Yet another concept devised by Kevin Lynch: Imageability. The term relates to the attributes of identity and structure in a mental image which were discussed in my latest Post #169. Lynch defines Imageability as:

 " that quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer".

  What he meant by strong image may be inferred from: " It is that shape, color, or arrangement which facilitates the making of vividly identified, powerfully structured, highly useful mental images of the environment". (loc.cit.pp9)

   I assume the term is a contraction of  "image-ability" and thus, the ability of the thing observed to evoke (provoke?) a strong image. By this, IMO, he is taking a somewhat controversial position in the field of visual perception, viz., a clear distinction between the thing perceived and the image of it that our brain may construe. Moreover, by introducing the phrase "in any given observer"  he appears to disregard cultural and individual factors in the process through which we construe images.

       Although the above points are problematic, the concept of imageability has been widely accepted, particularly in connection with urban landscapes and to a lesser extent in "natural" landscapes. It seems to have influenced as well Semiotics and Semantics, through the question of the imageability of words.

       To Jeremy Forster, also an architect, a landscape is a imageable, discussable portion of the surrounding world. This may be taken to imply that a view that is not imageable, that lacks that quality to evoke a strong image, would not qualify as a landscape (an endless stretch of calm seas under a unclouded sky?). Moreover, a featureless view, being unremarkable, leaves little to say about it; if not imageable, hence not discussable. On the other hand, plenty to say (discuss?) about an imageable view; since we can share with others the impressions of the image construed through language, Forster's concept of landscape may provide a bridge between the  imageability of  words and that of landscapes.

         All the former as a sort of Introduction, I have barely touched on the factors that, in a given landscape, might foster its identity and structure and hence, its imageablity. But this in a following Post; here I'd just like to complement with another excerpts from Lynch:

      " A highly imageable city in this peculiar sense will seem well formed , distinct, remarkable; it would invite the eye and the ear to greater attention and participation. The sensuous grasp upon such surroundings would not merely be simplified, but also extended and deepened. Such a city that could be apprehended over time as a pattern of high continuity with many distinctive parts clearly interconnected. The perceptive and familiar observer could absorb new sensuous impacts without disruption of his basic image and each new impact would touch many previous elements.". " (loc.cit.pp10)