Landscape Painting and Its Power

What a seemingly simple landscape painting can teach us about nature, man, and anything in between.

In some landscape paintings, you can see the artist’s evaluation of nature: Is nature a good place for a man to exist, or is it filled with dangers and hostilities to humankind? Is nature to be commanded by man, or perhaps man should be commanded by nature? Is reality knowable, coherent, lawful, logical, or is reality filled with contradictions and absurdities? These questions relate to metaphysics and epistemology, which is a common denominator that landscape paintings share with most other pictures. What is unique but not exclusive to landscape painting is that it allows the artist to provide us with an integrated view of man, existence, and the proper or un-proper relationship between them.

What is man?

(Casper David Fredrich, The Monk By the Sea, 1810)

Casper David Fredrich (1774-1840) was mainly a landscapist, and his landscapes featured quite regularly human characters. Since Art is a selective recreation of reality, the artist has to selectively choose which subjects he wishes to portray, where to put them inside the composition, and how he should draw them (beautiful, ugly ext.) In “The Monk by the Sea”, Fredrich chooses to place the monk not even in the centre of the picture, implying that he is only a secondary character, a lesser power. Fredrich takes away all individuality from the monk. There are no unique attributes about him specifically that makes him worthy of painting. He is just an instrument. He is dressed in the colour of the sea, which gives the illusion that he is one with the sea. However, he is essentially nothing compared to the vastness of the ocean. 

If Fredrich were to draw the monk in the centre, or perhaps if he were to be dressed in a contrasting colour, we would receive a much different message. Just by placing a certain man in a particular landscape, we can learn a great deal about the artist’s view of man and his view of reality. 

(Ivan Aivazovsky, View of a Fountain and Peterhof Palace, 1837)

Aivazovsky was a very prolific painter. His pictures mainly consisted of Sea and Landscapes. In his portrayal of man, buildings, fountains, and tress, you can see an interesting combination. In the bottom central portion of the picture, we see a couple with a child, which is symbolic of the future, which was viewed in a positive light, the water flowing everywhere represents an abundance of wealth, value achievement in this world is possible, man here is not in a conflict with nature, but rather the trees exist alongside, in a harmonious way next to the great palace. 

Aivazovsky’s man is nothing like the monk of Fredrich. Aivazovsky shows us people holding values and enjoying life while living peacefully with nature, not in fear and trembling but in harmony and mutual respect.

Primacy of Existence vs Primacy of Consciousness in painting

(Vincent Van Gough, Wheatfields with cypresses, 1889) 

Vincent Van Gough (1853-1890) and his later followers, the expressionists, we’re all about the importance of feeling and emotions over objective reality - It doesn’t matter what reality is like but what matters is how reality feels like. The famous brushstrokes of Van Gough tell us that he regarded his feelings as more important than facts. And this was a common theme throughout his unfortunate life. But the actual colours that Van Gough used were taken with inspiration from his actual subjects, Van Gough did look at colours with respect. He would have never drawn his famous sunflowers in lime green. This approach to colour will fade away in the works of Henry Matisse (1869-1954).  

(Henri Matisse, View of Collioure, 1905)

In “View of Collioure” by Matisse, not only the brushstrokes are not even attempting to represent reality, but even the colour which was up to this point in art history was never disfigured like that. Matisse uses his subjects only as a reference. He makes no effort to make his pictures look like what he is portraying. He is filling reality with vivid colours representing his inner world. It is the inner on top of the outer, feelings over reality, over existence. 

The Primacy of Existence is a very basic notion in Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand: “The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward.” [1] The opposite of the primacy of existence is the primacy of consciousness: “The notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).” [2]

When a painter paints a picture, he implies a certain worldview. Matisse very clearly places feelings, his inner world, on top of the outer world. Van Gough also does this but in a much less consistent way. Van Gough does attempt to take his subjects from reality. His colour is much more realistic than Matisse’s. both Van Gough and Matisse still take their subjects from the outside world - they still give some respect to reality, but their starting point, their axiom is the inner, the self, the emotion. Matisse feels as this building is red, and that matters more than what the actual colour of the building is like.

Contrast Matisse with Fredrich:

(Casper David Fredrich, Landscape with Mountain Lake, Morning, 1835)

What is common to all of Fredrich’s paintings is his immense respect for reality. He makes no compromises whatsoever in his attempts to portray reality. While still giving place to show his inner world, even though he was very religious, still, compared to Mattise, Fredrich is effectively embracing the primacy of existence. What is unique to Fredrich and why I choose to talk about him is that he is a magnificent case study to show that even though his pictures are filled with emotions and can invoke powerful feelings inside the viewers, Fredrich does not distort reality one bit. Fredich does choose a precise composition. He places his subjects very carefully to project his message and show his admiration for nature and its vastness. Yet, everything is realistic, and to do what Fredich did takes a skill level that Matisse most probably did not possess and perhaps most painters never will. 

-——

[1][2] - “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” - Philosophy: Who Needs It