Aaron Gillies wrote:
> 
> Folks:
> 
> What is the consensus on Specular Landscapes?  Is my idea
> going to be off-topic if I include man-made objects,

Why should it? Do you think many of the "spetacular landscapes" listed
in the description are entirely devoid of man-made objects? Certainly
they list many of the know and accepted landscapes of the world but
there are many more ideas you could play with and still stay on topic.
There is nothing that says that the presence of man dispoils a natural
backdrop and I have often seen where artists prefers to add man-made
objects to give a scene a human reference point to view it from.

For example:

A view from a sweeping motel room window in Hawaii looking out on Diamond Head
and the local beaches.

The beautifully landscaped and terraced grounds around a mansion as viewed
through the front gates.

A local park with trees and picnic tables in the foreground and a
city skyline in the background. Natural? Who cares.

The vista of a city at night as viewed from a local hill.

A sailboat framed against the setting sun on an ocean or lake.

A small cabin set in a meadow against a mountain backdrop.

The tuplip farms in Holland complete with windmills in the background.

Canals and rivers with bridges.

A picture of a man flyfishing on a high mountain lake or stream.

An art gallery of famous landscape paintings on the wall.

Halfdome in Yosemite national park with climbers scaling the face of
the dome.

> or if my
> landscape doesn't look like (or attempt to look like) a known
> real-world scene?

Spetacular is in the eyes of the beholder. I've seen spetacular
sci-fi landscape art of completely other-worldy origin.
 
> The description on the IRTC web page looks like a recipe for
> boredom to me.

Let your imagination run free and go with what does not limit you to
something boring. I really think this will be an exciting round if
people really apply themselves to it.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message