Humans or No Humans

This painting is coming along well.  It's not quite done yet.  The intended fluffiness and ephemeral quality of the 3 kinds of clouds depicted  has not been applied yet.  Frankly, I only have an inkling on how to execute it and i suspect it will take a number of layers to get the translucent effect I'm aiming for.  Good luck with that.

Because almost everything  is suggested given the freedom I allowed myself on the brush strokes, the viewer's eyes will wander aimlessly across the frame.  I needed an anchor of sorts where the eyes can begin and launch off towards the horizon, then follow a path back to a comfortable point of focus.  I'm torn between putting in a person, or just rendering with more details the light green grassy foreground on the lower left of the frame.  Either one, it will serve a good anchor.  But, choosing either one will alter the philosophy underpinning the painting.

I always maintain that nature cares not for man or our fate.  In fact, nature is not conscious of how she looks like, of how barren or verdant she might be.  Nature just exist and we are a complication in this grand scheme of just being.

I just want us to be out of the frame.  To be able to see and comprehend, but never covet, infect or destroy.

But without the manifestation of man within the frame, it is conceptually a lightweight anchor.  Humans are exasperatingly self-conscious and egomaniacal.  We are obsessed with our own kind and naturally gravitate towards another biped.  A human figure 1/10th the size of the frame is as heavy as the mountain - if not heavier.  We explore the figure not only with our eyes, but also with our minds.

So what will it be?