The word landscape is very rich in meanings, and probably due to its origins is full of different senses. In other languages we may find different meanings, and again it evokes origins that are distant in time.
What we bring up today is the ‘academic’ definitions of the English term.
Extracted from the Oxford English Dictionary these are the definitions proposed:
1. a. A picture representing natural inland scenery, as distinguished from a sea picture, a portrait, etc.
1603 SYLVESTER Du Bartas I. vii. 13 The cunning Painter..Limning a Land-scape, various, rich, and rare. 1605 B. JONSON Masque Blackness Wks. (1616) 893 First, for the Scene, was drawne a Landtschap, consisting of small woods. 16.. A. GIBSON L’Envoy in Guillim’s Heraldry (1660), As in a curious Lant-schape, oft we see Nature, so follow’d, as we think it’s she. 1683 DRYDEN Life Plutarch Ded. 18 Let this part of the landschape be cast into shadows that the heightnings of the other may appear more beautiful. 1821 CRAIG Lect. Drawing v. 271 If..you paint your landscapes in oil-colours. 1841-4 EMERSON Ess., Art Wks. (Bohn) I. 145 In landscapes, the painter should give the suggestion of a fairer creation than we know. 1899 L. CUST in Nat. Gallery Brit. Art 8 The landscapes exhibited on this occasion by Constable.
b. spec. The background of scenery in a portrait or figure-painting. Obs.c. As adj. =OBLONG a. 1c. Also as adv.
2. a. A view or prospect of natural inland scenery, such as can be taken in at a glance from one point of view; a piece of country scenery.
b. A tract of land with its distinguishing characteristics and features, esp. considered as a product of modifying or shaping processes and agents (usually natural).
3. In generalized sense (from 1 and 2): Inland natural scenery, or its representation in painting.
4. In various transf. and fig. uses.
5. attrib. and Comb., as landscape art, book-plate, draughtsman, -lover, -work; landscape architect, a practitioner of landscape architecture; landscape architecture, the planning of parks or gardens to form an attractive landscape, often in association with the design of buildings, roads, etc.; landscape-gardening, the art of laying out grounds so as to produce the effect of natural scenery; so landscape-garden, (also as vb.) -gardener; landscape lens, a lens used in photographing landscape; landscape marble, a variety of marble which shows dendritic markings resembling shrubbery or trees; landscape mirror, = CLAUDE LORRAINE GLASS (Cent. Dict.); landscape-painter, one who paints landscapes, a landscapist; so landscape-painting;landscape-worker, a landscapist.
We can discuss (if you want) the reasons for the name and why view and land are privileged in the definitions. However, it is interesting to note that ‘picture’ is a word that comes up frequently when talking about the landscape. Diverse authors have talked about our representation of the world as a picture (e.g. Merleau-Ponty) but it depends on our personal definition the fact of seeing the landscape as something holistic (as we can see in the definitions) or restrict our ‘view’ like in a picture.
What is landscape? Good point to start with.
It’s interesting that in all these non-specialist formal definitions either the landscape is being represented or is being acted upon. There is only one instance 2.b. where any ideas of movement or change is involved and this is clarified as being ‘usually natural’. Personally I would say landscape is inherently if not completely mental. Landscapes don’t exist apart from in our minds. that isn’t to say there isn’t a material basis for what we think about, but that thinking of anything as a landscape is a modern social construction.
Yes, I think that the point here is that landscape is such a broad and fluid term that it can mean almost anything, given the appropriate context.
Personally, I use the term landscape as what is visible but not walkable within five minutes. That is all I can reduce it to insofar as my own experience. Interestingly though, I would never use the word in an urban sense, only in the countryside. So although ‘landscape’ only pertains to topography and visibility, it does seem bound with notions of what is ‘natural’.
I come from Bristol where it is very hilly but I don’t think I have ever described it in terms of a landscape as I might the South Downs or Cadbury Camp.
The definitions are clearly too inert to express the multi-level experience of landscape. However, I’m not sure I agree that landscapes only exists in our minds. People are active, engaged and embodied. In particular, the body is central to the manner in which people experience, perceive and engage with the world (Merlou-Ponty).
Landscape is a social phenomenon which can be experienced in many different ways by different people at the same time. We need to be cautious that we do not emphasise the visual experience at the expense of different physical and embodied experiences.
We perceive the landscape as participants, not spectators. In this sense landscapes are continously made as the process of life unfolds.
The definitions expresses the most accepted perspectives of landscape (by non specialist), ignoring in most cases dynamic and experience. I agree that mind and body are fundamental in our approach to the landscape, however, its materiality is, from my point of view, beyond doubt. It is the basis for perception or embodied experience, as well as for social construction.
The way in which we understand landscape depends upon multiple variables such as our experience, social definitions, mind constructions and so on, that is why we cannot restrict our perspective to a simple way of understanding.
What landscape is depends on our definition: it could be the way in which systems (politico-economic) maintain their oppression reproducing behavior patterns and economical prospectives. But it could be also a metaphor of human relationships with the world.
By meaning anything landscape has no value, as we can attribute infinite characteristics or interpretations. There lies the importance of our definition and the understanding of such a holistic term.
Finally, I bring up Wylie’s definition because it integrates diverse perspectives: ‘Landscape might best be described in terms of the entwined materialities and sensibilities with which we act and sense’.
I disagree with the statement that, “By meaning anything landscape has no value”. on the contary i think this is the important thing about the term landscape, the extent to which it can be defined and constructed by the attribution of a wide array of characteristics. It provides both blank canvass and an infinitely complex source of information, which can be used to answer questions and provide a story of the history of the landscape.
Having said this, the first point made that “Landscapes don’t exist apart from in our minds” seems to be logically valid. However to what extent can this be said of any human definition of any abstract concept (or even any material object)?
Surely the danger arises that the excuse of ‘well, there can be no universal definition for landscape’ is given purely because the definition proves too difficult (due to its many varied facets) to comprehend? However this does not mean that we should stop seeking to define it.
My own definition of landscape is an area of variable size constructed through natural and/or human processes which shares at least one common characteristic (dependent of course on period).
Although I’m excited to find out why I’m wrong..!