"Landscape is in essence about ownership. I am most intrigued by the notion of works of landscape as describing ownership and showing us more about an artists own perspective and the psychology and philosophy of an artist rather than just a document of space. When an artist captures a landscape in a painting or photograph etc, they are showing us their own view of a space or place, a depiction of a place as a projection of self. We can get similar experiences when we ask someone about a specific area or place that could be described as a landscape of natural beauty. To my knowledge when asked, people will describe any landscape from their own perspective, their own personal choice of what that landscape is, how its shaped and how it exists to their eyes and in their mind. What we are given in their responses are owned by them and offered to us only as a fleeting glimpse. However the notion of us in some way owning landscape is an absurd one, especially when often the specific landscape in question is in a national park or another public space. My theory is that a depiction of landscape is owned by the depict-er, by this I mean that anyone who in some way tries to depict a specific landscape, be it through an art work, in writing or as an utterance is doing so from their own perspective. As such the viewers of a painting or photograph of landscape are actually in essence viewing their own memories of encounters of place. Like any other form of description/depiction, in attempting to conjure up the imagery of a specific place, our thoughts and feelings surrounding that place are shaped by our memories not only of that place but of all landscapes we have seen or encountered. The difference with landscape is the passion behind the depiction. When we describe or depict a landscape our senses are taken over by awe, beauty and the sublime, these feelings merge with our memories to form our depiction. A query that forms part of the ongoing debates into natures influence on art." Nicolas William Hughes