12 лютого 2011 р.

Landscape and Relief in Geography

Some words are used in everyday life so often that peoples don’t ponder about their initial meaning conditioned by their etymology. We say that it is trivial, naïve about such pattern of the World. But forming the scientific pattern it has been treated to terms/notions meaning more accurate since it makes the principal “salience”, embossment of the semantic space. The same time the sharp deviation of the scientific notions from their worldly/etymological senses that impart its eidetic nature is not permitted. In the scientific variants these terms became the notions. Such terms (for different languages) are “landscape(“scenery”, “paysage”, “panorama”, “crayobraz” so on), “relief, “terrain(“pays”, “luogo”), “faciesand others that are the terms of general use including the art. So geographers have neglected the nature of landscape for a long time. Here I want to state some views about landscape phenomenon (relief is often interpreted as landscape) as a geographical appearance first of all. In the base of this the view of A. Humboldt, F. Ratcel, many Russian geography-travellers of 19th – beginning of 20th century and modern science as an ordinary interpretation of such word as “landscape”, “relief”, “terrainand so on.

The etymology of “landscape” is given full on the site with address: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape). This word appeared for phenomenon of land-order expression of certain territory (notably certain surface) and then was expressed some natural background existence. In Geography both terms “landscape” and “relief” entered from the art that bordered the variants of its definitions essentially. But in Russia, as it was written by A.G. Isachenko (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979), Geographical Landscape is a basic territorial category of the earth’s mantle; one of the fundamental concepts of geography, and the object of study in landscape science. And then: “The first attempts to give scientific definitions of the term were made, in particular, by L.S. Berg (1913), who saw in it a harmonious combination of natural components (relief, climate, soils, vegetation), outlined by natural boundaries. He looked upon it as a “geographic unit,” the fundamental object of geographic investigation”. Gilles Deleuze in his “Logique du sens(1969) commented such situation like this: what it means that something corresponds to its name? And if the things don’t correspond their name now what can guard them against their loss? What will leave then, that guards us from the arbitrariness of denotations to which nothing corresponds that is formally meaning of “this” type – if both will appear to devoid of sense?
I think it was the result of mechanic-materialism conception influence – the backbone of which in approach to differ the object (the earth surface as the complex within 3D-layer in our case) into some elementary units for full (as it was seem) analysis completion that it seems assure a base for measuring. Such a physicalism requires materialization of all environment and thereafter to distort notion interpretations. The L. Berg “merit” was reduce to accomplished the deliberate distortion of some fundamental terms which were used by geography in 19-th century persistently – notably “facies, “terrainand “landscape. “Landscape” was declared as geocomplex - relief, climate, soils, vegetation… in its connection. But Berg didn’t take into account that relief and climate are patterns as the integrate forms of our perception. They don’t contain the measurable extents and may be examined only on quality base and so cannot be the components the action of which does not have the physical character. A “landscape” as a term was used in art and by geography of 19-th century in the meaning of “appearance”, “shape”, “view”, and “relief” – as “configuration”, “form”, “orographic landscape” correspondingly. A view, configuration, form or shape are variants of pattern, they are not substantial (tangible). Landscape and relief (as well as climate) as patterns may not be decomposed on the separate parts without missing of its essence, – all of them are unity, whole, total and need a perceiver for emergence. Patterns can’t be measured, they are classified or typified.
Landscape is the most versatile and complex topic as is shown in comprehensive studies. Gerhard Hard: “By making use of the word landscape we actually integrate an aggregate of extremely varied phenomena” (Hard, G. Die "Landschaft" der Sprache und die Landschaft" der Geographen, 1970, 17). In a contemporary encyclopedic definition, landscape is described as a part of Earth surface with an image in which biotic and abiotic nature as well as human activity are imprinted with specific features (Brockhaus V, 325). In the 18th century England a landscape consider as an aesthetic artefact with implanted symbolic.
We are dealing with a pattern on the surface, which arrised, emergence due to a number of actions. The pattern represents the nature of the organization of these actions. In the case of "geographical landscape” and relief this surface is the visible surface of the earth. Some authors used terms external, visible or touchable surface of the earth (Hartshorne, R. 1939 for instance) and other ones - daylight, daytime or just day or present-day surface. In this paper I will use the term “present-day surface”. This is the difference between my point of view and, for example, Simon Bell’s: landscape modification involves a qualitative change in the day surface structure. It is associated with a change of geosystem regime as an organization set of processes. Herein lies the essence of landscape design. No processes can occur in the landscape. They occur in the active layer, which includes present-day surface. The relation between present-day surface and landscape can be well described using palimpsest metaphor. The palimpsest representation is frequently connected with landscape, though it is not correct: present-day surface is palimpsest only.
The sense of word “landscape” can’t be understood out of its connection with the whole system of geographical notions that form the semantic net of Geography. I propose the variant of base notion systems that substantially differ from established viewpoint. The central notion is geosystem – the constantly being reproduced geographical “machine”, multispeed heterogeneous continuum (it is made up from the continual heterogeneous processes), landscape-generating regime that “writes” a 2D text on the present-day surface by the use of present-day surface language as a system of coding; it is the current that produces some morphologically expressed structures – geocomplex that may be imagine as an organization of active surfaces with the multitude compatible elementary processes within the scope of earth surface layer (the present-day surface is the most clearly defined of its part); landscape is an organization of pictorial representation (pattern) of a terrain as a present-day surface fragment, assignable by a perceiver (onlooker, viewer) on the base of his individual distinguishing abilities. It is a multitude distinguishes organization from concrete perceiver point of view. The present-day surface is substantive and a terrain as its part is a landscape-generating fragment - a part of “information” satiation as compatible variety. These fragments are different by texture that enables to discern various morphotypes – morphological attractors. People search on the present-day surface, based only on texture gradients. Combination of some coherence morphotypes forms a terrain physiographical structure, where the landscape is its face, guise. Landscape is a present-day surface drawing organization that some pattern includes thanks to which we can to memorize it. Different combinations are frame-based, situational of uninterrupted present-day surface. Thus landscaping perception is based on a frame-like structure of physic surface under the condition that the rest part of surroundings is percept as a background noise.
The connection between geosystem and present-day surface can be presented by different way. For instance, as a surface picture “inscribing” by geosystem action with the help of present-day surface language; or as a geosystem current organization, which reflects on the present-day surface (as the cut flatness of this current) picture and etc... Landscape is a display the geosystem current/regime organization that comes out as invisibility relations between morphotypes as the present-day surface structure - physiographic structure - units that distinguish visually. Thus if some area doesn’t have an expressed physiographical structure, we have the event of picture absence – so called null landscape. We can speak too about minimal landscape as an organization of the main features of the given surface as well as about homogeneous (fluvial, glacial, moraine …) and heterogeneous landscape. Such main features are an invariant (I think just invariant is the pattern) that make possible to distinguish different types or classes of present-day surface structures. Landscape is patterned by network of heterogeneous implicitly included relations, or an effect produced by such a network. The landscape forming these relations must at best be deduced by the viewer that needs to use for notions (semantic space). In such presentation a landscape come out as a form of present-day surface space. The relationship between present-day surface structure and landscape is complex. If physiographic structure is quantitative changing continuously, a suitable landscape change in the topological plane discontinuously in which its information (as a signal/message interpretation that fuzziness reduced) essence is consist. Landscape (as well as relief) comes owing to the communication between person and geosystem through present-day surface: morphology is a poured system’s dynamic. Landscape and relief as concrete forms are not self-evident and are given uniquely. A change of current regime leads to present-day surface structure variation and consequently to transition of landscape to other type (in topology it is named as a catastrophe). Thus a landscape phenomenon becomes apparent as a result of pattern formation that affects a state of mind that makes impossible the perception of the organization unreachable on the score of vagueness, uncertainty presence. In the same time the perception is supported with some original ontolandscape existence – some hidden order that appears to reflect on the subjective semiotic fields. A landscape of concrete terrain emerges owing to complex interaction of perception, individual semantic space structure and its current requirements. We can form landscapes of different scale – micro-, mezzo-, macro- so on that presupposes landscape-forming character distance availability for each case. We can say about landscape as an abstraction (different genetic types of surfaces) and about concrete terrains (geographical land) patterns such as Alps, Pamir or Japan including their populations and their ethnic peculiarity. There is a territorial individuation and so self-precious. We can’t touch landscape and relief or walk along them.
Relief is considered as an elevation field organization, a surface configuration (pattern). In the case when the relief the straight, even or irregular, rough surface (for instance, emery, asphalt surface) can’t characterize the relief: it is null relief. We also can speak about ontorelief and minimum relief.
One can ask a question: what are the places of terrain and facies? A terrain is the part of present-day surface that differs on the basis of structural completeness from the present subject perception system. Facies is the ratio between characteristic of dedicated part (system) and characteristics of its surroundings.
Such the viewpoint prejudices the possibility of landscape and relief mapping. We can map only a daylight surface structure using the specific cartographical symbols, organization of which in the map space can permit to imagine a character of terrain surface organization. Such operation is translation, conversion on map language grasp of which make possible to rider theirs and relevant image of terrain form. So “landscape maps” and “maps of relief” cannot exist and such names are not correct. It may be say only about daylight surface structure mapping.

Немає коментарів:

Дописати коментар