoughtful response as the reflected light from the external objects passes through our eyes. However, such a response, whatever it is, does not exist as an objective, external reality, like an apple on a tree that can be plucked by anyone, whatever his opinion.
It is my view that farming tends
to destroy what I find beautiful about landscapes. Stripping the land of all its trees, and depleting the soil of most of its carbon content through continual tilling, and removal of mulch and crop residue, reduces biodiversity and contributes significantly to the effects of flooding during periods of heavy rainfall.
If anyone reading this is seriously worried about the effects of human-induced climate change, you might like to know that the problem could be fixed by changing our agricultural practices so that more carbon would be sequestered in our soils resulting in more fertile soils with greater biodiversity, including worms and bacteria which are necessary to break down the nutrients to a form that the plants can use.
I've heard reports, from those who have studied the issue, that the relatively infertile soils of Australia alone, could contain or sequester all the carbon emitted world-wide from power stations and industrial processes, if a deliberate effort were made to enrich our soils by increasing their carbon content.
In short, if I were to experience the emotional essence of a landscape of farmland as being everything to do with it being farmed, it's very likely that I would not like such a landscape and would not hang it on my wall, although I would admit that the photograph could still fit into the very broad genre of landscape.
When I go out with my camera with the intention of capturing some landscape shots, I try to stay clear of farmland, preferring natural wilderness, rainforests and mountainous areas which are not suitable for farming.
There are always exceptions of course. For example, a field of Canola in full bloom, perhaps surrounded by a few trees or shrubs, and a few taller trees in the background, can be quite eye-catching and make an interesting landscape photo. However, I'm not aware that the appearance of the plant and flower is significantly changed as a result of genetic modification, and the fact that the Canola has been planted by a farmer does not mean that the essence of the landscape has to do with it being farmed.
You must surely know that many plants and trees in their natural environment are growing at their precise location because a bird or animal planted the seed there.
When you see a Brazil Nut tree, impressive with its towering height of 50 metres, do you descibe its essence in terms of the farmer who planted it, or the squirrel or rodent which carried the seed to a particular location in the forest, if that's the tree's location?
C'mon! Be sensible, Isaac!