96
C. Ronzani and A. Freytet
coordinates. Changing a parameter changes their meaning, or even makes them
vanish as pertinent landscape indicators. Yet, the drawn line makes a clear choice in
the possible representations of the landscape, the choice of what is seen, a specific
interpretation open to collective judgement. The drawn line renders the landscape
indicator visible, whereas a photo will too often be a jungle of indicators, leaving
the observer with as much to do as when he actually contemplates the area.
7.2.7 Rediscovering Landscape As a Sensory Filter by Plunging
into the Underwater Landscape?
To detect and “read” units in the landscape, they must correspond to the subtle cultural combinations that associate meaning with places, open to interpretation by
others. The authenticity with which a landscape is “read” hinges on the “depth” and
the degree to which perception acts as a filter between the subject and the area. The
temptation to develop analyses with no regard for this subjective relativity specific to
landscape perception is great. Where does this risk arise from? Should we challenge
the predominant landscape model based on what we see? The conception of landscape as a supreme, objective view of the land, excluding the other senses, greatly
heightened in the satellite era, asserting perceived space to be consistent, measurable
and divisible in every respect as it is objectively, physically, on a map or in a snapshot?
Exacerbated by the deceptive transparency of the open air as the eye’s medium? Causing us to overlook the fact that the gaze passes through a distorting medium, and is
matter itself? The opacity and relative blur of underwater landscapes and their multisensory aspect may make the reality of the senses less easy to forget; perhaps it will be
a revelation, and an opportunity to reassert and deepen the notion of landscape. But
the risk may be quite the opposite—that of “excessive” perception, extreme sensory
immersion preventing all interpretation. Landscape designers have already evoked
this risk in respect of certain terrestrial landscapes: “on site, you would be swamped
by the profusion of data and quite unable to make any decision
18 ”. In our opinion,
this problematic interrelation between perceptive transparency and opacity, between
immersive reading and distraction, will challenge a landscape designer’s ability to
decipher the underwater world, and the latter’s potential status as “landscape”.
7.3 Submersion and a Radical Change of Scenery:
Does Underwater Landscape Challenge
our Landscape Reading Practices?
Beneath the water’s surface, our sensory relationship with space differs completely
from the way we relate to nature on land. Land is so much our world that, despite being
a blue planet, we call it “earth” rather than sea. Under the yoke of language, we are
18 Michel Corajoud, Op.cit.
C. Ronzani and A. Freytet
coordinates. Changing a parameter changes their meaning, or even makes them
vanish as pertinent landscape indicators. Yet, the drawn line makes a clear choice in
the possible representations of the landscape, the choice of what is seen, a specific
interpretation open to collective judgement. The drawn line renders the landscape
indicator visible, whereas a photo will too often be a jungle of indicators, leaving
the observer with as much to do as when he actually contemplates the area.
7.2.7 Rediscovering Landscape As a Sensory Filter by Plunging
into the Underwater Landscape?
To detect and “read” units in the landscape, they must correspond to the subtle cultural combinations that associate meaning with places, open to interpretation by
others. The authenticity with which a landscape is “read” hinges on the “depth” and
the degree to which perception acts as a filter between the subject and the area. The
temptation to develop analyses with no regard for this subjective relativity specific to
landscape perception is great. Where does this risk arise from? Should we challenge
the predominant landscape model based on what we see? The conception of landscape as a supreme, objective view of the land, excluding the other senses, greatly
heightened in the satellite era, asserting perceived space to be consistent, measurable
and divisible in every respect as it is objectively, physically, on a map or in a snapshot?
Exacerbated by the deceptive transparency of the open air as the eye’s medium? Causing us to overlook the fact that the gaze passes through a distorting medium, and is
matter itself? The opacity and relative blur of underwater landscapes and their multisensory aspect may make the reality of the senses less easy to forget; perhaps it will be
a revelation, and an opportunity to reassert and deepen the notion of landscape. But
the risk may be quite the opposite—that of “excessive” perception, extreme sensory
immersion preventing all interpretation. Landscape designers have already evoked
this risk in respect of certain terrestrial landscapes: “on site, you would be swamped
by the profusion of data and quite unable to make any decision
18 ”. In our opinion,
this problematic interrelation between perceptive transparency and opacity, between
immersive reading and distraction, will challenge a landscape designer’s ability to
decipher the underwater world, and the latter’s potential status as “landscape”.
7.3 Submersion and a Radical Change of Scenery:
Does Underwater Landscape Challenge
our Landscape Reading Practices?
Beneath the water’s surface, our sensory relationship with space differs completely
from the way we relate to nature on land. Land is so much our world that, despite being
a blue planet, we call it “earth” rather than sea. Under the yoke of language, we are
18 Michel Corajoud, Op.cit.