Schlobin, The Aesthetics of Fantasy Literature and Art, writes: “The fantasy illustrator takes the pictorial conventions of realistic portrayal and then manipulates and inverts them to create marvellous worlds for which there can be no earthly analogy.”. There are many parallels between ‘fantasy art’ and capriccio, however fantasy art feels more whimsical, less inclined: “I mean by a picture a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was, never will be- in a light better than any light that ever shone- in a land no one can define or remember, only desire.” (Roberts-Jones, 1978)
In going a little deeper into Fantasy art, with respect landscapes, I looked towards Tolkien, who is expert in imaginary worlds. Tolkien has defined the fantasy and reality worlds as primary and secondary, primary being our own world, secondary being any other imagined world. Zahorski and Boyer expand on this theory: “High fantasy is, in fact, distinguished from low fantasy largely on the basis of setting. Low fantasy (low is a descriptive, not evaluative, term here) is set…in our primary world.”
Whilst “Fantasy may be almost all things to all men.” (Manlove, 1982)
Schlobin, R.C. (1982). The Aesthetics of Fantasy Literature and Art. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press and The Harvester Press.
Roberts-Jones, P (1978) Beyond Time and Place, Non-Realist Painting in the Nineteenth Century, (Page 85) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zahorski, K.J / Boyer, R.H (1982) The Secondary Worlds of High Fantasy. In: The Aesthetics of Fantasy Literature and Art. Schlobin, R.C. (ed.). Indian: University of Notre Dame Press / The Harvester Press
On the Nature of Fantasy, C.N. Manlove, The Aesthetics of Fantasy Literature and Art, edited by Roger C. Schlobin, University of Notre Dame Press and The Harvester Press, Indiana, 1982