The peculiarities of a realist landscape become obvious when juxtaposed with landscapes in other styles. A romanticist landscape is more of a battle than a view – a battle between man and nature, nature and civilization, civilization and time itself.  The sea raging, the buildings decaying, and wild ivy feasting on the ruins. Impressionist landscapes are light and atmospheric and bursting with light – sunshine seems to be the subject of the paintings. A brook cheerfully sparkling in the grass, playful patches of sunlight on the leaves, tiny flowers shimmering here and there, and human presence is almost inevitable. And the realist landscapes, on the other hand, are the ones we drive and walk by on the way to work or to our summer house or someplace that feels close and cosy. Realists never strive for uniqueness. They observe the world, select the most evident and characteristic features of some object or place, define the type and paint the TYPE of place rather than an individual venue. No wonder Shishkin’s or Monsted’s forests are so familiar, no matter where the actual place is. You just feel the urge to say “I’ve been here before!” Another important thing to mention is the detail – realist paintings are very delicate and thorough in their representation of nature. Their brushwork does not produce the impression of sloppiness, roughness or big rush, however intentional it might be with expressionists or impressionists or futurists. A landscape is meant to evoke the feeling of familiarity with the viewer, the sentiment and nostalgy, not to be used as a tool for understanging a person as compared to romanticists. Nature is majectic and beautiful and deserves admiration as it is, no strings attached.