1. Located in between was the picturesque, seen as arising generally from an experience of rough, abruptly varied, and irregular landscapes which often included human elements such as ruins or rustic cottages. Such landscapes should be called ‘picturesque’, according to one of the main theorists of this category, Gilpin, because they ‘please from some quality, capable of being illustrated by painting’. William Gilpin, ‘Three Essays’ (1791), in Dabney Townsend (ed.), Eighteenth Century British Aesthetics (Amityville, NY: Baywood, 1999), 192.
2. Kant, for instance, claims that artefacts may not be objects of pure judgements of the sublime but may only be made with respect to ‘raw nature,’ the he refers to certain works of architecture as sublime. [See Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed. Paul Guyer, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 129, Ak. 5: 252–253]
3. Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful, Harvard Classics, vol. 24 (New York: Bartleby.com, 2001), Part III, section 27.
4. Joseph Addison, The Works of the Right Honourable Joseph Addison (London: H. G. Bohn, 1854). Vol. 4, p. 7, Spectator No. 489.
5. Peter Schjeldahl, ‘Inspired Lunacy: A Closer View of Caspar David Friedrich’, New Yorker 2001, cited in Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art (Pern, IL: Carus Publishing Co., 2003), chapter 7.