Arctic Landscapes: What Are You Actually Looking At?
Updated: Oct 5
There Is No Single Arctic Landscape
When someone tells us they want to see the Arctic, the first question is usually: what do you actually picture? The Arctic has mountains, glaciers, icebergs, vast empty spaces, coastlines and communities. These landscapes can feel completely different from one another, which is why the answer matters when we start looking at an expedition.
Some travelers are drawn to ice and glaciers. Others want mountains and fjords. Some want the feeling of being somewhere so remote that there is almost nobody around. The landscape needs to match the person.
Scale is a big part of this. In an urban environment, we are used to being surrounded by things built for human use. In parts of the Arctic, the landscape is so enormous that our usual sense of scale disappears. The mountains, sea, ice and open spaces can make you feel very small. That is often what people are looking for when they say they want the Arctic.
You Cannot Simply Drive There
Part of the attraction is how little conventional infrastructure there is.
You cannot simply take a car and drive through much of the Arctic. You need a boat or a plane. This is where expedition really means expedition.
The landscape also sets the rhythm. Weather, ice and the surrounding environment determine what is possible. A passage may be accessible one day and different later. Conditions can affect where a ship can go and what can be experienced.
That flexibility is fundamental to expedition travel.
There is also a different mentality involved. The purpose is not simply to move through a list of places and check them off. The experience depends on what is happening around you at the time.
This is why two itineraries that look similar on paper can feel very different in reality.
Svalbard, Greenland or the Canadian Arctic?
The word “spectacular” does not tell us very much.
When cruise lines show photographs of Arctic landscapes, they are often showing extraordinary moments. Those photographs can be completely genuine, but they do not mean that every voyage will encounter exactly the same conditions.
The question is what the traveler actually wants to see.
Greenland can be particularly relevant for someone drawn to glaciers and icebergs. Svalbard offers a different landscape, with mountains and compact dramatic fjords. The Canadian Arctic can offer a much greater sense of vastness, with mountains, tundra and the cultural context of Inuit communities.
These are broad geographic tendencies. Every itinerary depends on its route and the conditions at the time.
This is where matching the traveler to the right experience becomes important. Someone looking for a mountain landscape may have a very different idea of the perfect Arctic voyage from someone who wants to feel complete isolation.
What the High Arctic Once Looked Like
The Arctic is not one landscape, and the descriptions left by early explorers apply to only one part of it: the high Arctic and the drifting sea ice around the North Pole.
There, even small changes in light became important. Frederick Cook described watching his own shadow as he moved north, noticing how its length, colour and definition changed beyond the 88th parallel. At the Pole, the shadows at midday and midnight appeared almost identical as the sun remained at a similar height above the horizon.1
The landscape itself could be difficult to comprehend. Cook described a silver and purple expanse with almost nothing to break the horizon2, while another explorer called the North Pole a “colorless, inhospitable desert of ice.”3 These descriptions give us a sense of just how different the high polar sea was from the mountains, fjords, glaciers and communities found elsewhere in the Arctic.
Light could transform it again as winter approached. One October account describes the sun disappearing from the vessel while distant headlands and the tops of icebergs still caught the remaining light.4
It is a useful reminder that there is no single Arctic landscape. The North Pole, Greenland, Svalbard and the Canadian Arctic are very different environments, and what we see depends on where we are, when we go, and what the weather and ice are doing.
The Landscape Is Part of the Experience
The photographs can only tell part of the story.
We have to look at what is actually happening, when it is happening, and what the client wants to experience. Weather can change. Ice moves. Conditions can alter the landscape and the way a voyage unfolds. That is also why interpretation matters. Everyone experiences travel differently. The same landscape can produce completely different reactions depending on what someone has come to see.
For one person, it may simply be beautiful mountains. For another, the scale may be the most memorable part of the entire voyage. The Arctic can leave a very deep impression because of all the elements working together. The landscape itself is one part of it. The climate, remoteness, changing conditions and feeling of immersion all become part of what the traveler takes home. That is why we prefer to start with the person rather than the photograph. Once we understand what they actually mean by “Arctic landscape,” we can start looking for the right voyage.
You May Also Enjoy
Finding the Right Landscape
If you have been drawn to Arctic scenery but are unsure which region or expedition fits what you imagine, we can help you narrow it down. Tell us what you want the landscape to feel like, whether that means glaciers and icebergs, mountains and fjords, vast open spaces, or the cultural landscape of the Canadian Arctic. From there, we can look at the itineraries and conditions that best match your interests.
From polar landscapes and wildlife to science, history and local communities, discover how we approach Expedition Travel.
Shadows beyond the 88th parallel: T. McCarthy (ed.), The Greatest Polar Exploration Stories Ever Told (2004), Lyons Press, In Search for Franklin, pp. 138–139.
Desolation and colour at 90° North: same source, pp. 141–142.
“Inhospitable desert of ice”: same source, p. 116.
Late-summer light disappearing: same source, p. 54, October 21 entry.
Comments