Development of landscape painting reveals attitudes toward nature

Art is about making choices. Because artists are not cameras, they are free to paint as they prefer. Their choices show their attitudes toward the subject matter.

When I'm painting a landscape, for example, do I dutifully record exactly what's in front of me or make changes as I see fit? If trees are in the wrong place, do I move them? Do I want my audience to see every blade of grass or an impression of lush grasses or just a green smear? Will I paint from the viewpoint of looking down from a plane or as if I'm lying flat on the grass? Perhaps I'll take photos and work in my studio, or perhaps I'd rather work outdoors from direct observation. How do I best portray light, shadows, warmth, clouds, water?

I've been looking at a lot of landscape paintings lately in several Renaissance shows I've attended. It's interesting to look closely at the differences among various landscapes from different timeframes. In the illuminated manuscripts, small portions of landscape show up in the backgrounds of the paintings. During the early Renaissance, landscapes are merely a platform for displaying the Holy Family. Even the Mona Lisa has bits of landscape behind her. In many of Pieter Brueghel's paintings, landscapes are becoming a major focus. And even later in the Renaissance, landscape becomes a form of "landscape for landscape's sake" with nature as the main focus.

It's evident that the development of landscape painting changed as it was affected by people's attitudes towards nature. As civilization became more interested in nature during the Renaissance and again in the 18th century, landscape painting flourished. They would often show landscapes first in lyrical settings of beautiful mythical places and later as real places with meticulously accurate detail. Today painters would be more interested in expressing their emotions about what they see outdoors.