Between professional objectivity and Simmel’s moods: a pragmatist-aesthetic proposal for landscape character

Abstract

This paper provides, in the first part, a critical examination of the standard framing of the subjectivism vs objectivism dualism in the concept and practice of ‘landscape character’ (LC) and, in the second part, some philosophical suggestions for its improvement. After a brief overview of the emergence of the LC notion, partly in response to the modernist-aestheticist view of landscape, and of the mentioned dualism that this notion harbours, I will discuss some main problems associated with the currently dominant ‘objectivist strain’ in the framing of the dualism. Such problems have a common root, namely a narrow unexamined view of experience and the aesthetic dimension. In the constructive part, I will propose to reframe the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity on a pragmatist-aesthetic basis, drawing on Simmel’s notion of landscape ‘mood’. Finally, I will outline some implications and advantages of the suggested alternative over both the objectivist strain in the current discourse and the modernist-aestheticist paradigm.

Keywords:

• Aesthetics
• experience
• landscape character
• landscape character assessment
• mood
• objectivity
• philosophy
• pragmatism
• Simmel
• subjectivity

Acknowledgments

My thanks go to Nicola Ramazzotto and to the anonymous reviewers for their precious suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

1 ‘A distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse’ (standard definition by Tudor, 2014, p. 54). See also the definition by Fairclough et al. (2019) as ‘the distinct and recognisable combination of elements that occurs consistently in a particular area of land, and is perceived by humans as landscape’ (p. 577).

2 ‘The process of identifying and describing variation in the character of the landscape. It seeks to identify and explain the unique combination of elements and features (characteristics) that make landscapes distinctive’ (Tudor, 2014, p. 54). For an excellent, comprehensive overview of the concept and practices of LC and LCA see Fairclough et al. (2018).

3 ‘An area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.’

4 I borrow this term, which will appear throughout the paper, from Terkenli et al. (2021), p. 3.

5 See Terkenli et al. (2021), Tilley (2006), and Atik et al. (2017).

6 See the meta-analysis in Terkenli et al. (2021), pp. 12–16.

7 See Fairclough and Herring (2016).

8 See Butler and Berglund (2014).

9 See also Brunetta and Voghera (2008).

10 Tudor (2014), p. 6.

11 This oscillation is visible in Tudor (2014).

12 It mostly draws on Dewey (1987) which would be impossible to even just introduce here. It should at least be noted that Dewey is one of the very few philosophers to feature more or less regularly in the scholarship on landscape, and more specifically on landscape aesthetics (see e.g. Bourassa, 1988). A recent comprehensive view of landscapes that is in many respects pragmatist (or neo-pragmatist) is in Berleant (1997), with which I mostly concur but which has a broader scope than the one pursued in this critical review.

13 See Brunetta and Voghera (2008).

14 On Simmel and pragmatism, see Kusch (2019).

15 On Simmel and landscape, see D’Angelo (2021, pp. 132–152). Simmel’s combination of pragmatist orientation and ground-breaking focus on landscape make him an ideal groundwork for developing my argument within the restricted space of a single paper. This is not to say, of course, that I take him to be the only (or even a sufficient) relevant reference for my proposal more broadly.

16 On the continuity between landscapes and artworks, see also Berleant (2012) and, with a specific focus on ‘character’, Matthes (2020).

17 The implicit reference, for the notion of ‘substantive landscapes’, is of course Olwig (1996). For a convincing defence of the co-implication between a rich, non-superficial understanding of LC and the employment of a plurality of aesthetic categories not reducible to the ‘scenic’, as well as for an application of this connection to issues of environmental conservation see Brady (2019).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alberto L. Siani

Alberto L. Siani is Associate Professor of Aesthetics at the Department of Civilisations and Forms of Knowledge of the University of Pisa. He has conducted research mostly on the aesthetics of Hegel and German Idealism. Currently, he is working on a project on pragmatism, landscape, and aesthetics: on this topic he has published the article ‘Unifying Art and Nature: Brady and Eco on Interpretation’ (in: Aesthetica Preprint, 114/2020) and the entry on ‘Landscape Aesthetics’ in the International Lexicon of Aesthetics (2022), and has several forthcoming works. Among his other publications: the book Morte dell’arte, libertà del soggetto. Attualità di Hegel (Pisa: ETS, 2017), the edited volume Women Philosophers on Autonomy. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (with S. Bergès, New York: Routledge, 2018), and the article ‘Antisubjectivism and the End of Art: Heidegger on Hegel’ (in: British Journal of Aesthetics, 60/3/2020).