Maurice Ronai covers various aspects of landscape in his plainly titled article ‘Paysages’. He addresses landscape through ‘géoscopie’ (126-133), ‘géographie’ (133-139), ‘géosémie’ (139-153) and ‘géophilie’ (153-159). Ronai also discusses space, a related concept, and what is understood as the objective reality is referred to as the real or real space.
The first part on ‘géoscopie’ (geoscopy) focuses on landscape as visually observed. Ronai (126-127) emphasizes that contra phenomenology, namely that of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, landscape does not exist in itself. It is not inherent to space. Instead, it is in the gaze, thus performed or projected to space. Conjuring René Magritte’s painting ‘Le faux miroir’ (The False Mirror) would only be fitting here. In the painting the world is not reflected on the painted human eye, but rather in it. Ronai (127) specifies that landscape is a reduction of real space, presented as panorama, diorama and scenography. More importantly, he (127) adds that the reduction provides an illusion of harmony, building on an aesthetic appreciation: beautiful or ugly. Playing on his (127) choice of words ‘anesthésiant’ and ‘esthétique’ to describe landscape, brings us to consider it as an a(n)estetic, the sensible and the insensible, invoking sensation or the lack thereof. I’m particularly fond of this wordplay, yet I’d be surprised if no one else has ever thought of that.
The first part (127) also discusses the origin of the word, having existed as something else, something more practical prior to its emergence as how we understand it contemporarily. Ronai (128-129) specifies that the visual understanding of landscape that emerged in the Renaissance is not individual or subjective, but rather structural or conditioned, with its origins in painting, in idealized and stylized, yet identifiable depictions of nature. Long story short, he (132-133) states that landscapes eventually became codified and institutionalized; landscape came to being and are structured by time, or era, specific privileged organizing categories, such as the picturesque and the grandiose.
The second part focuses on the use of landscape in geography. From this angle, summarizing Ronai (135-136), landscape is concrete and palpable, anchored in the real, yet at the same time alluring the observer into taking pleasure in it, with emphasis on desiring nature. He (137) also shortly pokes at the empiric understanding of the visible, the landscape, as merely a matter of reading it, as if what is read is not produced. Going back to the question of space, he (137-139) elaborates how landscape became understood as a fragment of space, the visible appearance of a geographic area, systematically and rigorously analyzed to the extent that the object of inquiry was no longer landscape, but rather the environment, as in ecology. In other words, it is pointed out how landscape studies can end up missing the point. What is landscape without landscape? Browsing through the referred article titled ‘La “science du paysage”, une “science diagonale”‘ by Georges Bertrand, as well as a previous methodology oriented article titled ‘Paysage et géographie physique globale: Esquisse méthodologique’ by Bertrand and Jean Tricart, I find little landscape in them, rather than ecology and cartography.
The third part of Ronai’s article focuses on understanding landscape as a system of codes, or, borrowing Raymond Williams, like culture in ‘The Sociology of Culture’, landscape can be understood “a signifying system”. In this sense, Ronai (139) states that landscape is not the real space but an image and a projection of it, perpetually coded and decoded by the observer, mostly unbeknownst to the observer. That said, it must be clarified, as Ronai (139-140) does, that this not mean that reality depends on the observer. On the contrary, the entities of real space, such as beaches, lakes and deserts, become landscapes through gaze, gaining this detached and codified spatiality once suspended in time. More importantly, he (140) notes that they become codified as messages and they crystallize “meanings, sensations, reminiscences, experiences.” Now, without delving too deep into signification here, Ronai (140) concedes that meaning is infinite, yet, frequency and repetition limits the multiplicity. I find myself in agreement with this. He (143-144) acknowledges that gaze depends on sight, the physiological mechanism, but argues that it is a matter of perception. What we perceive is based on what we see, but it is not only that. What is seen is coded and coordinated by a gradually acquired cultural complex. In other words, landscape is never objectively seen, but not subjectively individual either. Ronai (146) aptly summarizes that landscape depends on language and culture and thus it does not exists in itself. It is rather shared or collective. He goes on to elaborate different codes which influence how landscapes are perceived, but these are better addressed another time.
The third part also contains an interesting notion. Not unlike fashion or cuisine, landscape depends on language, but Ronai (141) distinguishes it from them by the lack of clear interlocutors: “who communicates with whom?” As a result, Ronai (141) continues, landscape murmurs: “look at me, love me, fear me, delight yourself…” I cannot help but to think of Michel Foucault here. At least the choice of word, murmur, and absence of subject hint that way.
The fourth part of the article addresses the interest in landscapes, or rather passion or love, as implied by ‘géophilie’. Ronai (153) summarizes that space was first turned into a visual object, a scene, which geographers focused on in order to extract knowledge, gradually shifting and crystallizing it into a geosemiotic system, which resulted in “a passion for landscape as an object of knowledge, emotion and desire.” Importantly, he (153) argues that this cyclical development, in which geographers are trapped in, both complicit and complacent, functions through representation to stabilize its meaning, rendering it impervious to change. This may seem trivial, just as most people probably think landscape is trivial, but as he (153) notes, it obscures what happens behind the scenes.
Ronai (154-159) takes on to exemplify what is meant by all this. He links the aesthetic appreciation to nationalism. Among others, he quotes M. Bolle who reportedly stated that:
“Les beautés du paysage, qu’il s’agisse de sites naturels ou de monuments d’art, constituent une partie très importante du patrimoine des nations, qui doit être jalousement sauvegardé.”
This statement made at the International Geographical Congress in 1938 emphasizes that the beauties of landscape, natural or cultural, constitute a very important part of the heritage of nations that must be protected. Ronai (154-155) adds that while ‘paysage‘ (landscape) and ‘pays‘ (land, country) are clearly not the same thing, yet they end up conflated, nation bleeds into landscape and vice versa, resulting in landscape being the ‘visage‘ (face) of the nation. Following this, Ronai (155-156) argues that the beauty of landscape translates to the excellence of the land, which in turn gets conflated with the nation. With a dose of irony, this logic is best explained in his (156) own words: “It is the landscape, a material entity, that proves the existence of the nation. It is the truth.”
Ronai (158-159) finishes the article by returning to discuss how space is understood. He hypothesizes a triangle, connecting ‘espace réel‘ (real space) with social practice, ‘connaissance de l’espace‘ (knowledge of space) with discourse, and ‘spectacle de l’espace‘ (the landscape) with gaze. This reminds me of Henri Lefebvre’s spatial triad presented in the 1974 published ‘La production de l’espace’, which I intend to address another time.
I don’t think I can do justice to this article here. Some of the insights don’t always translate that well to begin with. There is no substitute to reading it yourself. Anyway, I opted to write about it because it is among the best I’ve come across. It covers many aspects of my own thought that I’ve parsed from elsewhere. If only I had read this earlier. If I did my math correctly, Ronai was only 24 at the time the article was published. In comparison, if only I could list, well, anything of note to this day. I also appreciate the humble no frills title, just landscapes, with no subtitle or implied focus.
References
- Bertrand, G. (1972). La “science du paysage”, une “science diagonale”. Sud-Ouest Européen: Revue Géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest, 43 (2), 127–134.
- Bertrand, G., and J. Tricart (1968). Paysage et géographie physique globale: Esquisse méthodologique. Sud-Ouest Européen: Revue Géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest, 39 (3), 249–272.
- Bolle, M. (1938). Quels sont dans la civilisation moderne les principes sur lesquels doit se baser la conservation des beautés du paysage? In Union Géographique Internationale (Ed.), Comptes rendus du Congrès International de Géographie, Amsterdam 1938 (pp. 199–202). Leiden, the Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
- Foucault, M. ([1969/1971] 1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language (A. M. Sheridan Smith and R. Swyer, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
- Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l’espace. Paris, France: Éditions Anthropos.
- Magritte, R. (1928). Le faux miroir.
- Ronai, M. (1976). Paysages. Hérodote, 1, 125–159.
- Williams, R. (1982). The Sociology of Culture. New York, NY: Schocken Books.