1 Introduction: Towards a Shared Language: Semantic Exchanges . . .
7
the turn of the nineteenth century, the French novelist in fact predicting the invention
of these areas in the second half of the twentieth century (Marchand 2000). Observed
from a general view point, better studied from a specific angle, the underwater world,
or at least the way it was portrayed, at last became a more attractive reality.
In parallel to the dissemination of books and magazines on deep-sea diving, undersea pictures gradually emerged, according to J.-P. Montier (1998), as a medium
creating and stemming from a certain emotional and sensory vision of what divers
regard as landscape, a beautiful underwater landscape. This aesthetic landscape characterisation, which remained relatively limited in terms of pictorial works until the
1970s, is closely linked to an area of practice that divers call a dive site; by transposition, it extends the reflection of F. Tremblay and Ph. Poullaouec-Gonidec (2002):
“By belonging to a recreation group [. . . ] an individual acquires specific knowledge
(interpretation keys) which, through the combination of various distancing tools (literature, painting, photography), allow him to mediatise his intimate experience of
the site”.
In the 1990s, various authors of diving books thus used the term “underwater
landscape” to encourage discovery of the subaqueous environment and underwater
species (Weinberg 1993; Dutrieux et al. 1999). Furthermore, in recent years, this
principle of progressively reading the underwater landscape and the characteristic
and emblematic species its holds has led private and public operators to develop
global diagrams or representations of the undersea site to be explored. Building on
the mapping procedures used in science, these cross-sectional, three-dimensional,
perspective, or flat reproductions suggest standard trails via outstanding points. They
reproduce the mosaic of topographic and wildlife features that are representative and
characteristic of the site. The observer thus sees the site globally and spatially as if
the sea had withdrawn, as if the body of water had disappeared. Such use of pictorial
representations contributes to the recurring use of “underwater landscape” by divers.
This system of representation is undeniably in line with a process of understanding
and consuming undersea areas in general, and sites of underwater practices in particular. It becomes an educational and tourist tool fostering faster recognition and
knowledge of a site and its essential components. These landscape transcripts and
the trails they propose are a combination of the biotic and abiotic features taken
into account and of consumer logics seeking to define the most “interesting” things
to see, thus extending to underwater landscapes the tradition of tourist guides and
excursions popularised since the nineteenth century.
Thanks to the extension of protection measures, this sensory discovery and characterisation of underwater seascapes has recently begun to gain ground among
managers of undersea protected areas, giving rise to state orders in respect of underwater seascapes. Landscape design approaches are thus applied to the underwater
landscape with the whole battery of site and landscape atmosphere descriptions: different views, main features, block diagrams, sketches, photographs, etc. (Aubinet
2012). This voluntary process of discovering, assessing, sharing and managing underwater landscapes thus reaches beyond analysing visitor impact on the protection
of seascapes and the undersea environment (Barker and Roberts 2004). Underwater
landscapes become the object of broader consideration, within the meaning of the
European Landscape Convention.
7
the turn of the nineteenth century, the French novelist in fact predicting the invention
of these areas in the second half of the twentieth century (Marchand 2000). Observed
from a general view point, better studied from a specific angle, the underwater world,
or at least the way it was portrayed, at last became a more attractive reality.
In parallel to the dissemination of books and magazines on deep-sea diving, undersea pictures gradually emerged, according to J.-P. Montier (1998), as a medium
creating and stemming from a certain emotional and sensory vision of what divers
regard as landscape, a beautiful underwater landscape. This aesthetic landscape characterisation, which remained relatively limited in terms of pictorial works until the
1970s, is closely linked to an area of practice that divers call a dive site; by transposition, it extends the reflection of F. Tremblay and Ph. Poullaouec-Gonidec (2002):
“By belonging to a recreation group [. . . ] an individual acquires specific knowledge
(interpretation keys) which, through the combination of various distancing tools (literature, painting, photography), allow him to mediatise his intimate experience of
the site”.
In the 1990s, various authors of diving books thus used the term “underwater
landscape” to encourage discovery of the subaqueous environment and underwater
species (Weinberg 1993; Dutrieux et al. 1999). Furthermore, in recent years, this
principle of progressively reading the underwater landscape and the characteristic
and emblematic species its holds has led private and public operators to develop
global diagrams or representations of the undersea site to be explored. Building on
the mapping procedures used in science, these cross-sectional, three-dimensional,
perspective, or flat reproductions suggest standard trails via outstanding points. They
reproduce the mosaic of topographic and wildlife features that are representative and
characteristic of the site. The observer thus sees the site globally and spatially as if
the sea had withdrawn, as if the body of water had disappeared. Such use of pictorial
representations contributes to the recurring use of “underwater landscape” by divers.
This system of representation is undeniably in line with a process of understanding
and consuming undersea areas in general, and sites of underwater practices in particular. It becomes an educational and tourist tool fostering faster recognition and
knowledge of a site and its essential components. These landscape transcripts and
the trails they propose are a combination of the biotic and abiotic features taken
into account and of consumer logics seeking to define the most “interesting” things
to see, thus extending to underwater landscapes the tradition of tourist guides and
excursions popularised since the nineteenth century.
Thanks to the extension of protection measures, this sensory discovery and characterisation of underwater seascapes has recently begun to gain ground among
managers of undersea protected areas, giving rise to state orders in respect of underwater seascapes. Landscape design approaches are thus applied to the underwater
landscape with the whole battery of site and landscape atmosphere descriptions: different views, main features, block diagrams, sketches, photographs, etc. (Aubinet
2012). This voluntary process of discovering, assessing, sharing and managing underwater landscapes thus reaches beyond analysing visitor impact on the protection
of seascapes and the undersea environment (Barker and Roberts 2004). Underwater
landscapes become the object of broader consideration, within the meaning of the
European Landscape Convention.