The general question of 'Character in Landscape' subtends a particular question: Which type of persons among the whole population exposed to, or confronted with, given landscapes are the ones who may assess 'character'? Throughout John Jakle's book runs a central idea that merits discussion: the preeminent role he assigns to tourists in the context of visualizing landscapes. Quote (pp.8):

 

  "The tourist is, I believe, the most logical kind of person upon whom to focus the initial study of landscape visualization. Of all the varied kinds of general activity, tourism, more than any other, involves the deliberate searching out of place experience. Searching the landscape visually for place cues is an overt, deliberate preoccupation of pleasure tripping. Sightseeing is of the essence in tourism. It is not just an interesting aside significant because all behavior is necessarily landscape contained. The commuter in the journey-to-work, the shopper in the journey-to-shop, also visualize landscape in making travel decisions. But only for the sightseer is the search for unique place experience the primary motivation for travel."

 

 and :

 

   "Admittedly, tourism does lead to superficial understandings about places. It does involve stereotyped behavior. But those very characteristics make tourism, and especially its sightseeing aspect, all the more appropriate to the initial study of how people comprehend visual environment. The tourist's responses to place are usually superficial (if not simplistic) and, therefore, readily identified and studied."

 

      I think the former ideas are quite interesting and merit discussion here on several counts; among others: a) contrasting the attitudes of tourists with those of persons that are continuously confronted with given landscapes(natives?).  b) Appreciating landscapes as part of tourism or 'visiting'. c) Tourist attitudes as stereotyped behavior.

 

      My views, for all they are worth, follow in continuing Posts.