The question of Nature in Art is very complex: should art just imitate Nature? or should we rather bring into opposition Nature and Art, if we consider that Art is a human creation?
This philosophical question raises an important issue: Man has always reproduced Nature, especially thanks to painting. Many paintings show it, such as Monet's Water Lilies or "The Seine at the Pont d'lena" by Gauguin.
However, Art has evolved over the centuries, and many movements of the 20th Century show a Nature we did not imagine. This is the case for example of Fauvist painters, among whom we can mention Dufy, Derain and De Vlaminck, but also of Surrealist painters, such as Ernst, Dali or even Picabia. However, can their image of Nature, quite different from our, be considered as an alternative interpretation of Nature? This interpretation can lead to oppose Art and Nature, and not bring them together.
Nevertheless, without Nature, Art would not be what it is. Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh or even Gauguin would not have made so much paintings if Nature had not been a source of inspiration for them. They would have certainly fell back on other kind of painting such as Still-lifes, Self-portraits or Female nudes, but it would have dramatically altered our perception of art.
From immemorial time, Man has always taken Nature as a model, drawing their inspiration for all kinds of artistic achievements, whether it concerns painting, sculpture or even architecture.