Writing about Places, Science, and Art

     Writing about a place has always been tricky. In my opinion, there isn't any description around that can be as clear or as accurate as a picture. For the most part, photographs are very easy to acquire of whichever place you have visited. What a picture cannot do as well as a piece of writing is express the specific emotions you felt while standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon or while strolling through dear old Granny's prized flower garden. (I'm sure there are very talented photographers and artists out there who will disagree, but unfortunately I am no one of them.) Language was created as a form of expression. Let your travel piece express what you felt and saw that moved you. The place you describe may have been visited countless times before and that’s okay, because then your readers have something that they can relate to. If it was a unique and unusual experience, then it’s something they are going to be interested in hearing about.

     Art and science tend to be approached differently. Science leans toward a clear explanation of a process, while art tends to become a critique or review of some sort. Generally the artist’s ability and the quality of the piece itself are discussed. Both science and art require a solid knowledge base in the topic being discussed. Someone who doesn't enjoy any theatre wouldn't make a very good theatre critic, and a man who cannot work a toaster properly would never be trusted to explain rocket science to children. Being clear and honest are crucial. The reader demands it.