Leo+DadMade for Leo
Landscape Across Cultures and Time
Rung 3 of 4 · The traps

Whose Story Is This to Tell?

There's a real line between depicting a place and presuming to speak for it. This rung is about feeling where that line is — not to make you nervous, but so you can work honestly.

Cultural frame Builds on: how to do it

Think Read a few short situations, pick what feels right to you, and get a thoughtful response that talks it over — not a mark.
🎧
Audio WalkthroughDad & Leo, Two Minutes — Coming Soon
Video ExplainerComing Soon

You can paint anywhere. You can stand on a hill and capture the light, the shapes, the colour of a place that isn't "yours" in any deep sense, and that's just landscape painting — what the Heidelberg lot did, what every plein-air painter does. So where's the catch? It's the difference between depicting a place and claiming its story.

Depicting Versus Speaking For

Painting how a place looks to you is fair. Painting it as though you carry its meaning — its Dreaming, its law, its specific designs and stories — when those belong to a particular people and aren't yours, is something else entirely. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of picturing Country carry knowledge, story and ownership. Some of it is public; some is restricted to particular people, places and ceremonies. Lifting a style of dot-work, copying a specific design, or telling a place's Dreaming as if it were a free folk tale isn't a tribute — it takes something that wasn't offered and speaks in a voice that isn't yours.

Say it plainly: showing how a place looks to you = yours to do. Telling a place's own story or copying its specific designs when they belong to a particular people = not yours to take. Respect the difference and you can't go far wrong.

Protocols Aren't Red Tape — They're Respect

There are proper ways to do this, and they're not complicated. Ask, credit, and don't lift. If you want to engage with Aboriginal art or stories, learn from artists and communities directly, credit who and where, and never reproduce sacred, secret or specific imagery. You can admire and be influenced by the thinking — say, the idea of mapping how a place connects rather than framing a distant view — without copying the actual marks or claiming the actual stories. The respectful move is to take the intention into your own work while keeping your own content genuinely your own.

The classic slip: "but I really respect it, so it's fine." Admiration isn't permission. The most respectful thing is often to not reproduce something — to let it sit as something you learned from, not something you took.

Why This Isn't Meant to Scare You Off

None of this means "stay in your lane and never look at anyone else's art" — that would make for a small, frightened life. It means working with your eyes open: know whose Country you're picturing, know the difference between your view and their story, and when you're unsure, ask rather than assume. That honesty doesn't shrink your art. It's what makes it trustworthy.

Us, Thinking Out Loud

Where exactly do you feel the line between "painting a place" and "taking its story"?

If you wanted to honour somewhere that isn't ours, what's a way to do it that asks rather than assumes?