>>6011369Depends on how academic you want to get with it and where your general painting abilities are. If you only drew using line and never painted, you may want to learn how to paint. The skills are transferable but its not overly direct 1 to 1.
Drawing is essentially a visual language and painting is a dialect of it.
If you know the basic rules of painting then I'd reccommend Noah Bradley's Landscape 3 course. I know he's a pariah online but its probably the most academic straight forward approach to landscapes. The content isn't completely comprehensive but the exercises make a lot of sense.
I've found a lot of other landscape courses try to boil shit down but always come off as not as academic as say figure drawing. There are hard rules to landscape painting but much less of them meaning you'll have to do a lot of the work yourself when it comes to learning how to paint them. There isn't really a loomis head for landscapes but rather abstractions of rules that sometimes won't always work.
Eg;
>clouds follow perspective and tend to have cumulus clouds on the bottom and cirrus on the top except not always>atomospheric light tends to make shadows more blue except not always>bushes and stuff tend to conform to a blob shape lighting wise except when they don'tHopefully you get the idea.
I'd start with copying western landscape artists since the abstraction and interpretation is done for you. You don't need to do a 1 to 1 copy but spend some serious time on each The more you do the faster you'll get and the more studies you can crank out.
Once you can break down values a bit better(eg: you'll learn trees are super fucking dark) move to colour asap since its where the fun part of landscapes is. Then go to ref then imaginative.
