Picturesque and sublime full#

Elements that may appear real, could theoretically be imaginative and vice versa. Neither can it solve the specific identification of those elements that are real and those that are imaginative. It does not resolve the philosophical and artistic discussion of the fact that some things cannot be put to words. It is however nothing but a method without an underlying theory. It may be a satisfying and pragmatic method to perform a magic trick that is appealing. Is thereby the picturesque not the satisfactory category to deal with the handicap as described earlier? I think not. Helping the debate to move away from too scholastic isolation. The category of the picturesque even made it possible to gain access to a wide and appreciative audience. Painterly techniques – and nowadays photographic techniques and 3D modeling – have helped landscape designers to consciously consider designs in between the real and the imaginary.

Not only Arcadian landscapes could be designed by this in-between category, also fantastical landscapes like in paintings by Caspar David Friedrich, or extremely colorful and vivid landscapes as Van Gogh could create or misty landscapes like a William Turner painting and even abstract landscapes like the twentieth century paintings by Barnett Newman or Jackson Pollock. A concept that could be characterized as a Western type of yin-yang. Like in landscape paintings, that had proven their value since the sixteenth century, a delicate composition from a framed viewpoint could entice the visitor of a designed landscape with both real and imaginary elements to create a sense of experiential liberty. The picturesque became the well accepted and pragmatic solution when wanting to balance both beautiful and sublime aspects. It is therefore not surprising that immediately following the eighteenth century discussion on the beautiful and the sublime, landscape critics and designers such as Price, Repton and Gilpin (1802 1794 1795) introduced the category of the in-between as they named: the picturesque. Their position is that of the in-between and this is most effectively true for landscape designers, since landscape as a medium exists in between the real and the imaginary landscape is by definition both a physical reality and a metaphysical reference to things beyond time and place.

Picturesque and sublime full#

Even today, as suggested in the eighteenth century, science stands for those things real and art may be experimental with those things imaginary.ĭesigners however face the imperative to bridge the divide, because they are neither full artists nor full scientists. This dualism rules over an essentially non-dualistic experience. It is the opposition between the beautiful and the sublime that dominates all efforts to somehow merge both the real and the imaginary as our experiential field of reference. Even in our current days, this discussion has not been solved satisfactory. The handicap of what can and what cannot be put to words was framed by a discussion on the beautiful and the sublime. In the history of philosophy and art criticism this handicap became a serious topic of discussion in the eighteenth century by for instance Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant (1759, 1790). It is strenuous to gain conscious access to possible consequences that my designs will have on both the physical aspects within landscapes and on human perception. Nevertheless, the fact that not all of the grand aspects of life can be put to words is creating a handicap. By accepting the fact that I have to deal with this situation by both real and imaginary experiences, I can allow my imagination to seriously flirt with scientific realism. Frightened because of the unknowable consequences of my actions or interventions. If I couldn’t rely upon an imaginative liberty when dealing with such grant contexts as ‘nature’, ‘wilderness’ or ‘authenticity’, I would not dare to intervene at all. As a designer of landscapes this liberty is even the main reason to be able to design anything at all. On the contrary, it is proof of some liberty to interpret life and perhaps even add something of yourself to the larger pool that can be referred to as ‘our daily reality’. The experience of such things and phenomenon is necessarily somewhere in between the real and the imaginary.

There are things in life – and in the landscapes that remind people of life – that cannot be put to words. Kevin Weir – the flux machine (click to make it animate)