What is 'landscape'?

[Ed B]

I'm kinda late to this party but art, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[Zorki5]

However, I'd have imagined it to be more about textures and colour blocks as distinct from shape in the sense of accurate renditions of absolute physical form.

If you take the archetypical Tuscan landscape of poplars, rolling hills and single building with the almost inevitable little road winding up to it

BTW, "pure" textures almost never form a successful abstract. And even though I cautiously say "almost", I am in fact not aware of any... There has to be a color spot, a shape thrown in, or something else standing out.

Very much like that single building among poplars that you mention.

[Rob C]

BTW, "pure" textures almost never form a successful abstract. And even though I cautiously say "almost", I am in fact not aware of any... There has to be a color spot, a shape thrown in, or something else standing out.

Very much like that single building among poplars that you mention.

"However, I'd have imagined it to be more about textures and colour blocks as distinct from shape in the sense of accurate renditions of absolute physical form."

That's what I was saying...

Rob C

[Rob C]

Rob, indeed some Sieff DNA in there. And Jeanloup did seem to share lots of cups of tea with his models, so who knows?

https://500px.com/photo/152144743/urban-reflection-by-alcol75?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=9309661

Indeed; and I think that I eventually concluded that 'cups of tea' meant something far more interesting, intense and sweaty!

Them wuz the days, them wuz.

Rob

[Rob C]

1.    BTW, "pure" textures almost never form a successful abstract. And even though I cautiously say "almost", I am in fact not aware of any... There has to be a color spot, a shape thrown in, or something else standing out.

    Very much like that single building among poplars that you mention.

(Quoted from Zorki5)


2.  "However, I'd have imagined it to be more about textures and colour blocks as distinct from shape in the sense of accurate renditions of absolute physical form."

That's what I was saying...

Rob C

(Quoted from myself)

There's something here, from about 23:49 to 27:15, from our own Peter, that touches on this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRsNaNM0ZeU

In fact, if you continue a few minutes more to the end, you'll find a lot that he says that is just as applicable to photography.

Rob C

[Zorki5]

In fact, if you continue a few minutes more to the end, you'll find a lot that he says that is just as applicable to photography.

I agree; thank for sharing.

It's interesting that Peter says works of painters are for other people (not for other artists), and then almost immediately goes on to say that he essentially creates paintings for himself and almost does not care what other might think of them.

I do not see that as a contradiction, BTW; each of us might have different answers to the same question -- depending on context. When you think about it... It makes understanding other people, whom you only know by few posts on forums, pretty much mission impossible. And it's not only that it can be hard for them, not knowing the full context, to agree; sometimes, stranger things happen -- those people can agree on "something", while having completely different ideas/concepts of that "something" in mind.

Also... the quote ending the segment immediately before 23:49 also says a lot: "Artists do not want answers, they want questions"