The Classical Landscape I
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: 
I did present earlier, when discussing "Seeing in Detail" another of Pissarro's oils which is an even better illustration of the classical landscape :
More on the classical landscape on following Posts…
The Classical Landscape II
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)
Barnes Foundation,
The Classical Landscape III
Here is another of the Cezanne's depictions of Mont Sainte-Victoire which may be taken to illustrate the concept of Classical Landscape
Mont Sainte-Victoire by P. Cezanne (1887) at Courtaulds Institute Gallery, London
Nicholas Pioch (Webmuseum) writes: "The
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." ( Note: see also Russell's Psychological Perspective on Place for this aspect of genius loci.)
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
Foreword
The subject of Styles of Landscape is expounded here following ideas originally proposed by C. Norberg-Schulz and J.A. Jakle, but shifting the emphasis to non-designed landscapes.
Most of the material presented in this Page comes from communications to the Landscape Appreciation Group (October-December 2008) with minor changes and additional footnotes and images.
In a series of posts about components of Landscape Character, based on ideas proposed by John A. Jakle, we dwelt at some length on "Rhyme and Rhythm' and 'Seeing in Detail' (See Posts #179-190). Following this thread I'd like to propose next for discussion another component of Landscape Character : Style.
Jakle (The Visual Elements of Landscape, pp. 85) links Style with Seeing in Detail by writing:
"Seeing in detail is also a search for style in landscape. Style, implying a characteristic arrangement of things, is readily recognized, when encountered, as following a well established pattern."
For those familiar with the question of style in art works or in design, the notion of style in landscape may seem a bit far-fetched, (since, we are concerned here with landscapes not 'purposefully designed' by humans). Style as a manner or mode of expression in a work is intentionally brought-in by its creator; no such intention can be thought-of regarding non designed landscapes. Nevertheless, when valuing a landscape, it looks to me that looking for style in that landscape is not only a legitimate but a necessary concern.
"Characteristic arrangements in a landscape" are those arrangements that help to distinguish, identify, set apart, a given landscape (or a group of them) from the innumerable landscapes observed; hence 'distinctive' as a synonym and hence 'distinctiveness' (one of the factors of imageability). The act of looking for such arrangements entails looking for categories which may be useful to distinguish or identify. A large number of alternative classification systems may be (and has been) proposed; one that has particular merits is the one based on concepts from visual arts, involving a distinction between Classical and Romantic. [ jorgeg #196 ]
Jorge writes in his last Digest: "Nevertheless, when valuing a landscape, it looks to me a legitimate concern to look for 'characteristic arrangements of things' (style) in that landscape." and, also: "The act of looking for such arrangements entails looking for categories that may be useful in distinguishing or identifying" That it is 'legitimate' is not to be disputed; whether it is both legitimate and fruitful is, I understand, open to question. Characterization through "categories" of places or landscapes that have not been designed appear to some as forcefully imposing on them alien and irrelevant concepts. The opposite point of view, to which I myself subscribe, is very well argued by Rachel and Stephen Kaplan in their book The Experience of Nature, A Psychological Perspective (1989). I quote here some excerpts from the chapter "Perception and Categorization": "People react towards what they experience in terms of commonalities, in terms of classes or categories. A scene is largely perceived as a particular instance of a larger set of scenes." (pp.20) ..."There are (also) experts who asses the aesthetics of scenery"…. "The process of making these appraisals requires that one categorize or classify" (pp.13)… "It has been traditional to make a distinction between expert-based appraisals and the preferences that people have for some objects or places". …"Nonetheless, there are strong similarities between the process used by the expert in making an appraisal and by the untrained individual who is making a preference judgment. For both expert and non-expert a great deal of experience is brought to bear on the decision, and categorization is necessarily an aspect of the decision". …"As it turns out, preferences provide a means for discovering the categories of perception." (pp 14). ( My bolds ) In words more relevant to our subject: In the actions of valuing or appreciating, we proceed by examining a landscape as an example, not of landscapes in general, but of a category or class or in Kaplan's words as a particular instance of a set of landscapes. The criteria used to construct those sets (categories) may be different for experts than for the untrained people but categorization is the common denominator to both appreciating and making preferential judgments. [landscaperian #197] ============ Chriatian Norberg -Schulz, a Norwegian architect (1926-2000), notable for being one of the first to bring Heidegger's thinking into architectural theory. He wrote quite a number of books that seemed to have had a deep effect on architectural thinking of his time.(See Wikipedia for more of him) One of these was: Genius Loci, Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (1991); by all mens a remarkable book, which I heartily recommend to all those interested in landscape studies. In Genius Loci Norberg-Schulz proposes what I'd call a typology of landscapes which may afford a powerful tool for the study of landscapes. The typology is based on four general types: romantic, cosmic, classical and complex. [Jorgeg #198]
The Romantic Landscape
As said in last Post Norberg-Schulz distinguishes four classes of "archetypical natural places", viz., romantic, cosmic, classical and complex. Starting with Romantic: Norberg-Schulz considers that the Nordic forest, as it is known in some parts of Central Europe and in particular, in
" The Nordic forest is distinguished by an interminable multitude of different phenomena:
The ground is rarely continuous, but it is subdivided and has a varied relief; rocks and depressions, groves and glades, bushes and tufts create a rich 'microstructure'.
The sky is hardly experienced as a total hemisphere, but it is narrowed in between the contours of trees and rocks, and is moreover continuously modified with clouds.
The sun is relatively low and creates a varied play of spots of light and shadow, with clouds and vegetation acting as enriching 'filters'. Water is ever present, as a dynamic element, both as running streams and quiet, reflecting ponds." (Genius Loci pp42)
Tessefossen,Vågå, Middagsbelysning
By Hans F. Gude, 1848, Private Collection
More on Hans Gude
Asterudtjernet, Ringerike
by Hans Gude, 1878, National Gallery, Oslo
Efoybroen, North Walles
by Hans Gude, 1863, National Gallery Oslo
==================
For more of Gude's paintings see List of Paintings
a biography is in this Wikipedia page
About the romantic landscape, Norberg-Schulz goes on saying:
(quotes from his Genius Loci, pp.42; my highlightings)
"As a whole, the environment seems to make a mutable and rather incomprehensible world manifest, where surprises belong to the order of the day. The general instability is emphasized by the contrast between the seasons and by frequent changes of the weather."
And, perhaps, the most distinguishing characteristic:
"In general we may say that the Nordic landscape is characterized by an indefinite multitude of different places."
"Behind every hillock and rock there is a new place and only exceptionally the landscape is unified to form a simple univocal space."
Delhoved wood near lake Skarre
by P.C. Skovgaard, 1847
Peter Christian Skovgaard is considered one of the main exponents of the Golden Age of Danish paintings; he sought to portray Denmark's Nature paying special attention not to the spectacular but to the ordinary and typical.
"In the Nordic landscape therefore, men encounters a host of natural 'forces', whereas a general unifying order is lacking. This becomes clearly manifest in the literature, art and music of the Nordic countries, where natural impressions and moods play a primary role. In legends and fairy-tales we encounter the mythical inhabitants of this world: gnomes, dwarfs and fairies."
From landscaperian last Post:
"Since the images presented by Jorge here as illustrations of the romantic landscape are also representations created by 'romantic landscape painters', a question arises: to which extent the two set of categories overlap?
Since the issue may introduce some confusion while discussing of 'Style in Landscape' I thought that someone in this Group might be able to clarify."
I do agree that some confusion may arise by my use of landscape paintings or photos belonging to a particular Art style. The question you raise is important but , if you don't mind, I'd rather leave its discussion for later, after I introduce the other three styles.
In the meantime we could make do by keeping always in mind Magritte's graphical admonition:
When looking at a landscape painting or a landscape photography chosen to illustrate the characteristics of a certain style of landscape, we should keep in mind the admonition: "This is not a Landscape"
The Cosmic Landscape
To characterize those landscapes that Norberg-Schulz typified as "cosmic" one might begin in the negative sense: those traits that were used to characterize the romantic landscape are absent in the cosmic one. The best example is afforded by vast expanses of desert (Like the
In a cosmic landscape, as opposed to a romantic one:
a) The ground is continuous, no varied relief (of groves or glades or bushes that may create a rich 'microstructure'. b) The sky is usually experienced as a total hemisphere, rarely modified by clouds. c) The sun is high for most of the daylight period, resulting in the absence of any play of light and shadows (except for a few moments at sunrise or sunset). No clouds or vegetation acting as enriching filters; water is conspicuous for its absence.
Furthermore, if the romantic landscape is characterized by involving an indefinite multitude of different places, it may be said that the cosmic one does not involve individual places (op.cit. pp 46),or at least none that could be easily discerned.
Although so far I have described the cosmic landscape in a negative sense, this shouldn't be taken as implying that those landscapes are uninteresting or lack appeal; quite the contrary as may be judged from the illustration below and others that will follow.
(épreuve aux sels d'argent) Crédit photographique: Photo CNAC/MNAM, Dist. RMN / G. Meguerditchian.
The Cosmic Lamdscape II
The following are excerpts from Norberg-Schulz' notes on the cosmic landscape:
"As a whole, the environment seems to make an absolute and eternal order manifest, a world which is distinguished by permanence and structure. Even the dimension of time does not introduce any ambiguities" ... "In the desert, thus, the earth does not offer man a sufficient existential foothold. It does not contain individual places, but forms a continuous neutral ground." ..."The sky instead is structured by the sun (and also by the moon and the stars) and its simple order is not obscured by atmospheric changes" (italics in the original
… " Within this abstract order no truly plastic objects are possible, the 'play of light and shadow is extinguished' and everything is reduced to surface and line."
I have selected these excerpts from others(for a full account see Genius Loci pp. 45)with a certain intention in mind: Taking archetype in its sense of "A first form from which varieties arise or imitations are made" one might say that, as proposed by Norberg-Schulz,the archetypical cosmic landscapes are sandy deserts such as the
When the landscape is experienced as "reduced to surface and line", when the composition is extremely simple and it does not appear "to contain individual places", then we could typify the style as that of a cosmic landscape even if the locality has nothing in common with that where desertic regions prevail.
Consider as examples the sort of landscapes that are observed in the Argentinean pampas, the barren plains of the Andean Altiplano the North American prairies, the Asian steppes the frozen plains close to the poles, the vast expanses of water or seascapes, etc; in those areas we can encounter landscapes which have many or even most of the visual characteristics of the cosmic landscape.
I intend to present in the near future a gallery of images from which the similarities may be examined further. In the meantime, I offer for discussion the image below as an illustration of a cosmic landscape. I chose it,somewhat provocatively,because a Scottish glen may be thought as farthest away from an African desert and also because it bears resemblance to the one from Decamps (of my last post)in that the landscape is primarily appreciated "as reduced to surface and line".
by Wim van Velzen © (2007)
I am grateful to Wim van Velzen for kind permission to reproduce his photos. For more of his works and his opinions on landscape photography I refer the interested readers to his website: http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/home.htm
More on the Cosmic Landscape
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:
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