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”), “facies”
and 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”,
“terrain” and
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”,
“terrain” and
“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