Denis Cosgrove provides us some of the finest reading (no pun intended) on landscapes. One should take a look at his work on landscape and representation, namely his major works: the ‘Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape’ and ‘The Palladian Landscape’. By no means is his work limited to the said works, but those are the ones that came to my mind first. For the sake of brevity, I’m going to focus on his article titled ‘Prospect, Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea’.
As the title suggests, Cosgrove indeed shines a light on how what we understand as landscape came to be. Similarly to Maurice Ronai in his two articles on landscapes, Cosgrove (46) states that landscape as a term or an idea, or should we say concept, motif, or conceptual motif, emerges in Renaissance Italy among the patricians. More specifically, borrowing John Berger, he (46) refers to it as a way of seeing. To freshen one’s memory here, distinct from much of the rest of Europe, Italy was marked by a number of influential maritime republics. Cosgrove (46) notes that landscape was connected to the consolidation and improvement of estates. It should be clarified here, as Cosgrove (46) does, that landscape was not the only mean to achieve such, but rather coincided with surveying, charting and mapping. I think this should be clearly emphasized. Landscape is not some mystical device or invention that emerges out of nowhere and suddenly allows unprecedented appropriation of space, although I do think it may easily come across as such. It may seem trivial, as well as preposterous to emphasize its importance without understanding how it came to be, its evolution.
Cosgrove (46) points out that what makes landscape such as an effective idea is its foundations on science and knowledge. He (46) emphasizes that contrary to the humanistic current at the time (I assume 1970s and 1980s) landscape is very much tied to the history of science; landscape relies on geometry and more specifically the linear perspective. He goes on to elaborate this in detail on the following pages (47-52). In summary, what is important is how applying the certainties of science in art, namely painting, allowed the artist to render space, the 3D, into a canvas, the 2D. It enabled visual appropriation of space with its unprecedented realism, while the use oil paints provided equally unprecedented level of detail. The results were impressive, to say the least. Of course, one can now roll one’s eyes in disbelief or in ire of such claims. Then again, it’s easy to think otherwise now. Back then that was probably the closest thing to magic, arcane if you will, whereas now principles of geometry are mundane to people. Anyway, as Cosgrove (51) emphasizes, the foundation on geometry is pivotal because it is considered inherent to space; geometry gives landscape mathematical certainty.
After going through the evolution of landscape in art, Cosgrove (54-56) elaborates how it came to be applied. Not unlike Ronai in his articles, he (55) notes how the concept of ownership of land and space changed in gradual transition from the feudal system of interlocking fiefdoms based on rights granted in exchange for fealty and service (levy) to a more concrete or absolute form of ownership, I guess the way we understand it these days. That is to say, as earlier covered in Ronai’s articles, in the feudal system the one on top, typically a king, could be understood as the sole owner of all property. The vassals technically only held land owned by the one on top. They rather only had rights to the land in exchange to the responsibilities levied by their superior. I guess one could go as far as to argue that even the one on top did not own the land, but rather held the ultimate divine right to it. I’m hardly an expert in all things medieval, but somehow it seems that the piecemeal feudal system was in place as governing all what you own beyond your gaze simply wasn’t feasible. Delegating the land made it manageable, even if the yield was not ideal. In any case, the developments in science and art made it possible to overcome this inconvenience, to remove men in the middle if you will. It was not, of course, all about landscape, but it did play a part.
Importantly, once more not unlike Ronai, Cosgrove (55) argues that landscape, not only as vibrant paintings on the walls of museums these days, but as a way of seeing, offers a structuration of world, an illusory sense of order and control. I appreciate how Ronai on his part playfully, yet eloquently, presented this as the ‘posture’ and ‘imposture’ of a lord, but I equally appreciate how Cosgrove emphasizes how geometry legitimates it.
I cannot help but to invoke some Michel Foucault here. In ‘The Archaeology of Knowledge’, Foucault focuses on discourse and discursive formations. In particular, in chapter 6 of part IV, titled ‘Science and Knowledge’, Foucault (178-195) elaborates that a discursive formation can cross certain thresholds, namely positivity (individuality and autonomy), epistemologization (knowledge), scientificity (propositions) and formalization (axioms). Now, while I believe I can posit landscape as its own thing, having become such, and involving its own knowledge, it’s hardly a science. Consulting Richard Hartshorne should make that abundantly clear. Nevertheless, it piggybacks on mathematics, which, I would argue, is as clear cut a case one can get to crossing those thresholds, especially the scientificity threshold, which makes it possible for it to become formalized, or, well, axiomatic. It is rather evident from Cosgrove, as well as from Ronai (and a host of others that I haven’t covered), that landscape does not exist in itself, but it has come to life, or so to speak. It has more to do with art than science, yet it makes great use of science, to the extent that it just is. How does one challenge space anyway?
Back to the topic, Cosgrove makes some good further insights. I’m particularly fond of his (55) clarification of the Italian word ‘prospettiva’, distinct in English as ‘perspective’ and ‘prospect’, the former linked to the core of his argument, and the latter to a commanding view. Combined with aesthetics, ‘belvedere’, another word with an Italian origin, this one for a fair view, would be another fitting word here. Located in Vienna, Austria, the palace complex of Prince Eugene of Savoy, known as the, you guessed it, Belvedere, is as fitting as it gets if you ask me. Visit it and you’ll get the picture of how this works. It is and offers a fair view indeed. It is for sure impressive. Cosgrove (55) also makes a good point on the way how in language truth gets equated with vision, like in “getting something into perspective” or seeing something “in its true light”. ‘I see’ would also be a fitting here. At least I find myself saying that when I respond that I understand, or, sorry for the pun, that I get the picture. For example, I can say that I grasp something, but it’s still actually quite hard to avoid all things visual in language.
What I haven’t covered here is the role of aesthetics, or rather taste. It should be addressed, but I feel like having a go at it separately. Anyway, this article is well worth reading. Same applies to Cosgrove’s other works.
References
- Berger, J. (1972). Ways of Seeing. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.
- Cosgrove, D. E. (1985). Prospect, Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 10 (1), 45–62.
- Cosgrove, D. E. (1993). The Palladian Landscape: Geographical Change and Its Cultural Representations in Sixteenth-Century Italy. Leicester, United Kingdom: Leicester University Press.
- Cosgrove, D. E. ([1984] 1998). Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
- 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.
- Hartshorne, R. (1939). The Nature of Geography: A Critical Survey of Current Thought in the Light of the Past. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 29 (3): 173–412.
- Ronai, M. (1976). Paysages. Hérodote, 1, 125–159.
- Ronai, M. (1977). Paysages. II. Hérodote, 7, 71–91.