Ruining the view

close
more_vert

Its also possible that 'the view' is a modern creation. Before the classic romantic landscape painters like Constable et al, wild and remote places were not places of beauty, they were seen as dangerous and untamed, something to be fearful of even. Religion and portraiture were the two main themes of art until that time and landscape painting where the land was the subject and not just a background was pretty novel.

Looking at it the other way, are there many instances of ancient sites spoiling the view? I suspect there aren't that many.
With the exception of Uffington, I'm not that fond of White Horses (some of the newer ones are really 'orrible but then they're not ancient). What else... hill forts are pretty worn down and not really intrusive. The pyramids definitely spoil the view of Cairo - can't even see the city from some places ;-) What about Roman aqueducts and Chinese walls? Ancient constructions tend to blend in somehow but I can't quite put my finger on why - maybe it's because they're more often made of local material and not concrete and steel. Cotswold villages almost seem to have grown out of the land - in a way I suppose you could say they have.

Ancient constructions tend to blend in somehow

Definitely. For me, they need to be touched by nature, patinated, rusted, ruined, ivied, lichened, rounded...same with materials, the closer to natural and the further from artificial the better. But then, Cian is right, it wasn't always so, when nature itself was scary.

I still think that the human mind could appreciate the beauty of something dangerous from a very early stage. Look at the South American cultures and the Jaguar.

I reckon as soon as there was a campfire to sit around of an evening, the view would have been admired. I don't think that asthetic appreciation is a thing we moderns have a claim to inventing. That view just seems like we're trying to put ourselves above the ancients in a cultural way.