144
E. Bigando
expanse of scenery that may be seen in a single view, and the fact that the divers’
experience of the underwater world is necessarily correlated with the question of
visibility and field of vision. However, when reference is made to the opportunity
given to divers to ‘survey’ or ‘lay their eyes’ on the underwater world, the notion of
landscape is more widely associated with the ‘general vision one might have of a
submerged place’, whether this be qualified as an ‘overall view’ or as an ‘ensemble
of features offered to our gaze.’ Some participants insisted on the fact that appraising
the underwater landscape supposed or necessitated ‘a certain distance’ or ‘depth of
field of vision’, a ‘wide-angle view’ or ‘open field of vision.’ While the underwater
landscape is most frequently defined through conventional concepts such as a ‘wide
shot’ or ‘panoramic view’, some divers were more original in their evocation of their
subaqueous visual experiences, speaking in terms of a panorama ‘in the round’,
of vision in ‘three dimensions’ or, for some even, ‘in four dimensions.’ For every
diver, perception of the underwater world as a landscape necessarily implied a certain
distance, favouring a global appraisal rather than a detailed, close-up, observation.
We should equally point out that certain references to photography were also made
(some survey participants had indicated that they were professional photographers),
along with pictorial depictions (3 divers). They described the underwater landscape
as being ‘a painting of open vistas’, ‘a painting full of colour and life’ or even ‘a
painting brought alive with touches of vivid colour.’ Yet, however the participants
chose to bear witness to their subaqueous experiences, and whether the notion of
their gaze was mentioned explicitly or not, the concept of underwater landscape
necessarily involves the way the individual views his experience, the way he “poses
his regard on” his surroundings. It is also clear that the ‘site’ where the diving takes
place and which the diver encompasses in his or her gaze, is the underwater equivalent
of the terrestrial ‘expanse of land” which the eye embraces.
Finally, but to a lesser degree than for the preceding categories (since only 6 divers
refer to this), the notion of underwater landscape has equally been defined in terms
of ecological or even biological considerations. This manner of characterising the
underwater landscape is always exclusive, with the notion of landscape evoking an
ecosystem or biotope, and is done so in three different ways. Either these terms are
totally assimilated, in which case the landscape becomes a synonym for the biotope
(‘the underwater landscape is for me, currently, synonymous with the biotope’ or ‘it
is a specific biotope’); or the landscape represents one particular way of exploring a
specific ecosystem (‘it’s a snapshot of the marine ecosystem, with its fauna, flora and
history. . . ’, ‘it’s an overview which enables one to explore the whole ecosystem of
a site without necessarily being able to identify different species, but more globally
the environment in which they live and how they move about within it.’). In some
cases, the notion of landscape has an added value, in that it operates a change in
scale (‘a place composed of ecosystems and biotopes’, ‘a site in the broadest sense
of the term, composed of different biotopes to observe’). In the last instance, the
landscape is considered as being part of a logical arrangement of interlocking scales
formed by ‘different ecological strata.’ This provides an even broader vision, one that
encompasses a whole network of ecosystems or biotopes. We should also remember
that when divers spoke of landscape, they never once chose to refer to ‘habitat’,
thereby confirming their intuitive avoidance of the landscape-habitat equation.
E. Bigando
expanse of scenery that may be seen in a single view, and the fact that the divers’
experience of the underwater world is necessarily correlated with the question of
visibility and field of vision. However, when reference is made to the opportunity
given to divers to ‘survey’ or ‘lay their eyes’ on the underwater world, the notion of
landscape is more widely associated with the ‘general vision one might have of a
submerged place’, whether this be qualified as an ‘overall view’ or as an ‘ensemble
of features offered to our gaze.’ Some participants insisted on the fact that appraising
the underwater landscape supposed or necessitated ‘a certain distance’ or ‘depth of
field of vision’, a ‘wide-angle view’ or ‘open field of vision.’ While the underwater
landscape is most frequently defined through conventional concepts such as a ‘wide
shot’ or ‘panoramic view’, some divers were more original in their evocation of their
subaqueous visual experiences, speaking in terms of a panorama ‘in the round’,
of vision in ‘three dimensions’ or, for some even, ‘in four dimensions.’ For every
diver, perception of the underwater world as a landscape necessarily implied a certain
distance, favouring a global appraisal rather than a detailed, close-up, observation.
We should equally point out that certain references to photography were also made
(some survey participants had indicated that they were professional photographers),
along with pictorial depictions (3 divers). They described the underwater landscape
as being ‘a painting of open vistas’, ‘a painting full of colour and life’ or even ‘a
painting brought alive with touches of vivid colour.’ Yet, however the participants
chose to bear witness to their subaqueous experiences, and whether the notion of
their gaze was mentioned explicitly or not, the concept of underwater landscape
necessarily involves the way the individual views his experience, the way he “poses
his regard on” his surroundings. It is also clear that the ‘site’ where the diving takes
place and which the diver encompasses in his or her gaze, is the underwater equivalent
of the terrestrial ‘expanse of land” which the eye embraces.
Finally, but to a lesser degree than for the preceding categories (since only 6 divers
refer to this), the notion of underwater landscape has equally been defined in terms
of ecological or even biological considerations. This manner of characterising the
underwater landscape is always exclusive, with the notion of landscape evoking an
ecosystem or biotope, and is done so in three different ways. Either these terms are
totally assimilated, in which case the landscape becomes a synonym for the biotope
(‘the underwater landscape is for me, currently, synonymous with the biotope’ or ‘it
is a specific biotope’); or the landscape represents one particular way of exploring a
specific ecosystem (‘it’s a snapshot of the marine ecosystem, with its fauna, flora and
history. . . ’, ‘it’s an overview which enables one to explore the whole ecosystem of
a site without necessarily being able to identify different species, but more globally
the environment in which they live and how they move about within it.’). In some
cases, the notion of landscape has an added value, in that it operates a change in
scale (‘a place composed of ecosystems and biotopes’, ‘a site in the broadest sense
of the term, composed of different biotopes to observe’). In the last instance, the
landscape is considered as being part of a logical arrangement of interlocking scales
formed by ‘different ecological strata.’ This provides an even broader vision, one that
encompasses a whole network of ecosystems or biotopes. We should also remember
that when divers spoke of landscape, they never once chose to refer to ‘habitat’,
thereby confirming their intuitive avoidance of the landscape-habitat equation.