Representations of Landscape

Among all the questions to be addressed in an exhibition focusing on landscapes, the most ironic but the most appropriate question is to be surely where to begin. When I strolled around the place represented in this exhibition (they are all part of the scenes described), I noticed that my response was different. I was fascinated by the end of the scene. I will consider the particularity of each vision. At the third or fourth encounter, I began to see: my visual experience of these scenes became more temporary, and my time and their constraints became shorter.

Prior to the 1980's, geography generally regarded the landscape as an explanation of the physical topography. From the late 1980s to the 1990s people took more attention to the typical quality of the landscape. In other words, the landscape (especially artistic and photographic landscapes) can represent a broader meaning, such as the national identity and how different social groups tie or exclude these stories I will. It highlights how the landscape tells us about cultural value and how it contributes to creating a specific, selective understanding of "nature". And since the late 1990's, many geographers have tried to suggest that something important has been lost in this strong interest in the "typical" landscape quality. In this sense, the meaning of landscape is in human practice, process and experience.

Let's talk about the progress of art, focusing on specific art forms, representative landscapes. At the moment, this type of art is beginning to look to the third paradigm. The first paradigm, landscape paintings appeared in Europe in a unique art form in the 17th century. This is partly due to the sculpture of Rome by French artist Claude Lorrain and the exciting painting around it. It is popular. Representative landscape painting peaked in the middle of the 19th century. It was created by a painter in the Hudson school of the United States.