In her Post #138 Dr. Ellen Fernandez-Sacco raises a number of questions worthy of further discussion; I quote:

"Doesn't this discussion depend on the goal of the practice that is designated 'Landscape Appreciation'? Perhaps the problem lies in the terminology, since 'Appreciation' does not denote something sufficiently 'professional' as a word, but instead suggests a response to a scene, as if, say,  a painting. It is the aim of the exploration and the depth of consideration that perhaps merits a different word. To merely discount 'Landscape Appreciation' is not sufficient, as clearly such a practice that the term attempts to convey exists." 

a)       no doubt that what we are discussing here may be greatly clarified if we could state a goal for the practice of LA. The problem (IMHO) is that Appreciation appears to belong to those kind of practices which are performed `for their sake' with no ulterior motives. In this LA falls in line with other `idle pursuits' like Contemplation or Admiration of landscapes and differs from say, Judgment or Evaluation. This is though an unfounded personal opinion and I'd rather leave it open for debate. 

b)      I agree with Ellen in that the word Appreciation does not denote something professional. Here we fall in the comparison between `critic' and `appreciator'. A critic, for instance a theater critic, is a professional; writes learned judgments of a given performance and gets paid for it. Most of the potential public heeds his/her opinion and, if he is influential, he might even set standards of `good and bad taste' for his contemporaries. The person that we may call `theater appreciator", on the other hand, is not a professional; not only (s)he doesn't get paid for whatever he does but he cannot substantiate or claim the title of being an `appreciator'. A critic must perforce be an appreciator but the opposite doesn't hold. In the area of landscapes and, to be more precise, of natural (as opposed to designed) landscapes there isn't, to my knowledge, such a thing as `landscape criticism' although people may at times pronounce learned judgments about them (i.e. the picturesque or the grandiose).

c)   I'd agree as well with Ellen in that Appreciation appears to suggest "a response to an scene". I would  add though that what is peculiar to Appreciation is "an educated response". Educated in the sense that, as in theater, music, (or whatever one may be an appreciator of) what we have called ` connoisseurship' of the particular field is a necessary condition. It may be interesting to explore whether Ellen's "response to an scene' is interchangeable with `relationship'  between the spectator and the scene  (see Message  #139).