nm0097: okay i'll i'll begin then and er just for a bit of atmosphere if you 
feel you want to break into spontaneous applause [laughter] throw flowers 
cheers of bravo rush up for my autograph any of that feel free so today we're 
turning to landscape and representations of the rural having concentrated on 
Paris for the last few weeks and i want to begin by making a general but i 
think a highly significant point that underpins the bulk of landscape 
production in nineteenth century France and indeed elsewhere as well and it's 
this landscapes are produced in and for the city landscape is an essentially 
urban genre and wherever artists may physically paint their pictures which is 
of course very often in urban studios the controlling institutions er audiences 
exhibitions dealers all belong to Paris or Rome or London or some other large 
urban centre and indeed one might say that the very idea of the rural the very 
idea of the city is construc-, er s-, of of the country i beg your pardon is 
constructed in the city now 
since the end of the seventeenth century French academic art theory had 
distinguished between two kinds of landscape firstly historical landscape or 
paysage historique and secondly rural landscape or paysage champêtre the first 
of these categories historical landscape is best represented by the two great 
seventeenth century masters of the genre Poussin and Claude and here we've got 
on the right by Claude which is just spelled like the name Claude er The 
Judgement of Paris and on the left Poussin's landscape with Orpheus and 
Euridice or Euridice and they're both from about the middle of the seventeenth 
century and you can see what function the landscape has here it's basically an 
arena a setting which includes some of the elements of history painting a 
mythological or sometimes a biblical subject classical architecture an episode 
from ancient history whatever so that's historical landscape the second 
category paysage champêtre or rural landscape was 
used to refer to something like this the image on the right which is a 
seventeenth century Dutch landscape by Ruisdael and that's spelled R-U-I-S- D-A-
E-L it's just called Landscape and as you can see in the comparison here there 
seem to be fewer rules it's a more casual or more s-, straightforward look at 
nature this distinction between historical and rural is very much in operation 
in the early part of the nineteenth century and the story that i'm going to be 
telling in the next er three lectures is of the original primacy of historical 
landscape the way that's gradually undermined by the ascendance of rural 
landscape er and the way then that changes to introduce new forms of landscape 
so this is in a way the first instalment of a trilogy now in the Academy the 
powerful ruling body of French art who organize training and production as we 
know landscape wasn't considered particularly worthy as a genre and in the 
hierarchy of res-, of genres you'll remember it trails behind history painting 
and 
portrait painting and animal painting so it's quite low down in this sort of 
hierarchy one the shining examples of Claude and Poussin gave landscape quite 
an eminent history the genre was insufficient in two main respects firstly 
landscape was seen as less morally elevating than history painting images like 
these this is a a painting by an artist called Drouais and it's called Marius 
at Minternae from seventeen-eighty-six a bit of Roman history and on the right 
on your right here Ingres' painting from eighteen-o-one Achilles Receiving the 
Ambassadors of Agamemnon and i just put those up as examples of history 
painting the most elevated kind so landscape can't fulfil the same moral and 
didactic functions as images like this according to the Academy that's the 
first problem with it secondly and a kind of corollary of that the landscape 
artist was viewed as less erudite a landscape painting like the Ruisdael for 
instance would seem to show no signs of 
scholarship no signs of ethical subtlety no signs of antiquarian learning and 
the Academy was very keen on promoting the idea of the artist as a learned 
scholarly professional so landscape deficient both because it wasn't elevated 
and moral enough and because the artist who produced it wasn't scholarly enough 
himself but it's worth mentioning that in spite of this er huge numbers of 
landscapes were produced and all the way through the eighteen-tens eighteen-
twenties and into the eighteen-thirties as many of a third as a third of all 
entries in the Salon would be landscapes so of all the artists in Paris a third 
of them would at any time probably be painting landscapes so it was a popular 
genre nonetheless now there were considerable attempts at the end of the 
eighteenth and in the early nineteenth centuries to revive the flagging 
fortunes of historical landscape to elevate it and raise its status both 
aesthetically and institutionally and academicians started a kind of 
campaign i suppose to position the landscape painter as being a learned and 
morally forceful figure just like his colleague who painted history painting 
and the key figure behind this campaign is an artist called Pierre-Henri de 
Valenciennes and his name is spelled V-A-L- E-N- C-I-E- double-N-E-S and he's a 
landscape specialist who's working around the turn of the nineteenth century 
and here's a couple of his images this is from seventeen-ninety-three it's 
called Mercury and Argus 
nm0097: this is Ideal Landscape with Washerwomen from eighteen-o-seven but more 
important than Valenciennes' painting was a textbook he published in eighteen-
hundred called Elements of Practical Perspective which proved to be a very 
influential work right the way through the nineteenth century in his book 
Valenciennes defended the practice 
of landscape er but he didn't actually try and subvert the academic hierarchy 
his defence was mounted very much within a standard sort of academic framework 
and he used the conventional split between historic and rural landscape as the 
basis of his argument and what he wanted to do was consolidate a separate 
hierarchy within the genre of landscape so just as the Academy worked with an 
idea of a hierarchy of genres from the most elevated to the least elevated 
Valenciennes wanted to take landscape and create an internal hierarchy to the 
genre with paysage historique at the top Valenciennes claimed that there were 
two ways of looking at nature and he says and i'm quoting now from his book the 
first is that in which we see nature as it is and represented and represented 
as faithfully as possible according to this procedure one eliminates objects 
that don't seem interesting enough brings forward others that fit even though 
they might be far away looks for harmonies and contrasts 
and finally chooses this or that view because it's more pleasing and 
picturesque the second is that in which we see nature as it ought to be and in 
the way enriched imagination presents the view to the eyes of man of genius who 
has seen much composed carefully and analysed and reflected upon the choice 
that one must make so he's talking about nature as it is as opposed to nature 
as it ought to be the real and the ideal and it's this latter category of 
course the ideal nature as it ought to be that Valenciennes holds up as the 
higher not only for him does it resemble history painting in its visual and 
moral perfection but he gives the painter of such a picture a very specific 
identity and in his book he makes it clear that the artist who paints 
historical landscape will have read the poets by which he means er the great 
classical poets like Homer and Virgil er the painter of paysage hi-, historique 
will be able to distinguish specific customs and costumes historical and 
archaeological 
detail that he'll have gleaned from reading well again Homer Xenophon Pausanias 
Roman historians as well and the painter of paysage historique says 
Valenciennes will also understand the ethical and philosophical implications of 
his work so in other words Valenciennes is presenting an image of the 
historical landscape painter as exactly this kind of scholarly professional 
while the rural painter is perhaps more like an artisan historical landscape 
requires intellect the other requires less highbrow faculties now it's clear i 
think from this particular defence of landscape that various forms of the genre 
are invested with specific identities and in particular i think there's an 
issue here about class and institutional status which we might er er exemplify 
as the professional versus the artisan interestingly though this division also 
maps onto a kind of geographical division the professional historical landscape 
painter is connected to a southern tradition of the Italian 
landscape which stretches back to Roman history and Greek history while the 
more artisanal rural landscape painter belongs to a northern tradition 
exemplified by Dutch and Flemish artists so there's Valenciennes the most 
articulate of the defenders of the genre and the redefinition of er its 
function and here's just one more image by him er this is just called Arcadian 
Landscape from around the turn of the century now academic landscape received 
another huge boost in eighteen-seventeen when it was announced that in parallel 
with the annual Prix de Rome for history painting there would be a Prix de Rome 
for landscape painting to be held every four years the Prix de Rome was the 
most important competition in academic art education every two years a subject 
was set from either the classics or the Bible and every student entering it had 
to paint a picture of that theme and the student who was judged to have 
delivered the best rendition of it was sent to work 
and study in Rome which at the turn of the nineteenth century was the Mecca of 
the art world the Prix de Rome for landscape was to work the same way except it 
would be every four years but again there would be a s-, a subject set students 
would enter and the winner would go off to Rome to study in Italy and there we 
are so i'll just put up this as a kind of visual memento this is by Cogniet 
whose painting we looked at you remember in the seminars a few weeks ago this 
is called The Artist in his Room at Rome from eighteen-seventeen and it shows 
Cogniet who's just arrived from Paris with a rather nice Italian landscape out 
of the window Rome visiting Italy was considered crucial to the development of 
an artist it was the home of antiquity Roman antiquity it was also the home of 
course of the great masters most notably Raphael whom the French Academy 
absolutely er deified and it was felt that the artist needed to go and study 
these works first hand and to 
absorb the artistic ambience of Rome here's two examples of French landscape 
painters working in Rome one an unfinished sketch the other a highly finished 
picture er both showing one of the French artists' favourite subjects the 
Colosseum the image on the right the sketch is by Michallon he's spelled M-I-C-
H- A-double-L-O-N which is called The View of the Colosseum from around er 
eighteen early eighteen-twenties i think and here on the left by an artist 
called Bracassat that's B-R-A- C-A- double-S-A-T the Colosseum from around 
eighteen-twenty note in the Bracassat how the landmark the Colosseum is 
contained within an ideal landscape that's very Claudian in its composition in 
its division between silver and shade in the foreground and then sort of this 
golden light on the horizon the building the focus nestles in the very centre 
of the image it's the focus of the image and it's as if we the viewers are 
positioned as tourists coming across this view as if we sort of 
walk down this path and there it is spread out before us the glorious Colosseum 
and what's meant to be happening here is that the meaning of the architecture 
is supposed to be inflecting the meaning of the landscape and vice versa and 
perhaps a better e-, a clearer example of what that means is this painting this 
is Valenciennes again er The Ancient City of Agrigentum from seventeen-eighty-
seven and what Valenciennes is trying to do is trying to imbue the entire 
landscape with the spirit of classical antiquity so just as the togas or 
antique dress of the figures down here identifies them as antique morally 
elevated noble and just as the architecture of these classical buildings 
connotes antique grandeur that's now been lost so Valenciennes wanted the 
landscape itself the very setting to be imbued with these same ideas of moral 
worth grandeur elevation a sort of an ethical force so they're trying to make 
the landscape itself connote some 
kind of moral value so what kind of work would get a student to Italy well here 
are two winners of the Prix de Rome for landscape on the right the very first 
winner from eighteen-seventeen Michallon again and this is Democritus and the 
Abderites quite what's going on i don't know i have to say i have to confess 
ignorance and say i don't even know who the Abderites were er but if you're 
that interested i'm sure there's a book in the library somewhere and if you 
find out you can tell me er on the left by an artist called Buttura B-U-double-
T-U-R-A this is the winner of eighteen-thirty-seven Apollo Attending his Flocks 
and i think they are both good examples of the kind of work that was demanded 
classical subjects very highly finished very smooth surfaces and very highly 
composed very sort of artificially put together the similarity of composition 
should be immediate at once i think the same device of trees as framing motifs 
and also note in both the 
trees are used to construct space the tree at the front marks the frontal plane 
there's another tree or a s-, bit of foliage further back which marks a middle 
plane and then there's a kind of horizon line which marks a er a plane at the 
back so there's this sort of planar construction to create space it's the same 
here frontal plane middle plane and then the backdrop almost as if they're sort 
of backdrops in a stage set highly er conventional er this is clearly a 
Claudian or Poussinesque Poussinesque er device there for instance is Claude's 
landscape with Isaac and Rebecca er and you can see at once that the debt to 
Claude in terms of composition is enormous in terms of the er planar 
organization also in the structure of light that became very traditional darks 
in the foreground emphasizing the framing motifs and then becoming 
systematically lighter towards the horizon and again that's a way of creating 
space it's what's known as aerial perspective create a 
sense of recession by moving from dark to light at the first point 
nm0097: so works like this winners of the Prix de Rome er displaying their 
learning full of intellectual investment showing off classicizing tendency and 
also very consciously using seventeenth century French models the idea of a 
great national style and of course in the nineteenth century many people were 
looking back to the seventeenth century as a kind of French golden age so 
clearly there's someth-, something invested here to do with national identity 
and sort of the French cultural prowess now you've seen how conventional these 
compositions are how much they conform to templates from Claude and Poussin and 
of course what that alerts us to at once is that these are studio paintings 
it's as if the artists haven't gone out and copied nature but they've merely 
gone into the Louvre or another art gallery and copied other paintings what 
they're representing is not the world outside but they're representing other 
representations but we shouldn't infer from this that study for nature wasn't 
undertaken by these artists one often comes across accounts er in sort of a lot 
of survey books of nineteenth century French art for instance which declare 
that it was the Barbizon painters or even the Impressionists who were the first 
to go out and paint in the open to make studies in the open air but by the turn 
of the nineteeenth century plein air landscape study and plein air just means 
in the open air was a very common academic practice and again it was one that 
Valenciennes had particularly encouraged and here are a couple of studies done 
plein air by Valenciennes here's another little quotation from his treatise The 
er Elements of Practical Perspective 
from eighteen-hundred he says quote my student has drawn under my direction for 
some months he's copied several paintings of the best masters but he has not 
yet looked at nature he must study it and when the weather is fine we go into 
the country together there i give him my views on how to make studies that may 
serve him later in composing pictures well that short quotation i think is very 
dense and reme-, reveals a lot about the workings of the academic landscape and 
there are three particular things i'd like to emphasize about that firstly of 
course simply that Valenciennes er stresses the importance of looking at nature 
and of making these sketches en plein air in the open and here's two he did in 
Rome from the seventeen-se seventies this is just known as Roofs in Sunlight 
and on the 
other side on the right Study of Roman Sky so these are examples of 
Valenciennes himself in Rome sitting outside with his paints and easel and 
sketching details atmospheric effects and so forth secondly we should note that 
Valenciennes thinks of these sketches as raw materials to be used later in a 
composition he says studies that will serve one later in composing pictures so 
it's almost as if these images are part of something like a renaissance model 
book a compendium of skies lighting effects natural elements foliage or so 
forth that the artist can refer back to when he's back in his studio and build 
up a more formal composition from them and of course what we witnessing there 
is the transition from nature as it is to nature as it should be from the 
empirical like this to the ideal like those Prix de Rome winners so that's the 
second i think important thing point vale-, Valenciennes makes about plein air 
painting thirdly i think we should note that 
the process only takes place after a lengthy period of instruction he began by 
saying my student has drawn under my direction for some months so the student 
has already copied other paintings copied other prints and only then will 
Valenciennes take him out into the open air with his paints and er a sketchbook 
which again reminds us that academic landscape begins with other 
representations and i think what's going on here is that the student 
Valenciennes' students students in the Academy whoever it may be are somehow 
being inculcated are being taught how they ought to look at nature they are 
given preformed modes of visual experience pre-, predetermined ways of looking 
at and apprehending nature so it's as if Valenciennes and other teachers want 
to mediate the way their students look at nature and i suppose influence how 
they see it and how they represent it well of course in a sense no visual 
experience escapes that kind of mediation we can't see 
anything in a pure way you know what we see around it is always preceded by our 
knowledge our preconceptions our prejudices by other representations we've seen 
other things we've assimilated and learned about there can be no er direct 
observation detached from our intellectual and perceptual make-up but what's 
striking here is the way that the process of artistic production the process of 
making a picture is structured so deliberately with representations preceding 
the raw material with pictures preceding nature and of course what it means is 
that the moment the student steps outside the studio and goes and looks at a 
river a pond er a tree whatever it is he already sees it in terms of landscape 
traditions in terms of pastoral traditions in terms of other kinds of painting 
and also he will also view nature as something bucolic picturesque jolly or 
something noble and moralizing so the landscapes he produces are firmly set 
within what one might call 
ideological frames now in making that claim that there's something about 
academic landscapes that's ideological i'm parting company with i think many of 
the books you'll read for instance if you've looked at Peter Galassi's book 
Corot in Italy which i put on the reading list you might have read this Galassi 
says of academic landscape quote if for history painters antiquity was fraught 
with passion and conflict dense with urgent analogy to contemporary affairs for 
Valenciennes and his school the classical past was a dreamland of tranquillity 
so Galassi seems to be claiming that history painting is all about drama and 
morality but that historical landscape is just a kind of lovely utopian 
dreamland that's not really about anything in particular and he also seems to 
make the p-, claim that history painting is very loaded with political and 
ideological significance but historical landscape had none of that i would 
claim that Galassi overlooks some 
important dimensions to the argument firstly as i've suggested i think he 
overlooks the relationship between landscape and what one might call cultural 
power knowledge and learning and er the er the moral contents of intellectual 
endeavour in other words the very pleasure derived from historical landscapes 
is bound up with a certain cultural and social status they were painted for an 
elite with elite tastes who could go and exercise their own scholarship by 
identifying Democritus by identifying the Abderites and unlike me being able to 
say who they were so i think that's the first point secondly consider this 
quotation from Valenciennes and he's talking about the work of an artist called 
Gaspard Dughet often just known as Gaspard and he's represented on the right 
there i think yes er this is an ideal landscape of his from again the mid-
seventeenth century this is what Valenciennes says about Gaspard quote his 
works quite simply offer landscapes 
in which one might desire to have a house for it would be situated with a 
beautiful view one could breathe in the coolness at midday one might walk along 
the shady banks of the river or lose oneself in the thickness of a forest and 
give oneself over to sentimental reveries i think that's very interesting and 
it's a very interesting clue to how Valenciennes reads images like the one on 
the right and he reads them in terms of a personal appropriation of landscape 
he began after all by staking his claim on property it's where you might like 
to have a house and then he s-, evoked that s-, sort of er set of conventional 
leisure activities going into a forest walking along a river dreaming as you're 
wandering through the beauties of nature what's happening here is nicely summed 
up by er this quotation this comes from a book by a geographer called Denis 
Cosgrove and it's from a work called Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape 
which is actually terribly interesting er if 
anyone feels brave enough to tackle it Cosgrove says this quote landscape is an 
ideological concept it represents a way in which certain classes of people have 
signified themselves in their world through their imagined relationship with 
nature and through which they've underlined and communicated their own social 
role and that of others with respect to external nature so what Cosgrove is 
talking about is the way that people er construct their personal identity 
construct a sense of who they are through their relationship with nature and 
obviously there's a big difference between if you think of your relationship 
with nature in terms of being a landowner an owner of a house in woods that you 
can stroll in or if you sort of think of your relationship with nature as being 
one of work of having to till the soil and so forth er and Valenciennes 
certainly seems to have a very clear idea in that little quotation what his 
relationship with 
nature is and the kind of personal identity that gives him it's leisured 
property owning cultured and mobile so there again there seems to be a real er 
ideological underpinning to landscape and how it's viewed and this leads on i 
think to the third way in which we th-, might think of landscape as being 
particularly this kind of academic landscape as being ideologically loaded and 
it's this that this very pastoral mode this sort of bucolic er mode of 
representing nature is in an way a misreading of rural life it's a 
representation of the countryside that excludes labour it excludes peasants it 
excludes poverty it excludes class and again i think there's a clear 
ideological underpinning there it's turning nature into this kind of dreamland 
where you're not disturbed by any of the sort of real grubby events that happen 
out there er in the countryside now in saying all that i'm not trying to make 
the claim that er a work like the de-, Democritus and the Abderites is designed 
to circulate political messages 
in the same way as Daumier for instance who we were looking at last week 
they're not political propaganda they're not trying to make political points 
but i am trying to argue that there are certain values certain er ideas and a 
certain idea about status that's sort of built into the genre that there is a 
kind of ideological underpinning er on the other hand you may agree with Peter 
Galassi er and think i'm talking nonsense er so there we've looked at the kind 
of works that won the Prix de Rome the kind of subjects the kind of 
compositions and i've argued that there is a political dimension to this work 
also to be considered and i want to end just by talking about what happens to 
paysage historique as we get nearer to the middle of the nineteenth century and 
let's just have a couple more up on the er left here is a work by an artist 
called Benouville he's spelled B-E-N- O-U- V-I-double-L-E it's Ulysses and 
Nausicaa again a Homeric subject and that 
won the eighteen-forty-five competition and on the right here the winner of the 
eighteen-twenty-one competition the second landscape Prix de Rome by an artist 
called Remond R-E-M-O-N-D and that's The Rape of Proserpine so again another 
well established classical er a theme er shifts in attitude towards historical 
landscape and its style can be captured to some extent by looking at critical 
reactions to the entries for the Prix de Rome looking at how critics responded 
to the winners when they were announced er each time of course as with any 
documentary evidence we need to be quite circumspect and remember that critics 
are a specialized audience they have agendas of their own that affect their 
responses er so it's not as if we can look at criticism take a quotation and 
assume that it stands for an entire audience or all Parisians or all French 
people but nonetheless i think to review the critical literature what critics 
said about these works is instructive and i 
want to point out some of the ways in which critics' concerns changed between 
the eighteen-twenties and eighteen-forty-five when Benouville won so firstly 
there seemed to be er a shift in ideas about how to paint reviewing the 
finalists in eighteen-twenty-nine the Journal des Artistes which was a an art 
newspaper complained about the sheer diversity diversity of manner diversity of 
style diversity of treatment this diversity said the anonymous critic was 
symptomatic of a lack of good teaching in the École des Beaux Arts the 
Academy's school because quote there is one manner which must be better than 
the others that is to say which is truer closer to nature and which does not 
exclude the choice and arrangement demanded by good taste unquote so this 
critic is saying there's a right way to paint landscape one way that is 
superior to all others this is what the Academy should be teaching people but 
they're clearly not because if you look at all the 
entries they're all painting in different styles by eighteen-forty-five the 
opposite criticism is being made and the journal L'Illustration illustration 
complained in that year as it was reviewing the finalists of the Prix de Rome 
that the Academy was too conventional that its rigid protocols around landscape 
its adherence to paysage historique and the Claudian tradition didn't allow 
sufficient diversity so that seems to be the first shift in eighteen-twenty-
nine complaining everything's too different rather than sticking to the true 
way of doing it in eighteen-forty-five complaining that people are sticking to 
the true way of doing it too much and there's not enough diversity a similar 
switch in critical fortune relates to the historical subject itself in eighteen-
thirty-three the Journal des Artistes again voiced some concerns about some of 
the entries the entries was er a Homeric subject again from the The Odyssey 
what they were worried about here was 
not so much technique or style but the way that the subject had been treated 
and in particular they found that women hadn't been made pure enough and there 
was a kind of a a carping rant about the way that the finalists in the Prix de 
Rome hadn't represented the women in their antique purity but had just painted 
them as if they were modern Parisiennes so there was this worry that they 
weren't treating the subject in quite the right way but by eighteen-forty-five 
again there seems to be a shift and the critics aren't concerned with how the 
subject is being treated but with the very subject themselves and they're 
dismissing them as irrelevant so from a sort of scholarly er exposition of how 
Homer ought to be painted it shifts to a lot of critics just saying why paint 
Homer who cares there's also i think er a shift to be examined in terms of 
audience for landscapes and as i'll discuss next week the audience for historic 
landscape declines and the 
la-, and the audience for other landscape forms particularly paysage champêtre 
increases and this starts to happen even in academic circles and the other 
great treatise on landscape from the early part of the century is a case in 
point and this treatise is by an er a writer called Deperthes and that's 
spelled D-E-P- E-R- T-H-E-S and it's just called The Theory of Landscape it was 
published in eighteen-eighteen and i suppose comes second to Valenciennes in 
historical importance and Deperthes challenged Valenciennes in two ways he 
didn't sort of try to completely undermine Valenciennes' theory but there were 
two significant amendments he wanted to make firstly he declared that 
historical landscape and paysage champêtre were equally important so 
Valenciennes had set up this hierarchy Deperthes says no both the rural and the 
historical modes of landscape are as good as each other what's more i suppose 
is a corollary of that Deperthes also 
wanted to s-, claim that the painter of rural landscapes is just as 
professional just as artistic just as imaginative and just as scholarly as the 
historical landscape painter so Deperthes breaks down that hierarchy the second 
important er challenge he makes is that while he affirms that landscape is 
inferior to history painting he still believes that history painting is a 
greater genre he places landscape second in the hierarchy so he says history 
painting's the greatest after that comes landscape and his reason for doing 
this very largely was that he said landscape was socially more significant 
because being less esoteric being less archane not dealing with Abderites and 
Ulysses and the like it could appeal to a greater number of people it would 
speak to a larger audience so again there's an important shift there in terms 
of audience from Valenciennes placing this sort of more elite genre this very 
scholarly kind of highbrow genre at the top Deperthes is 
saying well no actually this more general genre something that the bourgeoisie 
can go and buy and enjoy is actually just as good so i think we can trace the 
decline of historical landscape from its sort of high point in eighteen-
seventeen when the Prix de Rome is instituted through the worries of the 
eighteen-thirties all those critics concerned that it's not being done properly 
to the open hostility we saw in eighteen-forty-five and to end with two ex-, 
further examples of that hostility again from the eighteen-forty-five 
competition that this painting won the journal L'Artiste the artist called 
paysage os-, historique the worst of all landscapes again turning Valenciennes' 
hierarchy on its head and L'Illustration summed up the whole genre with these 
words something without truth something without naivety and completely boring 
so in a sense just like Titanic thank you er i'll end there er and as i say for 
the next seminar after reading week make sure you read the little extract from 
Teno and we'll discuss er a bit more about ways of making landscapes thank you