Landscape and religious belief


©Werner Hammerstingl, 1998

My argument around the relationship between the landscape and it's depiction in art is as follows: landscape is the "stage" on which nature manifests itself. From the primitive beginnings of civilization onwards we have a constant evolution between humans and their relationship to nature, a constant re-evaluation which begins with the worshiping of natural phenomena as a means to explain their excistence.

As a consequence of this evolution the iconography of nature and landscape makes it's way into art and it's various manifestations.

The idea of the "beautiful" gets tied to the representation of nature quite quickly:Chrysippus states:

"beauty is of the universe-not only of man"

Plotinus goes on to argue that: "Detaching itself from the material the soul reaches out to the supreme beauty, which is also the supreme good, God, by a mystical process (which according to Plotinus is intuition).

This line of argument is largely responsible for the process of contemplation (as opposed to reasoning) in which subject and object are identified. The vision is no longer external but internal.

Example: It was not possible for painters to see the sun, but many managed to paint it.

So, until the beginnings of scientific rationalism last century, we have various degrees a relationship between nature and the divine. The break with this view comes with explanations produced by scientists who , as a consequence of rational deconstruction, decrease the importance between divinity and natural form.

The two binaries in terms of humanity and it's relationship to nature and the landscape are manifested clearly and distinctly in the writings of Byron and Wordsworth.

In painting Géricault and Turner typically represent the ferocious, destructive and even vengeful aspect of nature. Constable on the other hand shows us nature as a tranquil, comforting and live-giving force.

Back