Part of the reason that I felt the clear cut picture was picturesque is because of my background with living near the forest. My entire life I have loved nature and all of its extreme’s, the forest has been a wonderful influence on my life. The picture taken above is the forest behind my house, as you can see it lacks the ruin that is presented in the clear cut picture. This picture is a prime example of the sublime to me, it captures so much life and natural beauty, it is “awe-inspiring”. What does this mean then for the sublime and the picturesque? Are they just opposing words? No, I would say that both words actually have more in common then in difference. Both words are used to describe something that inspires on an emotional level. The clear cut picture and this one for instance are both of equal greatness; the first achieving this through a picturesque portrayal, and the second through a portrayal of the sublime. Thus a picture of the sublime cannot be said to be greater then a picture of the picturesque in similar contexts. What can be said is that the feeling granted through looking at the two pictures is different. The sublime, in my opinion invigorates and excites, making you wish you were in the picture. The picturesque excites, and invigorates you as well, but with a feeling more inclined to be the one viewing the picture and speculating on it. Focusing a little less on the sublime and concentrating on the picturesque can help distinguish them. John Ruskin a painter of the picturesque mentioned earlier, believes that there are two forms of the picturesque: one with a heart, and the other heartless. Ruskin explains that the “heartless” picturesque “by its natural concentration on ruin, encourages the artist and spectator to delight in sad, painful things for the sake of interesting lines and colors to the neglect of the human significance of the scene depicted.”. Examples of this include “broken windmills” or “weakened men” where the artist is merely trying to depict something of “visual interest”. This form of the art “neglects the higher forms of the beautiful to portray broken rocks and thatched roofs”, it is not parasitic of the sublime, it isn’t sublime at all. Because the “heartless” depiction of the picturesque cannot appeal to the sublime, it cannot hold as much admiration. This I believe should qualify the depiction not picturesque, but ruinesque, since the appeal to ruin is stronger then the appeal to the sublime.
