I took an Art History class once and had to study many
different paintings. Many of the
paintings were architectural scenes of buildings, roadways, and bridges, in
other words “city-scapes.” By our
previous lectures on the definition of landscapes and maps, landscapes seem to
be more nature oriented and of wide-open spaces. Urban city areas such as in architectural
oriented paintings may or may not have such wide open spaces or a “nature”
setting. They are not maps in my mind as they are not focused
with providing a viewer with scientific or other logical information, but are
focused on simply appealing to the viewer in the same way as a landscape. Does this mean that these sort of architectural
style paintings are to be classified as landscapes or something else? I believe that they should be classified as
landscapes, even though they have a much greater human presence than what one
would associate with a stereotypical landscape painting.
No comments:
Post a Comment