You're right on target with this post. I think that people require greater sensitivity to appreciate landscape photography than to appreciate photographs of people.
People have been designed to have great empathy for others, and I don't mean empathy in the more altruistic sense, but in the sense of being able to comprehend the situations of others and to be able to determine the emotional state of others just on facial expression. We are very aware of the message that the facial expressions and body language of others communicate. That makes it far easier to understand the intent of the photograph, understand the emotional state or to at least feel a connection when the subject of the photograph, or a main element, is a person. The subject is laughing, it's a funny photo, the subject is smiling it's a happy photo, the subject is crying, it's sad photo, and so on.
Landscape does not have those obvious clues and it is far easier with landscape for the audience to interpret it in a way that relates to them, or to simply not relate to it at all. The audience of a landscape photograph can project themselves more into the photograph and read less of what the photographer might be doing. Also for some people there is little emotional response from landscape photography and even live landscape. Some people seem to only have an emotional response to other people and not to inanimate objects or places.
I think it's far more of a challenge to elicit an emotional reaction to a landscape or still life than it is with a portrait.
Bookmarks