Do you think a landscape painting is more relavent...?

Question:

Do you think a landscape painting is more relavent...?

With people in it or not......why?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: the landscape is, and was, and will be. the people are just a passing moment in its entirety, and many more people will come and go. nothing special, the hills just shrug.

relevance is in the eye of the observer. i don't find the people to be relevant in the big picture of the landscape. they may help put a date or place imprint on it, much like a digital camera would, but at the end of the day, the people have all left, and the landscape remains as it was. the prairie sighs.

the artist has an idea of how to picture the landscape, and what he'd like to superimpose on it. man's works are always less permanent than nature's in this case, and a time lapse would show many such superimpositions coming and going, like a security camera replayed at high speed. even through all the bustle, the sun and stars move by, but the trees just move back and forth in the wind. the artist has put away his easel. the camera lens grows feeble and cracks. the forest watches, and night falls.