1.W.J.T. Mitchell spends much of the essay talking about some of the problems with widespread art historical assumptions about the genre of landscape art. What are some of these assumptions, and why does he find them questionable


W.J.T. Mitchell says that there are two problems with this fundamental assumption about for aesthetics landscape: first they are heartily questionable; second they are almost never brought into question, I feel that he is referring to the representation of landscapes and the elusive aspect of landscape art. I think one of the reasons .W.J.T. Mitchell feels that landscape art has not been questioned enough is because, of its popularity.

2.What does Mitchell mean in his claim that "landscape is best understood as a medium of cultural expression, not a genre of painting or fine art"? Please elaborate
I think,when Mirchel says landscapes are understood better as a medium of culture experiments, he is referring to when people look at a landscape they are viewing it through lens of their own person experiences.

3.What does the genre of landscape have to do with imperialism and what are some of the "dark sides" of landscape?
W.J.T. Mitchell said the At a minimum we need to Explore the possibility that the representation of Landscape is not only matter of internal politics and national or class ideology but also an international, global Phenomenon intimately Bound up with the discourses of Imperialism, I feel landscapes perpetuated imperialism through the imagery through the images that the artists were doing at that time.