I proposed in previous Posts that the imageability of a landscape could be considered as a key criterion in appreciating a landscape. However, to say that "appreciating a landscape consists mainly in appraising its imageability" is not saying much unless we have a clear understanding of the concept of imageability and/or procedures for conducting its appraisal.  Such an understanding may be done through a critical analysis of Lyinch's definition of imageability, viz. 

 ``the quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer''

 

   Such a analysis may be directed towards making explicit a) the qualification of a visual image as strong or weak and b) to examine whether that qualification  could be validated  for "any given observer". The latter requiring to examine critically the contention that the strength of  the visual image, in the case of a place or landscape,  may  be assessed objectively (i.e. independent of the observer's peculiar traits).

 

       The experimental methodology followed by Lynch, by Tveit et al. (see earlier Posts) and Ray Green, (presented in this one)  to validate point b)  relies largely on questionnaires or interviews of  groups of persons in repeated contact with  the landscape; this purports to modify the original clause of "evoking a strong image in any given observer" to "evoking a strong image in any observers familiar with the object". This is no mute point because it leaves suspended the question of  its validation for "the occasional observer', one that, encountering a landscape for the first time, presumes to be able to appreciate it.

   For Ray Green, imageability applies to qualities that are special for a landscape and hence make the place distinguishable from other places. In a remarkable paper "Meaning and Form in Community Perception of Town Character" (J. Environmental Psychology 19, 311-319, 1999 )  he sets up to explore the question of meaning and form (the two central notions  proposed by Lynch) as perceived by residents of Biron Bay, a small coastal town in New South Wales.

      Although Green, as an architect,  is mainly concerned with "town character' his approach and results may be adapted (translated) into 'landscape character' , under the assumption that the notion of Sense of Place has conceptual validity for both urban and country (pays) landscapes as 'places' . The possible connections between them follows from the following passage of K. Lynch

…we take delight in physically distinctive, recognizable locales and attach our feelings and meanings to them. They make us feel at home, grounded. Place character is often recalled with affection; its lack is a frequent subject of popular complaint . . . indeed, a strong sense of place supports our personal identity.

    Indeed, many of the terms in the list of opposites that the 'observers' are asked to rate in Green's paper seem relevant to the sort of  landscapes that are our main concern here. Some of these opposite pairs may be:

 

Inviting±Uninviting

Distinctive±Ordinary

Interesting±Boring

With Charm±Without Charm

Varied±Monotonous

Living±Lifeless

Stimulating±Unstimulating

Familiar±Strange

Complex±Simple

Plain±Ornate

 

   Paraphrasing Green (pp.316) one could venture to say that the above opposite pairs  may be taken to represent dimensions of meaning most highly associated with the observer's conception of landscape character and reflect attributes of conceptual themes related to environmental aesthetics, community satisfaction, degree of naturalness, and affective evaluations.( separated into pleasure, arousal and interest), complexity, distinctiveness and familiarity.

 

     To what extent landscape imageability determines landscape character? A promising route to answer the question might be to examine which of the above 'dimensions of meaning' could be considered as components of imageability  and the weight that can be ascribed to those that are left outside. This will be discussed in a following Post.