What isn't landscape?

As we describe all the physical things that we create and see as a landscape, the past as historical landscapes, thoughts as landscape of the mind, or imaginative landscape, and so on, are we not effectively saying that everything is a landscape? However, implying that landscape is all encompassing seems like arrogance on our behalf as (potential) landscape architects. So,

"What isn't landscape?"

Laryssa posed this interesting question in the placemaking class last week, and I would like this interesting dialogue to continue. Pitch in and comment!



I thought about this over the weekend, and here's my take on this question:

Landscape, by definition, is used to describe the visible area of land, usually the countryside. It is also used figuratively to describe the invisible features of a situation or activity. Landscape is both the physical place that we see, and the virtual place that we imagine. Hence, it is:
The real + the imagined = Something that exist in our mind.
The material + immaterial = Something that we can perceive.
Then what isn't landscape is something that is beyond what we can see or think about.

For example, the eleventh dimension of the string theory.

depictions of landscape on pieces of landscape

The Tartaria tablets are arguably the oldest known representations of the first written language (7th century BC). Archeologists have not agreed on the meaning of the symbols etched into these three tablets. It is however, inarguable that the symbols are representations of the authors environment, or, perceived landscape. Here we see that even in the early methods of communication between humans, the landscape (in this case a series of stones) was altered in the process.

The tablets can be understood as an example of landscape through its original definition as "land" "ship" (a representation of perceived surroundings). With regard to place, these symbolic gestures represent a narrative between the author and "nature," the author's culture, and the authors own self identity. It is interesting that the vehicle for communication (impressed stone) itself becomes a mechanism of place reinforcement. In other words the land is both represented and representative. Place is both perceived and reinforced.

That said, is it possible to communicate without alteration of/to our surrounding environment? Reversing the concept from above...as designers what are the vehicles of our communication? and how do these mechanisms/processes/strategies influence the place reinforcing attributes of our landscape?

welcome

water + place.

A blog dedicated to the discussion of relationships between water and place as one story in narrative landscapes.