Meanings/ Landscape and Appreciation. Part II

Please Note: The following are contributions to the thread on Meanings of Landscape Appreciation that appeared orginally at the Message Board of the on-line Discussion Group. To see the M. Board press the link below: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/landscape-appreciation/ The Website of the Landscape Appreciation Group can be seen at: http://www.freewebs.com/jorgeg/


landscaperian -----post# 47 --------7/12/04

As a contribution to the subject of Landscape Meanings I'd like to draw attention to the definition adopted in the European Landscape Convention, held under the auspices of the European Union in Florence in 2000:

“Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors"

The above statement is interesting because a) it embodies all sorts of landscapes be them urban, rural, historical, cultural, agricultural, etc.etc. b) it introduces "landscape perception" as a key element. It is not an area "as seen" or "as observed", which would emphasize the separation between an area and a detached observer, but "as perceived", which allows for the subjectivity of the perception. c) it takes into acount the idea that landscapes are not permanent structures but have been and will continue to be modified by natural and/or human influences.
I'm not sure whether or not to add a fourth point: it's concise. When talking of meanings, even of complex concepts like landscapes, it may be desirable to state them in one or two sentences. When we state them in long paragraphs, we might cover all the eventualities but the essence of the meaning might be blurred.

jorgeg ------------- Post #50 ------------------------ 2/01/05

I would like to propose a meaning for landscape which, I think, is well suited for landscape appreciation and has the merits of being simple, concise and wide ranging:-

Landscapes are "experienced open spaces"

It is simple and concise because it's constituted of only three basic concepts: space, openness and experience. From all the spaces that may be perceived, only those that are open qualify and from all the open spaces, only those which are experienced are to be considered landscapes. It is also wide-ranging because, as will be seen below, it encompasses quite a number of space categories which are left out in the more traditional definitions. Open spaces are here taken to denote those that are not limited or enclosed by natural or artificial barriers inside our visual field; that is, the space, as observed from a proper distance, does not include barriers that limit its extension. The said barriers could be high walls or buildings, masses of trees or rocks, etc.

A number of alternatives to open spaces could have been adopted, such as: unbounded spaces, geographic spaces (D. Mark, 1997), visuallyextended spaces (P.Gow, 1995) and others. I chose open spaces because its meaning is intuitively clear to laymen and scholars alike and in spite of its architectural connotations. (In their jargon,open spaces, denote the pitifully small spaces that urban planners grudgingly concede us for "recreation" and eating luncheons). The open spaces that Nature gracefully "affords" us include, outside landforms, those that are usually called seascapes and cloudscapes. From the point of view of landscape appreciation (and remembering that the above definition is tailored for it) I see little reason to exclude them. That they are transient rather than permanent is not a weighty objection because the same may be said of terrains or land forms as perceived under varying illuminations. At least three cases require special discussion regarding their openness or extension: dense forests, cityscapes and gardens.

Peter Gow in talking about Amazonian landscapes, makes the point that dense forests are landscapes only when observed from the outside, an interior view only reveals "a succession of small enclosed spaces".The same may be said in connection with cityscapes or urban spaces, they would remain included within the above definition provided they are viewed from a distance; by the same token "streetscapes" or plazas or stadiums, however large, are left excluded. As for gardens: When does a garden merits to be called a landscape? Within the context of the above definition, the distinction is not made on the basis of "artificially created"or "human-modified" but simply on the basis of extension. If, when placed at a distance, a garden is more extended than our field of view (or, cannot be wholly observed within our field of view) then only it may be called a landscape. This might sound annoying to anumber of professionals whose business is "landscaping" our backyards, but it delimits somehow the neighboring fields of Garden and of Landscape Appreciation.

The second term that needs clarification is experienced. (Perhaps I should have written "open spaces, as experienced", clearer, but grammatically offensive). Experienced is a more demanding than the term perceived as in the meaning accepted by theEU Conference, (see landscaperian in Post 47) . In Psychology,Experience is sometimes defined as "the perceptional, emotional and/or cognitive consequences associated with specific events orcontexts". (The emphasis being in the said "consequences"). In aesthetic experience, says N.Goodman (1999), perception, concepts, and feelings interact and they are "related in complex ways to the properties of objects." (which may be extended to non-aestheticexperiences).

What D. Russell writes in "A Psychological Perspective of Place"is particularly relevant in that "the experience of landscapes may be a complex psychological phenomena that includes memories, attitudes,dreams, emotions, cultural stories, needs and motives". Within the context of Martin Buber's ideas the relationship between "I and It"may be reserved for landscape perception whereas "I and Thou" relates to landscape experience. Only when given open spaces are experienced in the sense just described they would qualify as landscapes. A further argument for using Experience is to seek a bridge with ways of considering landscapes, ways arising from "non Western" traditions, particularly Taoism and Buddhism. (I find it difficult to summarize this aspect in a few lines and I'll deal with it in the expanded version.)

Why do I think that the meaning "open, experienced, spaces" may be well suited to landscape appreciation? Because of the juxtaposition of the generality afforded by open spaces and the particularity of experienced. The former implicitly proposes that the appreciation of urban scapes, seascapes, cloudscapes, etc. involves the same processes as the more traditional landform landscapes but differs from those involved in the appreciation of "closed spaces'. The latter stresses the idea that Experience, being a process at a level that involves cognition, perception, understanding and others is a necessary and nearly sufficient condition for Appreciation.

The above comments on the proposed definition are not more than an outline. I intend to present shortly a more in-depth treatment,including relevant references and images, in a separate Page in our Website..

====================
landscaperian --------#51 ------------- 5/01/05

Re., definition posted by Jorgeg in #50: "Landscapes are experienced open spaces".I'd think it is interesting to compare it with that of the ELC that I quoted in my post above:

“Landscape” means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors"
Firstly, "space" is used instead of "area". Jorgeg, could you ellaborate about reasons why?

Second, "experienced" replaces "perceived". This is noted in #50, I agree that, in the context of Landscape Appreciation, Experience is a better choice.Third, that "landscapes are the result of action and interaction...etc" is not included; neither it is in most of the definitions currently accepted. I think it's an important point in that it stresses awareness of landscape change due to human factors and hence our responsibility in preserving them.
I pointed out in my post that we should strive for conciseness in meanings and definitions; yours certainly is!
============================

jorgeg --------------- #52 ------------------- 10/01

Answering Landscaperian post #51: Re., your question regarding considering <landscape as space> in my definition in post #50, versus in the European Union definition(your post#47). Your question is rather tricky and not easy to answer in a few lines,(or at least I can't). I'm working under the assumption that we experience landscape as a space and not as an area (bi-dimensional?). We should bear in mind that the EU definition refers to "landscapes as perceived" and not "as experienced", this distinction is important. Whether a landscape is visually perceived as bi-dimensional or tri-dimensional, seems a debatable point.

There seems to be considerable experimental evidence that environment is not perceived as a geometrical(Euclidean ) space. But to go from there to deny bluntly the visual perception of space as J.J. Gibson does in Ecological Approach to Visual Perception when he says "Space is a myth, a ghost, a fiction for geometers" is, in my opinion, going a bit too far. I doubt that the authors of the EU definition had Gibson in mind when they used "landscape as area". I tend to think that they were motivated more by the overriding concept of "cultural landscapes" which to be protected have to be delimited, hence area.

In connection with "landscape perception" we can still hold somewhat to the notion of an "independent objective observer". However, within the context of "landscape experience" that notion is, in my opinion untenable. If we consider the subject undergoing the experience as embedded into the landscape, we could safely assume that he is(or he thinks he is) included into the same space. To consider him/her as embedded into a surface or area is stretching imagination a bit too much.

As I said in the beginning: not easy for me to condense the argument in a few lines. In the extended version of post#50 to be on-line shortly(I hope) I will discuss this problem more thoroughly.

==========================

pibe -------------#55 ---------------- 12/01

Jorgeg in Post 50, after proposing a rather original definition of landscapes, says that it is particularly suited for landscape appreciation. I'd like to take issue with him on this point. By putting it like that, he's implying that, although meanings of landscape are plenty, landscape appreciation has only one. This is implausible.

Phil Leinart in his Post 45 remarks, (quote):

"It is up to the viewer of the landscape - be it painter, ecologist,poet, paleontologist, tourist, philosopher or planner - to determine the focus, assign the values, provide the ideas or interpret the meaning of the scene."

I fully concur with Leinart. Taking what he says into account it would be improper to say that landscape appreciation is a given. Rather, there's a number of ways of "appreciating landscapes" each way tinted by the viewer's professional or cultural biases.

This being so...We're gathered here...respectable members of this Group...with a common interest in landscape appreciation...a topic about which each one of us might have a different conception.

This situation is not unusual in Social Sciences, it seems to pervade their whole domain. I just wanted to be a bit nasty and point it out so that we don't let it out of sight in our discussions.
==================
Peter Wilis --------------- #57 -------------- 19/1/05

Pibe’s endorsement of that comment from Phil Leinart,

"It is up to the viewer of the landscape - be it painter, ecologist, poet, paleontologist, tourist, philosopher or planner - to determine the focus, assign the values, provide the ideas or interpret the meaning of the scene."

can then hopefully ‘factor in’ dimensions of the word ‘appreciation’ in order to keep at the point of landscape appreciation.

The question might then arise whether the ‘appreciation’ in ‘landscape appreciation’ with its different meanings and nuances in the complementing gazes of the painter, ecologist, poet etc etc can retain enough similarity to make conversation meaningful.

I understood landscape appreciation to refer rather generally to a feeling of being enriched in the experience of gazing upon or almost being ‘confronted’ by a specific landscape seen as especially pleasing. I can see how a real estate agent as marketer might view the landscape as a valuable element in the assets of a property if such a property looked out on a pleasing landscape.

I suppose one then turns to the stance of the viewer and her or his frame of reference which begins to bring the dispositions of the viewer into the equation so that, as in aesthetic adventures, not only does one see what one looks to see but perhaps as well, one values and appreciates what one had chosen to value and appreciate.

Not sure where all this is going but wanted to add a few threads to the tapestry

====================

Phil Leinart --------- #58---------- 21/1/01

First, I want to thank Pibe (Post #55) for "endorsing" mythoughts regarding the diversity –i.e. the range of variability –in "landscape appreciation" and the "meaning oflandscape".

My notion is much influenced by "The Interpretation of OrdinaryLandscapes: Geographical Essays", edited by Donald. W. Meinig and John Brinckerhoff Jackson, (1979). Meinig, in his essay "The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene", says that "…even though we gather together and look inthe same direction at the same instant, we will not—we cannot—see the same landscape. We will see many of the same elements, but such facts take on meaning only through association; they must be fitted together according to some coherent body of ideas." And, Meinig further asserts, "Any landscape is composed not only of what lies before our eyes but what lies within our heads". To make those points, Meinig offers 10 ways which various observers of the samescene might "see" the landscape: as Nature, Habitat, Artifact, System, Problem, Wealth, Ideology, History, Place, and Aesthetic.

The point I am trying to convey is that the meaning of a particular landscape is the cultural construct of the viewer. Peter Willis(Post #57) certainly captures the essence: "…not only does one see what one looks to see but … one values and appreciates what one had chosen to value and appreciate". All of this brings me to why I participate in this forum. I have always had an acute sense of place that I can not readily explain - it is some sort of gut-level fulfillment I get by connecting with a place or landscape. I believe that I am predisposed, in some manner, to view landscapes as Place andAesthetic. And, my formal training and professional experience in the geosciences has given me the capability and confidence to value and appreciate physical components of landscape as a System, a Problem and as Wealth. With the aim of personal enrichment and professional growth I want to explore other ways of "seeing"the landscape. In particular, I want to better understand the cultural and humanistic aspects of landscape. Meinig, in "The Beholding Eye", counsels us to be cognizantof our biases and to promote open communication regarding our diverse of interpretations of the landscape. And that, my friends, is the value of this forum. I have yet to be disappointed!

Keep lookin' at the ground,