The Difference Between Landscapes and Still Lifes

It looks a bit like a dinosaur came along and
threw up in the middle of this scene.

Showing more simplification.

With a still life it’s important to include what’s there. I’ve composed it and lit it to my satisfaction and the objects need to look like what they are (since my style is realistic art). However with a landscape, drawing what’s really there is disastrous. Here are examples of what I mean. Trees in a landscape are full of complexity. Each trunk has multiple branches and each branch has multiple leaves. Drawing that causes the artwork to look busy and confused as in the first sample. The second sample shows some simplification of the tree on the left. It actually looks more real than the more complex one towards the right. The third example is the most successful because I’ve simplified it to the essence of the tree’s architecture, using shapes of light and dark. 

Finally, something
with a certain elegance.

The difference then between a still life and a landscape is clear. One can be representative of what’s there and the other, due to shifting light and shadow as well as complexity of form, must be simplified to be successful. Then the beauty that is inherent in a scenic view can come through in its depiction.

Note: these three drawings were done with Cretacolor fine art leads. I don't have a relationship with that company. I just like these leads when I sketch in the field or in the studio.