Especially for those of us who are aware of artistic traditions and historical styles, painting in the genre of landscape is a complicated undertaking. Especially for those of us making art who are aware of and responsive to the long reach of modernism, the simple pleasure of putting together a landscape painting is often compromised by our personal inventory of great precedents. (Modernism haunts us with its nagging for originality and genius.)
The so-called plein aire painters are to be envied for their priorities for technique / craft and style—for rolling up their sleeves, putting on wide-brimmed hats, exposing themselves to ambient dynamics, and just getting after it. As a kind of contemporary art movement, their concerns for tradition and style seem to be limited to a kind of mid-to-late 19th century European renaissance. We should not dismiss them .
Perhaps, some of us paint other subject matters primarily and enjoy painting landscapes as an extension of artistic well-being, or we translate our primary artistic focus to the unique challenges of the landscape? We may admire precedents in Dutch painting, French impressionism, early 20th-century movements such as Cubism and Expressionism, or American regionalism.

I try to keep in mind the many insights shared by my landscape painting mentor, Don Schmidlapp. Several hours on site or in a gallery with Don was great for clearing away the clutter in my mind. When my mind closes in on itself, a recall of Don’s insights opens it back up. I am reminded to not aim a landscape painting at anything other than what is true to the object, as I see and paint it.