Girot / Bucher / Freytag Topology
1. Auflage 2014
ISBN: 978-3-86859-910-7
Verlag: De Gruyter
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
Topical Thoughts on the Contemporary Landscape
E-Book, Englisch, Band 3, 304 Seiten
Reihe: Landscript
ISBN: 978-3-86859-910-7
Verlag: De Gruyter
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
Worüber sprechen wir heute, wenn wir das Wort „Landschaft“ verwenden? Was haben Schlagworte wie „ökologische Dienstleistung“, „Energie- und Infrastrukturlandschaft“, „Zwischenstadt“ oder „Neue Brache“ mit dem alltäglichen Lebensraum der Menschen zu tun? Landschaft sieht – und deutet – jeder anders, und nirgendwo drücken sich die Unklarheiten deutlicher aus als in der tiefen Kluft zwischen akademischem Diskurs und alltäglichem Verständnis. Dieses Buch soll die Aufmerksamkeit auf die räumlichen, physischen, aber auch poetischen und philosophischen Werte lenken, die in der langen Tradition der Gestaltung von und mit Natur eingebettet sind. Es soll eine „Landschafts-topologie“ entwickelt werden, die wieder auf ein „Ganzes“ abzielt, also die Gestaltung eines „sinnlichen“, wirtschaftlich und ökologisch tragbaren Lebensraums. Gestaltung meint dann aber, Form und Erleben – ästhetische Qualitäten – der einfachen Funktionalisierung überzuordnen, um an die Stärke und Schönheit alter Kulturlandschaften für die Gegenwart anzuknüpfen.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
Landscape Theories in Transition Shifting Realities and Multiperspective Perception Annemarie Bucher Landscape is considered to be the common place par excellence; an open space for thought and action that is, however, subjected to certain laws. The fact that this concept accumulates numerous phenomena, ideas, values, demands, and problems is not usually a problem in day-to-day life. But on the scientific and professional level, different disciplinary-specific concepts have developed around the understanding of landscape, which—because they are based on different systems of reference—have very different scopes, and come into conflict when they seek validity beyond their disciplinary limitations. In practice, this proves more and more a hindrance, because it is essential for planning, design, and development to have a broadly anchored and hence widely accepted understanding of landscape. Understanding landscape is not only fundamental to all those involved, actors and users alike; it is the result of a process of negotiation between the various positions. In the process, landscape theories—1 play a role that is not to be underestimated. They not only offer insights, justifications, descriptions, and explanations for the “landscape phenomenon,” they also create an environment for negotiations by localizing them within a larger intellectual and practical context. Landscape was long caught in an “either-or” situation of the natural sciences and humanities. Either its natural phenomena were explained or its culturally construed idea interpreted. After the “topological turn,”—2 however, landscape shifted towards the interest of cultural studies, where in particular transdisciplinarity, grounded theory, and methodological triangulation interlinked different explanatory and comprehension attempts. The current space of landscape is therefore no longer merely physical and geographical, but also cultural and social. Its conceptualization connects self-evident concepts and interests beyond disciplinary and methodological borders, and prioritizes relationships and entanglements over facts. Much has been discussed since the late twentieth century regarding the planning and designing of landscape. The discussion relates to wilderness parks as much as urban squares and, in the second instance, to the question of a common denominator. Various natural, suburban and urban, traditional, and post-industrial landscapes compete for quality and sustainability. Against this backdrop, a committed definition of landscape faded. It is uncontested however, that rapid change in use and design—instigated mainly by ecological pressures—greatly undermined any previously accepted concepts, terminologies, and visual images. In face of this pressure to change, we are attempting to discover the causes and drivers of this change on the one hand, and on the other anticipating future needs and development tendencies through new visions and models. Yet the fundamental question remains: which understanding of landscape—which basis of theory—will form the basis? And what kind of landscape will be produced as a result? The idea of landscape itself establishing how it should be perceived—and thus designed—is a modern development, which was greatly influenced by painting and painting’s pictorial qualities: the framed picture represents observed landscape and turns it into an object to be viewed from an “aesthetic distance.” The picture consequently becomes the way landscape is perceived (“pictorial vision”), and the gauge against which the reality of landscape is measured. Yet the “beauty” that is frozen in the picture is examined critically, due to the inescapable transformation of physical space and the shift of perspective in the age of postindustrialized, globalized society. It is more relevant at the moment for landscape not be chained to a predetermined aesthetic, but rather experienced casually in movement. It is laced with and structured by a dense network of pathways, streets, and tracks. This network creates a type of visual rhythm, forms points of intersections and a variety of complex relationships. Basing contemporary landscape purely on a traditional, pictorial mode of perception will inevitably fail. Because first of all, the traditional, pictorial perception is qualified when non-visual, sensual experiences are taken into account, and secondly, the processes of change and a multiplicity of perspectives makes the static image more dynamic. Landscape today is a multidimensional phenomenon that needs to integrate the non-visual as well as change, and that also demands different levels of reflection. Differentiation and Contextualization Rather than Definition It is now accepted, in the various sciences involved with landscape, that there is no single landscape concept that unifies all disciplines, nor do any representations or ways of presentation exist that are valid across the board. Instead, different ideas and views on landscape have materialized with different ranges and expiry dates. This almost unimaginable diversity of landscape concepts and definitions reveals far more inconsistencies and contradictions than consensus and contingency. Against the backdrop of a universalizing understanding of landscape, which still shapes the landscape architectural practice, this complicates communication regarding landscape and hinders future negotiations. The ideal notion of landscape fades, becoming a pictorial label and a superficial sales pitch. A typological understanding of landscape, on the other hand, is based on the specific site and its relationship, and tolerates contradictory definitions and perspectives. Instead of exclusionary general plans, there is an increasing amount of context-specific, temporary, process-based, participatory, design- and planning-related interventions—each with a landscape concept that responds to the specific site. And for this reason, such approaches can neither be right nor wrong (measured against an ideal), but rather plausible and sensible in relation to the actual situation. This reorientation of defining and assessing landscape was announced at the theoretical level: firstly, in a general differentiation of the landscape concept and in the question regarding its visibility; and, secondly, in concrete landscape theory in relation to practice. Landscape not implying an image, an idea, or a physicalgeographic space has long been a topic of cultural studies (green cultural studies). And the fact that this differentiation has far-reaching consequences on the practice level is an overdue subject of current discussion. The landscape concept has diverse interpretations and contexts of use. Work on the landscape concept—3 has made the following dimensions visible and distinguishable: I Landscape as physical, object-based space that exists beyond humans and is understood as object-based (natural perspective). II Landscape as a space of action, space of residence, and social fabric (social perspective). III Landscape as an abstract idea and cultural construct that shape perceptual conditions (ideal perspective). IV Landscape as medium (image, film, text, code, and so on) that communicates the physical reality and or idea (media perspective). These four dimensions of landscape—their plausibility based on current scientific theoretical distinctions and philosophies—are not only distinguishable due to their theoretical orientation and conception, they are also interconnected by the complexity of the landscape phenomenon. Image, space, and ideas are inseparable, as the work by René Magritte has shown. As obviously and frequently as these perspectives shape the intersections of the actual dealings with landscape, the relationships between them are comparatively not sufficiently reflected or discussed. The inflationary employment of beautiful landscape pictures to communicate a variety of implications is clear evidence of this. Traditional landscape pictorial conventions may well address a broad public, yet they also have less and less to do with the actual spatial reality they supposedly use as a point of reference in the first place. Blind spots in relation to these different realities—blind spots in theory—are preprogrammed here. They hinder not only an adequate sifting of the phenomenon, but also of the corresponding theoretical formulations. As early as the nineteen-nineties, philosopher Wolfgang Welsch described the problem of turning a blind eye—the restriction of aesthetic perception.—4 One of his core theories asserts that every aesthetic contains a conflicting anaesthetic—“a blind spot.” “We do not see, because we are not blind, but rather we see, because we are blind to most.”—5 To see means to make visible—tangible to the senses—and thus it is exclusive. Making something visible is contingent upon making something invisible; it is shifting these things to a different dimension of perception that is not embedded in the consciousness. Because sensual perception is based on traditional patterns of perception, it excludes those things that are not cataloged therein. It declares them as nonexistent within the context of the given sensory concept. However, they are conceivable within the framework of Welsch’s anaesthetic concept, and significant. In relation to landscape, these are the realms not...
