Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote ; "... Do you honestly believe that if all of us who tend to engage in creating that "ubiquitous pretty landscape crap" switched to "picturing" the realities of our consumer based culture that anything would change? ..."
my response: Well, what I wrote was "...just might be a better place ..." which, I guess, expresses hope if not outright assurance.
Paul also wrote about the "larger political forces" whose "... Money is power and (that) power determines the fate of the landscape that all of us want to protect ... Those "forces" are not likely to be swayed by thousands or even tens of thousands of photographers whose "message" is all the same and whose images look like yours ..."
my response: There is no question that the rich and power wield great influence in determining the 'shape' of the world we live in on many levels. That said, history is replete with a zillion instances (great and small) of 'little guys' working together to ameliorate or irrevocably change that influence.
Here in New York State, we have an 125 year old amendment to the state constitution, enacted by the legislature (after much pressure from 'activist citizens) and voted on by the public, that took the state lands within the Adirondacks out of the control of commercial interests that were devastating the environment. And, it must be noted, that one photographer - Seneca Ray Stoddard - and his 'magic lantern' show (that documented much of the destruction of the Adirondack flora and fauna) who had a great influence on the public (the 'little guys') and the body politic.
You're absolutely right that the 'big guys' won't be influenced directly, but, if enough 'little guys' show up outside their doors ...
Paul also wrote; "... the bulldozers will keep pushing the earth around, skyscrapers and malls will continue to sprout from the land, golf courses will replace farms, and the climate will continue to change. To imply that all this is occurring in part because some of us prefer "pretty" to "pretty ugly" misses the point entirely.To imply that all this (is occurring in part because some of us prefer "pretty" to "pretty ugly" misses the point entirely."
my response: my thoughts on eco-porn are well known to those who have been following The Landscapist regularly since its inception.But let me repeat the words of Linda Miller (from The High Country News); "..."...picture-book nature, scenic and sublime, praiseworthy but not battle-worthy. Tarted up into perfectly circumscribed simulations of the wild, these props of mainstream environmentalism serve as surrogates for real engagement with wilderness, the way porn models serve as surrogates for real women. They are placebos substituting for triage."
Referring back to the pictures of Seneca Ray Stoddard, it was his pictures of the destruction of the environment that got people activated. "Pretty pictures" may stimulate a love for nature (but only the pretty bits, not all of the messy rest of it) but, they are indeed a form of fiddling while Rome burns.
Ever wonder why power companies, waste management companies, petrol companies, auto companies, AKA 'the big guys' fill their advertising and PR with 'pretty pictures' of the environment? Think about it.
And BTW and FYI, I don't think making pretty pictures is 'wrong'. On the other hand, I do think that there are more worthy pursuits to be followed in the medium of photography.