7/10/2026

Leaving the figure in almost always weakens the landscape

A landscape that works on its own gets diluted the moment you drop a figure into it. The animal, the person, the boat. They become the subject, and the land around them turns into a backdrop. Change my mind.

I keep coming back to this when I look at my own choices about what to include. The most honest version of a scene is usually the one where I resisted adding the obvious focal point. The empty field does more than the field with something standing in it.

Maybe that is just my bias toward omission. But I think the decision to leave something out is almost always harder, and almost always more interesting, than the decision to keep it in.

Curious if anyone here has had the opposite experience. A piece where the added element actually made the landscape stronger, not weaker.

5 Comments

Sort by:

Natasha Haydon ArtJul 12, 2026

Maybe just to show the vastness of the landscape?

Art by RachelHuman-Made ArtJul 11, 2026

It depends on the message the artist wants to convey. In my opinion, if you are creating a piece that is showcasing a specific landmark in a landscape then I agree that the painting should be only about the landscape. But if you are conveying "loneliness" or a feeling of being an "outsider" then you should have a figure in there. If you are a Western painter, then you should probably include Native Americans, cowboys, buffalo or covered wagons. I think it just depends on what the artist wants to get out of the "landscape" because landscapes are a very versatile subjects and you can do almost anything with them.

Steven Paul Carlson1Jul 11, 2026

Luther:

I don’t think ’diluted’ is a good word. Although I believe I know what you are trying to say, Luther. You might be what I would affectionately call a landscape purist. I.e., ’If you are going to really paint a landscape, let it stand alone!’

However, I feel adding something to the landscape can greatly enhance it. It all comes down to…What are you hoping to communicate? To illustrate my thoughts better, consider some of Andrew Wyeth’s paintings.

Steven

Mike Andrew YoodHuman-Made ArtJul 11, 2026

Strongly disagree as one who has included animals and people in landscapes. I understand your point, but with all things it depends on the artist's intent. I have an entire series called Waiting it is a landscape with one figure with his back to the camera -- it is about feeling like an outsider and not feeling accepted. In that series, the landscape becomes an integral part of the piece: both the man and the landscape are of equal importance and without the two the piece does not stand on its own.

In a different piece that I have shown on here in Small Wins called Escape it is a landscape of a snow field with a dog running through it. Without the dog running through it it is merely a snow field - no story and one that you have seen often. With the dog running across it, it is a landscape with a story.

Not all landscapes require a story or a message but that gets back to the artist's intent.

Jeff MalloHuman-Made ArtJul 10, 2026

I think animalscapes as I call them bring something to the image and they sell pretty well! I think it just depends on what you like and your buyers.