At the Limits of Landscape Photography

At the Limits of Landscape Photography

Are some types of landscape photography inevitably doomed to failure? If they proceed from a desire to depict what Immanuel Kant referred to as "the sublime", then this may well be the case.

Landscape photographers are often drawn towards certain sorts of location — mountain ranges, abyssal canyons, boundless oceans — because they are so emotionally affecting. The aim of these photographers is, of course, not just to record what these places look like, but to produce an image which conveys something of how it felt to be there when the photograph was taken. 

Now, let me say immediately that I don’t mean to suggest that there cannot be good photographs of mountain ranges or of roiling oceans. There are, of course, a great many good images of these subjects that are well composed, beautifully lit, and skillfully edited. Yetm when I look at them, I can’t help but feel that there is always something missing, some vital ingredient not present in the final image, to which people sometimes seem to allude when they use the phrase: “you really had to be there in person.”

A suggestion about what this missing ingredient might be and why it is not something which photographers can succeed in expressing is to be found in the work of German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy. He produced major works on subjects ranging from ethics to metaphysics, and his work remains highly influential to this day.

It might seem surprising, however, to look to Kant for insights into photography, given that he died 20 years before Joseph Niépce’s production of the first photograph. Nevertheless, some of Kant’s thoughts on aesthetics provide us with a possible explanation of what it is that certain types of landscape photography may be missing.

According to Kant, it is important to distinguish between two different sorts of aesthetic response which we sometimes experience: the first of these is the feeling that something is beautiful; the second, the feeling that something is sublime. When we find something beautiful, Kant thought, we are taking a certain sort of disinterested pleasure in it. The details of Kant’s account here are quite complicated, and I’ll spare you a lengthy discussion of them. Suffice it to say that our experience of something as being beautiful is ultimately a response to the arrangement of its parts: the sequence of notes in a piece of music, the arrangement of colors in a painting, or the curves and lines of a sculpture or face.

When we experience something as being sublime, on the other hand, we are having a very different sort of aesthetic response. Feelings of the sublime come about when we are faced with something so vast that, despite our rational awareness that what we are seeing is finite, it nevertheless seems to our senses as though it is infinite. Kant’s favorite examples of things which seem sublime tend to come from nature: mountain ranges and the ocean are two of those which are particularly relevant to our current topic. The idea here is roughly this. Suppose I’m standing on the side of a mountain somewhere in the Himalayas. Now, I might know, rationally, that the Himalayas extend for a length of 2,400 km. But from where I’m standing, they seem to go on forever — as far as the eye can see, and further still. My experience of the Himalayas, then, is of something which is seemingly (though not actually) endless. This feeling that I am in the presence of something infinite is what, for Kant, characterizes the feeling of the sublime.

Experiencing something as sublime, then, is very different than experiencing something as beautiful. And if Kant is on the right lines about the nature of the sublime as an aesthetic response, then it strongly suggests that it is the sort of thing which is simply incapable of being transmitted by a photograph. This is simply because whenever we are looking at a photograph, what we are looking at — the photograph itself — is physically small. Most photographs today are consumed via the screen of a phone, making them small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. Yet, even when they are printed large, even when they fill entire billboards, they are positively tiny in comparison to the seemingly endless vistas which give rise to feelings of the sublime. Indeed, Kant himself claimed that feelings of the sublime were not to be found in the contemplation of man-made objects: these simply lack the necessary grandeur, the ability to defy our imagination’s ability to represent them in their entirety.

Seen in this way, photographs are simply not the kind of things which can prompt feelings of the sublime, no matter what their subject may be. Certainly, they may be beautiful: well composed, wonderfully lit, and perfectly balanced. But sublime? Never.

This thought may be slightly disconcerting. If Kant was right (and after all, perhaps he wasn’t), then it suggests that part of the drive which inspires landscape photographers to go and take photos in such exotic locations is simply impossible to fulfil. In that respect, landscape photography, which takes the sublime as its subject, is inevitably doomed to failure long before the camera has even been taken out of its bag, no matter how skilled the photographer. Of course, it is still possible to go the mountains and take great pictures. But as for capturing the feelings which such places evoke in us, and which draw us back to those locations (with or without a camera in our hands), well, you really have to be there in person.

Log in or register to post comments


I disagree with the main premise of this article, and think that the opposite is often times true.

Sublime is defined as:

"of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe"

Photos - digital images displayed on a screen, or images printed on metal, canvas, or even paper - often strike me with a sense of such great wonderment and grandeur that they most certainly qualify as being "sublime".

In fact, there are many landscape photos that are sublime to me, but the real life scene they were depicting fall far short of sublime. That is the cool thing about art and photography - we can take something from everyday life that is not very exciting, and create a likeness of it that is truly sublime to the beholder. We do this by exercising our creative interpretation of the subject.

So for me, there are many photos of which I could say, "I was there in person, and it isn't very impressive ... but this photo of that ordinary place is overwhelmingly sublime."


Don´t know what's worse, if the misunderstanding of the philosophical part (even using the categorical imperativist by excellence in arts philosophy seems a debatable idea) or the misunderstanding of landscape photography in general. Absolute nonsense.

As we create depth and try to use objects in the sense of giving scale to whatever we choose to i have to disagree with all this. The biggest problem is that we have so much photos on the Internet, but only very few are good. It's like comparing a book to the movie, to the true story... We are learning for years and years how to tell story with one photo... Not easy task, but it isn't impossible for sure.

I suggest (if you haven't already) that you study the landscape photos of Robert Adams (not Ansel. no relation), Richard Misrach, and Sally Mann. Then read Richard Misrach's book "On Landscape and Meaning." Then read Robert Adam's book, "Beauty and Photography." I don't agree with a lot of Adam's book, but his arguments are very nuanced and will provide some great insight if you want to look further into the idea of beauty in photography.
Looking at landscape photography solely through the lens of beauty and sublimity can be problematic.

Hi Justin, thanks for replying and for your reading suggestions - I like what I've seen of Sally Mann's landscapes, and I actually read Adam's book only recently. I'll certainly try and find a copy of Misrach book, as you suggest.
I agree that landscape photography shouldn't solely be understood or evaluated according to the criteria in this article, nor do I think that the limitations which I suggest will apply to every landscape photograph (even those for which it is applicable to consider them in terms of how beautiful they are). I only really wanted to suggest that this might be an issue for very specific types of landscape photography, and the motives behind the creation of such images.
Thanks for reading and for taking the time to comment, it's much appreciated!