Exercise 3.1 Reflecting on the picturesque

We are asked to write a short reflective account of our own views of the picturesque, having considered the course notes, and previous reading. Consider how it has influenced my own idea about landscape art , and how influenced my views of successful landscape photograph.

It is useful to view the dictionary definition of the word as sourced from Google:

picturesque

ˌpɪktʃəˈrɛsk/

adjective

adjective: picturesque

(of a place or building) visually attractive, especially in a quaint or charming way.

"ruined abbeys and picturesque villages"

synonyms:

attractive, pretty, beautiful, lovely, scenic, charming, quaint, pleasing, delightful, romantic "a picturesque maze of narrow streets"

antonyms:

ugly, drab

(of language) unusual and vivid.

"the salad has no regional or picturesque name"

synonyms:

vivid, graphic, colourful, impressive, striking "a picturesque description"

antonyms:

dull

The over-riding impression from this is that picturesque is favourable, a good thing, positive, giving rise to feelings of well-being. Those emotions can manifest themselves in different ways; for me the concept of picturesque incorporates some or all of: variety, contours, colour, water. The antonym of picturesque - drab - is interesting as it implies all or some of: uniformity, lack of colour, negative. 

So I see picturesque as being a function both of subject-matter, and of presentation. Taking the first, consider this image taken in Plymouth on the South West Coast Path ('SWCP') walk:

The image was taken to emphasise that not all of the SWCP is 'picturesque': there are some quite tedious stretches, particularly in urban areas. Industrial estate sheds are built for functionality, not to look pretty. They just happen to be along a part of a 630 mile path that, for the most part, is picturesque. 

Taking the second, consider this image that was also taken on SWCP and discussed in a slightly different context in a previous post:

Here we have an image that has been substantially post processed. I don't want to discuss the merits and demerits of using a fairly extreme degree of post processing, but what we can say is that the presentation of the second fulfils the picturesque requirement of being 'colourful'. The subject-matter of the first is the same, and meets three of the criteria mentioned above: variety; water; contours, but it looks drab. This is a function of the time of year (January when the vegetation is largely brown); time of day; and the weather. How many picturesque photographs are there taken in full light on a day with low monotonous cloud? It is why rain is considered anathema to landscape photography. 

So the answer is to load colour into the image using post processing techniques (in this case, Topaz ReStyle); it may not be to everyone's liking, but, to my mind, is more 'picturesque'. 

So I see 'picturesque' as in no way controversial - it is depolitical, notwithstanding that some would say that statement is itself a political statement. Picturesque, to me, is not challenging in the sense of understanding the human affect on our natural environment or even the human influence on nature, but more about challenging ourselves to appreciate what we have as our natural environment; if that involves some tweaking to enhance that appreciation, so be it.

Alexander (2015, p112) discusses  this subject in the context of 19th century photography as pictorialism versus 'straight' photography. The methods used in pictorialism then were designed to make photographs look like paintings; the results were commercially successful if 'shallow' and 'superficial' in the words of Adams. Alexander queries when fine-tuning becomes manipulation without supplying an answer, or a value judgment. I guess he would view the above as clear manipulation as indeed it is intended to be: the creation of an alternative reality.

Reference:

Alexander (2015) Perspectives on Place: Theory and Practice in Landscape Photography, London. Bloomsbury Publishing