>>3972146I've already demonstrated logically that what I said is valid to photography as an art form without saying anything about my personal technical, stylistic, or thematic preferences. The argument you're making, that this is my personal taste, or that I am saying/implying that my personal taste is the true form of photography is not valid.
OP can take photos of whatever the fuck he wants, obviously. I never said otherwise. I just said that if he wants his photos to feel more full (one of several ways to improve; and suggestions for improvement are literally what critique is) they could try to photograph "[things or techniques that excite them]" (notice, not ["things or techniques that excite me"]). Your fear that I'm trying to sway the OP into any particular style or subject is unfounded. If OP is passionate about the area, or about landscapes, then fantastic, they have ground already to stand on. Now it's time to put some thought in. What features and feelings define the area or landscapes? What techniques and compositions, times of day, seasons would be best to emphasize (or even just reveal) these features and feelings. If it's memory-based, what specific parts of the scape trigger the memories? Frame these things specifically. "That area looks pretty. Can I fit it wholly, centered, in the fame?" <--- valid photographic technique, but it usually comes out feeling emotionally empty, and it seems based on others' reactions that this is not an opinion I hold alone.
Have you never felt passionate about something? Do you not feel the differences between a photo of something you were/are in love with, anguished from, furious about, and technically-similar photo of something you were/are emotionally indifferent about? You think ansel adams was just like "yeah, el cap looks pretty in the light"? that man loved the outdoors and granite like they were a woman he'd eat his own cum out of. that's why his photos hit so differently.
