I'm with the Blansky on this one, at least as far as "straight" landscape is concerned. Pretty dead stuff most of the time.

There have been demographic studies done trying to sort-out what is attractive about a landscape image -- what sorts of images do people find appealing? The result was that landscapes that appealed to primitive homonids -- trees for foor and hiding, water, safe areas with open air -- were dominant.

Now to look at Ansel, or later acolytes like Rowell, we see a desire to express the transcendant -- might ring a little hollow these days, but it's there. There are other options: consider Polidori's ZONES OF EXCLUSION. Is it landscape? Yeah, built landscape. With a story. If it does not contain people, at least it contains their skidmarks -- and those are what give it a clear emotional tone, far more successfully than another sunset.

One could say the same of, oh, Chris Jordan or Michael Wolf or Robert Adams. The landscape and the Evans-like architectural documentary begin to fold back on to one another.

Emotion is not something you can just insert, like overexposure or ragged edges. It's not a sticker. It has to come from an understanding of the effect of an image on the mind of the (specific) viewer (I don't think YOU need to have that emotion -- the viewer does. How else could, say, a war photographer make it through the day?).