Surprisingly, the representation of landscape in the 20th and 21st centuries, despite its omnipresence in our visual universe, has been the subject of only a few comprehensive studies and thematic exhibitions. This field of research is, in fact, difficult to define for the period in question, owing to the multitude of artistic proposals on the theme, the variety of mediums used, and the ongoing hybridisation to which these representations are now subject. It is often noted that, unlike in Chinese art, landscape did not emerge as an autonomous genre in Western art until much later. It was only at the beginning of the 19th century that European painters felt authorised to depict a given site for its own sake, rather than to reconstruct an idealised landscape as a backdrop for heroic or sacred scenes, or for those of rural life. In France, within the hierarchy of pictorial genres formalised by André Félibien in his lectures for the Royal Academy, Conférences de l’Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture (1668), landscape was ranked well below history painting, positioned between portraiture and still life. This hierarchy, increasingly challenged, no longer held sway for the landscape painters of the Romantic era, followed by those of the Barbizon School and, later, the plein air painters known as Impressionists. It was two of the movement’s most eminent representatives, Paul Cézanne and Claude Monet, who ultimately secured landscape’s place in the history of modern art through their later works. Cézanne became a central influence on Cubism, while Monet served as a key reference for many Abstract Expressionists of the 1950s. To trace the transformations of landscape from 1900 to the present, one must consider its evolving iconography, acknowledge the genre’s plasticity, and identify emerging practices.
The ways in which artists engaged with landscapes—whether natural or urban—clearly reflect the rapid transformations of the early 20th century, as industrial societies began to take shape. The consequences of industrialisation, already subtly present in Camille Pissarro’s depictions of factory chimneys and railways, soon became more pronounced—not only in painting, but also in photography and cinema, both of which were emerging at the dawn of the century. Photography in particular, which from its earliest stages often turned to landscape for technical reasons (early photographers sought to avoid motion blur), ushered in a more documentary approach to the genre. This photographic realism would go on to influence painting practices well into the present, as seen, for instance, in the landscapes of German painter Gerhard Richter during the 1980s.
Meanwhile, industrial architecture, already depicted by Gustave Caillebotte, grew increasingly prominent in the urban landscape. With their rapid expansion—both horizontal and vertical—large cities gave rise to a new iconography that became a hallmark of modernity: architectural chaos, the proliferation of advertising, perpetual construction sites, the effects of overpopulation, and the growing uniformity brought about by globalisation. These themes were frequently interpreted as symptoms of alienation. Throughout the 20th century, the development of transportation—first railways, then automobiles and air travel—profoundly altered landscapes, while also influencing artists’ redefinition of spaces that were now fluid, both urban and rural. At times, these representations broke from the present, allowing for significant temporal leaps. For example, adopting the codes of science fiction film, Alain Bublex presents a playful vision of the future, while Tacita Dean vividly evokes prehistoric times.
Equally striking in the evolution of landscape since the early 20th century is the genre’s permeability to stylistic innovations. Landscape thus became a favoured arena for experimentation by avant-garde movements, which rapidly followed one another and now constitute the canonical history of modern art. Concerned with the potential dilution of brushwork that threatened Impressionist painting, Fauvism embraced the landscape as a means to systematise the use of colours that had become intensely subjective. Although the Arcadian model persists in the works of André Derain and Henri Matisse, the Fauvist landscape—like that of the German Expressionists—is defined by a perceptual immediacy that grounds its modernity. While Cubism was more focused on still life and portraiture, landscape played a significant role in this post-Cézannian effort to geometrise and diffract the forms of nature and architecture. Less innovative in its aesthetic than in its iconography, Surrealism, emerging in the 1920s, transformed the landscape theme, drawing inspiration from the mechanisms of dreams and the unconscious. This transformation is evident in the works of artists such as Salvador Dalí and Yves Tanguy. After World War II, with the rise of abstract landscape painting—represented in France in the 1960s by major artists such as Olivier Debré, Jean Messagier, and Zao Wou-Ki—a new way of conveying the essence of nature emerged. By adapting the gestural vocabulary of Abstract Expressionism, which had by then become widely influential internationally, the connection between landscape and non-figuration unveiled an unprecedented approach in the history of art.
III
By the late 1960s, however, other, more radically innovative practices emerged, forging new connections between landscape and artistic expression. Breaking free from the confined space of galleries and museums, artists, initially from the United States and later from Europe, chose to intervene directly in nature, altering its appearance in specific ways. In the vast American landscapes, Earthworks and Land Art combined minimalist styles with archaic influences, while also reflecting the rise of ecological awareness. Often ephemeral or located far from urban centres, the works of Richard Long, Dennis Oppenheim, and Robert Smithson, along with the highly publicised interventions of Christo and Jeanne-Claude, reached their audience through photography, which captured and preserved their significance. Photography proved more effective than painting in embodying the scars left by history on the landscape. This is evident in the systematised efforts of Bernd and Hilla Becher to catalogue industrial installations inherited from the past, Paul Virilio’s archeology of bunkers—relics of World War II—and Sophie Ristelhueber’s documentation of traces of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the landscape. Filmmakers and video artists, avid explorers of landscapes, also engaged with the theme, employing two technical resources unique to film: panoramic movement and editing. Artistic interpretations of landscape have transcended two dimensions through more or less immersive installations, as evidenced by the distinct proposals of François Morellet and Tadashi Kawamata, and Véronique Joumard. However, these new practices do not render painting obsolete. Contemporary artists such as Marc Desgrandchamps from France, and British artists Peter Doig and David Hockney—whose landscapes often recycle or combine images from diverse sources, frequently drawn from the internet—continue to embrace traditional methods. Hockney’s recent works, while still rooted in the tradition of British landscape painting, alternate between digital drawings on an iPhone, multi-screen video captures, and large-scale paintings. This versatility in medium choices reflects the expanding possibilities for contemporary artists in depicting landscape, with the growing use of artificial intelligence increasingly blurring the line between fiction and reality.