Why "no people" in American Landscape Photography?

[Richard Raymond]

How did it happen that the current American landscape ethic is to not have people or show "human influence" in photographs? Is this an Ansel Adams effect? Is this a reflection of an environmental movement that does not consider people as part of nature or is the environmental movement an outgrowth of people looking at too many photos without people?
The question came to mind after looking at some Chinese landscape paintings that included people as part of the overall view of nature.
Thanks
Ric

[Jim Cole]

Ric,

I don't know about everyone else, but I tend to have my best outdoor experiences when I feel like I'm the only person for miles around. I like my landscape photographs to portray that feeling to the viewer.

Jim

[venchka]

Ric,

I don't know about everyone else, but I tend to have my best outdoor experiences when I feel like I'm the only person for miles around. I like my landscape photographs to portray that feeling to the viewer.

Jim

There is that feeling.

I am sometimes the only person around and nobody wants me in the photo.

On the other hand, who wants a photo of the crowd at Delicate Arch?

Perhaps there is a time and place for including people. I shall be aware of that in the future. Thanks!

[Greg Miller]

I can only speak for myself. I don't mind putting human influence in my photos, and I have often wondered why camera clubs insist on separating landscapes into "Nature" and "hand of man" categories. they are both landscapes and the introduction of human influence doesn't change that.

But I do try to avoid putting humans into my landscapes. The reason for that is once a person is in the frame then it becomes more about the person than the landscape (we are humans and it is human nature to focus our attention on other humans). So it really becomes a portrait when that happens.

But then again, the Hudson River School painters commonly included humans and human influence in their paintings.

[QT Luong]

There is no monolithic "American Landscape Ethic". Like everywhere, there are landscape photographers that portray nature, and those that portrait man-altered landscapes (eg. Misrach, Meyrowitz, Baltz, Robert Adams, Goelke, Gossage, Sternfeld, Burtynsky, Tice, etc.. all North American landscape photographers). The proportion of those that portrait nature might be larger than elsewhere in America, because there is more unspoiled nature than elsewhere.

[Mark Sampson]

I'd question your basic assumption here. Maybe you're not loking in the right places. See the work of Robert Adams or Mark Klett, two of the best American landscape photographers currently working. Lots of signs of people there...

[Michael Graves]

Perhaps the confusion lies in the definition. What is your idea of "landscape"? David Plowden had some remarkable images of small towns shot from high vantage points. If the ($##$$# town wasn't in the way, it would be a beautiful landscape? On the other hand, what is with putting a distracting lovely background into this cityscape?

Wright Morris rarely had a landscape that didn't include man's effect. But we call is work "Documentary."

[Toyon]

Perhaps its a reaction to the overuse of nudes in "environmental portraiture" in the 70's and 80's, that to my sensibility, subsequently tainted any human presence in naturalistic photographic landscapes. In current landscapes that I have seen humans are usually lanscaped in an ironical or satirical way.

What in your mind comprises successful integration of people in natural landscape photography?

[Richard Wasserman]

I enjoy having people in my landscapes and go out of my way to work them in when I can. They tend to be small in the image, but are important in showing how the landscape is used and has often been shaped by the hand of man. I personally feel that the pristine landscape a la Adams, et al has been done enough and better than I can probably do, and that other ways of looking at and thinking about these kinds of photos is useful.

[aphexafx]

I specifically shoot human artifacts in urban and non-urban environments, and some of these would qualify as landscapes. Not humans, but their side-effects, as you mention. THis is not an environmental statement by any means, rather I am endlessly fascinated by the things humans build and the things human leave lying around, from industrial complexes to abandoned switching stations. This is a huge part of my work. A field with a mountian is boring to me, but include a disused scaffold in the foreground and I can't look away!