This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 01 November 2014, At: 05:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Two dimensional landscape photography and thethree dimensional landscapeR N Young aa University of Cambridge ,Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: R N Young (1992) Two dimensional landscape photography and the three dimensional landscape,Landscape Research, 17:1, 38-46, DOI: 10.1080/01426399208706357

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426399208706357

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

AbstractThe paper relies on lengthy

observation by the author of

his own and others' reaction

to three-dimensionality in

landscape. It compares how we

see depth in airphotos and on

the ground and points out the

heightened excitement and

response in 3D photos. The

paper advances the idea that

the spatial arrangement of a

landscape is the overriding

determinant in our reaction to

real landscapes, yet is lost in

photographs. Motion paraEax

and its relationship to our

experience of diverse landscape

types is discussed.

AuthorR N Young is visiting tutor in

airphoto interpretation at the

University of Cambridge and

editor of LandscapeResearch Extra through

which he can be contacted. He

specialises in airphoto

interpretation and the

preparation of airphoto

teaching materials, but has

also worked extensively in

resource surveys overseas,

prospecting, mining and

settlement studies.

Two Dimensional Landscape Photographyand the Three Dimensional LandscapeR N Young

Seeing is done stereoscopically, in depth, but our convention is to convey our views oflandscape in flat, two-dimensional photographs. In landscape photos we use muchingenuity to portray the third dimension, emptying the depth clues used in painting suchas interposition, perspective, familiar size, textural gradients and colour attenuation by theatmosphere. We may go further and create foreground blurring and selective focus zonesto simulate how we focus on specific parts of the view.

From that photograph, with its depth clues but no truly three-dimensional space, wemay judge, in the aesthetic world, whether it is artistic. In the geographical and evaluativeworld we interpret it, examine its content and try to appreciate its structure - the positioningof its parts and how they relate. We ask what it really shows; is it possible to do this orthat there? Would the new road fit in? Does it please us? Does it excite us? In our personalworlds, as in the world of planning, we put a value on it as "landscape".

Our geographical assessment of the scene and our judgement of its aesthetic quality willdepend a great deal on how well we see it, whether we can understand how its parts arearranged, which parts are close and which far off, how wide is that dull foreground space,whether there is a way through the trees, and what distance separates the first rock outcropfrom the next. It will, of course, depend also'on attributes which have been widely discussedin papers on landscape preference (in both the photographic and the real world).

Looking at airphotos is differentA professional airphoto interpreter's essential equipment is a stereoscope, and a fine tuneddepth perception. If asked to comment on a single vertical airphoto, the overlappingadjacent photo will always be requested, to allow three dimensions to be viewed. Thecombination of full depth perception provided under the stereoscope by these two differentviews of the same scene plus the fusion of two subtly different images offers more landscapeinformation than the single photograph. It also confers an enhanced ability to analyse theimage data - what does it look like from this angle? It is this high so it couldn't possiblybe what you suggest. In this way three dimensional information has the flexibility of vectorbased data compared with the two dimensional data from single photos which might belikened to data in raster format.

With a three-dimensional vertical view can be understood that which can be onlyguessed from a flat photograph. A vertical airphoto has no foreground and no middleground, except a stray cloud, consisting entirely of background often 5000 feet away fromthe camera. By contrast, an oblique airphoto has three "grounds" and one that is wellcomposed resembles a normal perspective landscape. The single vertical airphoto is like aview from the air by a one-eyed person in a static balloon, with no three-dimensionality.When we see the three-dimensionality of mountains from an airliner, we do so bymovement parallax unaided by our inadequately narrow eyebase which contributesnothing to depth perception at high altitudes.

Schoolchildren's response to airphotosPrimary schoolchildren now have to look at airphotos. Obliques have always beenconsidered understandable (they are like landscape photos) but verticals - all backgroundwith no depth clues.comprising unrecognisable patterns of common landscape and landuse viewed vertically and thus enigmatic, seem to need some teaching.There is a dullnessin childrens' response that can make teaching an uphill battle, unless the photo is of theirown locality. Adults exhibit the same dullness.

However, when children see vertical photos through a stereoscope their interest isimmediately enlivened; they enthuse; they explore the picture subject matter and they scanand look around for things they can now begin to recognise. They can see the depth of

38 Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Giant

the cliff, the slope of the hill and the height of the trees. They seek relationships.The different response may be explained by the fact that they are now seing

a landscape which has depth and has been structured by the stereoscope intohigh things (foreground), low ones (background) and middling things (middleground). They are seeing the landscape in depth, much as they see theirnormal world; they find this depth exciting and spend longer exploringit. At the end they will say it was an exciting landscape; they feel theywere there and they were able to explore. A complex photographicpattern has become an experience of landscape.

The basis of stereo viewing in airphotosThree-dimensionality in airphotos depends on viewing theland below from two widely separated aircraft positionsoften referred to as the Giant Eyebase, which despitea typical photo separation of about 1000 metres fora plane at 5000 feet (for 1:10,000 scale) and of about 300m for a plane at 1500 feet(1:3000 scale) maintain sixty per cent overlap, one photo onto the next. The value of takingairphotos in 3D is to simulate and actually exaggerate the three-dimensionality we seenaturally with two eyes in our daily static context of standing on the pavement, or sittingin the garden.

In vertical airphotos, high objects, i.e. those nearer the camera, are affected by a parallaxshift between successive photos, and it is this shift, as detected by the brain through thestereoscope, which gives the illusion of depth or 'creates the stereo model'. The degree ofparallax shift depends on the height of the object and can be precisely measured with aparallax bar or more sophisticated optical micrometer down to hundredths of a millimeter.It then forms the basis of height mapping for contour work and computer terrainsimulations.

Parallax shift in airphotos, and other photos taken specifically for viewing with astereoscope was conceived as a direct analogue for retinal disparity in human vision.Retinal disparity relies on each eye taking a different view of an object as seen against itsbackground, and offering these to the brain to compare, classify and evaluate the difference.Details of this process can be obtained in text books about perception e.g. Rock (1984).

"Why does binocular disparity (parallax shift) lead to depth perception? Horace Harlow,

Colin Blakemore and John Pettigrew recently discovered neurons in the brain that seem to

have the function of "detecting" disparity. These neurons discharge rapidly when a contour

stimulates a certain magnitude of disparity between corresponding retinal regions?

(Rock, 1984, p.63)

The link between retinal disparity and its stereo analogue in overlapping airphotos iseasily demonstrated by using a few child's building bricks to make a low tower and otherbuildings of more modest height, and to view these as if from the vantage point of a giant,looking down. The views from one eye and the other seen alternately, differ, and occupydifferent positions against their background, the floor, but combine when both eyes areopen, to make a 3D model.

A Landscape

A giant looking at the

landscape sees hills and

valleys in 3D from two

widely different eye

positions: a similar effect is

produced by overlapping

vertical airphotos (shown

here as PI and P2) which

create a 3D model in the

brain - this model being

seen by the eyes at the area

of overlap.

Random dot stereogram

produced by Bela Julesz

(view with a lens

stereoscope). A triangle of

dots in the right hand

pattern have been shifted a

little to the left in relation to

the dots in the left hand

part. Perceived by the retina

this tiny image shift or

disparity is sufficient to

cause the brain to classify

the triangle as closer to the

observer than the rest of the

dot pattern.

Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46 39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

This is an airphoto

stereogram of Alderton Hill

near Winchcombe in

Gloucestershire. Children

(and adults) find the strong

relief modelling of the hill

exciting: the fields below the

road are at first less

interesting and then dull as

one moves away from the

Hill. This is because the fields

display little and even less

relief respectively and it

would be so even if they had

good content. The relative

levels of excitement generated

can be explained by the

different amounts of parallax

shift associated with steep,

rolling and flat land.

Different airphoto scenes yield different levels of excitementChildren, and others, are quick to react to the differing amount of three-dimensionality inairphotos. A hilly terrain of middling parallax with scattered deep slopes, or a sharplyincised valley is noted as attractive, or exciting if the landscape is more dramatic. In thebuilt environment, a mixture of high and low buildings, church towers, open spaces andtall trees indicated by low and middling parallax shift gives more stimulus than extensiveareas of low, terraced housing, or a uniformity of flat fields or woods, and the latter willbe considered dull. Very high hills that 'come too close' to the camera as the plane fliesover them prove confusing to the interpreter. They produce an optical unease as theycontain an impossible parallax shift. The camera has recorded two such different aspectsof the mountain that the eye cannot fuse them. The same is true, in low altitude flying(for scales of 1:2500 to 1:5000), of tall steeples and the taller tower blocks and chimneys.

40 Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Landscapes produced for sale, or for use in education, need to stimulate not bore thebrain, and to create a visual excitement but no alarm.

Ground photographyOn the ground the same principle operates: as we stand motionless, things nearer to usare involved in greater parallax shifts against their backgrounds than things further away.The difference is that these near things are not summits but just what we are standingclosest to - objects of any height.

Parallax shift for a motionless viewer on the ground is best demonstrated by holdingup one finger a comfortable distance from the face, arid the same finger of the other handin line but well to the rear. When you alternate the view from the right to the left eye, thefront finger seems to shift markedly across the rear one in a relationship which depends

This is an airphoto

stereogram of Toddington

Manor and its Park near

Winchcombe,

Gloucestershire. It is a scene

with many 'exciting' historic

and cultural features but the

land shown here is mainly

level with some gentle

slopes. Children would judge

this scene less exciting than

the one showing Adderton

Hill and the paper argues

that this is because it

contains less parallax shift

between the two parts of the

stereogram. The greatest

amount of shift is displayed

by the towers on the manor

and the parkland trees. This

makes the stereogram more

exciting (in parallax terms).

You can check the shift by

viewing (with a stereoscope)

first with one eye and then

with the other.

Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Fines and palms in atree shaded square inCiutadella, Menorca.A landscape of the kind

often featured in landscape

architects descriptions of

designed sites - perhaps

because it is one which

offers easy clues to the

spatial arrangements of its

elements - it is a picture

editor's photo! and space is

neatly defined by reference

to the trees. The 3D image

reinforces this depth but also

creates a sense of enclosure

that is absent in the flat

photograph. In addition it

encourages one to look

down at the immediate

ground surface, up at the

relationship between the

cone laden pine branches

and the palm fronds and

emphasises the open space

around the fountain.

Through a very plainstreet to Ciutadella1 sprincipal square.The flat single photo focuses

on the two people talking at

the street corner in a space

that is both sunny and

open. Viewed in 3D that

effect is confirmed and

enhanced; the right hand

corner of the building next

to the policeman stands

sharply in front of the empty

space offered by the square.

There is more understand-

able detail in the building

facades and their decoration.

Through visible in 3D the

wall leading to the police-

man is dull, has little detail

and is passed over.

on the distance from eyes to front linger, and thence to the other finger. Whereas usingone eye and with fingers "in line astern" there will have been one object to react to, suddenlythere are two; this represents a distinct change in the complexity of our perceivedenvironment - which might in some circumstances be threatening and excite action. Astwo-eyed observers we receive a continual read-out of the three-dimensionality of oursurroundings, and this informs our movements and reactions, or inputs into our motorcontrol system.

Examine the surrounding scene for parallax by looking first through one eye, then theother and note the shift. Then look at it through one eye only and, when your retainedmemory of the depth quality of the scene has faded, consider whether the scene is lessexciting, less inviting to step into, and whether it has ceased to be related to your motorexperience. Usually people discover that the the scene is less exciting, they do not wish tostep into it, and may be unsure where to step.

Try this repeatedly in the landscape outdoors. How does it affect reactions to the qualityof a variety of landscapes? Does one not begin to compensate for the lack of three-dimensionality by searching for classic depth clues? But there are a large number oflandscapes where these clues are absent. How would landscapes of good, bad and mediocre

42 Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

spatial structure appear if captured on a flat, two-dimensional photograph? In losing thethree dimensionality of both landscapes of great actual depth and those which are deficientin depth, is the qualitative difference between these not reduced? If this is what happens,how can we rely upon photographs of landscape to make aesthetic judgements of it?

Exaggerated depth viewingOne can also experiment with exaggerated stereoscopic vision by using a lens-lessstereoscope with widely positioned mirrors. This gives a wider eyebase than usual. It makesthe immediate surroundings more alarming and more intriguing, as everything has greaterdepth separation. It is the opposite of image flattening. At close quarters, occupiable spacesand miniature hidey-holes are everywhere; flowers stand out from their backgrounds, withstartling effect. Even so this exaggerated eyebase has little effect on a distant backgroundand not much on the far middle ground. Even with a depth exaggerating stereoscope, oneneeds to beware of tightly stretched horizontal washing lines for depth perception of thecontinuous line seems to be minimal - a principle widely used in Robin Hood films foryanking horsemen from their saddles.

Horizontal elements in the landscape are considered by the artist to have specialproperties exemplified in this quotation by Douglas Botting describing the New Forest:

An old quarry alongthe coast at St Esteve,MenorcaThe rocky floor of the

quarry is complex but

overlooable and of little

interest in the flat single

photo. Seen in 3D it focuses

the attention, for its many

ups and downs and has

'motor relevance' ie one can

see where to walk on it. It

now has enough detail to be

explained as an area where

building stone was once cut.

The background across the

inlet has useful depth

modelling and reveals that

there is also a far back-

ground beyond.

Rocks in the abstract,St Esteve, MenorcaThis picture as a single flat

photograph has been

constructed with fairly good

fore ground and back

ground but the middle

ground elements have

deliberately been confused in

the choice of photographic

angle. In addition there is

nothing to indicate familiar

scale and perspective or

textural clues. In 3D the

scene and its scale become

much more understandable

and it has great depth. The

arrangements of the various

rock masses in space

contributes a lot to their

identification and the

understanding of the whole.

Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

"The track took us into a subtle elusive landscape of horizontal planes - the belts of gorsescrub, the low lines of ridges undulating gently away one behind the other, the dark wall ofconifers on the skyline wobbling in the heat haze - strata of landscape piled one on top ofthe other and topped by a broad band of sky. Such a profoundly recumbent terrain induceda sense of peace and repose, and an impression of lifelessness".

Does this have any relation to the parallax effect? Of course, the horizon by definitionhas no background except a clouded sky and may well be such a large distance from theobserver as to be in a zone of negligible parallax; for close objects yield the greatest parallaxagainst their background. The low lines and belts of the strata of landscape that the writerdescribes are horizontal elements which from a single static viewpoint do not interfere with,nor overlap one another. The parallax shift that they generate when viewed with one eyeand then the other, remembering that our eyes are set up in a hori2ontal plane, is a shiftsideways and almost imperceptible - smooth line onto smooth with little image difference.Try holding a pencil horizontally at arm's length and note how little the image changes.Try again with the pencil held vertically and the image change is much stronger, for theimage has taken a jump across the retina. With the horizontal pencil there was no jump,merely a smooth sliding action. If these observations hold, we would not expect strongparallax effects from the horizontal landscape and instead of providing visual excitementit offers repose - "a sense of peace and repose and an impression of lifelessness". To obtaina parallax shift in a horizontal landscape one needs to move the viewpoint up or down -which leads us to motion parallax.

Motion parallaxMotion parallax goes into operation when we move our head or move through thelandscape. We enhance our real life appreciation of the drama of parallax by movingthrough our environment at different speeds. This is motion parallax in which we re-position our eyes at speed and, memorising the scene momentarily and in a kind of scrollingsequence we re-view it as if with a hugely increased eyebase. After much personal inquiryon foot, by car, in helicopters and in a wide variety of landscape types over many years,the author is convinced that motion parallax is the key to our experience of the landscapewe move through. Many other factors, from detail and colour to smell and association, areimportant, but not primary.

The same differential movement of closer and more distant elements that we havedemonstrated when standing still, by blinking one eye and then the other, occurs whenwe move through the landscape, but in this case our stationary "eyebase parallax" issubsidiarised to the far greater parallax shift effect of movement. Closeby objects, trees atthe roadside for example, may get lost in the blur; distant hills for which our normal eyebaseparallax offers us little parallax shift, move steadily across the far background and theelements of the middle ground move and eclipse each other, each according to its distancefrom us.

Robert Louis Stevenson "wrote a poem From a railway carriage.

Faster than fairies, faster than witchesBridges and houses, hedges and ditchesCharging along like troops in a battleAll through the meadows the horses and cattle.

All of the sights of the hill and the plainFly as thick as the driving rainAnd ever again in the wink of an eyePainted stations whistle by.

In a recent fast train journey westwards out of London, I observed how sidings andparked trains of low wagons slipped past the window, interrupted sometimes turbulently

44 Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

or violently by strong vertical elements - pylons, tall houses, offices and trees. Before WestActon where the sidings stretch well beyond the track the lines and stationary trains slippedby in a river-like form of differential laminar flow, those at the rear gliding slowly, thosein the middle faster and those next to my train window whizzing past in a sickening blur- one could see the layers: a potent illustration of motion parallax zones.

Those who have watched the Tour de France as videoed from the pillion of a motorbikewill appreciate the degree of excitement verging on terror that motion parallax can create.This may be the best means there is, the nearest to actual experience, of creating theexperience of landscape, an experience rooted in spatial awareness. In "The abstract worldof the hot rodder' J.B. Jackson describes the sensation of landscape passing through the eyeof the moving observer. That it need not be at high speed was evident in an amazingly vividpiece of camera work, much of it on the move, through the landscapes of Kabul, in a TVprogramme, Video Diary. One might have been there!

How different landscapes affect us will depend on our observer speed and on thelandscape's inherent spatial structure - the internal disposition of its elements. On flat roadsor paths we will receive the strongest stimulus from vertical elements in the landscapewhereas when we rise or descend we will accentuate and call up the parallax shift of thehorizontal elements. This last effect is most brilliantly demonstrated by helicopter flightrising up and over a hill or cliff, but is something also observed at walking speed inundulating land. Theoretically, and in reality, a rising and falling road with sweeping bendsprovides the greatest variety of stimulus. Strongly enclosed landscapes call us to slowerspeeds to maintain visual comfort, and huge open vistas will encourage us to go faster andso make them more exciting. A tree savanna landscape with the continuous movementof hundreds of nearer trees against those further away can be very exciting. So also cana high speed military parade by straw bales in an English field.

Although the moving scene may seem out of place in an issue devoted to landscapephotography, we must be aware of the development of the art through the camcorder,whose essential characteristic is its mobility. In Issue 8 of LR Extra Zara Pinfold Muren,director of the film on the works of Burle Marx, was recorded as saying, " The movingimagery of the film holds a great but largely untapped potential for recording space."

ConclusionsIt seems inescapable that three-dimensionality is the first and most important characteristicin our appreciation or evaluation of landscapes. We are stereoscopic animals who live inan environment of motor control. We see pictures, but we relate to landscape as three-dimensional space. Cultural familiarity, colour, framing as a surrogate foreground, thepresence of animals or water have all been put forward to explain how we react to realand photographed landscapes. None has proved convincing. However, if we eliminatedepth in our photos of landscape these may be the kind of factors we have to rely on.

In one way the ideas put forward here are very much common sense, but airphotointerpreters live in a photo world highly dependent on 3D optical models and everylandscape is subconsciously classified by depth characteristics and stimulus value. Will itbe argued that the dominant characteristic of landscapes as evaluated by airphotointerpreters is three-dimensionality, whereas artists identify colour and composition,indigenous people see food.sources (Burgess, 1991) and so on? Probably not, as we areall unconsciously governed by and aware of our spatial environment.

A recent paper in Landscape Research (Bernaldez et al. 1988), identified depth perceptionas important. It reviews the use of photographs as landscape substitutes and records anexperiment. In this they asked students to evaluate landscapes in the field and fromphotographs taken at each of the fieldwork sites. Their discussion highlights the importanceof depth perception which was never identified as a key appraisive characteristic inlandscapes studied via photographs but was the dominant appraisive factor identified inthe field.

Why have so many researchers dwelt on alternative attributes of landscape? There havebeen papers which referred to the proportions of foreground, middle ground andbackground, but have not set these in the context of three-dimensionality. Perhaps

Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

StereoscopesThe illustrations in this paper

should be viewed with a lens

stereoscope. LRG is unable to

issue these free with the

journal but those needing to

purchase one should write to

R N Young, author of the

paper who can supply the

necessary for £4.00 including

postage. His address is:

26 Cross Street

Moretonhampstead

Devon TQ13 8NL

England

researchers have accepted the limitations of the two dimensional photograph, and thepainting, as a safe acceptable reprsentative of the landscape, albeit a surrogate, and have,failed to compare it with three dimensional reality or 3D ground photography, or indeedairphotos in which three dimensionality is the sine qua non. Perhaps in doing so, those whocapture landscape on film have constructed a series of normal ways of photographinglandscapes which has then headed off their investigation.

ReferencesBernaldez, F.G. et al, (1988), Real landscapes versus photographed landscapes, Landscape Research,

13(1), pp.10-11.

Botting, D.S., (1988) Wild Britain, Sheldrake Publishing, London

Burgess, J., (1991) Wildlife filming, animals, places and people, Landscape Research Extra, No.9, p.11.

Jackson, J.B. (1958/9) The abstract world of the hot rodder, Landscape. No.7, pp.22-27

Rock, I. (1984) Perception, Scientific American, New York.

Sekuler, R. & Blake R., (1985, 1990) Perception, McGraw Hill, New York, is a more accessible

text on perception.

Young, R N, (1988) Letter to the editor, Landscape Research, 13(2), following Bernaldez et al. op cit.

ReviewsBeyond Wilderness, Aperture, No.120, Late Summer 1990,ISBN 0-89381-447-4, 80pp, $14.50.From Aperture, 20 East 23 Street, New York, NY 10010-4463.Reviewed by Peter Howard, Department of Design, University of Plymouth

In the United States the relationship between conservationist and artist has long been close,whether the artist has wielded a brush or a light meter. Indeed this volume could equallywell have been entitled Beyond the Sierra Club. The essays presented here address theproblem of the photographic artist's response to the pressures on the wilderness, throughindustrial exploitation, residential development, tourism and commodification. There iseven some acceptance of the fact that photographers themselves must bear some of thereponsibility for making the wilderness so attractive that it became doomed. Len Jenshel'sphotos on the theme of 'Welcome to Wildernessland' depict the problem accurately.

Two essays address the use of photographs as a weapon in the environmentalist'sarmoury. Charles Hagen looks at the success of the Sierra Club's publications in mobilisingsupport for the preservation of wilderness, and uses the work of Robert Glenn Ketchumwho tries to 'make a beguiling photograph out of a difficult subject' Joel Connelly discussesthe growing awareness of the power of photography by environmental groups, but usesphotographs with disturbing imagery, rather than Ketchum's lyricism. Herein lies the basicproblem of the politically motivated artistic photographer. Ketchum is quoted as saying that'art brings me the podium from which to discuss the politics of the scenes I photograph'.So it may do, but it is a podium which directs attention elsewhere. The very artiness definesthe discourse - so that, for example. Ken Graham's photo Crude oil clings to vertical coastline,Kenai Fjords, Alaska, 1989 (p.39), invites interpretation as a fascinating juxtaposition ofcolours. Doesn't the reddish ochre oil look pretty on the dark green sea?

The most obvious examples of this anaesthetising effect of art are the works of John Pfahl.He is clearly aware of the problem, but his luscious colour studies of the effect of the smokeand steam clouds of power stations and factories are not likely to assist in the struggle forbetter emission controls. The other extreme lies in the works of Richard Misrach herediscussed by Rebecca Solnit, where symbolic, propagandist statements are constructed inthe desert and then photographed. The message may be clear, but one wonders whetherthe confusion between the needs of photography and the nature of performance art doesnot effectively remove the sting from the political statement. Pictures are very good atarousing emotions and presenting problems. Solutions require analysis, and analysisrequires words.

The last three photo-essays may hold some keys. Gerald Haslam's examination of RobertDawson's photos of the Californian water industry are content to state a problem - or atleast they indicate the scale of the water infrastructure from which one is allowed to deduce

46 Landscape Research 17(1) 1992 36-46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

59 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014