I would like to hear what this group of artists believe makes good landscapes. Is there a feeling or something that words can explain, or not.  Should people be placed in landscape images? Is their presence necessary to make better art than without them?

In the last ongoing post, David mentioned “The main thing that stands out to me is the absence of people”, this hit me as being very profound.  I immediately ran to look at my work, and sure enough, I had nearly totally failed to put people in any of my landscapes; when I did, it was unconscious.  The only time I paint people is when I paint people. This is odd to me now, (what have I been thinking?), it seems so obvious to want to include something as familiar as people in a work to make it more inviting to the viewer, they could perhaps bring attention to something being performed. At what point however, would a “landscape” painting become a “genre” painting? Does it matter? I would like to know what quality you may feel is most important and should be included in most landscapes.