4
L. Le Dû-Blayo and O. Musard
is confirmed by J. Nash (2013): “Place-naming creates links between previously unmapped landscapes and represents how through the naming of landscapes, and even
underwater landscapes, places are created, remembered, and travelled to”. Secondly,
not all terrestrial areas regarded as landscapes are living environments or even everyday landscapes, one striking example being the parallel with high mountain areas
we draw below. Lastly, we should point out that the definition of landscape given in
the French version of the European Landscape Convention uses the term territoire
(territory). The difference in the translation is quite strong, area being much more
neutral than territoire since it does not necessarily imply any social ownership.
The key remaining questions are a matter of perception by people. This opens
up the field of research to the sensory perception of underwater seascapes, to representations (aesthetic, scientific, professional, etc.) of underwater seascapes, and to
human access to such areas.
The first area of reflection relates to the visibility of the underwater seascape: the
depth of vision of underwater seascapes is generally smaller than in air and can, in
very turbid water, be limited to a few dozen centimetres. The notions of panorama,
or even quite simply perspective, viewpoint, belvedere and background are therefore
somewhat inoperative in the undersea environment. Such reduced visibility is a
major obstacle to the installation of certain landscape monitoring tools, such as
photographic observatories for example. Is the scale of vision in the submarine world
compatible with the notion of landscape? Obviously, in the right conditions, undersea
views do exist and provide matter for spectacular photos or films. Conversely, we
must emphasize that many terrestrial situations are difficult to put in perspective
(very partitioned urban landscapes, thick forests or groves) and there can be little
or no visibility (landscapes in fog or heavy rain, landscapes by night). But more
radically, we must reassert that landscape is not solely perceived by our eyesight
but by all the other senses too. Now, acoustic atmospheres and tactile perceptions
increase ten-fold in water, and this clearly enhances the emotions we feel when
visiting underwater seascapes and thus the enjoyment of diving (Straughan 2010).
The study of underwater seascapes is therefore a stimulating and promising area
of research in the light of theoretical advances in emotional geographies (Davidson
et al. 2005).
The question of representations is also often raised. In the debate on the artialisation of land, it emerges as a primary condition of the landscape’s very existence;
but it is also part of the historical approach to interrelation between cultural media
and landscape enhancement.
Lastly, access to this landscape is a recurring question: there is no doubt that
the undersea environment is not a human living environment and that relatively few
people have had the opportunity to see these seascapes in situ. But this question
applies equally to all terrestrial environments hostile to man, such as cold deserts,
which not only cannot be a lived in but are only seldom travelled to, as part of
rare expeditions. Yet, the Antarctic does offer landscapes and people everywhere are
fascinated by pictures of it. To exist, a landscape need not be a living environment
for people; it must merely have been perceived and recounted by someone, like the
highest mountain peaks.
L. Le Dû-Blayo and O. Musard
is confirmed by J. Nash (2013): “Place-naming creates links between previously unmapped landscapes and represents how through the naming of landscapes, and even
underwater landscapes, places are created, remembered, and travelled to”. Secondly,
not all terrestrial areas regarded as landscapes are living environments or even everyday landscapes, one striking example being the parallel with high mountain areas
we draw below. Lastly, we should point out that the definition of landscape given in
the French version of the European Landscape Convention uses the term territoire
(territory). The difference in the translation is quite strong, area being much more
neutral than territoire since it does not necessarily imply any social ownership.
The key remaining questions are a matter of perception by people. This opens
up the field of research to the sensory perception of underwater seascapes, to representations (aesthetic, scientific, professional, etc.) of underwater seascapes, and to
human access to such areas.
The first area of reflection relates to the visibility of the underwater seascape: the
depth of vision of underwater seascapes is generally smaller than in air and can, in
very turbid water, be limited to a few dozen centimetres. The notions of panorama,
or even quite simply perspective, viewpoint, belvedere and background are therefore
somewhat inoperative in the undersea environment. Such reduced visibility is a
major obstacle to the installation of certain landscape monitoring tools, such as
photographic observatories for example. Is the scale of vision in the submarine world
compatible with the notion of landscape? Obviously, in the right conditions, undersea
views do exist and provide matter for spectacular photos or films. Conversely, we
must emphasize that many terrestrial situations are difficult to put in perspective
(very partitioned urban landscapes, thick forests or groves) and there can be little
or no visibility (landscapes in fog or heavy rain, landscapes by night). But more
radically, we must reassert that landscape is not solely perceived by our eyesight
but by all the other senses too. Now, acoustic atmospheres and tactile perceptions
increase ten-fold in water, and this clearly enhances the emotions we feel when
visiting underwater seascapes and thus the enjoyment of diving (Straughan 2010).
The study of underwater seascapes is therefore a stimulating and promising area
of research in the light of theoretical advances in emotional geographies (Davidson
et al. 2005).
The question of representations is also often raised. In the debate on the artialisation of land, it emerges as a primary condition of the landscape’s very existence;
but it is also part of the historical approach to interrelation between cultural media
and landscape enhancement.
Lastly, access to this landscape is a recurring question: there is no doubt that
the undersea environment is not a human living environment and that relatively few
people have had the opportunity to see these seascapes in situ. But this question
applies equally to all terrestrial environments hostile to man, such as cold deserts,
which not only cannot be a lived in but are only seldom travelled to, as part of
rare expeditions. Yet, the Antarctic does offer landscapes and people everywhere are
fascinated by pictures of it. To exist, a landscape need not be a living environment
for people; it must merely have been perceived and recounted by someone, like the
highest mountain peaks.