In my last Post I proposed discussing  the following questions : 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.

   Many of the points I intend to raise have been mentioned, albeit tangentially, in the series of articles on Imagery and Landscape Tourism that Jorge G. wrote in our website a couple of years ago. See this link: http://www.freewebs.com/jorgeg/poplandscapetourismi.htm

  The word 'natives' as antonym of tourist may raise some eyebrows. The word, in a colonialist context, tends to evoke an image of primitive, rustic, inhabitants of a particular place or region.  Natives of, say,  Boston or of Venice, would resent that representation and would probably tend to consider the tourists as the primitive and rustic ones.

      It is the native that, because of living and/or working in a particular place,  has intimate and detailed knowledge of a place and according to Jakle, his reactions towards the local scenery are bound to be far more complex than those of the occasional visitor or tourist. However, regarding sightseeing, it is the 'intention' what counts.

    "To have an intention is to be in a state of mind that is favourably directed towards bringing about (or maintaining, or avoiding) some state of affairs, but which is not a mere desire or wish, since it also sets the subject on a course to bring that state of affairs about." (From Philosophy Dictionary) The notion thus links with 'intentionality' ,as in Franz Brentano and later, Husserl.

      In  the case we are considering "the state of affairs to be brought about" is the seeing of the sights the place affords; seeing directed moreover, towards pleasurable, enjoyable experiencing. Both, natives and tourists, are capable of the proper states of minds  but, it is usually the tourist the one whose prime intention is directed to that aim.

    Not at all that I'd suggest that the native of, say, Tyrol or Cumberland or  Papua, or any other of those fortunate enough to live in the midst of outstanding landscapes are unconcerned, out of touch, blind to the beautiful scenery surrounding them . Just that, for them, the adjacent landscapes are to a large extent taken for granted, whereas it is the landscape tourist the one willing to travel long distances and considerable exertion with the explicit intention of admiring them.

      In order to avoid over-simplicity one should reckon with various levels of engagement within landscape tourism; from what Jakle calls "spontaneous sightseeing" up to what we have been calling here 'appreciating landscapes'. More of this in following posts.