The Definition of Landscape Photography
Can man made elements ever be part of a landscape photo?
Hello, I’m Gill and I write a photography blog inspired by the landscapes of Suffolk and beyond. Please subscribe to read more of my writing and visit my website to view my images.
This week has been a good week for photography. I have had fewer workshops so have had more of my own time to get out with the camera. I still only managed one sunset, one sunrise and a visit to the heath but that has been better than nothing and it felt good to get outdoors and create something for myself.
I talk a lot about getting out into nature, it is something I feel I need to do to maintain a healthy and happy life and I try to spend as much time as I can visiting the natural places that I love. However when I look back at the images I have taken over the years, especially in Suffolk, I have come to realise that what I consider to be natural environments are in fact predominantly man altered landscapes.
Man made elements regularly form part of my images. They may be focal points, or supporting parts of a composition but they are usually there in one form or another. I may try to create compositions around nature but it can often be difficult in this part of the world to exclude mans activities and influence.
This realisation got me thinking about the relationship between man and nature and whether it is ok to include man made elements in a landscape photograph.
I was reading an article recently in ‘On Landscape’ magazine in which Landscape Photographer Joe Cornish was asked to define landscape photography. I found it a really interesting read and I will come back to what he said a bit later.
Having done my own quick Google search for ‘the definition of landscape photography’ I found the following descriptions:
‘Capturing an image that embodies the spirit of the outdoors’.
‘An activity that focuses on capturing the beauty of natural landscapes found in the great outdoors’
‘The technique of capturing images of nature to bring your viewer into the scene’.
‘Capturing the presence of nature but can also focus on human-made features’
This last definition is one of only a few that mention man made elements as being a defined part of a landscape image and there are many others that insist these things should be excluded because they detract from a natural scene. In the Landscape category of Scottish LPOTY they state on their website that they are looking for natural, unspoilt views of the Scottish landscape that (where possible) do not include any human elements.
So is mans influence something to be avoided in our landscape images and if so are we in danger of depicting a skewed vision of the world around us. After all there is almost no part of the globe that hasn’t been affected in one way or another by human activity.
If I look at my Instagram feed I would guess that at least 70% of my images feature some sort of human element. This might not be a prominent feature (and it is not usually my main focus) but sometimes I find it difficult to avoid these elements altogether. This is particularly true in my home county where the landscape is so flat.
Looking more closely at my images and splitting them into categories I concluded that most of my coastal scenes are natural and most of my landscape images are not. For me this boils down to the simple fact that including human elements in my landscapes gives me more options in an otherwise flat environment.
So if man made elements are frowned upon by the purists in landscape photography does their inclusion in my images mean they are not technically ‘landscape’ shots? And if so what are they?
I think the definition all comes down to emphasis - what is the photograph all about and what are the important features within the frame.
This is an image taken in my local park this week. It is not a wild landscape but it has wild elements and they are the primary focus of my shot. The emphasis is on the flowers, not on the buildings in the background but I have included them because they add context and create a contrast ( as well as adding some much needed height to the scene). Using a 24mm focal length has made the buildings appear smaller in relation to the flowers so further reducing their impact within the frame. However ‘unnatural’ the buildings may be, I do feel that their presence contributes to the story as a whole. If I excluded them this image could have a very different message.
Similarly my sunrise image from this week shows the river in my local town. It is a lovely location, very peaceful (especially at 4.30am) and is full of bird life, but it could not be described as a natural landscape. It has natural elements, but the main composition is human influenced. Does this mean it is not technically a landscape photo?
Going back to the article by Joe Cornish that I mentioned earlier, this is what he said as part of his definition of landscape photography.
While it is difficult to define all the possible strands of landscape photography, perhaps a common definition might stand around emphasis…so although people, animals and inanimate objects may be present in the pictures, any players in the scene are subordinate to the landscape itself as seen through the eye of the camera.
Does this idea help define the shot above? Is the emphasis on the natural sunrise colours rather than the man made elements in the composition?
I finished my week with a trip to the local heath. This is a landscape that looks wild - it has no man made elements, but that doesn’t mean it’s truly natural. It is part of an area of lowland heath, once used as common grazing land and as such its very nature has been shaped by human activity.
The light was a little harsh for wider landscapes so I took a few intimate scenes and this on was my favourite.
I guess there is a debate about whether an intimate scene qualifies as a landscape shot, but I feel that is a subject for another day.
I am not really sure where I stand on the definition of landscape photography and the inclusion of man made elements. For me, perhaps, it doesn’t matter (unless I want to enter competitions). I will continue to make the images that I want to make and depict the landscapes I love even if they may not be truly wild. I feel there is some value to that. I think as viewers we need to see all sides - what is left of the pristine wilderness and also how man interacts with it.
I believe it is the stories we can tell about the resilience of nature and the human benefits of interacting and protecting it that are really important in todays world and I don’t think we can tell these stories without including some form of human activity in our images.
What is your definition of landscape photography and where do you stand on the inclusion of man made elements within a scene? Do you feel they add to the story or detract from the scene? I would be really interested to hear your thoughts so please leave a comment below?
Thank you very much for reading and until next week enjoy your photography.
Gill
labels, labels, labels.
that is the most annoying thing that humans introduced to photography. to me it doesn't matter how is it labeled, it doesn't matter if composition is purist or not, what matters is to make the photographer happy with the shot. if the photographer doesn't take the shot because some purist thinks that the shot doesn't fit in some label, the joy of photography is gone.
I think the idea that you can exclude human elements from the landscape is dubious. Particularly in a small densely inhabited place like the UK, almost everywhere has been shaped by human activity. A field is a human element. A stand of trees can be a human element. The wildflowers might only grow there because someone, sometime cleared that land. The photograph itself is a human element, the more so the more you process it.
I can't help thinking there is something a little misanthropic about wanting to remove the human from the landscape.