I'm exploring landscapes to understand what makes them photographically interesting or not. In the two samples below, the top is a kind of typically "romantic" landscape, while the bottom is a similar form, but free of our notion of romanticism of the content. Another way of expressing this is to say "content free", such that only the form carries the interest. (Admittedly, these two are not stunning, but just used to make the example.) We are quite biased towards natural things like a tree and a rock, but is a telephone pole really so different in form? Is a nasty nest of say, phone wire all that different than a spider web? In simple photographic truths, does our bias toward nature's beauty or charms prevent us from seeing completely similar and useful forms in the ordinary places? Is there beauty of form and composition lying all around us, but ignored for it's common roots? Is our appreciation of natural landscapes a knee-jerk conditioned response?