In Post #224, concerning Norberg-Schulz category of complex landscapes I wrote:

 "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."

      " 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"

=================   

       Those "following Posts" never came up because I couldn't manage to summarize the ideas and concepts in a form suitable to the Message Board. Instead I've expounded on the subject in two web pages:

     In the first page I present a sort of outline of the subject, using as illustrations some remarkable Irish landscapes from our fellow-member Paul McAlister.  This page is at:

  http://landsgenre.webs.com/landscapegenresandprototy.htm

   I reserved for the second page (linked to the first) some of the theoretical background of landscape genre categorization using mainly prototype theory. This way, readers not much interested in the theoretical aspects, may be spared the task of going through the several concepts involved.

    I'd be very much interested in receiving comments or criticisms regarding the content of those pages.