Re., annrk question (post #185) of whether the concept of synergy may be applicable to the 'seeing in detail' that we are presently exploring I'd say that it is most pertinent to it.

 

     The concept of synergy was widely used within Biology for quite a long time until people started to see its relevance in a surprising number of apparently unrelated fields. I'd dare say that "Visualization of Landscapes " may well be yet another one. This wide applicability leads P.A. Corning (in The Synergism Hypothesis ,1998) to assert:  

 

A synergy perspective suggests a paradigm that explicitly focuses on both wholes and parts, and on the interactions that occur among the parts, between parts and wholes and between wholes at various "levels" of interaction and causation. It might be called "a science of relationships," as distinct from a science of "mechanisms" or "laws".

 

      Allow me to recall (once more) K. Lynch's definition of  Imageability:  " that quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer". (see Posts 170 – 173) . Now, in the process by which a strong image is evoked in a given observer, different parts play a role which is not simply additive but mutually reinforcing. (Only that I'd use the term components, also as used in Biology {Maturana}, instead of parts).

 

        What Lynch calls 'a strong image' results from the interaction of components such as " shape, color, or arrangement which facilitates the making of vividly identified mental image of the environment". Seeing in detail may be considered as the becoming aware of some of the components we choose to select.

 

      The preceding is quite clear in the Pissarro landscape shown previously; however, as in any painted landscape, there is intent on the part of the artist to create a vividly identified mental image by the wise combination of shapes, colors, arrangements, etc.. This is not the case in undesigned landscapes where the components just "happen to be there" and it is up to the observer to discern them (our 'trained eye' metaphor again !).

 

          I'd say that the most illustrative example of synergy in landscapes is afforded by cloud formations.  We may, artificially, divide the scene that presents itself to our vision into land and sky ;whatever might be seen in the sky 'does not belong' to land formations; this  notwithstanding , the imageability of a landscape (the whole) is considerably increased by certain cloud formations. A cloudless sky most probably will evoke 'a weak' image in the observer and, impressive ones, will impart imageability  even to the dullest of  land panoramic views. In other words, 'Character in Landscape' is largely the result of the (synergistic) contribution of  clouds.