Romantic/sublime in current landscape photography

What contemporary landscape looked like before was romantic where as now it is much more sublime. This could be because we need to create photographs that shock the system instead of inspiring others.

Ansel Adams highlights that contemporary art isn't contemporary at all as his artwork was and is traditional yet traditional work isn't contemporary so why has his work resurfaced after about 70+ years? Are we not as successful in portraying what contemporary art means so we've reverted back to art that we know, works?

The negative sublime can be advocated by Edward Burtynsky who flips this idea of the sublime as being "great" and "beautiful". His obvious signs of destruct are formulated in a way that brings a unique viewpoint of the landscape being more horrifically beautiful than either horrific or beautiful alone.

Walter Niedermayr forms painterly landscapes that create a sense of freedom which formulates ideas of beauty, warmth and comfort to an otherwise controversial meaning as what we can see in the images is a mountain in the background of a scene filled with human behaviour and impact. Shouldn't we be focusing on the beautifully outlined mountain in the background? Surely the mountain's present has to mean something but what?

Contemporary art today does not deceive the viewer but instead tricks the mind to believe that art means one thing but means the opposite in order to reach a shocking verdict. This must be the only way to overcome the naivety of today's society that the landscape "isn't as destroyed as we think".

I want to continue to explore this because how do we expect to stay as landscape photographers, without a landscape to photograph?