I might be taking too many liberties with Norberg-Schulz' characterization of  the Cosmic Landscape but I'd venture to say that a landscape may convey the impression of the cosmic style even if it doesn't conform with much of the criteria enunciated by him.

     There are quite a number of examples that could be brought in;  a case in point is afforded by the sort of landscapes that Glen Ryan presents us with.  We have mentioned previously Mr. Ryan's work in this message board. In connection with his visual images one particular sentence of Norberg-Schulz' characterization of cosmic landscape comes to mind (op.cit.,pp.45) :

 "As a whole, the environment seems to make an absolute and eternal order manifest, a world which is distinguished by permanence and structure"

   Consider for instance the landscape image below:

                      Tussock (near Canberra, Australia) 

                         by Glen Ryan (2001)

       If you can't see the image and  even if you can see it , it's worthwhile visiting Glen  Ryan's Essay in our website at 

http://www.freewebs.com/jorgeg/invisiblelandscapes.htm

 and also his galleries at  http://www.invisiblelandscapes.com/

The following are excerpts from Norberg-Schulz' notes on the cosmic landscape:

 "As a whole, the environment seems to make an absolute and eternal order manifest, a world which is distinguished by permanence and structure. Even the dimension of time does not introduce any ambiguities"  ... "In the desert, thus, the earth does not offer man a sufficient existential foothold. It does not contain individual places, but forms a continuous neutral ground." ..."The sky instead is structured by the sun (and also by the moon and the stars) and its simple order is not obscured by atmospheric changes" (italics in the original

… " Within this abstract order no truly plastic objects are possible, the 'play of light and shadow is extinguished' and everything is reduced to surface and line."

 I have selected these excerpts from others(for a full account see Genius Loci pp. 45)with a certain intention in mind: Taking archetype in its sense of "A first form from which varieties arise or imitations are made" one might say that, as proposed by Norberg-Schulz,the archetypical cosmic landscapes are sandy deserts such as the Sahara ones.  However, many other landscapes may be included within this category as varieties of the archetype provided they share the main criteria used to typify them (more on 'cluster typology' in following posts).

      When the landscape is experienced as "reduced to surface and line", when the composition is extremely simple and it does not appear "to contain individual places",  then we could typify the style as that of a cosmic landscape even if the locality has nothing in common with that where desertic regions prevail.

      Consider as examples the sort of landscapes that are observed in the Argentinean pampas, the barren plains of the Andean Altiplano the North American prairies, the Asian steppes the frozen plains close to the poles, the vast expanses of water or seascapes, etc; in those areas we can encounter landscapes which have many or even most of the visual characteristics of the cosmic landscape.

   I intend to present in the near future a gallery of images from which the similarities may be examined further. In the meantime, I offer for discussion the image below as an illustration of a cosmic landscape. I chose it,somewhat provocatively,because a Scottish glen may be thought as farthest away from an African desert and also because it bears resemblance to the one from Decamps (of my last post)in that the landscape is primarily appreciated "as reduced to surface and line"                 Glen Etive 33,  Scotland

                      by Wim van Velzen © (2007)

   I am grateful to Wim van Velzen for kind permission to reproduce his photos. For more of his works and his opinions on landscape photography I refer the interested readers to his website: http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/home.htm

     In a cosmic landscape, as opposed to a romantic one:  

        a) The ground is continuous, no varied relief (of groves or glades or bushes that may create a rich 'microstructure'.  b) The sky is usually experienced as a total hemisphere, rarely modified by clouds.  c) The sun is high for most of the daylight period, resulting in the absence of any play of light and shadows (except for a few moments at sunrise or sunset). No clouds or vegetation acting as enriching filters;  water is conspicuous for its absence.                        

        Furthermore, if the romantic landscape is characterized by involving an indefinite multitude of different places, it may be said that the cosmic one does not involve individual places (op.cit. pp 46),or at least none that could be easily discerned. 

       Although so far I have described the cosmic landscape in a negative sense, this shouldn't be taken as implying that those landscapes are uninteresting or lack appeal; quite the contrary as may be judged from the illustration below and others that will follow.

                                    Sahara

            by Bernard Decamps (1984); Musée national d'Art moderne, Paris  

(épreuve aux sels d'argent) Crédit photographique: Photo CNAC/MNAM, Dist. RMN / G. Meguerditchian.

Hello from Tasmania, Australia. One way we express our appreciation of landscape is by writing about it. So I thought some in this group may be interested in an international writing prize that I convene. The WILDCARE Tasmania Nature Writing Prize offers the winner $A5 000 plus airfares to Tasmania and a two-week residency in one of our wilderness national parks.

An entry form and all details can be found at http://www.wildcaretas.org.au/pages/groups_details.php?group_id=58&group_type_id=2.

I would be very grateful if you could spread the word as far and wide as possible (or keep it to yourself if you want to limit competition!) The deadline is 20 February, 2009.

happy writing & warm regards

Peter

From landscaperian last Post:  

    "Since the images presented by Jorge here as illustrations of the romantic landscape are also representations created by 'romantic landscape painters', a question arises: to which extent the two set of categories overlap?

     Since the issue may introduce some confusion while discussing of 'Style in Landscape' I thought that someone in this Group might be able to clarify."

    I do agree that some confusion may arise by my use of landscape paintings or photos belonging to a particular Art style as illustrations.  The question you raise is important but , if you don't mind,  I'd rather leave its discussion for later, after I introduce the other three styles.  

     In the meantime we could make do by keeping always in mind Magritte's graphical admonition:

             This is not an Apple by Renee Magritte (1964)

 (from his series The treachery of the image)

     When looking at a landscape painting or a landscape photography chosen to illustrate the characteristics of a certain style of landscape, we should keep in mind the admonition: "This is not a landscape"  

 A question:

In considering 'romantic landscapes' through paintings one  might be led led to associate the landscape type or style with an artistic style; in this case Romanticism, the movement that flourished in the 19^th century and whose exponents in the visual arts were Blake, Delacroix, ,Gericault, Goya, Turner and many others.

   Since the images presented by Jorge here as illustrations of the romantic landscape are also representations created by 'romantic landscape painters', a question arises: to which extent the two set of categories overlap?

    The issue may introduce some confusion while discussing  "Style in Landscape" so I thought that someone in this Group might be able to clarify the point.

   (quotes from his Genius Loci, pp.42; my highlightings) 

 "As a whole, the environment seems to make a mutable and rather incomprehensible world manifest, where surprises belong to the order of the day. The general instability is emphasized by the contrast between the seasons and by frequent changes of the weather."

  And, perhaps, the most distinguishing characteristic:

 "In general we may say that the Nordic landscape is characterized by an indefinite multitude of different places."

   "Behind every hillock and rock there is a new place and only exceptionally the landscape is unified to form a simple univocal space."

                    Delhoved wood near lake Skarre

                 by P.C. Skovgaard, 1847        

   Peter Christian Skovgaard  is considered one of the main exponents of the Golden Age of Danish paintings; he sought to portray Denmark's Nature paying special attention not to the spectacular but to the ordinary and typical. 

 (If you can't see the above image click the link and scroll down to the end ) 

http://www.freewebs.com/jorgeg/styleinlandscape.htm

   "In the Nordic landscape therefore, men encounters a host of natural 'forces', whereas a general unifying order is lacking. This becomes clearly manifest in the literature, art and music of the Nordic countries, where natural impressions and moods play a primary role. In legends and fairy-tales we encounter the mythical inhabitants of this world:  gnomes, dwarfs and fairies."

   To be continued.... 

    This anecdota  has nothing at all to do with landscape appreciation…but I am sure it will amuse those among you that are Professors or wanting-to-be ones.

     In 1854 Hans Fredrick Gude (whose paintings Jorge presented us this week with) was apointed Professor of Landscape Painting at the Art Academy of Dusseldorf. Shortly after his apointment he writes to a friend:

  "About this post of professor I can only say I cannot comprehend why I should not accept pay for being a teacher, since I really have to have pupils. All those who wished that I should be their teacher are here, and poor as church mice. If I become professor, they can now enter the Academy. I will in any case be here for many years, so I might just as well paint in a studio twice as big and grand as any private one, especially if I receive a salary into the bargain. When I become tired of it, I can always hand in my notice."

       Change "studio twice as big" for "grants twice as big" and you'll realize how little change since 1854.  

        " The Nordic forest is distinguished by an interminable multitude of  different phenomena:

                    The ground is rarely continuous, but it is subdivided and has a varied relief; rocks and depressions, groves and glades, bushes and tufts create a rich 'microstructure'.

                       The sky is hardly experienced as a total hemisphere, but it is narrowed in between the contours of trees and rocks, and is moreover continuously modified with clouds.

                     The sun is relatively low and creates a varied play of spots of light and shadow, with clouds and vegetation acting as enriching 'filters'. Water is ever present, as a dynamic element, both as running streams and quiet, reflecting ponds." (Genius Loci pp42)

   Since we can not present here actual landscapes we'll have to make do with either landscape paintings or photographs as examples . From the host of images that could be selected as examplifying  The Romantic Landscape, I have chosen to start from a painting by Hans Gude, a Norwegian romanticist painter which, according to art critics managed to capture masterfully the spirit of place of the Nordic landscapes.

             Tessefossen,Vaga,   Middagsbelysning 

                by Hans F. Gude, 1848, Private Collection

    Note: If you can't see the image, click This Link  (and scroll down till The Romantic Landscape) You'll find there also other landscapes by Gude as well as useful links.

  Christian Norberg-Schulz, a Norwegian architect (1926-2000), notable for being one of the first to bring Heidegger's thinking into architectural theory. He wrote quite a number of books that seemed to have had a deep effect on architectural thinking of his time.(See Wikipedia for more of him)  One of  these was: Genius Loci, Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (1991); by all mens a remarkable book, which I heartily recommend to all those interested in landscape studies.

    In Genius Loci Norberg-Schulz proposes what I'd call a typology of landscapes which may afford a powerful tool for the study of landscapes. The typology is based on four general types: romantic, cosmic, classical and complex.

   I intend to deal with some detail in each of them in future Posts and only a brief outline is given here:

 The main two opposing categories are not so much 'classical and romantic", as we are used to hear, but between romantic and cosmic. The romantic landscape is characterized by being composed "by an indefinite multitude of different places". By contrast, the cosmic landscape contains "no individual places, but forms continuous neutral places". In between those opposites:  the classical landscape, characterized by being composed by "a meaningful order of distinct individual places" and the complex which shares characteristics of the three other types.

    To be continued….

 Very glad that the subject of styles in 'natural' landscapes has been brought up here; it interests me very much, partly, because the question is such a puzzling one.  

       Jorge writes in his last Digest: "Nevertheless, when valuing a landscape, it looks to me a legitimate concern to look for 'characteristic arrangements of things' (style) in that landscape." and, also: "The act of looking for such arrangements entails looking for categories that may be useful in distinguishing or identifying"

        That it is 'legitimate' is not to be disputed; whether it is both legitimate and fruitful is, I understand, open to question. Characterization through "categories" of places or landscapes that have not been designed appear to some as forcefully imposing on them alien and irrelevant concepts. The opposite point of view, to which I myself subscribe,  is very well argued by Rachel and Stephen Kaplan in their book The Experience of Nature, A Psychological Perspective (1989).

  I quote here some excerpts from the chapter "Perception and Categorization":   "People react towards what they experience in terms of commonalities, in terms of classes or categories. A scene is largely perceived as a particular instance of a larger set of scenes." (pp.20)

     "There are (also) experts who asses the aesthetics of scenery"…. "The process of making these appraisals requires that one categorize or classify" (pp.13)… "It has been traditional to make a distinction between expert-based appraisals and the preferences that people have for some objects or places". …"Nonetheless, there are strong similarities between the process used by the expert in making an appraisal and by the untrained individual who is making a preference judgment. For both expert and non-expert a great deal of experience is brought to bear on the decision, and categorization is necessarily an aspect of the decision". …"As it turns out, preferences provide a means for discovering the categories of perception." (pp 14) My bolds.

       In words more relevant to our subject: In the actions of valuing or appreciating, we proceed by examining a landscape as an example, not of landscapes in general, but of a category or class or in Kaplan's words as a particular instance of a set of landscapes. The criteria used to construct those sets (categories) may be different for experts than for the untrained people but categorization is the common denominator to both appreciating and making preferential judgments.

  In a series of posts about components of Landscape Character, based on ideas proposed by John A. Jakle, we dwelt at some length on "Rhyme and Rhythm' and 'Seeing in Detail'  (See Posts #179-190). Following this thread I'd like to propose next for discussion another component of Landscape Character : Style.  

      Jakle (The Visual Elements of Landscape, pp. 85) links Style with Seeing in Detail by writing:

"Seeing in detail is also a search for style in landscape. Style, implying a characteristic arrangement of things, is readily recognized, when encountered, as following a well established pattern."

      For those familiar with the question of style in art works or in design, the notion of style in landscape may seem a bit far-fetched, (since, we are concerned here with landscapes not 'purposefully designed' by humans). Style as a manner or mode of expression in a work is intentionally brought-in by its creator; no such intention can be thought-of regarding non designed landscapes. Nevertheless, when valuing a landscape, it looks to me that looking for style in that landscape is not only a legitimate but a necessary concern.

      "Characteristic arrangements in a landscape" are those arrangements that help to distinguish, identify, set apart, a given landscape (or a group of them) from the innumerable landscapes observed; hence 'distinctive' as a synonym  and hence 'distinctiveness' (one of the factors of imageability). The act of looking for such arrangements entails looking for categories which may be useful to distinguish or identify. A large number of alternative classification systems may be (and has been) proposed; one that has particular merits is the one based on concepts from visual arts, involving a distinction between Classical and Romantic; but, of it, more on a following post.

The reason I do bring it up is precisely because it is a mode of appreciation
when traveling
in California. On Highway 1, which runs up along the coast, one cannot always
stop when
one would like to appreciate the landscape. As a passenger, I benefit immensely
from
when my husband is driving, and he also, appreciates the landscape.  I imagine
there's a
parallel situation on horseback.  Walking provides a different scale and
orientation to
landscape.  We often need some kind of mobility to access the landscape. Here in
Oakland,
we have to drive to the Oakland hills to walk through an old grove of redwoods,
and
appreciate the space immensely. Movement connects the moments of appreciation.


The video function on a camera enables me to record the movement through a
landscape
on a train, so there is the experience and the image of it. The image is easier
to process as
I have mild motion sickness.

By static appreciation, I meant without physical movement. When one is in a
site, one
often decides to move to an appropriate location to better 'frame' the scene. In
one sense
many in the west are habituated to the process by media-- tv, postcards, film,
computer.
It cannot be ignored as one of the processes shaping the perception of space and
landscape.


There is also the impulse to approximate what is viewed- whether the scene is a
lovely
landscape (I would also hazard to ask what do with do with de Loutherberg's
Coalbrookdale by Night of 1801 that portends the worst of the Industrial
Revolution?  It is
awe inspiring and beautiful, yet a terrible scene. The appreciation of landscape
is
profoundly influenced by its social context. Although people may not appear, it
is often
people who have shaped the spaces we appreciate the most. Back to the questions
over
which aspect of  Nature, the Sublime, the Romantic, the Gothic, the media and
tourism
industries color how we see

Of course the brain is working the entire time, unless one is quieted by
meditation.
Although I have no beard to scratch, I appreciate the frame- whether my own, the
auto's
or the media's.



--- In landscape-appreciation@yahoogroups.com, "tittivulus" <tittivulus@...>
wrote:
>
>
>    Ellen Fernandez asks in her message# 192 :  " In terms of landscape
> appreciation that you bring up, what about appreciation of landscape via
> the auto? "
>
>
>
>    She adds: " In reading some texts I have the sense of a static
> appreciation -- literally standing in a field or seascape. The
> automobile's windshield pre-frames the landscape, a moving picture as it
> were, or the airplane window of an aerial view."
>
>
>
>
>
>         I must say that, at least in terms of the landscape appreciation
> that I bring up, (others might bring it up diferently) traveling by car
> is out of the question (in especial if you are driving it). Not that I
> have any thing against cars; the same goes for trains, airplanes,
> autobuses or anyother  ways of transportation faster than horse riding
> or bike riding. Not only a question of velocity but also the last two
> very easy to stop and dismount whenever you want to have a good look..
>
>
>
>         Although not usually written about the requirements for
> appreciation of something (may be because it goes without saying) is to
> stop in front of that something, physically stop, take your time. Now,
> if you can not take the time (because in a hurry to go somewhere else)
> better forget about appreciation. It goes for wine, for poems, for
> pasta,  for paintings and of course for landscapes. As Ellen calls it,
> "static appreciation"; body-static but not all brain-static; brain is
> working at full speed doing a lot at the same time, observing, admiring,
> comparing, recalling, refocusing, etc.; in that sense not static.
>
>
>
>      Willburn in his message # 190 , wrote about heightened attention.
> That's very important requirement for appreciation. Can't focus your
> attention from a fast moving autobus; even if the window makes a frame
> for observing, what is framed is constantly changing at a velocity one
> can not control. Landscape photographers, I guess, understand this
> distinzione ; they frame a landscape, but they themselves choose what to
> frame, not the bus driver or tourist guide.
>
>
>
>         In many ways are similar appreciating a landscape and
> appreciating a painting; one can not appreciate a painting while walking
> presto through a museum. One has to stop in front, scratch your beard,
> look from the right and the left and (if you are lucky enough) find an
> empty seat in front. Much the same with a landscape, except that much
> easier to find where to seat.
>

In terms of landscape appreciation that you bring up, what about appreciation of
landscape via the auto? In reading some texts I have the sense of a static
appreciation--
literally standing in a field or seascape. The automobile's windshield
pre-frames the
landscape, a moving picture as it were, or the airplane window of an aerial
view.  How is
this factored into perception? There's a curious relationship between the auto,
the
airplane, the movie theatre seat that frames space, and probably influences
responses for
some, beyond the window or the picture frame.

Ellen

--- In landscape-appreciation@yahoogroups.com, "tittivulus" <tittivulus@...>
wrote:
>
>
>    Since everyone here seemed to be talking about John Jakle book I had
> no choice but to buy the book; just to not be left out of the
> conversation. . I was surprised gladly. I remember writing a jeux des
> paroles in this message board about a certain book: " Very easy to read
> but not easy to understand" . Prof. Jakle's book is not one of those but
> one: "Not only easy to read but easy to understand" . That's a rare
> quality in Geografy books. Books by old geografers were simply but
> boring, books by 'the new geografers" tend to be fascinating but
> abstruse.  Not to blame the authors; not easy to write clearly when you
> are not sure where you are getting to.
>
>
>
>     By the way... I also wanted to say something about Willburnh  latest
> posts on tourism. Quite agree with most of what she said. One thing
> bother me though: she talks often of landscape appreciators as being
> this or that. I say there isn't such persons as 'landscape appreciators'
> , at least not in the sense of some people being violinist, or a
> gangster or a poet. What there is, is some people with the ability to
> appreciate landscapes when and if they want to do it. Not a tittle or a
> profesion and not even a hobby.
>
>
>
>        I doubt very much that (even among the illustrous members of this
> forum) there are people that embark on trips to a place with the aim to
> appreciate the landscapes there. They might go, as tourists, to enjoy,
> admire, contemplate, marvel, etc. etc., and if they have the ability to
> appreciate them, d'autant mieux .  But, as no one would say of himself:
> "I am a landscape admirer or contemplator", neither is to say "I am a
> landscape appreciator".
>

  Since everyone here seemed to be talking about John Jakle book I had no choice but to buy the book; just to not be left out of the conversation. . I was surprised gladly. I remember writing a jeux des paroles in this message board about a certain book: " Very easy to read but not easy to understand" . Prof. Jakle's book is not one of those but one: "Not only easy to read but easy to understand" . That's a rare quality in Geografy books. Books by old geografers were simply but boring, books by 'the new geografers" tend to be fascinating but abstruse.  Not to blame the authors; not easy to write clearly when you are not sure where you are getting to.

   By the way... I also wanted to say something about Willburnh  latest posts on tourism. Quite agree with most of what she said. One thing bother me though: she talks often of landscape appreciators as being this or that. I say there isn't such persons as 'landscape appreciators' , at least not in the sense of some people being violinist, or a gangster or a poet. What there is, is some people with the ability to appreciate landscapes when and if they want to do it. Not a tittle or a profesion and not even a hobby.

      I doubt very much that (even among the illustrous members of this forum) there are people that embark on trips to a place with the aim to appreciate the landscapes there. They might go, as tourists, to enjoy, admire, contemplate, marvel, etc. etc., and if they have the ability to appreciate them, d'autant mieux .  But, as no one would say of himself: "I am a landscape admirer or contemplator", neither is to say "I am a landscape appreciator". 

  In my last Post ( # 188)  I raised the point that, within landscape tourism, one should reckon with varying levels of engagement with the landscape. The tourist, on confronting a landscape, may react by merely and briefly 'noting it' (or taking notice of it), capture it in his camera as a memento and then shift his attention to the next 'sight' . This is of course an extreme behavior; the opposing extreme is the case of a tourist going through a 'landscape encounter'. An encounter in the sense given by D. Seamon (2003) : "a situation of attentive contact between the person and the world at hand". In the full sense of encounter this entails absorbing a landscape and immersing itself in it, contemplating it for a long time, appraising it from different angles and, if the tourist is so inclined, 'appreciating the landscape'. It goes without saying that in between those two extreme attitudes we'll find a gamut of many, intermediate ones.

       John A, Jakle, in discussing this subject in his book, introduces the notion of 'spontaneous sightseeing'; a situation in which 'the traveler relates spontaneously to landscape as an unwinding visual display of place stimulation "… as tourists rather than natives, people scan the landscape with fresh eyes and a reduced sense of behavioral expectation"… " As they seek interest and pleasure in their visual surroundings they are sensitive to those aspects of landscape, to those places, that portend interest and pleasure" …."Spontaneous sightseers do not memorize landscape but move in search of scenery to bask in the flow of pleasure-giving images"  (op.cit pp 10-11)(my italics).

   Jakle quotes architect Niels Prak who fittingly likens 'spontaneous sightseeing' to the enjoyment of popular music. I'd take the simile farther to say the sort of landscape encounter mentioned above involves a shift, from the shallow enjoyment of shallow music, to a deeper encounter with more complex musical forms like say, a sonata or a symphony. Such an encounter entails also a state of 'heightened attention' which Jakle uses to describe situations where "tourists seek to linger and savor a sight". 

    An attitude of 'heightened attention' has often been invoked as concurrent or even pre-conditioning the act of appreciation, whether it is appreciation of music, poems or landscapes. This ties up with one of the topics I proposed for discussion  in post # 187,  namely: b) "Appreciating landscapes as part of tourism or 'visiting". One might say that appreciating 'natural' landscapes is usually performed as a part of (landscape) tourism but only in the case of persons for whom a state of heightened attention is brought about intentionally (as opposed to spontaneous).

    In other words, the landscape appreciator sets up (in the sense of bring about) to travel to a particular place already anticipating a certain kind of landscape encounter. Not just a pleasure trip but with a more significant intent (significant as opposed to trivial).

      The analogy with appreciating music is also useful here: we may set up ourselves to listen, say, a certain Mozart's symphony. Not that we are listening it for the first time, nor that we just happen to hear it on the radio, nor that we seek it appropriate as background music for the moment. That particular symphony is 'brought about' intentionally, either by traveling to a hall where the piece is to be performed or by setting us up cozily in our armchair to listen to the recording. Anticipation, intentionality, liking, 'a trained ear' are ingredients of the encounter with the music that may lead to its appreciation.

                     by Charles Saxon, 1974

   Note: if you cannot see the image click following link:

 http://www.freewebs.com/jorgeg/nativesandtourists.htm

  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.

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.

The noun "synergy" is defined by the Oxford American Dictionary as
"the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations,
substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than
the sum of their separate effects." Is  "synergy" applicable to the
"subtle seeing" or "seeing in detail [as] a search for mutual
dependence between part and whole" quoted from Professor Jakle in
JorgeG's August 28th post to this group?

Continued from last Post:

     Here are some details, slabs, of the Pontoise landscape on which our vision may linger for a while; and may Pissarro (æ"ì ) forgive me for taking so many liberties with his painting:

        (If you cannot see the image Click Here  )

  The distant village on the horizon line, the group of heavy, multicolored, clouds on the far right signaling the approaching storm, a section of the stone fence demarcating differently owned plots… these are just a few of  an endless number of details that may "catch our eye" at certain moments.

   Are some details more important than others? Certainly! Only that their 'ranking' will vary from one observer to the next one; each of the various rankings being equally correct, unless of course we were to assume the role of arbiters or judges in 'the right way of perceiving a landscape'. This contributes largely to the situation that several persons, placed at the same 'observation point' that Pissarro chose, at the same moment in time, might form different visual images of the same terrain.

   Here lies as well an important difference with the appreciation of designed landscapes, be them urban landscapes or garden parks. In them, certain elements or details may have been introduced so as to catch our attention or produce a certain effect.  No one placed the village with the intention that it will appear perched, suspended between earth and sky; neither were the stone fences built so as to accentuate the impression of fields gently sloping towards the valley's nadir or incite a certain rhythm. A certain measure of consensus about the fitness of given details may be arrived at within the public of designed landscapes; not such consensus may be achieved regarding the (unpremeditated) landscapes which are our main concern. 

 To be continued...

  " The search for character of place invites the sightseer to look beneath a landscape's broad outline to study the particular aspects of scenery. Gordon Cullen calls this process seeing in detail.  He believes that that the eye must be trained to this kind of subtle seeing because it does not develop without deliberate effort." (from Jakle,  op.cit. pp.80)

    Within the context of landscape appreciation, I'd venture to say that the process of appreciating entails largely the search for character  in a given landscape, this in turn, entails the process of seeing in detail which, to be effective, requires "a trained eye". This requirement is common to both works of (visual) art and landscapes.  As Ian Whyte aptly writes:

 While scenery is considered to be something to which everyone can react aesthetically, landscape is something to be examined with a trained eye.

.  "However and whenever acquired, seeing in detail vastly enhances landscape experience as the sightseer, as observer, comes to savor the nuances of place distinctiveness" (Jakle, op.cit. pp.81)

   While contemplating a landscape we usually take-in the scene as a whole while, with variable frequency, focusing in particular regions or slabs within our field of vision. Take for instance the landscape depicted below:

              Camille Pissarro,  Rye Fields

                Oil on Canvas,1877, (Private Collection)

          ( If you cannot see the image Click Here )

   Some details may catch our attention for longer times than others. If the eye lingers exclusively on some particular details ( more on them  later on ) we risk not experiencing the landscape as a whole. On the other hand, not paying attention on details might lead to visualizing a somewhat lifeless, inanimate scene. It requires the percipience of a trained eye to attain the proper balance of attention paid to whole and details and it requires cognitive skills to ascertain the relations between particular features and of given features with the scene( composition?) as a whole. As Jakle notes "seeing in detail is a search for mutual dependence between part and whole".

   To be continued…

  Continuing with "Character in Landscape", from John A. Jakle's book "The Visual Elements in Landscape,  initiated in Post #  179.  I am indebted to Prof. Jakle for kindly allowing me to quote freely from his book. A rather long exposition will be required because, in my view, the ideas treated there, together with those put forward by Kevin Lynch (see Posts #168 to #173 ), are key elements of what landscape appreciation may be about.

 Jakle discerns the following main themes that contribute to landscape character:

    Scale

    Seeing in detail

    Style

    Rhyme and Rhythm

    Opening as gaps

    Face

    Light

    Change

   The above themes are closely intertwined one with another and, although they may be discussed separately for the purposes of study, they should be best regarded as components of the whole. Components in the sense that, they should not be considered independently of the composite unity they integrate. "Indeed, there is no such thing as a free component floating around independently of the composite unity that it integrates." (Maturana's Ontology of Observing).

  Of the list above I propose to start with "Seeing in detail" and then proceed to Scale and Style. Rhyme and Rhythm were already outlined in Post #179. The last four themes will be left for future Posts.

From the answers I've got so far, it looks like  that many of you
couldn't see the test- image inserted in my last Post.

   For the time being, till we solve the various problems, best course of
action seems to be to include images in the Posts and at the the same
time to include a link to an ad-hoc page in our website where image and
text could be seen side by side.

         Please keep me posted regarding any particular problems you may
have with one or other procedure.

                  Jorge

Dear Members:

        I intend to illustrate some points of our current subject (Character in Landscape) with landscapes paintings and photos.

   I suppose you'll all agree that it  would be far more convenient if the images could be inserted in the body of the posts instead of having to look for  them in the Photo Album of  the Yahoo Group or by opening external links.

  I am inserting at the bottom of this Post a copy of a landscape painting by C. Pisarro and I would like to know if it is received OK at your ends. Could you please send me an e-mail saying  either: a) Got it! or b) Can't see it!

 my address: jorgeg34@...

 Note: for Yahoo users, best to switch to "Rich text" and turn off "Pop Blocker";  for other e-mail servers the Options may vary.

  Regarding the preceding Posts (#1575-178) on Poetry: I  very much agree with Tittivulus in that "poetry can give us insights in nuce of the 'spirit of landscape' or 'sense of landscape' sometimes  better than a long list of tecnical concept-parameters attempting to explain it."    In this Post I attempt to bridge between Poetry and those technical concepts we had been discussing. Starting with a quote from the painter Georges Braque:

"Reality only reveals itself when illuminated by a ray of poetry".

     Which, in our field of enquiry, may be paraphrased as –the reality that Geography purports to describe is revealed to us when illuminated by poetry. The above quote may have been very much in the mind of John Jakle when discussing landscape character, since he uses it as the opening line of his Chapter on the subject.

       In his book "The Visual Elements of  Landscape "( 1987) John  Jakle  devotes an entire Chapter to " Character in Landscape"; in his words:

 " Character brings to a scene the distinctiveness of  object and spatial order that stamps a particular place as truly unique. It cues what Lawrence Durrell (Letters and Essays on Travel) calls the 'spirit of place' and what others authors variously refer to as  'personality of place' and 'sense of place'.  It is obtained not so much by moving through a landscape as by stopping and watching a place in its various manifestations."

  ….Lawrence Durrell writes of sightseeing: "It is a pity indeed to travel and not to get this essential sense of landscape values. One does not need a sixth sense for it because all landscapes ask the same question:

   I am watching you – are you watching yourself in me? 

To watch oneself in the landscape is, I'd venture to say, the attitude assumed by Lamartine, Shelley and many other poets when expressing what those landscapes aroused in them.

   John Jakle discusses a number of factors that contribute to the character of landscapes. I'll dwell on them in a later post; here I'd like to mention two in particular, since, as said, I'm trying to bridge with Poetry: what Jakle calls "Rhyme and Rhythm"; (loc. cit. pp.92 et fol):

" Sense of appropriateness is enhanced by rhyme and rhythm in landscape. Their nature and interrelation helps define landscape in romantic, classical or cosmic terms. Rhyme involves recurring correspondences that bind or tie. They are likenesses that offer special relationships"….  "Rhythm in landscapes may be of three kinds regular variable and irregular ( Niels Prak, 1977). Regular rhythms are easily predicted as sequences inviolate. Variable rhythms either increase or decrease the cadence in a regulated manner whereas irregular rhytms are intermittent and variously metered. Regular rhythms evoke a sense of movement in landscape as an observer anticipates redundancies ahead. Increasing rhythm heightens this impression; decreasing rhythm lessens it " …."Irregular rhythm enhances romanticism in landscape where dimensional and metaphoric rhymes predominate"