Regarding the second question posed by landscaperian in his Post 229:

"b) Which of the various ways of categorization that have been proposed is the most useful for landscape appreciation?"

 Now… that is a tricky question; it admits multiple answers and (as tittivulus wrote in #234) it wouldn't do to think that only one of the answers is the correct one. My following, tentative, answers should all be preceded by IMHO… 

   The categorization proposed by Norberg-Schulz in Genius Loci  is, perhaps, the most useful for landscape appreciation (of course, from the ones I know of). This, for reasons that I'll try to outline succinctly here (and less succinctly in a forthcoming Essay).

   a) Appreciation deals with values; in S. Feagin words: to appreciate a thing "is, in part, to get the value out of it". In the case of appreciation of a landscape, the most 'comprehensive' value (again, IHMO) is its 'character' and N-S categorization may be said to be based mainly on 'character'.

 We have dealt at length in these pages on 'landscape character' (see Posts # 168-190); not that we have exhausted the subject, but we may all agree in its eclectic 'comprehensiveness'. It may be made to include , along with geographically objective properties, aesthetic value, etc., complex concepts like 'imageability',  'sense of place/landscape' (Posts #152-167) and many, many, others. In the N-S typology the wide-ranging term 'landscape character' is encompassed by only three categories or genres : romantic, cosmic and classical (which makes the typology more tractable) with highly diffuse boundaries (which allows for considerable inter-hybridization of the genres).

b) N-S's categorization rests, to a large extent, on philosophical foundations (in particular, on phenomenology and, notably, on Heidegger); this, IMHO, is highly promissory for further development.

  As Ellen Fernandez rightly points out in her Post# 232 "The nature of appreciating landscapes is porous". A fair amount of this 'porosity' may be traced to far too vague ontological foundations; philosophy here offers a way out that may not be found in geography- or anthropology-based categorizations.  

 I have added a new webpage to the Landscape Genres website: The Classical Landscape. It contains the original text of Norberg-Schulz on this topic, illustrated with reproductions of relevant paintings and of some remarkable photos by Koldo Badillo. The feature can be seen at:

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

 and, as usual, I await eagerly for your comments.

       This webpage completes the presentation of the three landscape types proposed by Norberg-Schulz (cosmic, romantic and classical). In future additions to the website I expect to present broadening extensions of the author's original characterizations for each genre.

  In her Post #232 E. Fernandez points our attention to cultural factors; these are quite relevant to our current subject of landscape typologies and deserve, I think, extended comments. Quote from #232: 

 "What this all instead suggests is that there is a cultural undercurrent to how and why particular aspects of landscape are appreciated/ selected/ responded to. Categorization is not the issue, but a sub-issue/subset of how the process of selection is determined by culture. We categorize by nature, since that's how we process information, so invariably we will put things into various lists."

    I quite agree about  "cultural undercurrents" and that the processes of selection and appreciation are strongly determined by culture. That the term 'culture' appears to be conspicuously absent from our exchanges on landscape typologies is, I think, mainly due to the implicit assumption that the relevant factors pertain to the so-called 'Western culture'. (In the discourse of Norberg-Schulz on landscape types the perspectives are, as you have noted, overtly and unashamedly European). That the perspectives from other cultures are not mentioned in our Posts is, I'd say largely due to our lack of familiarity or just plain ignorance about what those might be.

    The so-called 'Western culture' (Euro-American culture is IMO a more appropriate designation but seldom used because 'western' is shorter) is of course far from being an homogeneous one and a multitude of  sub-classes  may be invoked; however, in the particular case of cultural factors influencing the appreciation of landscapes I would contend that we are considering a fairly homogeneous public.

   This contention may be justified a) if we shift from the more general, anthropological connotations of culture to the restricted one (but more relevant to appreciation) of "a high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training" (A.H. Dict.) and b) if we assume that those persons that tend to engage in appreciation as an activity belong to a public to which that restricted definition applies; in other words to a certain intellectual elite within western culture.

    Thus, irrespective of other factors that may configure diverse culture classes  we'd be considering persons that,through a very similar and fairly uniform 'intellectual training', have come to share familiarity with the same sets of concepts or performances at work in the various classification systems that may be relevant to appreciation., be it of music, literature or landscape.  

 The lattest Posts trying to reply the questions of Landscaperian made me remember what a philosopher of name I don't remember said about questions and answers:

  "There are two assumptions that are unwittingly shared by most of us: the first is that every question has an answer; the second is that there is only one correct answer to each question."

   By "unwittingly" I suppose he meant that, although 'most of us' know that, we keep forgetting it. 

    There is a corollaire of the above which is called 'the simple answer fallacy' (Not phallasy, but fallacy, I am learning to be careful with f and ph) which goes like this:

       "if there is no simple answer, there is no answer"

  S. Fegin says that the bottom line of that fallacy is that " if there is 'no answer', then you can, with epistemic impunity, believe anything you like".

     E allora? … I think (not unwittingly) that to Landscaperian questions  a number of 'correct' answers may be given to. Those answers are bound to be not 'simple' but complicacted; all this not to be taken as a excuse for believing anything you might like or fancy.

 Continuing from my Post # 230 , regarding the importance of classification in appreciating landscapes… Ellen Fernandez writes in her Post # 232: " This leaves the issue of lousy beer aside, which seems to be made everywhere. It makes for me a good starting point to the question of the role of classification in appreciation.

  Implicit in the pronouncement "this beer is a lousy one" is a process of categorization. We are aware that the stuff we are drinking 'is a type of' or 'a kind of' alcoholic beverage that is labeled as beer. We may think it is a lousy beer because, as an example of the class 'beers', it has none of the special qualities that we commonly ascribe to a good beer. If we were served, say, an excellent apple cider under the pretense of a beer we would declare it a lousy beer; what makes a good beer is not what makes a good cider or a good green wine. Threading even finer: a good ale is not and cannot be a good stout or pilsner.

     Ciders, beers, wines, etc., are types or classes of 'alcoholic beverages'; as such they may be appreciated for what they are (or pretend to be) : not just alcoholic beverages but specific types of them. The quote of Paul Ziff I mentioned earlier comes in the context of his self questioning "what makes a good painting?" As such the question is not answerable; it becomes answerable only after a process of categorization of paintings; a cubist painting may have none of the properties or qualities we associate with a post impressionist one; this doesn't make it a bad painting because it may well be a superb work of the cubist style. And so on and so on….

    Turning at long last to landscapes: 'landscapes' is a extremely broad class of things, even broader than 'alcoholic beverages' or 'paintings'. There are all sorts and sorts of landscapes  and the qualities or properties we ascribe to a certain type of landscape may be quite different to those we expect to find (looking for…) in other types.

       Take for instance the type of landscape we call 'desertic'. We have good illustrations of them in the photos of Luca Galuzzi in  jorgeg's page on Cosmic Landscapes. Galuzzzi himself says of them that they are " large scenes on the vast screen of Nature"

   We may criticize a given desertic landscape for being  too fragmented  and not affording vast expanses; but, to criticize a desertic landscape saying that it is not 'charming' or 'picturesque'  enough makes little sense; those are not characteristics that this type of landscapes is assumed to possess. On the other hand those objections may be perfectly valid when considering a particular rural Nordic landscape. A certain 'historic landscape' may not be aesthetically appealing but this type or category of landscapes is not to be appreciated in terms of their scenic beauty.

      The above considerations justify, I think, my writing in #230 that "categorization is not only useful but indispensable for the appreciation of landscapes as it seems to be for the appreciation of all sorts of things" ...and my apologies for such a long Post.   

 

 

 Re. the first question posed by Landscaperian in Post # 229:

" a) Is categorization useful for the appreciation of landscapes?"

    I would say that not only it is useful but indispensable for the appreciation of landscapes as it seems to be for the appreciation of all sorts of things.  

 Paul Ziff (in his Essay: Reasons in Art Criticism) poses, rhetorically, the question:

         "Do you drink brandy in the way you drink beer?"

  Although both are alcoholic beverages, that's about all they have in common. (as the only thing that all landscapes have in common is that they are all...landscapes) It may well be that a non-discerning chap might think that they are merely different because of the amount of each required in order to get plastered, but discernment is of the essence if we are talking of appreciation of  brandies or  beers or anything else.

   Ziff (in the same Essay) goes on saying:

   "Generally speaking, a different sort of aspection is performed in connection with  works belonging to different schools of art which is why the classification of style is of the essence. Venetian paintings lend themselves to an act of aspection involving attention to balanced masses; contours are of no importance, for they are scarcely to  be found. The Florentine school demands attention to contours, the linear style predominates. Look for light in a Claude, for color in a Bonnard, for contoured volumes in a Signorelli"

  Point being, that Claude, Bonnard and Signorelli belong to widely different schools of painting; schools are linked to styles, one of the main forms of categorization of artworks (see my Post #225). On appreciating paintings of a particular school we look for qualities or aspects characteristic of that school (style) and not for those that we know beforehand will be absent or play a negligible role. Ascribing to a painting a certain style (one way to categorize it) gives us guidelines of 'how and what' to appreciate the painting; it is in this sense that categorization may be said to be not only useful but indispensable in the act of appreciation of art works.

     I haven't  yet got to the specific question of Landscaperian; this is just a sort of preamble but I promise  that I'll get to it in my next; otherwise this would be too long  and guidelines here are that posts should be short.

-- Ellen Fernandez-Sacco, Ph.D.
Chairperson & Moderator
Sociedad Ancestros Mocanos, Inc. <----------------------------->
Ambassador, I-ASK
Certified Storykeeper
http://www.treasuryofheritage.com/1365
<----------------------------->
Mundillo, encaje y vida/ Lace & Life
http://efsacco.wordpress.com/
Orgullo de ser Mocano/ People of Moca, Puerto Rico
http://mocapuertorico.wordpress.com/
Babilonia Family History
http://babiloniafamilyhistory.blogspot.com/

    Only recently I discovered that Group Members can post images and even create albums in the Photos section of our Yahoo Landscape Appreciation site. Cool! as kids say.

    I have created an Album with reproductions of  Claude, Bonnard and Signorelli ( a pair of each one) in order to illustrate the P. Ziff's quote of my last Post (#230). To get to them:  

   1) Go to the Landscape Appreciation Group in Yahoo by clicking on this Link:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/landscape-appreciation/

   2) Sign In

   3) Click Photos in the menu of the left side of page.

    4) Open the Album called "Look for Light…" 

 A cumbersome procedure, I know, but don't blame me; blame the Moderator for setting the Photos Section to be viewed "by members only".

 Re. the first question posed by Landscaperian in Post # 229:

" a) Is categorization useful for the appreciation of landscapes?"

    I would say that not only it is useful but indispensable for the appreciation of landscapes as it seems to be for the appreciation of all sorts of things.  

 Paul Ziff (in his Essay: Reasons in Art Criticism) poses, rhetorically, the question:

         "Do you drink brandy in the way you drink beer?"

  Although both are alcoholic beverages, that's about all they have in common. (as the only thing that all landscapes have in common is that they are all...landscapes) It may well be that a non-discerning chap might think that they are merely different because of the amount of each required in order to get plastered, but discernment is of the essence if we are talking of appreciation of  brandies or  beers or anything else.

   Ziff (in the same Essay) goes on saying:

   "Generally speaking, a different sort of aspection is performed in connection with  works belonging to different schools of art which is why the classification of style is of the essence. Venetian paintings lend themselves to an act of aspection involving attention to balanced masses; contours are of no importance, for they are scarcely to  be found. The Florentine school demands attention to contours, the linear style predominates. Look for light in a Claude, for color in a Bonnard, for contoured volumes in a Signorelli"

  Point being, that Claude, Bonnard and Signorelli belong to widely different schools of painting; schools are linked to styles, one of the main forms of categorization of artworks (see my Post #225). On appreciating paintings of a particular school we look for qualities or aspects characteristic of that school (style) and not for those that we know beforehand will be absent or play a negligible role. Ascribing to a painting a certain style (one way to categorize it) gives us guidelines of 'how and what' to appreciate the painting; it is in this sense that categorization may be said to be not only useful but indispensable in the act of appreciation of art works.

     I haven't  yet got to the specific question of Landscaperian; this is just a sort of preamble but I promise  that I'll get to it in my next; otherwise this would be too long  and guidelines here are that posts should be short.

Greetings to all members! After a prolonged summer recess I propose we continue our exchange of views on landscape types according to C. Norberg-Schulz.

 I have just added a new page to the website on Landscape Genres: "The Romantic Landscape" with text of Norberg-Schulz, illustrated with paintings of Nordic artists and photographs of Jef Maion. I'd be happy for any feedbacks. A parallel page on The Classical Landscape will be up shortly.

 The webpage can be accessed at:

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

 (Patience! Link a bit slow)

  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.

In his Post #225, Eddington7 wrote:

       I am sort of puzzled about how it came to be that the four types became 'styles' when N-S ideas were quoted or interpreted by other authors. It was generally accepted once that all the arts reflect one of two stylistic tendencies: the classical or the romantic. Since N-S choose to call two of his types with those names, perhaps others assumed (rightly or wrongly) that he was talking about styles?

    And, if not styles, what 'type of types' are they?   Classes, categories, genres, kinds? It might be, as they say, a matter of Semantics. But, in my view, semantic distinctions are all important if we are trying to understand a subject.

    Eddington: I also share you concern for semantic distinctions and I'll do my best in answering your pointed questions. First of all, apologies for leaving unanswered your Post for nearly a month; as they say in gangster's films – No discourtesy intended – .   

        I brought-in "gangster's films" with a second intention: those films are members of a category that we call a film genre and not a film style. In general, a given genre, like "gangster's films" "thrillers" or "westerns", admits a number of styles, but we may include an item in a genre even if we cannot discern in it a particular style. Without attempting here  to define genres I'd like to note that nowadays emphasis is being placed on their analysis in terms of family resemblances (Wittgenstein) and prototypicallity (E. Rosch). These two approaches, IMHO, agree quite well with, what I guess, were Norberg-Schulz original intentions in proposing his categories of landscapes.

       For those, and several other reasons that will appear later on, in answering your question of what 'type of types' are Norberg-Schulz landscape types, I'm proposing to call them landscape genres rather than landscape styles.

    As you correctly note, N-S didn't refer to them as landscape styles in his book Genius Loci . I think that the notion of landscape styles (regarding N-S types) was first introduced by J.A. Jakle in his book The Visual Elements of Landscape. Because of the wide diffusion of that book(far more than the Norberg-Schulz one) it may be that following commentators went on calling them landscape styles. In our case, because we were discussing Jakle's ideas of "Character in Landscape", (see Posts #174- #195) I thought natural to use his term "Style in Landscape" for N-S types. Now I am having second thoughts and I think that genres is more convenient a term than styles.

     I am presently building a website to be called Landscape Genres in which, among other topics, the categorization of landscapes into Genres will be further explained.

  Now that we've covered all four of the Norberg-Schulz types of landscapes perhaps it is the opportunity of clarifying what sort of 'types' they are supposed to be.

 Jorgeg titled the Thread on this subject as "Style in Landscape"; browsing through Google I find that also most of the citations indeed refer  to the four N-S types as "landscape styles". However,  reading Genius Loci, the book where N-S originally developed his ideas about the subject, I found that there is little reference if at all to "landscape styles".

    I am sort of puzzled about how it came to be that the four types became 'styles' when N-S ideas were quoted or interpreted by other authors. It was generally accepted once that all the arts reflect one of two stylistic tendencies: the classical or the romantic. Since N-S choose to call two of his types with those names, perhaps others assumed (rightly or wrongly) that he was talking about styles?

    And, if not styles, what 'type of types' are they?   Classes, categories, genres, kinds? It might be, as they say, a matter of Semantics. But, in my view, semantic distinctions are all important if we are trying to understand a subject. A point worth discussing?

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.

   Tim: Perhaps the following quote will make for an added argument. Our much quoted Norberg-Schulz  eloquently writes in his book Nightlands (pp.15):

" …But this environment where "life takes place" needs to be clarified in more than word, tone and color; it must also be built in order that its inhabitants can truly know where their place is, and thereby achieve a durable sense of belonging . The word "durable" is significant because it intimates that all transformations, which are the signs of life, must be referred to something that remains, to be meaningful. And that which remains is, above all, place.  Thus has stabilitas loci been acknowledged from the outset as a fundamental need. In order that place should remain selfsame throughout transformation, its genius loci must be conserved. Every place, every region, is significant and it is our task to understand and respect this. It is only then that we might say that we dwell, in the deeper sense of the word…."

Colleagues, Hi!,
    An update on what is happening to Ireland's sacred landscape . . .

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/Endangered-Cultural-Treasures-The-Hill-of-T\
ara-Ireland.html

The Galuzzi photographs in "The Cosmic Landscape  Luca Galuzzi's illustrations
of Norberg-Schulz text"     so exquisitely capture their subject, the desert,
that they can be   thought  the  genius loci of the Norberg-Schulz text (and the
converse).

 I was puzzled on reading Galuzzi's inclusion of Bolivia  in his sentence : "Libia, Namibia, Bolivia…il deserto ". Afterwards, looking at the remarkable photos of the Bolivian Altiplano in his website, I was reassured. Certainly, views of the plains in the Andean heights can justly be considered as Cosmic Landscape.

    We associate 'desert' with scarcity of water but cosmic landscapes, as characterized by Norberg-Schultz , seem to connote more 'scarcity of vegetation'. The vast ice-plains of Antarctica or Iceland  would fit in equally well.

     Worthy of note in this context is an interesting feature of the landscapes of regions bordering deserts: their seasonal variation. In the borders of the Negev desert (and probably in similarly placed regions) landscapes in the Winter months fit well under N-S type of 'classical landscape' (not only vegetation but also light-wise) in the dry Summer months they fit in quite well under 'cosmic landscape'. This is a point in favor of N-S typology: the landscape style being not so much determined by its geographical coordinates but  by the climate prevailing at particular moments.

   Buenisimo! The Page of Norberg-Shultz  with the intercalated photos of Signore Galuzzi, very good! And excellent fotografy too.

     I must say that I was sceptical  of this business of landscapes styles. That's why I didn't intercalate my usually learned comments in the long discussion. That page on cosmic landscapes sort of an eye-opener: you start with clear-cut-examples and then you go on to variations. Jorge: you got me some confused by not following this route.  Now that I got it, I might be able to say  algo sagaz. on the subject.

Please note: I have been told that some members did not get a notification of my latest Post below. I am copying and re-sending. If you did receive it, please disregard.

=======

   I have just started the construction of a parent website dedicated to the subject of landscape styles .For reasons that will be explained in full later on, I'm proposing that "Landscape Genres" is a more adequate name for the subject we've been discussing of late than ' landscape styles'; hence the title of the new website.

     As an "inaugural feature" for the website I have edited a page made up from Norberg-Schulz' account of the cosmic landscape and images of desert landscapes from Luca Galuzzi.

   Mr. Galuzzi, who has just joined our Group, is a talented photographer who seems to have a talent to capture through his lens the essence of the desert scenery and hence his images are a perfect visual counterpart to Norberg-Schulz text. 

       The result (IMO, quite striking) may be seen at:

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

  I have just started the construction of a parent website dedicated to the subject of landscape styles .For reasons that will be explained in full later on, I'm proposing that "Landscape Genres" is a more adequate name for the subject we've been discussing of late than ' landscape styles'; hence the title of the new website.

     As an "inaugural feature" for the website I have edited a page made up from Norberg-Schulz' account of the cosmic landscape and images of desert landscapes from Luca Galuzzi.

   Mr. Galuzzi, who has just joined our Group, is a talented photographer who seems to have a talent to capture through his lens the essence of the desert scenery and hence his images are a perfect visual counterpart to Norberg-Schulz text. 

       The result (IMO, quite striking) may be seen at:

  Jorge is quite right  in advising caution when dealing with the influence of landscape on religion (his Post #214)

  IMHO, the subject is plagued by what may be described as "loose talk" and it takes a lot of time and effort to sort out serious materials. For those interested in pursuing the question of landscape and religion more in depth I'd like to call attention to one of the Sessions of the Theoretical Archeology Group (hosted by Univ. of Southampton) under the title: "Finding Faith in the Landscape". In connection with subjects alluded to in this Message Board, worthy of note, amongst others,  are the articles:  

 Perspectives of Landscape: Views from Archaeology and Neo-Paganism (W. Rathouse)

 Landscape/Religion/Identity (S.Das)

 Rituals of a Soft Landscape (M. Kok)

    The URL for abstracts of the articles is:

http://www.tagconference.org/content/finding-faith-landscape

      Not to think that Trolls are a thing of the past. They are still very much around in Norberg-Schulz' beloved Nordic Forests, as this road sign shows

                                                         Beware! Trolls crossing!

           Mont Sainte-Victoire  by  P. Cezanne (1887)

     at Courtaulds Institute Gallery, London  

 Nicholas Pioch (Webmuseum) writes: "The peak of Mont Sainte-Victoire near Aix attracted Cézanne all his life. He identified with it as the ancients with a holy mountain on which they set the dwelling or birthplace of a god. Only for Cézanne it was an inner god that he externalized in this mountain peak--his striving and exaltation and desire for repose."

   I brought in this quote because it alludes to the religious connections of  this, his obsessive motif . Also as a prelude to the question:  how does the dweller in a classical landscape relates to the spiritual and religious?

   Norberg-Schulz associated dwelling in cosmic landscapes with monotheistic faith, and, in romantic landscapes, with beliefs on trolls, gnomes, fairies and the like (see my previous posts). For the classical landscape, in turn,  the association is with Paganism (in the antique Greek sense)

 Quotes from His Genius Loci pp.45:  

"…the Greeks personified the various characters experienced in the landscape as anthropomorphic gods, interrelating thus natural and human properties."    "…by knowing himself he (the Greek man) knew the world and became freed from the total abstraction as well as the empathy discussed in connection with the cosmic and the romantic landscape. The classical landscape therefore makes a human fellowship possible, where every part conserves its identity within the totality"

 Although Norberg-Schulz ideas about the connections between landscape types and religion are certainly appealing, I' d say that caution is called for in attempts to extrapolate them "out of context". IMHO his propositions were intended within an historical context, as a novel perspective on the history of religions. An extrapolation to short term influences on individual dwellers, as some ecologists seem tempted to do, may not be warranted. One thing is to propose that human groups living cohesively through many generations immersed in particular landscapes may have been influenced in the ways they related to the supernatural.  Quite another is to propose that individuals exposed for a few years to, say, classical landscapes, tend to adopt pagan views.  

 Note: If image not visible click HERE and scroll down to Calssical Landscape III

  The classical landscape is further characterized by what Norberg-Schulz calls "a human fellowship" with the surroundings. The individual is not absorbed by an abstract system (as in the cosmic landscape) nor is he induced to find his private hiding place (as in the romantic landscape). Thus a true "gathering" becomes possible which fulfills the most basic aspect of dwelling (dwelling in Heidegger's sense).

   Within the classical landscape man places himself in front of nature as an equal partner, looking at nature as a friendly complement of his own being. Quoting from Norberg-Schulz (op.cit, pp47):

 "The union of man and nature is rather expressed through the practical use of agriculture, which accentuates the landscape structure as an 'addition' of relatively independent, individual places. The genius loci of the classical landscape is therefore first of all manifest where clearly defined natural places are emphasized by the loving care of man."

  A certain "reconciliation" of man with nature "is manifest as a harmonious equilibrium of earth and sky. Plastically present, the earth rises up without drama and blossoms in trees which have their individual plastic value."

    In the realm of painting, it was Cezanne in my opinion, who excelled  in emphasizing this quality of the earth being 'plastically present' , with forms "standing out in light".  This particularly so in his long artistic struggle with the landscapes centered around  Mont Sainte-Victoire. Consider for example the following image,  as an instance of the various characteristics mentioned so far for the classical landscape :

              Monte Sainte-Victoire

                                     by Paul Cezanne (1885-95)

  The Barnes Foundation, Lincoln University, Philadelphia

==========

   Note: If the above image is not visible click   HERE  and scroll down to Classical Landscape II

     To be continued..... 

     Another landscape type, as proposed by Norberg-Schulz is the Classical Landscape. If the romantic landscape may be characterized by an indefinite multitude of different places and the cosmic one by not containing individual places, the classical landscape is characterized by a meaningful order of distinct individual places.

   Further details about the differences with  the other two types previously reviewed here, are apparent from the following quote from Norberg-Schulz' Genius Loci (pp. 45):

   "The classical landscape is neither characterized by monotony nor multifariousness .  Rather we find an intelligible composition of distinct elements: clearly defined hills and mountains which are rarely covered by the shaggy woods of the North, clearly delimited, imageable  natural spaces such as valleys and basins, which appear as individual "worlds"; a strong and evenly distributed light and a transparent air which give the forms a maximum of sculptural presence. The ground is simultaneously continuous and varied, and the sky is high and embracing without however possessing the absolute quality encountered in the desert." 

   There is a certain correspondence between the classical landscape type and what is otherwise categorized as Mediterranean landscape. Although for Norberg-Schulz archetypical examples are to be found usually as "the Greek landscape", I'd rather choose (for reasons to be given later) those of slightly northern regions of Europe in Italy, France and Spain. Within European painting these are the ones that captured the attention of the likes of  Pissarro, Cezanne, Sisley. As an example of classical landscape, consider the following image: 

             Colline Jallais, Pontoise  by Camille Pissarro (1867)

    The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York  

 ( If you cannot see the image click HERE )       

     I did present earlier, when discussing "Seeing in Detail" another of Pissarro's oils which is an even better illustration of the classical landscape : Rye Fields at Pontoise (see Post #183).

   More on The Classical Landscape in following Posts....

Landscaperian: I do appreciate your concerns about taking too many liberties with Norberg-Schulz categorization. I am aware that this is a slippery subject and I intend to give a fuller justification after we reach, the fourth type, (Complex Landscapes) . In the meantime, some succinct notes.

 You aptly write in your Message #210:

 … "the question is not only whether something "does not conform with much of the criteria" (criteria used in the categorization) but how much is left out. If what is left out are important criteria then we might be taking "too many liberties", that is, forcing a particular case into a category where it does not belong." 

 Norberg-Schulz , instead of attempting to define a particular style, lists, for each, a number of characteristics which, if displayed by a given landscape would justify ascribing it to that particular style. The question arises: what if that given landscape displays only some of the characteristics?

   We are confronted with a somewhat similar problem when attempting to decide whether something is or not a work of Art. In the absence of wide consensus for a definition, a way out is to resort to a non-definitional account of Art, based on Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance, as proposed by Berys Gaut ( see British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 45, No. 3, July 2005). Paraphrasing Gaut  I would write:

  In holding that "cosmic style" (or any other) is a cluster concept, I mean that there are multiple criteria for the application of the concept, none of which is a necessary condition for a given landscape being called a cosmic one.

   Quoting Gaut from said article (pp.274):

 "A criterion is a property, possession of which conceptually counts towards an object's falling under a concept; there are several criteria for a concept. The notion of counting towards I construe as follows. First, if all of the properties that are criteria are instantiated, this suffices for an object to fall under the concept; and more strongly, if fewer than all of these properties are instantiated, this also suffices for the aplication of the concept.So there are jointly sufficient conditions for the aplication of the concept. Second, there are no properties that are individually necessary conditions for the object to fall under the concept.(that is, there is no prerty that all the objects falling under the concept must possess). Third,there are disjunctively necessary conditions for application of the concept: some of the properties must be instantiated if the object is to fall under the concept"

     My rationale for applying Gaut's cluster account is to widen the range of Norberg-Schulz three first types, thus avoiding to ascribe the wide majority of them into the fourth (complex landscape). I realize that a fuller argumentation is needed to justify the extrapolation of Gaut's proposals into the question of Style and, as said, I'd think it better be reserved for a time when the four types have been reviewed.

    I have been looking at the landscapes IR- fotographed by Glen Ryan. Amazing images!  Excelente!

    A propos of his "Invisible Landscapes", this quote of Imam Ghazali:

 "The visible world is made to correspond with the invisible world and there is nothing in this world that is not a symbol of something in that other world"                          .

  ====== 

       ... and Felice Anno Nuovo  to all of you!

    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/