The Idea of Landscape  风景的概念

pp. 13-38 第 13-38 页
M
.

Denis E. Cosgrove., (1998) Social formation and symbolic landscape University of Wisconsin Press
丹尼斯·E·科斯格罗夫. (1998) 社会形成与象征性景观 威斯康星大学出版社
Staff and students of Architectural Association School of Architecture are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract and the work from which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under the terms of a CLA licence which allows you to:
建筑协会建筑学院的教职员工和学生们请注意，此摘录及其来源作品均受版权保护。此数字副本是根据 CLA 许可证的条款制作的，允许您：

Please note that this material is for use ONLY by students registered on the course of study as stated in the section below. All other staff and students are only entitled to browse the material and should not download and/or print out a copy.
请注意，这些材料仅供注册在以下所述课程的学生使用。所有其他员工和学生仅有权浏览材料，不应下载和/或打印副本。

This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you under the terms of this Licence are for use in connection with this Course of Study. You may retain such copies after the end of the course, but strictly for your own personal use.
此数字副本及根据本许可条款提供给您或由您制作的任何数字或印刷副本仅可用于与本课程相关的用途。课程结束后，您可以保留这些副本，但仅限于个人使用。

All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be destroyed and/or deleted if and when required by Architectural Association School of Architecture.
所有副本（包括电子副本）应包含此版权声明，并应在建筑协会建筑学校要求时予以销毁和/或删除。

Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution (including by e-mail) is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.
除非版权法另有规定，否则未经版权持有者的同意，不得进一步复制、存储或分发（包括通过电子邮件）。
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the work and neither staff nor students may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work, or any other derogatory treatment of it, which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
作者（该术语包括艺术家和其他视觉创作者）在作品中享有道德权利，员工和学生不得造成或允许对作品的扭曲、 mutilation 或其他修改，或对其进行任何其他贬损处理，这将损害作者的荣誉或声誉。

Course of Study: LU_MODELS - Landscape and Urbanism HTS
课程学习：LU_MODELS - 景观与城市主义 HTS
Title: Social formation and symbolic landscape
标题：社会形成与象征景观

Name of Author: Denis E. Cosgrove.
作者姓名：丹尼斯·E·科斯格罗夫。
Name of Publisher: University of Wisconsin Press
出版商名称：威斯康星大学出版社

In geographical usage landscape is an imprecise and ambiguous concept whose meaning has defied the many attempts to define it with the specificity generally expected of a science. While landscape obviously refers to the surface of the earth, or a part thereof, and thus to the chosen field of geographical enquiry, it incorporates far more than merely the visual and functional arrangement of natural and human phenomena which the discipline can identify, classify, map and analyse. Landscape shares but extends the meaning of ‘area’ or ‘region’, both concepts which have been claimed as its geographical equivalents. As a term widely employed in painting and imaginative literature as well as in environmental design and planning, landscape carries multiple layers of meaning. Commenting on the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins’s neologism, inscape, W.A.M. Peters has commented that the suffix ‘scape’ ‘posits the presence of a unifying principle which enables us to consider part of the countryside or sea as a unit and as an individual, but so that this part is perceived to carry the typical properties of the actually undivided whole’ (Peters, 1948, p. 2).
在地理学中，景观是一个不精确且模糊的概念，其含义一直难以用科学通常期望的具体性来定义。虽然景观显然指的是地球表面或其一部分，因此与地理研究的选定领域相关，但它所包含的内容远不止于学科能够识别、分类、绘制和分析的自然和人类现象的视觉和功能排列。景观的含义与“区域”或“地区”相似，但又有所扩展，这两个概念都被认为是其地理等价物。作为一个广泛应用于绘画、想象文学以及环境设计和规划的术语，景观承载着多重含义。评论诗人杰拉德·曼利·霍普金斯的新词“内景”（inscape），W.A.M.彼得斯指出，后缀“scape” “假设了一个统一原则的存在，使我们能够将乡村或海洋的一部分视为一个单位和个体，但这样一来，这部分被认为具有实际未分割整体的典型特性”（彼得斯，1948 年，第 2 页）。

That unifying principle derives from the active engagement of a human subject with the material object. In other words landscape denotes the external world mediated through subjective human experience in a way that neither region nor area immediately suggest. Landscape is not merely the world we see, it is a construction, a composition of that world. Landscape is a way of seeing the world. For all its apparent objectivity and foundation in the historical record the landscape described in The Making of the English Landscape possesses an affective meaning, it represents W.G. Hoskins’s (1955) way of seeing England. It is this which informs his interpretation of
这一统一原则源于人类主体与物质对象的积极互动。换句话说，景观指的是通过主观人类经验中介的外部世界，这种方式既不是区域也不是面积所能直接暗示的。景观不仅仅是我们所看到的世界，它是对这个世界的构建和组合。景观是一种看待世界的方式。尽管在历史记录中看似客观且有基础，但《英格兰景观的形成》中描述的景观具有情感意义，它代表了 W.G. 霍斯金斯（1955）看待英格兰的方式。这正是影响他对景观的解读的因素。
how people in the past saw and remade the land. In Yi-Fu Tuan’s words (1971, p. 183), the landscape ‘is somewhat analogous to the interior of the house, in that its totality reveals purposes and ends that have directed human energy’. Human subjectivity provides the totality or holism, the synthetic quality, of landscape to which Peters, Tuan and others refer. Painting and literature have in the past developed certain techniques and conventions to represent and comment upon the holism of landscape and in so doing they have stressed the individuality of subjectivity, a dimension of meaning which geographical science naturally has found difficult to incorporate into its landscape studies.
人们在过去如何看待和重塑土地。用段义夫的话说（1971 年，第 183 页），景观“在某种程度上类似于房屋的内部，因为它的整体揭示了指导人类能量的目的和目标”。人类的主观性为景观提供了整体性或整体观，这是彼得斯、段义夫等人所提到的合成特质。过去，绘画和文学发展了一些技术和惯例来表现和评论景观的整体性，在此过程中，他们强调了主观性的个体性，这是地理科学在其景观研究中自然难以纳入的一个意义维度。

A similar difficulty is raised by a second and related aspect of the meaning of landscape. The frequent association in geographical writing of landscape with studies of the impact of human agency in altering the physical environment serves to remind us that landscape is a social product, the consequence of a collective human transformation of nature. The elision of landscape with wilderness or nature untainted by human intervention is a recent idea generally involving a rejection of the evidence of human action (Graber, 1976). The artistic use of landscape stresses a personal, private, and essentially visual experience. In Hopkins’s lines,
类似的困难由景观意义的第二个相关方面提出。在地理写作中，景观与人类行为对物理环境影响的研究频繁关联，这提醒我们景观是一个社会产品，是人类集体改造自然的结果。将景观与未受人类干预的荒野或自然等同起来是一个较新的观念，通常涉及对人类行为证据的拒绝（Graber, 1976）。艺术上对景观的使用强调了一种个人的、私密的、基本上是视觉的体验。在霍普金斯的诗句中，

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
世界充满了上帝的宏伟。
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
它会熄灭，就像从抖动的箔片上闪耀出来一样；
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
它汇聚成伟大，像油的渗出
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
压垮了。那为什么男人现在不在乎他的权杖呢？
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
几代人走过，走过，走过；
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
一切都被交易烙印，因辛劳而模糊、污损；
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
并穿着人的污垢，分享人的气味：土壤
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
赤裸裸的，现在脚也无法感受到，因为穿着鞋子。
(Hopkins, God’s Grandeur, 1877; 1953, p. 27)
（霍普金斯，《上帝的伟大》，1877；1953 年，第 27 页）
the poet regards the collective human labour which transforms nature, as a metaphor of $\sin$$\sin$sin\sin, and celebrates a personal vision of natural beauty - of ‘inscape’ as the recognition of divine majesty. Such a rejection of a humanised earth is not characteristic of the entire history of the landscape idea, but it reveals sharply the tension between individual enjoyment of the external scene and the collective making of that scene which we can trace historically.
诗人将转变自然的集体人类劳动视为 $\sin$$\sin$sin\sin 的隐喻，并庆祝对自然美的个人视野——将“内景”视为对神圣威严的认知。这种对人性化大地的拒绝并不是整个景观理念历史的特征，但它清晰地揭示了个体对外部场景的享受与我们可以追溯的历史上集体创造该场景之间的紧张关系。

The unities and tensions of subject and object, and of personal and
主体与客体之间的统一与紧张，以及个人与
social, produce problems for those geographers who would wish to derive from landscape a specialised scientific concept. Such an attempt requires by its nature the removal of ambiguity, so that scientific understanding may proceed. So with characteristic logic Richard Hartshorne (1939) argued for landscape’s exclusion from the geographical vocabulary unless its meaning was so refined as to expunge all subjective and personal connotations. But the usage of landscape resists the imposition of such logic and for this reason, as well as the greater willingness in contemporary geography to challenge the possibility and indeed the value of modelling the discipline upon the natural sciences, landscape for all its ambiguities retains currency in geographical writing. Indeed it is in part precisely the dual ambiguity which purchases landscape’s continued value in a geography which aims to comprehend terrestrial space as both subject and object of human agency, in a geography which finds its aims and methods more closely aligned to those of the humanities and their hermeneutic modes of understanding than with the natural sciences. To accept the ambiguity and severally-layered meanings of landscape does not excuse us from careful examination of them and of their origins. Rather it obliges us to pay rather greater attention to them than we have done in the past, for it is in the origins of landscape as a way of seeing the world that we discover its links to broader historical structures and processes and are able to locate landscape study within a progressive debate about society and culture. Therefore in this chapter I shall explore the nature of landscape’s dual ambiguity in greater depth, and suggest that landscape represents an historically specific way of experiencing the world developed by, and meaningful to, certain social groups. Landscape, I shall argue, is an ideological concept. It represents a way in which certain classes of people have signified themselves and their world through their imagined relationship with nature, and through which they have underlined and communicated their own social role and that of others with respect to external nature. Geography until very recently has adopted the landscape idea in an unexamined way, implicitly accepting many of its ideological assumptions. Consequently it has not placed the landscape concept within an adequate form of historical or social explanation (Relph, 1981). To do so requires not so much a redefinition of landscape as an examination of geography’s own purposes in studying landscape, a critical recognition of the contexts in which the landscape idea has intellectually evolved and a sensitivity to the range and subtlety of
社会为那些希望从景观中推导出专业科学概念的地理学家带来了问题。这种尝试本质上需要消除模糊性，以便科学理解得以进行。因此，理查德·哈特肖恩（1939 年）以其特有的逻辑主张，除非景观的意义被精炼到消除所有主观和个人的内涵，否则应将其排除在地理词汇之外。然而，景观的使用抵制这种逻辑的强加，因此，正因为这个原因，以及当代地理学更愿意挑战将学科建模于自然科学的可能性和价值，景观在地理写作中仍然保持着其重要性。实际上，正是这种双重模糊性使得景观在旨在理解作为人类行为主体和客体的地球空间的地理学中继续具有价值，这种地理学的目标和方法与人文学科及其解释学理解模式更为紧密地对齐，而不是与自然科学。 接受景观的模糊性和多层次含义并不意味着我们可以不加审视地对待它们及其起源。相反，这要求我们比以往更加关注它们，因为正是在景观作为一种看待世界的方式的起源中，我们发现了它与更广泛历史结构和过程的联系，并能够将景观研究置于关于社会和文化的进步辩论之中。因此，在本章中，我将更深入地探讨景观的双重模糊性，并建议景观代表了一种特定历史的体验世界的方式，这种方式是由某些社会群体发展而成并对其有意义的。我将论证，景观是一个意识形态概念。它代表了某些阶层的人们通过与自然的想象关系来表征自己及其世界的方式，并通过这种方式强调和传达了他们自己及他人在外部自然面前的社会角色。直到最近，地理学以未经审视的方式接受了景观的概念，隐含地接受了其许多意识形态假设。 因此，它没有将景观概念置于适当的历史或社会解释框架内（Relph，1981）。要做到这一点，所需的不是对景观的重新定义，而是对地理学在研究景观时自身目的的审视，对景观概念在智力上演变的背景的批判性认识，以及对其范围和细微差别的敏感性
human creativity in making and experiencing the environment.
人类在创造和体验环境中的创造力。

Geographical writers on landscape have identified the origins of the present English word in German and Middle English terms which denoted an identifiable tract of land, an area of known dimensions like the fields and woods of a manor or parish (Dickinson, 1939; Jackson, 1964; Mikesell, 1968; Stilgoe, 1982). It was to this areal meaning of landscape that early twentieth-century geographers like Carl Sauer (1925, 1941) and Richard Hartshorne (1939), both strongly influenced by German geographical writings, attempted to return the concept. In general, studies of the origins, evolution and forms of selected tracts of territory or landscapes have sought to produce a synthesis of the elements that compose the chosen area, suggesting that the various components lock together to produce characteristic and observable relationships of form. Their approach combines two methods. Morphology breaks the observed unity into constituent parts and subjects each to detailed examination, the better to understand individual and collective contributions to the reconstructed whole. Detailed examination is very commonly genetic, posing questions of origin and evolution. One of the clearest outlines of ‘genetic morphology’ is Carl Sauer’s The Morphology of Landscape (1925). Genetic morphology found favour in historical, cultural and physical geography, all of which have employed the landscape concept extensively. Despite the genetic treatment of individual forms, however, the processes of development and change in the whole are arrested at a particular historical moment so that the areal synthesis can be established and a timeless unity of form composed. Under the morphological method landscape becomes a static, determinate object of scientific enquiry. Its compositional elements and their relationships become susceptible to objective identification, classification and measurement, and while the scientific status of genetic morphology as method may be disputed, the rigorous exclusion of subjectivity in the interests of its scientific aims is not.
地理作家对景观的研究已确定当前英语单词的起源于德语和中世纪英语术语，这些术语表示一个可识别的土地区域，一个已知尺寸的区域，如庄园或教区的田野和森林（Dickinson, 1939; Jackson, 1964; Mikesell, 1968; Stilgoe, 1982）。正是基于这种区域意义，20 世纪初的地理学家如卡尔·绍尔（1925, 1941）和理查德·哈特肖恩（1939），在德国地理著作的强烈影响下，试图回归这一概念。一般来说，关于特定土地或景观的起源、演变和形式的研究旨在产生一个合成，整合构成所选区域的元素，表明各种组成部分相互锁定，产生特征性和可观察的形式关系。他们的方法结合了两种方法。形态学将观察到的统一体分解为组成部分，并对每个部分进行详细检查，以更好地理解对重建整体的个体和集体贡献。详细检查通常是遗传性的，提出起源和演变的问题。 “遗传形态学”最清晰的轮廓之一是卡尔·索尔的《景观形态学》（1925 年）。遗传形态学在历史、文化和自然地理学中受到青睐，这些领域广泛采用了景观概念。然而，尽管对个体形式进行了遗传处理，整体的发展和变化过程却在特定的历史时刻被停止，以便建立区域综合并构成一种超越时间的形式统一。在形态学方法下，景观成为一个静态、确定的科学研究对象。其组成元素及其关系变得可以客观识别、分类和测量，尽管遗传形态学作为一种方法的科学地位可能存在争议，但为了其科学目标而严格排除主观性这一点是毋庸置疑的。

In common English usage, however, landscape has a meaning beyond that of a land area of measurable proportions and properties. This meaning was given originally by painters’ use of the term. Before a reference dated 1725 the OED defines landscape as ‘A view or prospect of natural inland scenery, such as can be taken in at a
在普通英语用法中，然而，风景的含义超出了可测量的土地面积和属性。这一含义最初是由画家使用该术语所赋予的。在 1725 年之前的参考中，《牛津英语词典》将风景定义为“可以一览的自然内陆风光的景观或前景”。
glance from one point of view’. A further definition, supported by a reference from 1603, more than a century earlier, confirms the origin of this meaning: ‘a picture representing natural inland scenery as distinct from a sea picture, a portrait etc.’ In this sense landscape is the area subtended to the eye and vision of an observer who will, at least in theory, paint it. It is to be composed for its aesthetic content and may excite a psychological response. Observed in this painterly way, landscapes could be beautiful, sublime, tame, monotonous, despoiled. They engaged a subjective response in those who observed or experienced them. Landscape was therefore invested from outside with human meaning. Eighteenth-century English philosophers and writers on aesthetics, drawing upon prevailing psychological theory, fiercely debated the nature and origins of the affective bonds between the conscious subject and its visible natural surroundings. Their efforts, which were occasioned by the artistic and literary usage of landscape, have been continued in some measure in geography from von Humboldt (1848) to Vaughan Cornish (1928) and most recently Jay Appleton (1975) and Edward Relph (1976, 1981). Even those geographical writers who have been eager to develop landscape as a strictly scientific term have found it necessary to recognise the subjective meaning implied by artistic and poetic usage of landscape. Carl Sauer (1925), for example, acknowledges after his exposure of scientific morphology, that there remains an aspect of meaning in landscape which lies ‘beyond science’, the understanding of which cannot be reduced to formal processes. Like the French geographer Paul Vidal de la Blache, Sauer recognised that the affective dimension of landscape indicated a harmony between human life and the milieu in which it is lived. In his geographical writing he sought to capture something of this harmony in language and literary structure but stopped well short of the mysticism with which some German geographers like Ewald Banse (1924) and G. Hard (1965) have invested the concept of Landschaft. To regard landscape as both object and subject has important consequences for ä discipline seeking to theorise according to determinate rules of scientific procedure the relationships between human beings and their environment as those relationships give rise to characteristically differentiated areas. Morphological analysis, with its concentration on empirically defined forms and their integration, can operate only at a surface level of meaning, a level equivalent to the primary level of interpretation referred to by the art historian Erwin Panofsky (1970) when identifying the meaning of a painting as its formal pictorial
从一个角度看。进一步的定义，引用自 1603 年，早于一个多世纪，确认了这一意义的起源：“一幅代表自然内陆风景的画作，与海景画、肖像等不同。”在这个意义上，风景是一个观察者的眼睛和视野所覆盖的区域，至少在理论上，观察者会将其绘制出来。它应当以其美学内容进行构图，并可能引发心理反应。从这种绘画的方式观察，风景可以是美丽的、崇高的、温驯的、单调的、被破坏的。它们引发了观察或体验它们的人的主观反应。因此，风景从外部赋予了人类的意义。18 世纪的英国哲学家和美学作家，借鉴当时的心理学理论，激烈地辩论了意识主体与其可见自然环境之间情感纽带的性质和起源。 他们的努力源于对风景的艺术和文学使用，从洪堡（1848 年）到沃恩·科尼什（1928 年），再到最近的杰伊·阿普尔顿（1975 年）和爱德华·雷尔夫（1976 年，1981 年），在地理学中在某种程度上得以延续。即使是那些渴望将风景发展为严格科学术语的地理作家，也发现有必要承认艺术和诗意使用风景所暗示的主观意义。例如，卡尔·绍尔（1925 年）在揭示科学形态学后承认，风景中仍然存在一种“超越科学”的意义，其理解无法简化为形式过程。像法国地理学家保罗·维达尔·德·拉·布拉什一样，绍尔认识到风景的情感维度表明人类生活与其所处环境之间的和谐。在他的地理写作中，他试图用语言和文学结构捕捉这种和谐，但远未达到一些德国地理学家如埃瓦尔德·班塞（1924 年）和 G·哈德（1965 年）赋予 Landschaft 概念的神秘主义。 将景观视为对象和主体对一个寻求根据确定的科学程序规则理论化人类与环境之间关系的学科具有重要的影响，因为这些关系产生了具有特征性差异化的领域。形态分析专注于经验定义的形式及其整合，只能在意义的表层运作，这一层面相当于艺术史学家埃尔温·潘诺夫斯基（1970）所提到的主要解释层次，当他将一幅画的意义识别为其形式图像时
representation. Below this lie deeper meanings which are culturally and historically specific and which do not necessarily have a direct empirical warranty. Formal morphology remains unconvincing as an account of landscape to the extent that it ignores such symbolic dimensions - the symbolic and cultural meaning invested in these forms by those who have produced and sustained them, and that communicated to those who come into contact with them: the meaning, for example, of the church spire riding over fields of hay or ripening wheat, damp stubble or sodden ploughland - a telling symbol even to the most casual observer.
表现。在此之下存在更深层的意义，这些意义在文化和历史上是特定的，并不一定具有直接的经验保证。形式形态学在解释景观时显得不够令人信服，因为它忽视了这些形式所蕴含的象征维度——那些创造和维持这些形式的人所赋予的象征和文化意义，以及与之接触的人所感知的意义：例如，教堂尖顶高耸于干草或成熟小麦、潮湿的秸秆或湿软的耕地之上——即使是最随意的观察者也能感受到这一显著的象征。

The affective aspect of landscape is equally implicated in the second ambiguity we have noted, between individual and social. To speak of landscape beauty or quality is to adopt the role of observer rather than participant. The painter’s use of landscape implies, precisely, observation by an individual, in critical respects removed from it. The landscape drawn, painted or photographed, placed on a wall or reproduced in a book, is addressed to an individual viewer who responds in a personal way, and can elect to remain before the scene or to turn away. The same is true for the relationship we have towards the real world once we perceive it as landscape. Another way of putting this is that in landscape we are offered an important element of personal control over the external world. The individualist aspects of this ‘landscape relationship’ were important to those eighteenth-century thinkers who drew strongly on theories of individual psychology to develop their ideas of the ‘sublime’ and ‘beautiful’ in nature. Similarly, contemporary research into landscape evaluation for planning purposes relies upon personal responses, generally elicited by some form of interview, which are then aggregated to produce a common or social measure of landscape quality. Specific geographical consideration of the affective qualities of landscape has also concentrated on the individual. Vaughan Cornish’s ‘aesthetic geography’, and Jay Appleton’s ‘habitat theory’ are both predicated on the assumption that the experience of landscape is that of individual perception and response to an individual scene.
景观的情感方面同样涉及我们所注意到的第二个模糊性，即个体与社会之间的关系。谈论景观的美或质量意味着采取观察者而非参与者的角色。画家的景观使用恰恰意味着个体的观察，在关键方面与之保持距离。被绘制、画出或拍摄的景观，挂在墙上或在书中再现，都是针对一个个体观众的，观众以个人的方式作出回应，并可以选择停留在场景前或转身离开。一旦我们将现实世界视为景观，这种关系同样适用。换句话说，在景观中，我们获得了对外部世界的重要个人控制元素。这种“景观关系”的个体主义方面对那些在十八世纪深受个体心理学理论影响的思想家们来说是重要的，他们借此发展了对自然中“崇高”和“美”的理解。 同样，现代针对规划目的的景观评估研究依赖于个人反应，这些反应通常通过某种形式的访谈引出，然后汇总以产生一个共同或社会的景观质量衡量标准。对景观情感特质的具体地理考虑也集中在个体身上。沃恩·科尼什的“美学地理”和杰伊·阿普尔顿的“栖息地理论”都基于这样一个假设：景观的体验是个体对特定场景的感知和反应。

But the affective bond between human beings and the external world is not merely, perhaps not even primarily, an individual or personal thing. For geography, in fact, the personal relationship is of minor importance when compared with the collective investment of meaning in places by those who make and keep them. David
但人类与外部世界之间的情感纽带并不仅仅是个人的，甚至可能不是主要的个人事务。实际上，对于地理而言，个人关系与那些创造和维护地方的人们对地方的集体意义投资相比，显得微不足道。大卫

Lowenthal (1962-3) has indicated the profound difference between the external, individual observer and the insider-participant in a telling example from William James of the different responses to a pioneer forest clearing in Appalachia between a sophisticated traveller and the responsible landholder. For the former the clearing was a chaotic and visually offensive scar of the pristine majesty of the forest. For the latter it was a record of pioneering effort and a symbol of his family’s and the nation’s future. The place was invested with a personal and social meaning that had little to do with its visual form. James concludes that ‘the spectator’s judgement is sure to miss the root of the matter and to possess no truth’. To apply the term landscape to their surroundings seems inappropriate to those who occupy and work in a place as insiders. Herein is a clue to the status of the iandscape concept. The visible forms and their harmonious integration to the eye may indeed be a constituent part of people’s relationship with the surroundings of their daily lives, but such considerations are subservient to other aspects of a working life with family and community. The composition of their landscape is much more integrated and inclusive with the diurnal course of life’s events - with birth, death, festival, tragedy - all the occurrences that lock together human time and place. For the insider there is no clear separation of self from scene, subject from object. There is, rather, a fused, unsophisticated and social meaning embodied in the milieu (Sack, 1980). The insider does not enjoy the privilege of being able to walk away from the scene as we can walk away from a framed picture or from a tourist viewpoint. He is, in Relph’s (1976) terms, an ‘existential insider’ for whom what we may call landscape is a dimension of existence, collectively produced, lived and maintained. In this context, as Relph and Buttimer have argued, ‘place’ seems a more appropriate term. The element of control which we noted in the relationship implied by the landscape idea is missing, although communities may use a variety of symbolic and ritualistic means in attempting to wrest a degree of control over their physical world. For the insider the external world is unmediated by aesthetic conventions and the collective coexists with the individual. This second ambiguity in landscape, between personal and social, like its objective and subjective qualities, makes it difficult to employ the term as a category within a rigorously scientific enquiry, for in attempting to do so we risk denying the integrity of the insider’s experience, prising it apart and subjecting it to the cold blades of classification and analysis.
洛温塔尔（1962-3）指出了外部个体观察者与内部参与者之间的深刻差异，威廉·詹姆斯在一个生动的例子中展示了这种差异：在阿巴拉契亚的一个先锋森林开垦地，复杂的旅行者与负责任的土地拥有者的不同反应。对前者来说，这片开垦地是原始森林壮丽的混乱和视觉上的伤疤；而对后者来说，它是开拓努力的记录，是他家庭和国家未来的象征。这个地方承载着个人和社会的意义，与其视觉形式关系不大。詹姆斯总结道：“观众的判断必然会错过问题的根本，缺乏真理。”将“景观”一词应用于他们的周围环境，对那些作为内部人士占有和工作的人来说似乎不合适。这为景观概念的地位提供了线索。可见的形式及其在视觉上的和谐整合确实可能是人们与日常生活环境关系的一个组成部分，但这样的考虑服从于与家庭和社区的工作生活的其他方面。 他们的景观构成与日常生活事件的过程更加紧密和包容——包括出生、死亡、节日、悲剧——所有这些事件将人类的时间和地点紧密联系在一起。对于内部人来说，自我与场景、主体与客体之间没有明确的分离。相反，环境中体现了一种融合的、简单的和社会的意义（Sack, 1980）。内部人无法享受像我们从框架画作或旅游观景点走开那样的特权。在 Relph（1976）的术语中，他是一个“存在的内部人”，对于他来说，我们所称之为景观的东西是存在的一个维度，是集体生产、生活和维护的。在这种背景下，正如 Relph 和 Buttimer 所论证的，“地方”似乎是一个更合适的术语。我们在景观理念所暗示的关系中注意到的控制元素缺失，尽管社区可能会使用各种象征性和仪式性的手段来试图在其物理世界中获得一定程度的控制。对于内部人来说，外部世界并未被美学惯例所中介，集体与个体共存。 这种在个人与社会之间的第二种模糊性，以及其客观和主观特质，使得在严格的科学研究中使用该术语作为一个类别变得困难，因为在尝试这样做时，我们可能会否认内部体验的完整性，将其撕裂并置于分类和分析的冷酷刀刃之下。

The two sets of ambiguities discussed here are not of course
这里讨论的两组模糊性当然不是
unconnected. Landscape is object and subject both personally and socially. However, they can be clarified if, rather than merely noting their origins in the artistic use of landscape, we explore those origins in their historical context. When we do so we come to recognise that in adopting the concept of landscape geographers and others have unconsciously taken over an historically produced and ideologically dyed view of the external world whose implications raise many of the philosophical and methodological problems confronted but not necessarily resolved in contemporary human geography.
未连接。景观既是个人的对象，也是社会的对象。然而，如果我们不仅仅注意到它们在艺术使用中的起源，而是探索这些起源的历史背景，它们就可以被澄清。当我们这样做时，我们会认识到，在采用景观概念时，地理学家和其他人无意中接管了一个历史上产生的、意识形态上染色的外部世界观，其含义引发了许多当代人文地理学所面临但不一定解决的哲学和方法论问题。

The idea of painting or imaginatively describing scenes from nature, whether wild or humanised, as the main subject of an artistic composition has a very specific history in Europe. Landscape painting first emerged as a recognised genre in the most economically advanced, densest settled and most highly urbanised regions of fifteenth-century Europe: in Flanders and upper Italy. It reached its fullest expression in the Dutch and Italian schools of the seventeenth century and in the French and English schools of the following two centuries. With the rise of modernist and other forms of nonrepresentational art in the past 100 years landscape has lost much of its claim to be an important preoccupation of progressive artists. Referring to the origins of landscape, J.B. Jackson (1979) has pointed out the historical parallels between its emergence in European painting and the development of the modern theatre as a formal art wherein human actions are presented in direct relationship with a designed and controlled environment: ‘scenes’ composed of regulated space and illusory settings. In the same renaissance period descriptive geography, particularly of the newly-discovered parts of the globe, undertook to reveal to Europeans the varied terrestrial scene and the relationship between peoples and the lands they occupied. In all these activities Europeans emphasised visual relationships and the control of space in which an illusion of order could be sustained. The boundary between reality and fantasy was not clearly defined; in the theatre, for example, it is consciously obscured. In landscape painting, landforms, trees and buildings could be altered in position and scale, introduced or removed in order to structure and compose an apparently realistic and accurate scene. Cartographers could combine a detailed and carefully observed map of a city with motifs
在欧洲，作为艺术作品主要主题的自然场景，无论是野生的还是人化的，进行绘画或富有想象力的描述有着非常特定的历史。风景画首次作为一种被认可的艺术类型出现在十五世纪欧洲最经济发达、人口最密集和城市化程度最高的地区：弗兰德和上意大利。它在十七世纪的荷兰和意大利画派以及随后的两个世纪的法国和英国画派中达到了最充分的表现。随着过去 100 年现代主义和其他非具象艺术形式的兴起，风景画失去了作为进步艺术家重要关注点的许多主张。J.B. Jackson（1979）提到风景画的起源时指出，欧洲绘画中风景画的出现与现代戏剧作为一种正式艺术的发展之间存在历史上的相似之处，在这种艺术中，人类行为与设计和控制的环境直接相关：“场景”由规范的空间和虚幻的布景组成。 在同一文艺复兴时期，描述性地理，特别是对新发现的地球部分，试图向欧洲人揭示多样的地球景观以及各民族与他们所占领土地之间的关系。在所有这些活动中，欧洲人强调视觉关系和空间的控制，以维持一种秩序的幻觉。现实与幻想之间的界限并不明确；例如，在戏剧中，这种界限是故意模糊的。在风景画中，地形、树木和建筑物的位置和比例可以被改变，添加或移除，以构建和构成一个看似真实和准确的场景。制图师可以将一幅详细且经过仔细观察的城市地图与图案结合起来
of its patron saints or classical gods intended to convey its commercial or political topography. All these parallel developments suggest an attempt on the part of Europeans to clarify a new conception of space as a coherent visual structure into which the actions of human life could be inserted in a controlled and orderly fashion.
其保护圣人或古典神祇旨在传达其商业或政治地形。所有这些平行的发展表明，欧洲人试图澄清一种新的空间概念，将其视为一个连贯的视觉结构，人的生活行为可以以一种受控和有序的方式融入其中。

The terms control and order are significant. Kenneth Clark (1956) has written that a form of landscape painting which he calls ‘realist’, in the sense that the artist attempts faithfully to record the forms of the external world for their own sake, appeared for the first time in fifteenth-century Flanders and northern Italy. He claims that it related to ‘some change in the action of the human mind which demanded a new nexus of unity, enclosed space’, a change which was conditioned by a scientific way of thinking about the world and an ‘increased control of nature by man’ (Clark, 1956, p. 29). Jackson ( 1979, p. 3) also refers to ‘a widespread belief that the relationship between people and their surroundings could be so expertly controlled and designed as to make the comparison [between the intensity of family bonds and those of humans with their environment] appropriate’. Landscape painting at this time achieved the visual control of space and of the human actions which occur within it. In examing the ideas and techniques by which this was achieved we can recognise a critical and lasting difference within the history of landscape representation between the two areas of its initial elaboration. In Flanders, painters like Van Eyck in the early years of the fifteenth century were among the first to produce works which render in astonishing detail and accuracy the secular life of towns and villages against a carefully recorded physical setting. These scenes formed the background to paintings whose dominant theme remained sacred. But through its history Flemish landscape painting was characterised more by close empiricism than by intellectual theory, a fact of some significance for later English landscape art which drew equally from Flemish and Italian models. But it is in Italy that we can identify an idea of landscape, the notion of a particular artistic genre which could be allocated a determinate place within an artistic theory dominated by techniques for controlling visual space. Pre-eminently spatial control was achieved through a technique of perspective, a technique which renaissance artists regarded as their most significant discovery and the means for realistic representation of the world. Perspective was regarded not merely as a technique, a visual device, but as a truth itself, the discovery of an objective property of
控制和秩序这两个术语非常重要。肯尼斯·克拉克（1956 年）写道，他称之为“现实主义”的一种风景画形式，艺术家试图忠实地记录外部世界的形态，首次出现在十五世纪的弗兰德斯和北意大利。他声称，这与“人类思维活动的一些变化有关，这种变化要求一种新的统一纽带，封闭的空间”，这种变化是由科学的世界观和“人类对自然的控制增强”所决定的（克拉克，1956 年，第 29 页）。杰克逊（1979 年，第 3 页）也提到“人们普遍相信人与其环境之间的关系可以如此专业地控制和设计，以至于使得[家庭纽带的强度与人类与其环境的关系之间的比较]变得合适”。在这个时期，风景画实现了对空间及其内部发生的人类行为的视觉控制。 在研究实现这一目标的思想和技巧时，我们可以认识到在风景表现历史中，两个最初发展的领域之间存在着一个关键而持久的差异。在佛兰德，像范艾克这样的画家在十五世纪初是最早创作出以惊人的细节和准确性描绘城镇和村庄世俗生活的作品之一，这些作品背景是经过仔细记录的自然环境。这些场景构成了以神圣主题为主的绘画的背景。但在其历史中，佛兰德风景画更以密切的经验主义为特征，而非智力理论，这对后来的英国风景艺术具有一定的重要性，因为后者同样借鉴了佛兰德和意大利的模型。但在意大利，我们可以识别出一种风景的观念，即一种特定艺术类型的概念，可以在以控制视觉空间的技巧为主导的艺术理论中占据一个确定的位置。 通过透视技术，卓越的空间控制得以实现，这一技术被文艺复兴时期的艺术家视为他们最重要的发现和现实世界表现的手段。透视不仅被视为一种技巧、一种视觉手段，而是被视为一种真理，是对客观属性的发现
space rather than solely of vision. It regulated the space of their pictures and of the theatre, representing as reality that which is observed by the eye of the spectator conceived as the static centre of the visible world (Berger, 1972). The eye was regarded as the point of convergence of an infinite number of rays which tied it to the external world. Reality was frozen at a specific moment, removed from the flux of time and change, and rendered the property of the observer.
空间而不仅仅是视觉。它调节了他们的画面和剧院的空间，表现出观众的眼睛所观察到的现实，观众被视为可见世界的静态中心（伯杰，1972）。眼睛被视为无数光线的汇聚点，将其与外部世界联系在一起。现实在特定时刻被冻结，脱离了时间和变化的流动，成为观察者的财产。

The specific discovery of renaissance artists was linear or single point perspective. Linear perspective, originally demonstrated in a famous Florentine experiment by Filippo Brunelleschi, presupposes a single eye looking, without movement, at a vanishing point of orthogonal rays. It was described in detail and its theory constructed by Leon Battista Alberti, one of the most influential theorists of the Italian Renaissance. Alberti has also been claimed as one of the earliest apologists for landscape as a distinct genre of painting (Gombrich, 1966). His treatise on art, Della Pittura (1435-6), opens with a discourse on the techniques for constructing a visual triangle from the eye which will allow the painter to represent things as they really are. This work became the standard authority for subsequent treatises on accurate perspective representation and its influence remained pervasive well into the eighteenth century. It was regarded as of key importance by Sir Joshua Reynolds, the foremost English authority on artistic theory during the period when the nature and purpose of landscape painting was most seriously debated. That J.M.W. Turner, an outstanding and innovative landscapist of the early nineteenth century, held the position of Professor of Perspective at the Royal Academy indicates the durability of the hold which renaissance theory maintained over early modern painting. It was only the challenge by various of the ‘modern’ movements in our own time, particularly Cubism, which stressed the relative nature of vision as revealed by the camera and of space as theorised in physics which fully and effectively disposed of the dominance of perspective as the central convention for realist representation of nature.
文艺复兴艺术家的具体发现是线性或单点透视。线性透视最初由菲利波·布鲁内莱斯基在著名的佛罗伦萨实验中演示，假设一个单一的眼睛静止地观察正交光线的消失点。莱昂·巴蒂斯塔·阿尔贝蒂详细描述了这一理论，并构建了其理论框架，他是意大利文艺复兴时期最有影响力的理论家之一。阿尔贝蒂也被认为是最早为风景画作为一种独特画种辩护的人之一（冈布里希，1966）。他的艺术论文《绘画论》（1435-6）以讨论如何从眼睛构建视觉三角形的技巧开篇，这将使画家能够真实地表现事物。该作品成为后续关于准确透视表现的论文的标准权威，其影响力一直延续到十八世纪。它被当时最重要的艺术理论权威乔舒亚·雷诺兹爵士视为关键重要性，正值风景画的性质和目的受到最严肃辩论的时期。 特纳，19 世纪初杰出而创新的风景画家，担任皇家艺术学院透视学教授，这表明文艺复兴理论对早期现代绘画的影响力是持久的。只有在我们这个时代，特别是立体主义等各种“现代”运动的挑战下，强调了相机所揭示的视觉的相对性和物理学中理论化的空间，才彻底有效地消除了透视作为自然现实主义表现的中心规范的主导地位。
E.H. Gombrich has argued that Alberti provided a theoretical foundation for landscape before landscape paintings as such had been produced in Italy. The earliest occurrence of the term paesaggio applied to pictures dates from 1521 . The most memorable reference is to Giorgione’s La Tempesta, described as ‘a small landscape (paesetto), on canvas, with a thunderstorm, a gipsy and a soldier’ (quoted in Gombrich, 1966, p. 109). Originally it was applied to
E.H. 冈布里奇认为，阿尔贝蒂在意大利风景画产生之前为风景提供了理论基础。术语“paesaggio”首次用于图画的时间可以追溯到 1521 年。最令人难忘的提及是乔尔乔内的《暴风雨》，被描述为“一个小风景（paesetto），在画布上，有雷暴、一个吉普赛人和一个士兵”（引自冈布里奇，1966 年，第 109 页）。最初它被应用于

Flemish genre pieces purchased by Italian collectors primarily for their depiction of scenery rather than for the human or religious events they described. Their scenery was unfamiliar, even fantastic, to Italian eyes in form, colour and atmosphere. Italian connoisseurs had developed, partly through the theories of Alberti and his successors, a consciously ‘aesthetic’ attitude to painting and prints, prizing them more for their technical artistic achievements than for their function or subject matter. In this of course they were laying the foundation for a market in art works wherein value was determined by aesthetic attributes, a point of some significance for relating the view of the world promoted by landscape to the economic relations of sixteenth-century Italy. Art was becoming a commodity whose value could be realised in exchange. For this to be so its products had to hold their appeal to any individual viewer and to sustain it in different contexts and places. This had not been the case for a medieval fresco or altar triptych, for example, paid for by a patron, perhaps representing himself and his family, and designed to stand in a particular chapel. The new aesthetic attitude was based on the notion that painting had a certain psychological effect on the person contemplating it, regardless of location or context. It was a personal experience between painting and spectator.
佛兰德的风俗画主要被意大利收藏家购买，主要是因为它们对风景的描绘，而不是它们所描述的人类或宗教事件。对意大利人来说，它们的风景在形式、色彩和氛围上都是陌生甚至奇幻的。意大利鉴赏家部分通过阿尔贝蒂及其继承者的理论，发展出一种有意识的“美学”态度来对待绘画和版画，更看重它们的技术艺术成就，而非它们的功能或主题。当然，他们在此奠定了一个艺术品市场的基础，在这个市场中，价值由美学属性决定，这一点对于将风景所倡导的世界观与十六世纪意大利的经济关系联系起来具有重要意义。艺术正逐渐成为一种商品，其价值可以通过交换实现。为了实现这一点，其产品必须对任何个体观众保持吸引力，并在不同的背景和地点中维持这种吸引力。这在中世纪的壁画或祭坛三联画中并不成立，例如，这些作品是由赞助人支付的，可能代表他自己和他的家人，并设计在特定的礼拜堂中展示。 新的美学态度基于这样一种观念：绘画对观赏者有一定的心理影响，无论其位置或背景如何。这是一种绘画与观众之间的个人体验。

Alberti has a memorable passage in his Ten Books on Architecture (1450) where he discusses the decoration of buildings and rooms:
阿尔贝蒂在他的《建筑十书》（1450 年）中有一段令人难忘的文字，他讨论了建筑和房间的装饰：

Both Painting and Poetry vary in kind. The type that portrays the great deeds of great men, worthy of memory, differs from that which describes the habits of private citizens, and again from that depicting the life of the peasants. The first, which is majestic in character, should be used for public buildings and the dwellings of the great, while the last mentioned would be suitable for gardens, for it is the most pleasing of all.
绘画和诗歌的种类各不相同。描绘伟人伟业、值得铭记的那种，与描述普通市民习惯的那种不同，而又与描绘农民生活的那种不同。第一种，具有宏伟的特征，应该用于公共建筑和伟人的居所，而最后提到的那种则适合用于花园，因为它是所有艺术中最令人愉悦的。

Our minds are cheered beyond measure by the sight of paintings depicting the delightful countryside, harbours, fishing, hunting, swimming, the games of shepherds - flowers and verdure. (Quoted in Gombrich, 1966, p. 111)
我们的心灵因看到描绘迷人乡村、港口、捕鱼、狩猎、游泳、牧羊人游戏的画作而无比欢愉——花朵和绿意。

Alberti is recommending a strict hierarchy of both subject matter and bcation for works of art. At its peak is storia, epic or heroic history whose elevating character is suitable in places of power and authority. Painting representing the life of ordinary citizens - that is the propertied and enfranchised patricians - is suitable for urban
阿尔贝蒂建议对艺术作品的主题和地点建立严格的等级制度。其顶端是史诗或英雄历史，其提升的特性适合在权力和权威的场所。描绘普通市民生活的绘画——即有财产和选举权的贵族——适合城市。
residences, private houses and palaces. At the base of the hierarchy is the world of the countryside and the life of the peasants. When Alberti claims that landscapes are appropriate for gardens he is referring neither to urban gardens nor to a real world of peasant labour so much as to the world of patrician villas set in country estates and used for summer recreation and relaxation away from the cities. Thus the activities to be depicted are leisure pursuits: fishing, hunting, swimming or relaxed views over the countryside and coast. The peasantry, beasts of labour and objects of ridicule in poetry or farce, are to shown ‘at their games’. They form decorative additions to a sylvan setting which cheers beyond measure the soul of the worldweary citizen.
住宅、私人住宅和宫殿。等级体系的基础是乡村的世界和农民的生活。当阿尔贝蒂声称风景适合花园时，他所指的既不是城市花园，也不是农民劳动的真实世界，而是位于乡村庄园中的贵族别墅，供人们在夏季休闲和放松，远离城市。因此，所描绘的活动是休闲活动：钓鱼、狩猎、游泳或悠闲地欣赏乡村和海岸的景色。农民，作为劳动的工具和诗歌或滑稽剧中的嘲笑对象，将被展示“在他们的游戏中”。他们为林间环境增添了装饰性的元素，极大地愉悦了疲惫市民的灵魂。

Landscapes painted in Italy at this time demonstrate in practice Alberti’s theory. Paolo Ucello’s Hunt in the Forest, for example, shows wealthy patricians relaxing in a traditional upper-class country sport. It is a tightly-controlled exercise in linear perspective. Commenting on space composition - ‘the bone and marrow of the art of landscape’ - in Umbrian painting of the time, Bernard Berenson fully grasps the sense of power they convey: ‘in such pictures how freely one breathes - as if a load had just been lifted from one’s breast; how refreshed, how noble, how potent one feels’ (Berenson, 1952, p. 121).
在这个时期意大利绘制的风景画实践证明了阿尔贝蒂的理论。例如，保罗·乌切洛的《森林狩猎》展示了富有的贵族在传统的上层阶级乡村运动中放松。这是一种严格控制的线性透视练习。伯纳德·贝伦森在评论当时翁布里亚绘画的空间构图时——“风景艺术的骨髓”——充分理解了它们所传达的力量感：“在这样的画作中，人们呼吸得多么自由——仿佛刚刚卸下了胸口的重担；人们感到多么清新、多么高贵、多么强大”（贝伦森，1952 年，第 121 页）。

We shall have occasion later to examine Alberti’s attitudes to different kinds of landscape. For the moment it is sufficient to note that there is no suggestion that these paintings should represent landscape as a place of ordinary life in which the daily world of the insider, at work or at leisure, is sympathetically portrayed. Landscape painting is intended to serve the purpose of reflecting back to the powerful viewer, at ease in his villa, the image of a controlled and well-ordered, productive and relaxed world wherein serious matters are laid aside.
我们稍后将有机会考察阿尔贝蒂对不同类型风景的态度。此刻只需注意，这些画作并没有暗示应将风景表现为普通生活的场所，在这里，内部人士的日常世界，无论是工作还是休闲，都被同情地描绘出来。风景画的目的是反映给在别墅中悠闲自得的强大观众一个受控且井然有序、富有成效且放松的世界的形象，在这个世界中，严肃的事务被搁置一旁。

Renaissance theatre parallels this hierarchy in the relationship established between stage set and action. Sebastiano Serlio was one of a number of renaissance architects who designed permanent stage sets for wealthy patrons. They were of three kinds, for tragedy, comedy and farce. Tragedy’s required a perspective view of an imaginary classical city, replete with emblems of Roman imperial authority where the ‘great deeds of great men’ could be acted out. Comedy took place in a palace courtyard or domestic interior. Farce merited a bucolic scene in which peasants could engage in buffooneries within the amused purview of relaxing patrician
文艺复兴时期的戏剧在舞台布景与动作之间建立的关系中反映了这种等级制度。塞巴斯蒂亚诺·塞尔里奥是众多为富裕赞助人设计永久舞台布景的文艺复兴建筑师之一。这些舞台布景分为三种，分别用于悲剧、喜剧和闹剧。悲剧需要一个想象中的古典城市的透视图，充满了罗马帝国权威的象征，伟人的伟大事迹可以在此上演。喜剧则发生在宫殿庭院或家庭内部。闹剧则需要一个田园场景，农民可以在放松的贵族视野中进行滑稽表演。
gentlemen and where, as in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, a perfect love could flourish among the verdant groves. In both painting and theatre perspective was employed to control space and to direct it towards the external spectator. This spectator participates only vicariously, as imagined hero in the city, sympathetic confidant under the pergola, or amused observer of a rural life to which thankfully he does not belong. The people who occupy the landscape and cheer the citizens by their antics do not themselves participate as subjects responsible for their world; they are puppets controlled by the artist through the same techniques as nature itself is controlled.
绅士们，以及在《仲夏夜之梦》中，完美的爱情可以在郁郁葱葱的树林中蓬勃发展。在绘画和戏剧中，透视法被用来控制空间，并将其引导向外部观众。这个观众仅仅是间接参与，作为城市中的想象英雄、凉亭下的同情知己，或是对他并不属于的乡村生活的 amused 观察者。占据风景并通过他们的滑稽表演来欢呼市民的人们，并不作为对自己世界负责的主体参与其中；他们是被艺术家通过与自然本身相同的技巧所控制的木偶。

Perspective, then, was a device for controlling the world of things, of objects which could be possessed. It was related to a cosmology in the Renaissance which regarded creation as ordained by fixed geometrical rules. The painter or architect could understand and apply these rules and thereby emulate the creative act. Leonardo da Vinci, referring to the painting of landscape, makes it clear that in landscape the artist can wrest control over nature, he has creative power:
透视法因此是一种控制物质世界的工具，这个世界由可以被占有的物体构成。它与文艺复兴时期的一种宇宙观有关，该宇宙观认为创造是由固定的几何规则所规定的。画家或建筑师可以理解并应用这些规则，从而模仿创造的行为。达芬奇在谈到风景画时明确指出，在风景画中，艺术家可以掌控自然，他拥有创造的力量：

So if he desires valleys or wishes to discover vast tracts of lands from mountain peaks and look at the sea on the distant horizon beyond them, it is in his power; and so if he wants to look up to the high mountains from low valleys and from the high mountains towards the deep valleys and the coastline. In fact, whatever exists in the universe, either potentially or actually or in the imagination, he has it first in his mind and then in his hands, and these [images] are of such excellence, that they present the same proportioned harmony to a single glance as belongs to the things themselves . . . (Quoted in Gombrich, 1966, p. 112)
所以如果他渴望山谷或希望从山峰发现广袤的土地，并在远处的地平线上眺望大海，这在他的能力之内；如果他想从低谷仰望高山，或从高山俯视深谷和海岸线。事实上，宇宙中存在的任何事物，无论是潜在的、实际的还是想象中的，他首先在心中拥有，然后在手中掌握，而这些[图像]的卓越程度，使得它们在一瞥之间呈现出与事物本身相同的比例和谐……（引自 Gombrich，1966 年，第 112 页）

Here perspective, proportion and landscape are united within a single claim for the role of the individual artist as a controlling creator. There is a suggestion, too, of the unity of artistic creation with the objective understanding of nature which blossomed later into the empirical sciences. Leonardo himself never divorced artistic creation from what we would now regard as the scientific exploration of nature. What united them was a belief in a harmonious and proportioned order running equally through macrocosm and microcosm and reproduced technically in painting through perspective control of the picture’s space. The relationship between art and science in the evolution of the landscape idea has important
在这里，透视、比例和风景在个体艺术家作为控制创作者的角色中统一在一起。还有一种暗示，即艺术创作与后来发展为经验科学的自然客观理解之间的统一。达芬奇本人从未将艺术创作与我们现在所认为的科学探索自然分开。将它们结合在一起的是一种信念，即和谐与比例的秩序在宏观和微观中同样存在，并通过透视控制画面空间在绘画中技术性地再现。艺术与科学在风景观念演变中的关系具有重要意义。
consequences for geography’s use of landscape, as we shall see. Indeed the emergence of geography as a distinct intellectual discipline, many of whose proponents have employed the landscape concept, coincides historically with the decline of landscape in art as well as the abandoning of perspective as painters explored new ways of representing light, atmosphere and the complexities of vision. These relationships are examined in the final chapter. For the moment it is sufficient that we recognise that the separation of subject and object, insider and outsider, the personal and the social are already apparent at the birth of the landscape idea.
地理学对景观的使用所带来的后果，正如我们将看到的。实际上，地理学作为一个独特的知识学科的出现，其许多倡导者采用了景观概念，历史上与艺术中景观的衰退以及画家在探索表现光线、氛围和视觉复杂性的新方式时放弃透视法的时期相吻合。这些关系将在最后一章中探讨。此刻，我们只需认识到，主体与客体、内部人和外部人、个人与社会的分离在景观概念的诞生时已经显而易见。

Perspective as a convention of realist vision has two consequences which relate to the idea of control discussed above. While it is possible to hint at the passage of time in realist landscape painting indeed there have been fixed conventions for doing so, for example by depicting ruins in the scene or suggesting evidence of human mortality, as in the elegiac ‘Et in Arcadia Ego’ - an important effect of linear perspective is to arrest the flow of history at a specific moment, freezing that moment as a universal reality. Secondly, perspective, in structuring and directing universal reality at a single spectator, acknowledges only one, external subject for the object it represents. Thus a landscape painted in accordance with pictorial rules, or nature observed by an eye trained to look at it as landscape, is in important respects far from being realistic. It is composed, regulated and offered as a static image for individual appreciation, or better, appropriation. For in an important, if not always literal, sense the spectator owns the view because all of its components are structured and directed towards his eyes only. The claim of realism is in fact ideological. It offers a view of the world directed at the experience of one individual at a given moment in time when the arrangement of the constituent forms is pleasing, uplifting or in some other way linked to the observer’s psychological state; it then represents this view as universally valid by claiming for it the status of reality. The experience of the insider, the landscape as subject, and the collective life within it are all implictly denied. Subjectivity is rendered the property of the artist and the viewer - those who control the landscape - not those who belong to it.
作为现实主义视觉的一种惯例，透视法有两个与上述控制观念相关的后果。虽然在现实主义风景画中确实可以暗示时间的流逝，实际上也有固定的惯例来做到这一点，例如通过描绘场景中的废墟或暗示人类死亡的证据，如在哀悼性的《我在阿卡迪亚》中——线性透视的一个重要效果是将历史的流动在特定时刻停止，将那个时刻冻结为一种普遍现实。其次，透视法在结构和引导单一观众的普遍现实时，仅承认一个外部主体作为其所代表的对象。因此，按照图像规则绘制的风景，或由经过训练的眼睛观察的自然，在重要方面远非现实主义。它是经过构成、调节并作为静态图像提供给个人欣赏，或者更确切地说，是供个人占有的。因为在一个重要的、即使不是总是字面意义上的意义上，观众拥有这个视角，因为它的所有组成部分都是为他的眼睛结构和引导的。现实主义的主张实际上是意识形态的。 它提供了一个世界的视角，专注于某个个体在特定时刻的体验，当构成形式的排列令人愉悦、振奋或以其他方式与观察者的心理状态相关时；然后通过声称其现实地位，将这种视角视为普遍有效。内部人的体验、作为主体的景观以及其中的集体生活都被隐含地否定。主观性被视为艺术家和观众的财产——那些控制景观的人，而不是那些属于它的人。

It is not surprising, therefore, that when humans are represented in landscape paintings they are more often than not either at repose or, if at work, distant and scarcely noticeable figures. Their position is determined by the pictorial structure and for the most part human figures seem to be in but not of their surroundings. If they become
因此，当人类在风景画中被表现时，他们往往处于静止状态，或者如果在工作，远处的身影几乎不被注意，这并不令人惊讶。他们的位置由画面的结构决定，大多数情况下，人类形象似乎在环境中，但并不属于环境。如果他们变得
too dominant the work ceases to be a landscape. In landscape subject and object are always potentially separable by the mere act of the spectator’s turning his back on the painting or scene. This is the clue to the double ambiguity with which our discussion opened. Perspective locates the subject outside the landscape and stresses the unchanging objectivity of what is observed therein. Collective human experience is reduced in significance compared with the individuality of the observer. But by claimıng realism, paintings of landscape and the idea of landscape itself offer the illusion of an affinity with the insider’s world, the world we do experience as a collective product of people subjectively engaged with their milieu. Hence landscape’s ambiguities derive directly from its ideological origins.
过于主导的作品就不再是风景。在风景中，主体和客体总是可以通过观众背对画作或场景的简单行为而潜在地分离。这是我们讨论开始时提到的双重模糊性的线索。透视将主体定位于风景之外，并强调所观察事物的不变客观性。与观察者的个体性相比，集体人类经验的意义被削弱。但是，通过声称现实主义，风景画及其本身的概念提供了与内部世界的亲和力的幻觉，这个世界是我们作为与其环境主观参与的人们的集体产物所经历的。因此，风景的模糊性直接源于其意识形态的起源。

There is, of course, more to the painting of a landscape than merely linear perspective and associated claims to realist reproduction of the external world. All painting is in large measure a work of imagination, and in landscape the sky as light source, water as a symbol of rebirth or purity, the curving and undulating forms of natural topography, all appeal to that imagination and at the same time make the rigid application of linear perspective particularly difficult. But it is significant that the landscape idea and the techniques of linear perspective emerge in a particular historical period as conventions that reinforce ideas of individualism, subjective control of an objective environment and the separation of personal experience from the flux of collective historical experience. The reasons for the emergence of this view are to be found in the changing social organisation and experience of early modern Europe and it is to them that the main essays in this book are directed. As that social organisation develops so the view of the world implied by the landscape idea undergoes elaborations and mutations, responding to determinate contexts and specific tensions. But its essential features remain relatively constant and they have been incorporated into the landscape concept employed in geography. Indeed in some respects geography’s concept of landscape may. be regarded as the formalising of a view of the world first developed in painting and the arts into a systematic body of knowledge claiming the general validity of a science. To justify this claim we need to consider briefly geography’s visual bias.
当然，绘制风景画不仅仅是线性透视和与之相关的对外部世界现实再现的主张。所有的绘画在很大程度上都是想象的作品，而在风景画中，天空作为光源、水作为重生或纯洁的象征、自然地形的曲线和起伏形态，都是对这种想象的吸引，同时也使得线性透视的严格应用变得特别困难。但值得注意的是，风景观念和线性透视的技巧在特定历史时期作为强化个人主义、主观控制客观环境以及将个人经验与集体历史经验的流动分离的惯例而出现。这种观点出现的原因可以在早期现代欧洲不断变化的社会组织和经验中找到，本书的主要论文正是针对这些原因。随着社会组织的发展，风景观念所暗示的世界观经历了细化和变迁，回应着特定的背景和具体的紧张关系。 但其基本特征仍然相对稳定，并已被纳入地理学中使用的景观概念中。实际上，在某些方面，地理学的景观概念可以被视为将最初在绘画和艺术中发展起来的世界观形式化为一个系统的知识体系，声称其科学的普遍有效性。为了证明这一主张，我们需要简要考虑地理学的视觉偏见。

Since its establishment as a recognised academic discipline at the end
自其在学术界被正式确立为一个学科以来
of the nineteenth century, geography has consistently sought a concept capable of denoting the specificity and individuality of areas on the earth’s surface over which a ‘unity in diversity of phenomena’ may be recognised and studied. Even the protagonists of a strictly nomothetic, law-based and deductive geographical method modelled on positivist scientific assumptions have acknowledged that geographical laws and spatial theories may only be tested and exemplified in the context of really existing areas. Writers with philosophical positions as far apart as Fred Schaefer (1953) and Derek Gregory (1978) concur that it is to the elucidation of areal relations of terrestrial phenomena and events that geography ultimately aspires. Landscape is only one of a number of terms developed in the discipline to specify this goal. In Anglo-Saxon geography region has generally been preferred, and some have borrowed the French term pays. But for each of these a holism is implied, a dimension which is not captured by the mere enumeration of constituent parts. The significance of landscape as the defining term for this areal concept lies in its open admission of visual bias in the search for geographical synthesis and that in recent years it has been employed as a geographical concept by writers seeking to challenge the orthodoxy of scientific method in geography, to incorporate into the discipline an open acceptance of subjective modes of study.
在十九世纪，地理学始终寻求一个能够表示地球表面区域特性和个体性的概念，这些区域可以识别和研究“现象的多样性中的统一”。即使是那些严格遵循法则基础和演绎法的地理方法的倡导者，他们的模型基于实证科学假设，也承认地理法则和空间理论只能在真实存在的区域中进行测试和示例。像弗雷德·谢弗（1953 年）和德里克·格雷戈里（1978 年）这样哲学立场相距甚远的作家一致认为，地理学最终追求的是阐明地球现象和事件的区域关系。景观只是该学科为明确这一目标而发展出的众多术语之一。在盎格鲁-撒克逊地理学中，区域通常更受青睐，有些人借用了法语术语“pays”。但对于这些术语来说，隐含着一种整体性，这一维度并不能仅通过列举组成部分来捕捉。 景观作为这一区域概念的定义术语，其重要性在于它公开承认了在寻找地理综合时的视觉偏见，并且近年来它被作家作为地理概念使用，以挑战地理学中科学方法的正统观念，将主观研究方式的开放接受纳入这一学科。

However, all these areal concepts have within geography a visual foundation. Consider Vidal de la Blache’s geographical description of the Pays de la Beauce:
然而，所有这些区域概念在地理学中都有视觉基础。考虑维达尔·德·拉·布拉什对博斯地区的地理描述：

The Beauce is not a purely territorial unit; it is the expression of a type of land and of existence of which the idea exists very clearly in the minds of its people. It would be a delusion to search for other limits than these; and we should not be surprised if the name appears sporadically elsewhere, thrown up by the nature of the place. Thus we find it appearing to stray towards the confines of Perche or into the plain of Hurepoix. But there will always remain the pays, the Beauce par excellence, because there is one area which demonstrates most clearly and precisely its characteristics: that area which spreads its uninterrupted uniformity from Etampes to Pithiviers, Artenay, Patay and Auneau. The rare small streams which cut into the margins of the Beauce leave no trace on this convex, shield-like land except for imperceptible dry notches, or by the appearance of rouches or lines of marsh. The life of the plains dominates, to the exclusion of that variety which the
博斯地区并不是一个纯粹的领土单位；它是土地和存在的一种类型的表现，这种观念在其人民的心中非常清晰。寻找其他界限将是一种错觉；如果这个名字偶尔出现在其他地方，我们也不应感到惊讶，因为这是地方的自然所致。因此，我们发现它偶尔向佩尔什的边界或于赫雷波瓦平原延伸。但始终存在的将是博斯地区，博斯的典范，因为有一个区域最清晰、最准确地展示了其特征：从埃坦普到皮蒂维耶、阿尔特奈、帕泰和奥诺延伸的那片区域，其均匀性没有中断。切入博斯边缘的稀少小溪在这片凸起的盾状土地上几乎没有留下痕迹，只有微不可察的干燥缺口，或是沼泽的出现。平原的生活占主导地位，排除了那种多样性。
life of the valley always brings. Life is concentrated, in large villages, gathered around wells which can only reach water at great depths; villages are deprived of that skirt of trees and gardens through which the Picardy village stretches itself. The chalk, always near the surface, provides building stone for both houses and roads. The Beauce farmer, grandly housed, travels in his cart along the straight highways stretching to the horizon. The image of an abundant and copious life attaches itself to his pays and it enters into his habits and his needs . . . (Vidal de la Blache, 1903, pp. 147-9)
山谷的生活总是带来。生活集中在大型村庄，围绕着只能在深处取水的水井；村庄缺乏那种树木和花园的裙带，皮卡第村庄则延展开来。石膏总是靠近地表，为房屋和道路提供建筑石材。博斯农民，住得气派，驾着马车沿着通向地平线的笔直公路行驶。丰盈而丰富的生活形象与他的土地紧密相连，并融入他的习惯和需求……（维达尔·德·拉·布拉什，1903 年，第 147-9 页）

Vidal here evokes both a powerful visual image of the landscape and a sense of the functional rhythms of its daily life. We can sense the basis of the description in direct experience, sharpened by carefully reflective scholarship, and it retains validity for anyone who has crossed this area south of Paris even today, some 80 years after it was written. Above all Vidal’s synthesis is pictorial. It emphasises form and pattern as they appear to the eye. This is true not only for the physical objects in the landscape, but also for the mode of life which he presents as integrated so neatly into its milieu. It is evoked by the image of the farmer, his house, village and cart. Even the security of his life is stressed by a strongly visual image.
维达尔在这里唤起了强烈的视觉形象，描绘了风景和日常生活的功能节奏。我们可以感受到这种描述的基础源于直接经验，经过深思熟虑的学术研究而更加清晰，对于任何今天仍然穿越巴黎南部这一地区的人来说，这种描述依然有效，尽管距其写作已有约 80 年。最重要的是，维达尔的综合表现出一种图像感。它强调了形式和图案在视觉上的呈现。这不仅适用于风景中的物理对象，也适用于他所展示的与环境紧密结合的生活方式。农民、他的房子、村庄和马车的形象唤起了这一点。甚至他生活的安全感也通过强烈的视觉形象得到了强调。

The same visual emphasis is found in Carl Sauer’s description of the characteristic landscape of the north European heath, offered as an example of the generic type of landscape that geography seeks to develop from its study of uniquely occurring examples, rather than as a description of one particular area:
在卡尔·绍尔对北欧荒原特征景观的描述中也可以找到相同的视觉重点，这被作为地理学试图从独特的实例研究中发展出的一种通用类型景观的例子，而不是对某一特定区域的描述：

The sky is dull, ordinarily partly overcast, the horizon is indistinct and rarely more than a half-dozen miles distant, though seen from a height. The upland is gently and irregularly rolling and descends to broad, flat basins. There are no long slopes and no symmetrical patterns of surface forms. Watercourses are short, with clear, brownish water, and perennial. The brooks end in irregular swamps, with indistinct borders. Coarse grasses and rushes form marginal strips along the water bodies. The upland is covered with heather, furze and bracken. Clumps of juniper abound, especially along the steeper, drier slopes. Cart tracks lie along the lower ridges, exposing loose sand in the wheel tracks, and here and there
天空阴沉，通常是部分多云，地平线模糊，距离不超过六英里，尽管从高处看。高地起伏不平，缓缓下降到宽阔的平坦盆地。没有长坡，也没有对称的地表形态。水流短小，水清澈呈棕色，常年不断。小溪在不规则的沼泽中结束，边界模糊。粗糙的草和芦苇在水体沿岸形成边缘带。高地覆盖着石南花、荆棘和蕨类植物。杜松丛生，尤其是在陡峭、干燥的坡地上。车辙沿着较低的山脊延伸，车轮留下的痕迹暴露出松散的沙子，时不时可见。
a rusty cemented base shows beneath the sand. Small flocks of
一块生锈的水泥基座在沙子下显露出来。小群的
sheep are scattered widely over the land. The almost complete
羊群在土地上分散得很广。几乎完全
absence of the works of man is notable. There are no fields or
人类的作品缺失是显著的。没有田野或
other enclosed tracts. The only buildings are sheep sheds, situated
其他封闭的地块。唯一的建筑是位于的羊棚。
usually at a distance of several miles from one another, at
通常相距几英里
convenient intersections of cart tracks. (Sauer, 1925, pp. 323-4)
方便的车辙交叉口。(索尔，1925 年，第 323-324 页)
a rusty cemented base shows beneath the sand. Small flocks of sheep are scattered widely over the land. The almost complete absence of the works of man is notable. There are no fields or other enclosed tracts. The only buildings are sheep sheds, situated usually at a distance of several miles from one another, at convenient intersections of cart tracks. (Sauer, 1925, pp. 323-4)
一块生锈的水泥基座露出在沙子下面。小群羊散布在土地上。几乎完全缺乏人类的活动是显著的。没有田地或其他封闭的区域。唯一的建筑是羊棚，通常相距几英里，位于车辙的便利交叉口。 (索尔，1925 年，第 323-4 页)

Here, too, the strength of the geographical description lies in the visual image it succeeds in evoking, employing the resources of language to indicate relationships between various phenomena and processes, both natural and human, which give rise to a landscape type. We are reminded of a heathland landscape by the German romantic landscape painter, Caspar David Friedrich. The synthetic understanding, of which Sauer gives this example, even if rarely successfully achieved by geographers, has been a declared aim in much of their work. It has recently been restated in powerful terms by Cole Harris (1978). But it is rare to find geographical writers acknowledging explicitly the pictorial foundation of their landscape concept.
这里，地理描述的力量在于它成功唤起的视觉形象，利用语言的资源来指示各种现象和过程之间的关系，包括自然和人类，这些关系共同形成了一种景观类型。我们想起了德国浪漫主义风景画家卡斯帕·大卫·弗里德里希所描绘的荒原景观。索尔给出的这个例子所体现的综合理解，尽管地理学家很少成功实现，但在他们的许多工作中一直是一个明确的目标。科尔·哈里斯（1978）最近以强有力的措辞重申了这一点。但地理作家明确承认他们的景观概念的图像基础是很少见的。

The long recognition by geographers of the importance of the map as both a primary analytical tool and the main embodiment of their results and conclusions also testifies to a visual foundation of geographical synthesis (Rees, 1980; Thrower, 1972). Of course, many of the cartographic representations of spatial relationships produced by contemporary geographical science bear little obvious affinity with the world we observe around us with the naive, unaided eye. But even the most schematic trend surfaces or abstract distance decay models claims to be transformable into the world of visible realities, assuming that we are able to operate the appropriate transformation rules. It is not, I think, without significance that students taught the basis of central place theory or urban land rent curves more easily remember the pattern of hierarchically-organised hexagons or of concentric circles than the theoretically more important concepts of threshold, range and economic rent. A common protest familiar to every teacher of these theories is that the patterns they yield do not correspond to the patterns known from experience or from the topographic map. This reservation reflects the empiricism and visual underpinnings of the geographical imagination. No geometrician or economist would find the visual pattern of his or her evidence more significant than the algebraic formulation of the theorems, or the equation yielded by the intersection of the demand
地理学家长期以来认识到地图作为主要分析工具和其结果与结论的主要体现的重要性，这也证明了地理综合的视觉基础（Rees, 1980; Thrower, 1972）。当然，当代地理科学所产生的空间关系的制图表现与我们用天真的、未经辅助的眼睛观察到的世界之间几乎没有明显的相似之处。但即使是最简化的趋势表面或抽象的距离衰减模型也声称可以转化为可见现实的世界，前提是我们能够运用适当的转化规则。我认为，教授中心地带理论或城市土地租金曲线基础的学生，更容易记住层级组织的六边形或同心圆的模式，而不是理论上更重要的阈值、范围和经济租金的概念，这并非没有意义。每位教授这些理论的教师都熟悉的一个常见抗议是，他们所产生的模式与从经验或地形图中已知的模式不相符。 该预订反映了地理想象的经验主义和视觉基础。没有几何学家或经济学家会认为他们证据的视觉模式比定理的代数公式或需求交点所产生的方程更重要
curves. William Bunge (1966, p. xiv), making the case for a purely theoretical, mathematically-based geography, noted that ‘geography is the only predictive science whose inner logic is literally visible’. Geographers appear to require that the demonstration of their theories be supplied by the visual evidence of the world around them. Theirs finally is the argument of the eye. It is not then surprising that they have searched for a concept which captures this geographical objective.
曲线。威廉·邦吉（1966 年，第 xiv 页）主张一种纯理论、基于数学的地理学，他指出“地理学是唯一一种其内在逻辑在字面上可见的预测科学”。地理学家似乎要求通过周围世界的视觉证据来证明他们的理论。他们最终的论点是视觉的论点。因此，他们寻找一个能够捕捉这一地理目标的概念也就不足为奇了。

To be sure, geographical writers have not been entirely unaware of their visual bias, some indeed have revelled in it. Among German scholars for example there has been over many years a debate between the ‘purists’ who would rigorously exclude from geographical consideration all non-material and non-visible phenomena and processes in order to concentrate on the morphology of forms, and those following Hettner who would incorporate chronological and ecological considerations in order to give landscape geography explanatory status (Holt-Jensen, 1981; Geipel, 1978). The same argument was echoed among Anglo-Saxon writers discussing landscape in pre-war geography: Hartshorne, Sauer and Dickinson, all of them drawing heavily on German sources. One consequence of this was that landscape geographers felt it necessary actually to distinguish between their approach and that of the painter, poet or connoisseur of the aesthetics of the external scene. Marwyn Mikesell for example, taking his cue from the French geographer Jean Bruhnes, states:
当然，地理学者并非完全没有意识到他们的视觉偏见，实际上，有些人对此乐在其中。例如，在德国学者中，多年来一直存在着“纯粹主义者”与“赫特纳派”之间的辩论，前者严格排除所有非物质和不可见的现象与过程，以集中于形态的形态学，而后者则主张将时间和生态因素纳入考虑，以赋予景观地理解释的地位（霍尔特-詹森，1981；盖佩尔，1978）。在讨论战前地理的英美作家中，同样的论点也得到了呼应：哈特肖恩、索尔和迪金森，他们都大量借鉴了德国的资料。这导致了景观地理学家感到有必要实际区分他们的方法与画家、诗人或外部场景美学鉴赏家的方法。例如，马尔温·迈克塞尔根据法国地理学家让·布吕内的启发指出：

The perspective of the geographer is not that of an individual observer located at a particular point on the ground: The geographer’s work entails map interpretation as well as direct observation, and he makes no distinction between foreground and background. The landscape of the geographer is thus very different from that of the painter, poet, or novelist. By means of survey, sampling, or detailed inventory, he achieves the comprehensive but synthetic perspective of the helicopter pilot or balloonist armed with maps, photographs, and a pair of binoculars. (Mikesell, 1968, p. 578)
地理学家的视角并不是位于地面某个特定点的个体观察者的视角：地理学家的工作包括地图解读和直接观察，他不区分前景和背景。因此，地理学家的景观与画家、诗人或小说家的景观截然不同。通过调查、抽样或详细清单，他获得了全面但综合的视角，类似于手持地图、照片和一副望远镜的直升机飞行员或热气球驾驶员。（Mikesell, 1968, p. 578）

The geographer’s is still a ‘perspective’, it is still exclusively visual, but it is subtly different from the artist’s. Mikesell draws the distinction at the level of technique rather than of purpose. But Constable’s detailed inventories of cloud formations and weather
地理学家的视角仍然是“视角”，仍然是纯粹的视觉，但与艺术家的视角有细微的不同。迈克塞尔在技术层面而非目的层面上划分了这种区别。但康斯特布尔对云层形态和天气的详细清单
conditions, the highly sophisticated classifications of geological types, vegetation and building forms supplied to nineteenth-century landscape painters by John Ruskin, or the close analysis of topographic maps by contempory ‘land artists’, would hardly suggest that if they were ‘armed’ with the same techniques Mikesell claims for the geographical arsenal, landscape artists would despise them. If a more profound distinction exists between the two, then Mikesell leaves it implicit. It may be that he assumes the painter, poet or novelist to be more open and engaged in revealing a subjectivity or exploring a moral dimension that the geographer should be at pains to exclude in the interests of scientific objectivity. If this is so it is left implicit. As we shall see, more recent geographical writing has declared itself open to the embrace of subjective and moral discourse.
条件、约翰·拉斯金为十九世纪风景画家提供的地质类型、植被和建筑形式的高度复杂分类，或当代“土地艺术家”对地形图的细致分析，几乎不会暗示如果他们“装备”了米克塞尔所声称的地理武器，风景画家会轻视它们。如果两者之间存在更深刻的区别，那么米克塞尔对此保持了隐含。他可能假设画家、诗人或小说家在揭示主观性或探索道德维度方面更为开放和投入，而地理学家则应努力排除这些，以维护科学客观性。如果是这样，这一点也没有明确说明。正如我们将看到的，近年来的地理写作已宣称愿意接受主观和道德话语的拥抱。

This may be because science demands structured explanation of the forms and events which it observes, and the understanding and elucidation of processes. Since the mid-nineteenth-century contributions of Darwin and Comte, science has been systematically separated from the arts as a mode of understanding. Certainly Sauer’s discussions of landscape are unyielding in their requirement that geography be at root a positive science, and neither Hartshorne nor his critics disagreed. But landscape does not lend itself easily to the strictures of the scientific method. Its unity and coherence are, as we have seen, deeply rooted in a way of seeing, and this remains true whether the view is from the ground, from the air or of the map. All of them are understood to be structured by the rules of vision, by a form of perspective. Once we elect to offer explanation of either an historical, a functional or an ecological kind we are forced to abandon the static visual model in a search for process. But it is process that landscape as an ideological concept formally denies. Thus, for example, when historical geographers have attempted to incorporate historical change into landscape study they have been forced into unconvincing methodological gymnastics, using devices like crosssections, sequent occupance or thematic change through time, or else have abandoned altogether the synoptic overview of area to concentrate upon social processes which yield a specific spatial form. The same may be said for geomorphology which has largely neglected morphological analysis for detailed investigation of the processes of landform development and earth-surface sculpturing.
这可能是因为科学要求对其观察到的形式和事件进行结构化的解释，以及对过程的理解和阐明。自从十九世纪中叶达尔文和孔德的贡献以来，科学作为一种理解方式已系统地与艺术分开。毫无疑问，索尔的景观讨论在其要求地理学根本上是一门积极科学方面是毫不妥协的，哈特肖恩及其批评者也没有异议。但景观并不容易适应科学方法的严格要求。正如我们所看到的，它的统一性和连贯性深深植根于一种看待事物的方式，这一点无论是从地面、空中还是地图上看都是如此。所有这些都被理解为受到视觉规则和一种透视形式的结构影响。一旦我们选择提供历史、功能或生态方面的解释，我们就被迫放弃静态的视觉模型，去寻找过程。但作为一种意识形态概念，景观正式否认了过程。 因此，例如，当历史地理学家试图将历史变化纳入景观研究时，他们被迫进行不令人信服的方法论 gymnastics，使用横截面、连续占用或主题随时间变化等手段，或者完全放弃对区域的综合概述，专注于产生特定空间形式的社会过程。地貌学也可以这样说，它在很大程度上忽视了形态分析，而详细研究地貌发展和地表雕刻的过程。

Yet while the requirement of science ultimately undermines the purely visual basis upon which the landscape idea finally rests, science in some ways is itself the extension of the way of seeing the
然而，尽管科学的要求最终削弱了景观理念所依赖的纯视觉基础，但在某种程度上，科学本身也是一种看待事物的延伸
world from which landscape and perspective emerged. A disinterested and objective, scientific geography is the apotheosis of the outsider’s view of the world. It embodies in formal rules the perspective of one who can consider spatial organisation the objective outcome of objective processes, and who can separate himself literally and theoretically from the object of study. It is the opposite of the insider’s experience, of one engaged by necessity in making and living in a landscape. The claims of scientific understanding reinforce the notion that the objects of its study are universally real and true. Thus to claim scientific treatment of landscape in geography is to extend the claim of realism for the outsider’s view, to devalue that of the insider and thereby to underwrite the ideological position that landscape proclaims.
从中出现的景观和视角的世界。一个无私和客观的科学地理是外部者对世界的巅峰视角。它在正式规则中体现了一个人可以将空间组织视为客观过程的客观结果，并且可以在字面和理论上与研究对象分离的视角。这与内部者的体验相反，内部者因必要性而参与创造和生活在一个景观中。科学理解的主张强化了其研究对象普遍真实和真实的观念。因此，声称在地理学中对景观进行科学处理，就是扩展外部者视角的现实主义主张，贬低内部者的视角，从而支持景观所宣称的意识形态立场。

Like landscape painting, Mikesell’s geographical landscape lacks a subject within. The subject of landscape in art is the spectator or the artist, participating as creator or controller through the medium of perspective. Mikesell and others who make a claim for a specifically geographical concept of landscape further exclude the subject, for the geographer is supposed precisely to retire from the landscape he offers in order to ensure its objective status. He hides consciously behind his battery of surveys, maps and aerial photographs. And his landscape lacks its own subject. No people appear before the eyes of the helicopter pilot or balloonist other than as indistinguishable ants moving as statistical averages across distance space. Lacking in these ways subject or subjects, we may ask whence the proclaimed unity of the geographical landscape derives? It would appear to be produced by the same techniques as that of a painting: from the formal bounding or framing of the scene, from the arrangement of physical forms, from the classification of types of human activity and even from the evocation of mood through atmosphere, light and colour, as we saw in Vidal’s and Sauer’s descriptions. When fully deployed these methods can produce geographical descriptions highly suggestive of landscape paintings as such, challenging the validity of the laboured distinction between the geographical and aesthetic landscapes.
像风景画一样，迈克塞尔的地理景观缺乏内部的主体。艺术中的风景主体是观众或艺术家，通过透视的媒介参与作为创造者或控制者。迈克塞尔和其他主张特定地理概念的风景的人进一步排除了主体，因为地理学家应该恰恰从他所提供的景观中退隐，以确保其客观状态。他有意识地隐藏在他的调查、地图和航拍照片的背后。他的景观缺乏自身的主体。在直升机飞行员或气球驾驶员的眼前，除了作为统计平均值在距离空间中移动的难以区分的蚂蚁外，没有其他人出现。缺乏这些方面的主体，我们可以问，所宣称的地理景观的统一性源自何处？ 这似乎是通过与绘画相同的技术制作的：从场景的正式边界或框架，从物理形态的排列，从人类活动类型的分类，甚至通过气氛、光线和色彩的唤起来传达情感，正如我们在维达尔和绍尔的描述中看到的。当这些方法充分运用时，可以产生高度暗示风景画的地理描述，挑战地理景观与美学景观之间费力区分的有效性。

Over the past decade the view of geography as a positive science has been challenged by writers favouring a ‘humanistic’ approach to
在过去十年中，地理作为一门积极科学的观点受到了倾向于“人文”方法的作家的挑战
understanding relations between humans and their world. Landscape has re-emerged in their writings as an important term because its affective meaning seems to allow for an escape from the outsider’s position and for the incorporation of sensitivity to human engagement with particular places and areas. Humanistic geography seeks to recover the geographical imagination so well illustrated in the writings of Vidal and others, but subsequently lost in scientific geography, and to introduce moral discourse into geography (Ley and Samuels, 1978). Significantly the writings often claimed to reveal such sensitivity, those of Vidal or the historian Fernand Braudel, reveal a strong historical sense, and it is this rather that any formal method which seems to account for their success in evoking the nuances and complexities of human relations in society and place which give rise to characteristic areas, or landscapes. Yet, as Harris (1978) has pointed out, the historical sense is weakly developed in humanistic geography, and this accounts for many of the difficulties that contemporary humanism has encountered in working with landscape in geography.
理解人类与其世界之间的关系。景观在他们的著作中重新成为一个重要的术语，因为它的情感意义似乎允许人们逃离外部者的视角，并融入对人类与特定地点和区域互动的敏感性。人文地理学旨在恢复在维达尔等人的著作中得到很好体现的地理想象，但在科学地理学中随之丧失，并将道德话语引入地理学（Ley 和 Samuels，1978）。值得注意的是，常常声称揭示这种敏感性的著作，如维达尔或历史学家费尔南·布罗代尔的作品，展现出强烈的历史感，而正是这种历史感而非任何正式的方法，似乎解释了他们在唤起社会和地点中人际关系的细微差别和复杂性方面的成功，从而产生特征区域或景观。然而，正如哈里斯（1978）所指出的，人文地理学中的历史感发展较弱，这也解释了当代人文主义在地理学中处理景观时遇到的许多困难。

Despite frequent homage paid to French regionalism of the early twentieth century, humanistic geography is very much an American product, a reaction to the enthusiasm with which positivist method was embraced by north American geographers in the post-war period, and generated most strongly by social geographers. And in appealing to the landscape idea American geographers have had at least one important model to turn to within their own scholarly tradition: the writings of J.B. Jackson. As a recent collection of essays on The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes (Meinig, ed., 1979) makes clear, humanistic study of landscape owes to him and to his journal Landscape a particular debt. Jackson has always eschewed disciplinary labels and both in his own writings and through the editorial policy of his journal opened out the concept of landscape in ways which seem to democratise it, liberating both spectator and participant, by writing from the inside and pointing to the symbolic meanings which arise from social life in particular geographical settings. Jackson senses that the origins of landscape indicate a new and detached mode of seeing, something more than a shift in artistic and literary taste. Of the Renaissance he comments, ‘[it] is plain that landscape was necessary because it indicated something hitherto unknown or undefined: a detached manner of viewing the world as an object, as distinct from man’. This allowed for an aesthetic perspective on the external world in which nature could become the whole subject of a picture and
尽管对 20 世纪初法国区域主义的频繁致敬，人文地理学实际上是一个美国的产物，是对北美地理学家在战后时期热衷于实证主义方法的反应，尤其是由社会地理学家所推动。在呼应景观理念时，美国地理学家至少有一个重要的模型可以借鉴，那就是 J.B.杰克逊的著作。正如最近关于《普通景观的解读》（梅宁主编，1979 年）的一系列论文所表明的，人文景观研究对他和他的期刊《景观》有着特别的债务。杰克逊始终避免学科标签，无论是在自己的著作中，还是通过他的期刊的编辑政策，都以一种似乎使景观民主化的方式拓展了景观的概念，解放了观众和参与者，通过从内部写作并指向特定地理环境中社会生活所产生的象征意义。 杰克逊意识到，风景的起源表明了一种新的、超然的观察方式，这不仅仅是艺术和文学品味的转变。他评论文艺复兴时说：“显然，风景是必要的，因为它指示了某种迄今为止未知或未定义的东西：一种将世界视为对象的超然方式，与人类区分开来。”这使得对外部世界有了一种美学视角，在这种视角下，自然可以成为一幅画的全部主题
from which certain classes of human affairs, the practical as opposed to the contemplative, could be excluded. Jackson notes that this exclusion made possible an examination of the external world in terms which we would now call ‘scientific’: identification, classification and analysis of discrete objects conceived apart from human intention. He exposes the common historical origins of both landscape as art and landscape as object of scientific investigation.
从某些人类事务的特定类别中，实践的与沉思的相对立的事务，可以被排除。杰克逊指出，这种排除使得以我们现在称之为“科学”的术语对外部世界进行考察成为可能：识别、分类和分析被设想为与人类意图分开的离散对象。他揭示了风景作为艺术和风景作为科学研究对象的共同历史起源。

Recognising something of the historical origins of the landscape idea and refusing to submit his imagination and sensitivity to the constraints of sophisticated disciplinary definition have enabled Jackson in papers on the American landscape to provide a series of evocative, memorable and penetrating vignettes which are both visually acute and yet receptive to the meaning of the milieu for those who occupy it. In the architecture of the highway strip, its billboards, fast-food franchises, motels, gas stations and auto-repair yards; in the main streets of small mid-western towns; in the domestic back yards of Arizona ranch houses, Jackson can sense and communicate the daily significance and practical uses of what he still chooses to call the landscape. He can indicate its relationship to the ways that its makers have signified themselves and their worlds, for example in considering the American house archetypically over three generations, and address at once both its visual coherence and its social purposes.
认识到景观理念的历史起源，并拒绝将他的想象力和敏感性屈从于复杂学科定义的限制，使杰克逊在关于美国景观的论文中提供了一系列引人入胜、令人难忘且深刻的短篇，这些短篇既在视觉上敏锐，又能接受居住者对环境的意义。在高速公路沿线的建筑中，包括广告牌、快餐连锁店、汽车旅馆、加油站和汽车修理厂；在中西部小镇的主要街道上；在亚利桑那州牧场房屋的后院中，杰克逊能够感知并传达他仍然选择称之为景观的事物的日常意义和实际用途。他能够指出这些事物与其创造者如何表征自己及其世界之间的关系，例如在考虑美国房屋的典型性时跨越三代，并同时探讨其视觉一致性和社会目的。

Of landscape as a formal term Jackson has admitted that ‘the concept continues to elude me’, and gives the reason as his refusal to treat it as a scenic or ecological entity and his determination to accept it as a political or cultural phenomenon, changing in the course of its history. Donald Meinig (1979, pp. 288-9) lists the key features of Jackson’s landscape idea: landscape is anchored in human life, not something to look at but to live in, and to live in socially. Landscape is a unity of people and environment which opposes in its reality the false dichotomy of man and nature which Jackson regards as a Victorian aberration. Landscape is to be judged as a place for living and working in terms of those who actually do live and work there. All landscapes are symbolic, they express ‘a persistent desire to make the earth over in the image of some heaven’, and they undergo change because they are expressions of society, itself making history through time. Finally Meinig lists two structural elements which Jackson regards as central to landscape study. These are the individual dwelling as the primary landscape element and the prototype of the larger world in a culture; and a primary attention to the vermacular in landscape. In these last items Jackson’s democratic and populist
作为一个正式术语，杰克逊承认“这个概念仍然让我感到困惑”，并给出的理由是他拒绝将其视为一个风景或生态实体，而是决心将其视为一个政治或文化现象，在其历史过程中不断变化。唐纳德·梅宁（1979 年，第 288-289 页）列出了杰克逊景观理念的关键特征：景观扎根于人类生活中，不是用来观赏的，而是用来生活的，并且是社会生活。景观是人与环境的统一，它在现实中反对杰克逊所认为的维多利亚时代的错误二分法，即人和自然。景观应根据那些实际生活和工作在其中的人来评判，作为一个生活和工作的地方。所有景观都是象征性的，它们表达了“将地球改造成某种天堂形象的持久愿望”，并且因为它们是社会的表现而经历变化，社会本身通过时间创造历史。最后，梅宁列出了杰克逊认为对景观研究至关重要的两个结构要素。 这些是作为主要景观元素的个体居所，也是文化中更大世界的原型；并且主要关注景观中的地方性。在这些最后的项目中，杰克逊的民主和民粹主义
leanings are apparent. In assessing Jackson’s landscape studies Meinig recognises their stimulating and suggestive qualities but argues that they lack the intellectual detachment necessary for more critical and theoretical understanding:
对杰克逊的风景研究进行评估时，梅宁认识到它们的刺激性和启发性，但认为它们缺乏更为批判和理论理解所需的智力超脱。

All is assertion and argument, nothing is documented or formally demonstrated; much is observed, nothing is measured. Jackson is a stimulating thinker, he is not a professional scholar. His writings are never supported by the usual research apparatus. (Meinig, 1979, p. 229)
一切都是主张和论证，没有任何文献记录或正式证明；许多是观察到的，但没有任何测量。杰克逊是一个激发思考的思想家，但他不是专业学者。他的著作从未得到通常研究工具的支持。（梅宁，1979，第 229 页）

These comments return us to the central problem raised by the origins of landscape in the renaissance humanist tradition. Landscape is indeed the view of the outsider, a term of order and control, whether that control is technical, political or intellectual. In the rich sense that Jackson’s practice has given it perhaps landscape is simply as unreachable by the formal apparatus of scholarly or intellectual control as it is by the armoury of techniques and tools with which Mikesell would distance the scientific geographer.
这些评论使我们回到了文艺复兴人文主义传统中提出的中心问题。风景确实是外部者的视角，是一种秩序和控制的术语，无论这种控制是技术性的、政治性的还是知识性的。从杰克逊的实践所赋予的丰富意义来看，风景或许在形式化的学术或知识控制的工具中同样是无法触及的，就像迈克塞尔用来使科学地理学家保持距离的技术和工具一样。

This issue is taken up by another contributor to Meinig’s collection. Marwyn Samuels (1979) is representative of the new geographical humanism in his search for ways of incorporating human meaning into the purposes of geographical understanding and in his desire to develop a clear methodology for landscape study. He recognises that the separation of subjective and objective ways of knowing bears critically on the study of landscape. He proposes therefore to incorporate both into an approach drawing upon the traditions of other humanities which examine the expressions of human creativity in art and artifice, specifically biography. Samuels insists upon the ‘authorship’ of landscape, the fact that it is not the unconscious outcome of impersonal forces but the responsibility of real people. At the same time the individuals who create landscapes operate in determinate contexts. Samuels’s conclusion is that we should concentrate upon the evidence, direct and indirect, that individuals have left as explanation, rationalisation, or description of their intentions. New York, for example, he claims is the creation of great men like the Roebling Brothers, Louis Sullivan, certain patrician families like the Rockefellers and Harrimans, and above all of Robert Moses, chairman of the Triborough Commission in the early years of the century. All of them operated in the context of
这个问题被梅宁的另一位贡献者提及。马尔温·萨缪尔斯（1979）代表了新的地理人文主义，他在寻找将人类意义融入地理理解目的的方法，并希望为景观研究发展出清晰的方法论。他认识到，主观和客观的认识方式的分离对景观研究有重要影响。因此，他提议将两者结合起来，采用其他人文学科的传统，研究人类创造力在艺术和人工制品中的表现，特别是传记。萨缪尔斯坚持“景观的作者性”，即景观不是无意识的非个人力量的结果，而是现实人类的责任。同时，创造景观的个体在特定的背景中运作。萨缪尔斯的结论是，我们应该集中关注个体留下的证据，无论是直接的还是间接的，这些证据解释、合理化或描述了他们的意图。 纽约，例如，他声称是像罗布林兄弟、路易斯·沙利文、某些贵族家庭如洛克菲勒和哈里曼，以及最重要的罗伯特·摩西（世纪初三区委员会主席）等伟人创造的。它们都在...的背景下运作
developing American industrialism, a changing urban economic base and the prevailing ideas of the progressive movement.
发展中的美国工业主义、变化中的城市经济基础以及进步运动的主流思想。

Samuels is not unaware of the philosophical and methodological issues which his proposed approach raises. He draws attention specifically to the problem of appealing to idealist or materialist modes of explanation - the former regarding human ideas as the autonomous force of human actions, the latter seeking to ground those actions ultimately in the conditions of human existence in the material world. He comments that ‘if the logic of landscape biography renders this distinction moot, the method of that biography must account for the relationships among these two worlds’ (ibid., 1979, p. 69). But his response to this issue is to evade it by defining overlapping categories of landscape: landscapes of ‘impression’ (more about than in the landscape) and landscapes of ‘expression’ (whose authors are identified in their landscape). This is an evasion because it simply restates the opposition between subject and object, insider and outsider - the central contradictions of the landscape idea - in altered form. Indeed it relocates the opposition within the landscape itself rather than in the ways we set about understanding it.
萨缪尔斯并不忽视他所提议的方法所引发的哲学和方法论问题。他特别提到诉诸于唯心主义或唯物主义解释模式的问题——前者将人类思想视为人类行为的自主力量，后者则试图将这些行为最终建立在物质世界中人类生存的条件上。他评论道：“如果景观传记的逻辑使这一区分变得无关紧要，那么该传记的方法必须考虑这两个世界之间的关系”（同上，1979 年，第 69 页）。但他对这个问题的回应是通过定义重叠的景观类别来回避它：‘印象’的景观（更多的是关于而不是在景观中）和‘表达’的景观（其作者在他们的景观中被识别）。这是一种回避，因为它只是以改变的形式重新表述了主体与客体、内部人和外部人之间的对立——景观理念的核心矛盾。实际上，它将对立重新定位在景观内部，而不是我们理解它的方式中。

Considered as an attempt to give a formal academic structure and method to Jackson’s informal penetration of the layers of meaning in landscape, Samuels’s humanism offers a means of viewing it as an insider while sustaining a degree of scholarly detachment. But this is attained only at the expense of disregarding the social dimensions of landscape and adopting assumptions of voluntarist individualism. The idea of context hints at a more social and structured explanation and Samuels does suggest that the method of landscape biography derives from historiographical sources. But these are weakly developed ideas and for the most part the dynamic and historical aspects of landscape, the account of its changes under succeeding ‘authors’, plural as well as individual, in time as well as space, are ignored.
被视为试图为杰克逊对景观意义层次的非正式渗透提供一种正式的学术结构和方法，萨缪尔斯的人文主义提供了一种作为内部观察者的视角，同时保持一定程度的学术超然。但这只能以忽视景观的社会维度和采用自愿主义个人主义的假设为代价来实现。上下文的概念暗示了一种更具社会性和结构性的解释，萨缪尔斯确实暗示景观传记的方法源于史学资料。但这些都是发展不充分的观点，在很大程度上，景观的动态和历史方面，以及在时间和空间中，多个“作者”以及个体对其变化的叙述，都被忽视了。

They are less:absent in Edward Relph’s (1981) analysis of humanistic geography and landscape. Relph is aware of links between the landscape idea, the evolution of scientific method and renaissance humanism. But in seeking to couple humanism with Cartesian science as pure intellectual categories revealing themselves in alienated or placeless landscapes, Relph rejects one side of the dialectic between thought and action in the real historical world. Thus, whereas Samuels ultimately rests his understanding on the landscape authorship of ‘great men’, Relph locates his in moral self-
他们在爱德华·雷尔夫（1981）的人文地理和景观分析中较少出现。雷尔夫意识到景观观念、科学方法的演变和文艺复兴人文主义之间的联系。但在试图将人文主义与笛卡尔科学结合为在异化或无地景观中显现的纯粹智力范畴时，雷尔夫拒绝了现实历史世界中思想与行动之间辩证法的一面。因此，尽管塞缪尔最终将他的理解建立在“伟人”的景观创作上，雷尔夫则将其定位于道德自我。
reflection. The outsider is to become an insider through personal regeneration, and moral fervour becomes a substitute for historical analysis.
反思。局外人通过个人重生成为局内人，而道德热情成为历史分析的替代品。

The treatment of landscape in humanistic geography, despite its shortcomings, demonstrates that the issues raised by landscape and its meanings point to the heart of social and historical theory: issues of individual and collective action, of objective and subjective knowing, of idealist and materialist explanation. If traditional geographical studies of landscape stressed the outsider’s view and concentrated on the morphology of external forms, recent geographical humanism seeks to reverse this by establishing the identity and experience of the insider. But in neither case is the picture frame broken and the landscape inserted to the historical process. The reason for this is that, as I have indicated, landscape is itself a way of seeing, taken on board by geography with its ideological assumptions fundamentally unaltered. To understand how this has happened we need to trace the history of the landscape way of seeing and controlling the world. I have already noted something of its origins in the Italian Renaissance. I have suggested that it underwent significant change in the nineteenth century, as the landscape vision based on linear perspective, guarantor of realism, was challenged in the arts and simultaneously elevated to the status of an object for investigation by geographical science, a status only now undergoing critical scrutiny.
人文地理学中对景观的处理，尽管存在不足，但表明景观及其意义所提出的问题指向社会和历史理论的核心：个体与集体行动、客观与主观认知、唯心主义与唯物主义解释的问题。如果传统的地理研究强调外部视角并集中于外部形式的形态，那么最近的人文地理学则试图通过建立内部人的身份和体验来扭转这一点。但在这两种情况下，画框都没有被打破，景观也没有被纳入历史过程。原因在于，正如我所指出的，景观本身是一种看待事物的方式，地理学在其意识形态假设基本不变的情况下将其纳入其中。要理解这一现象的发生，我们需要追溯景观看待和控制世界的历史。我已经提到过它在意大利文艺复兴时期的一些起源。 我建议它在十九世纪经历了重大变化，因为基于线性透视的景观视野，作为现实主义的保证，在艺术中受到挑战，同时被提升为地理科学研究的对象，这一地位现在才开始受到批判性审视。

The intervening period is one during which landscape underwent certain mutations, but remained dominated by techniques of composition which served to underwrite the image of a world unchanging and stable in the relationships between humans and nature. It was equally a period when the rigid separation we accept between art and science remained unformulated. To trace the evolution of the landscape idea through this period is to follow a theme in the history of ideas. That demands a framework for locating ideas in a more inclusive historical context than Relph, for example, offers. The historical theory of a transition from feudalism into capitalism offers such a context because it is one which highlights a radical alteration in material relations between human beings and the land. In this alone it offers a critical challenge to the landscape idea which posits a stable union of man and nature. Once we have observed how the landscape idea relates to this transition we may clarify the difficulties it poses for geography.
介于此期间，景观经历了一些变迁，但仍然以构图技巧为主导，这些技巧支持了一个在人与自然关系中不变和稳定的世界形象。这同样是一个我们所接受的艺术与科学之间的严格分离尚未形成的时期。追踪这一时期景观观念的演变，就是在历史观念中追随一个主题。这需要一个框架，以便在比例如 Relph 所提供的更包容的历史背景中定位观念。封建主义向资本主义过渡的历史理论提供了这样的背景，因为它突显了人类与土地之间物质关系的根本变化。仅此一点，它就对假设人类与自然稳定结合的景观观念提出了重要挑战。一旦我们观察到景观观念与这一过渡的关系，我们就可以澄清它对地理学所带来的困难。