I'd like to address myself first to the quote from P. Haezrahi that Tittivulus (#133-4)  proposes could be used to discuss the question of whether there is `something' that could be called Landscape Appreciation" (LA in the following) by tackling her three questions, namely:

    "Every theoretical enquiry is based and indeed must presuppose three initial assumptions. It must presuppose that it enquiries into something. It must presuppose that what it enquiries into has certain distinct and circumscribed meaning of its own. And it must presuppose that this meaning, though not necessarily defined in exact terms can be described and can be communicated."

          First of all, the way I see it, LA is not mainly `a theoretical enquiry" but an attitude and/or activity performed as a result of a motivation. Those that usually engage in such an activity may feel inclined to conduct a `theoretical enquiry' into the nature of such activity. In a similar way an art appreciator may feel inclined to enquire about Art from the point of view of the various theories proposed. Whether this part is a necessary condition in appreciating is debatable; in my opinion it is essential and in this appreciation differs from other attitudes or activities like enjoying, contemplating or admiring landscapes. That said, we could question whether Haezrahi's first assumption i.e. "It must presuppose that it enquiries into something" holds in the present case.

            In our case I'd tentatively propose that this `something' is `the landscape experience'. This experience is not restricted to aesthetic aspects, it may include religious, historical and/or many other aspects ( as exemplified for instance in the book "Decoding the Landscape" included in the What to Read list).

  Something or some `thing', where thing in my dictionary is given as: "An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence".

      The closer to a `thing' that a landscape IS, may be "a quality perceived or thought to have its own existence". The `quality perceived or thought' is that of a terrain, a particular slab of Nature capriciously chosen.  The process of perceiving and/or thinking that quality (partially)  conforms the said `experience'. What is left to comply with the above definition of `something' is whether this landscape experience may be considered or not "to have its own existence".  I'll leave that for following Posts.

 (Note: I apologize for so many  `'''''''  , they indicate that a word/concept should be further discussed. I could use italics instead but many e-mail systems don't acknowledge them)