Having reviewed the romantic, classical and cosmic landscape according to the ideas proposed by Norberg-Schulz, it is time now to present his last type: the complex landscape.

   The rationale for the complex landscape may be inferred from this passage in Genius Loci, pp, 47:

         " The romantic, cosmic and classical landscapes are archetypes of natural place. Being generated by the basic relationships between earth and sky, they are relevant categories which may help us to 'understand' the genius loci of any concrete situation. As types however, they hardly appear in 'pure' form but participate in various kinds of  synthesis. "

        In other words: landscapes which conform rigorously to any of the three archetypes are rarely found in Nature; most actual cases will present some characteristics of  one archetype and some characteristics of another, or even of the three of them. It follows then that most actual landscapes will be categorized as 'complex'.

        On this point I am afraid I part ways with the Norberg-Schulz scheme. If most of the landscapes we actually encounter are to be included in one class (complex) and the other three are little more than exceptional cases then its usefulness as a system of categorization is very limited. The italics because, perhaps, N-S didn't intend it as such and his intention was to propose 'aids for understanding' (as in the above quotation).

       In order that N-S ideas may be useful as a system of categorization of landscapes, it seems more convenient to simply drop this fourth category and admit that the boundaries between the classical and cosmic or romantic types (or styles) are not clearly delineated but should be considered as fuzzy boundaries, so that membership to each type is ascribed using  prototype theory (E. Rosch).  Of this, more in following Posts.