Landscape Design and the Language of Nature

STEPHEN PERRY, ROB REEVES AND JEANNIE SIM

Recognition that we need to live in a more ecologically sustainable way and that the physical forms of designed
landscapes are an expression of the social values and cultural drivers of the time has underpinned the call by
some landscape design professionals for a new design aesthetic - one that reflects modern ecological concerns.
However, for an 'ecological aesthetic' to be accepted, it must be capable of generating landscape forms that are
pleasurable to the general public, as it is the general public who will be responsible for delivering ecological
sustainability in the long term.
The power of aesthetics to influence how we perceive the world around us has been recognised both by
designers and psychologists (Nassauer, 2002; Richards, 2001; T uan, 1974). Similarly, over the last few
years, an awareness of the importance of aesthetics to ecologically sustainable designed landscapes has
been growing. This has been reflected in the call by some landscape design academics and practitioners
for a move towards a new design aesthetic for our ecological age (Howett, 1987; Bull, 1996; Koh, 1988;
Nassauer, 2002; Spirn, 1988).

Aesthetics is not about superficial embellishment, but is a very powerful way of knowing and can have a
profound effect on our relationship to the non-human environment (Nassauer, 2002; Richards, 2001;
Carlson, 2001; Leopold, 1989).

Carlson has argued, on the basis of Hepburn's deductions, that the aesthetic appreciation of nature will
range from the trivial to the serious. The trivial aesthetic response is based on the formalistic2 qualities of
an environment and its emotional impact, while the serious response requires a cognitive and much
deeper knowledge and understanding of the underlying properties and workings of the natural world or
the environment under consideration

Treib supports this when he states that it is the form and space of an environment that triggers our
perceptions and that sensory perception, coupled with cognition, is the primary vehicle for understanding
(Treib, 2002).

Design with meaning KEN TAYLOR
The garden as a major setting for human activity, and ignores gardens as places of experience with
spiritual connections which 'attempt to establish meaning by giving forms to nature' (Riley 1988,
p.136). content and not form

Content, meaning, context and significance
Meaning is connected with interpretation and presentation of not just the physical form of a place,
but also the associationism inherent in the ideas and ideologies that underlie the physical form of a
landscape, including a designed landscape.

Cultural geographers have been foremost in this field, concentrating on reading and interpreting
landscapes and deciphering meaning. They see landscape as a cultural construct, a product of our
ideologies taking concrete form (Duncan, J and Duncan, N I988; Baker and Biger 1992). Landscape
thereby reflects the character of society. It is a cultural phenomenon 'defined by our vision and interpreted
by our minds'. (Meinig, D I979, p.3). Place meaning has also been embraced by cultural heritage
professionals with a focus on the inter-relationship between people, events and places through time.

There are two linked challenges here for designers: how to engage users intellectually and
emotionally in the design through interpretative means; and how to give users the feeling of
participation. In this way meanings and attachment will accrue and enrich user experiences over time

Space connotes architectural volume, whilst place connotes being and dwelling in, 'where we experience
the meaningful events of our existence' (Norberg-Schultz 1971, p.19).
These include perceptual space (connected with experiences and emotions) and existential space (lived-
in space).
There is a challenge for designers to engage users and lead them to understand what is meant. Meaning in
designs may be apparent or it may need interpretation and accumulate with time; it will be based on
experiences (including the challenge of new experiences as well as that born of familiarity or connection
with history), human values and sense of fit.

CONTEXT
Context is perhaps more readily assimilated than meaning. Context is the way in which we make
comparisons with other places; it is related to our range of cultural experiences through which we situate
a place, see it and interpret it, and construct meaning from it

The enquiry inherent in my discussion is that related to the proposition that we should locate design
ideas and actions within a cultural context so that they have the opportunity to acquire, over time,
layers of symbolism, meaning and significance available to the community. We should also see this
as an opportunity to design in a pluralistic society, which brings a range of cultural baggage to the
ways in which landscape is seen and interpreted.

SIGNIFICANCE
Significance is a more difficult term. Significance suggests importance, connection with events and/or
people of note. 'Of note' does not mean exclusively or predominantly the well-known and famous.
Significance inheres in ordinary places-ordinarily sacred-connected with ordinary people. But whether
icons or ordinary places, significance is a metaphor for symbolism. Significant places are symbols of who
we are and of our connections with places through emotions.
Significance can be expressed as the response we make to knowing and understanding a place. It is a
human value judgement. Cultural heritage practice offers a definition of the concept of significance which
can be transferred to a discussion on design. Because of this cultural significance as a concept helps in
estimating the value of places, where those places that are likely to be significant are those which help an
understanding of the past or enrich the present and will be of value to future generations. 8

IDENTITY
Axiomatic to discussion of theoretical aspects of place meaning and significance is the proposition
that 'improved knowledge of the nature of place can contribute to the maintenance and manipulation
of existing places and the creation of new places' (Relph 1976, p.44). Central to this concept is that
identity is fundamental in everyday life: all places have identity, and this is relevant to landscape
designs as places for people. Also of relevance is Relph's view (p.6I) that 'identity of place is
comprised of three interrelated components, each irreducible to the other- physical features or
appearance, observable activities and functions, and meaning or symbols'. Both tangible or physical
identity (biophysical factors) and intangible identity related to existential distinctiveness and human
experiences are inextricably inter-woven with place meaning and significance. Fundamental to the
intangible aspects of identity are various components. The components which appear important to
me in landscape design terms are discussed below. II

SENSE OF PLACE
Ideally it is a combination of both, such as in the eighteenth century English landscape movement
where allusion to genius of the place meant not just capturing physical character and locale. Genius
of the place then referred equally to the associations with the spirit of a place as a result of the
relationship between people, place and memory. As an intellecmal movement it was informed by an
ideology of landscape as a culmral construct with socio-political implications.
Richard Payne Knight's The Landscape, A Didactic Poem (1794-), in particular the lines 'Yet in the
picture all delusions fiy, And nature's genuine charms we there descry; / Hence let us learn, in real
scenes, to trace The true ingredients of the painter's grace'.

A strong relationship between place meaning and identity on the one hand and cultural and historical
factors on the other is apparent. By this I do not refer to the mindless copying of design formats from
history, a sort of eclectic historical pastiche, but to where designs imply continuity of human
experience, are situated within a cultural and conceptual context and have potential to be read by
users as part of the experience and enjoyment of the designed place. They are those designs where
the designer opens opportunity for transaction and dialogue-participation-between the designed place
and users. Such transactions and dialogue will be based on users' existing experiences and cultural
background and on historical connections. The designer should also take the opportunity to provoke
the imagination of users, giving them new experiences and making new connections with place.
James Corner (1991) refers to this as 'critically engaging contemporary circumstances and tradition
Poetics of Gardens proposes the celebration of landscape architecture as an art form where designs
are 'adventures of the imagination' (p.I88).
Like Eisentein's sense of all scenes being a process of montage, so are all landscapes a montage or
series of layers, a text which can be read and which can tell a story, and can be interpreted to reveal
meaning and significance. This suggests that in landscape design work we need to design with layers
of meaning which open up opportunities for exercises of imagination by users within a cultural
context.

MEMORY, NATURE AND CULTURE
Central to the idea of genius loci and of layers in the landscape, including designed landscapes, is the
theme in Landscape and Memory (Schama 1995). All landscape, Schama claims, is ineluctably the work
of the mind and memory. In the Introduction he emphasises his main thesis that landscape: Before it can
ever be a repose for the senses ... is the work of the mind. Its scenery is built up as much from strata of memory
as from layers of rock. (pp.6-7) Transposing the conflation of landscape, mind and memory to designed
landscapes opens interesting opportunities for shaping landscapes, in which personal and collective
memory allusions are translated. The challenge for the designer is the interpretation and presentation of
the allusions in the design in a way that is available for users. Three contemporary examples serve to
illustrate the point.

In contrast to ecofundamental correctness, theirs is a humanistic approach where a complementary
dialogue between nature, culture and art is foremost. It is an holistic approach 'that encompasses
both nature and culture, that embodies function, sensory perception, and symbolic meaning, and that
embraces both the making of things and places and the sensing, using, and contemplating of them'
(Spirn 1988; Abstract, p.108).

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE MODEL
Parallel and relevant to an enquiry into meaning, and one from which landscape design criticism can learn
if it so chooses, is the ever-growing interest in everyday cultural (vernacular) landscapes. Here, the
central tenet is that landscapes are not what we see, but a way of seeing (Cosgrove I98+). It is a
humanistic approach to interpreting landscape as a cultural construct which has shifted logically to the
understanding that landscapes can not only be read but also interpreted as texts in which ideologies are
transformed into concrete forms (Duncan, J and Duncan, N I988). The touchstone for this development
was the insight gained on symbolism in landscapes, promulgated in writings predominantly by cultural
geographers in the 19708. Interest in cultural landscape theory and associated practice is an international
phenomenon, as Jacques (1995) demonstrates in 'The Rise of Cultural Landscapes'.

AESTHETICS AND MEANING
John Dixon Hunt as in eighteenth century gardens, there is a need 'to establish a new agenda of meanings
for the garden, an agenda that offers plurality, variety, and not simply formal maneuvers [sic]' (p.I38).
The implication is that aesthetics involve place identity related to human emotions and experience, and
thereby aesthetic questions are central to meaning. Aesthetics is not primarily to do with formal questions
of line and form in design. Eagleton (1990) is helpful to the discussion, offering the proposition that
'Aesthetics is a discourse of the body ... the term refers ... to the whole region of human perception and
sensation, in contrast to the more rarefied domain of conceptual thought' (p.13).

Aesthetics, therefore, concerns cultural context, associations and ways of seeing. Humanistic implications
for meaning in landscape designs are clear. The influence of twentieth century modernism has been to try
to objectify aesthetics and locate it in the designed object, removing it from the province of interpretation
and intention. This is akin to Kant's eighteenth century school of thought that aesthetic experience
involves detachment or disinterestedness.

The point here is that landscapes, including landscape designs, can never be isolated. All landscape
is representational and its aesthetic appreciation involves interaction between place and the
experiences we bring to engagement with place or landscape.

Nevertheless, if meaning is connected with presentation of physical signs and symbols which are
capable of interpretation by users through associationism, then designs can and do have meaning for
those who understand these signs and symbols and their encoded messages. The essence of meaning
essentially depends on the landscape architect being able to communicate with the receiver or user.
Such a transaction will occur where the signs and symbols are understood as part of a shared system
of beliefs or common ground. It will also occur where the receiver wants to know more about the
intellectual origins of a designed place or is led by the designer to disco er these and is then able to
relate the result to his/her own sense of place in time. We need to foster continuing debate on the
notion of landscape designs as works of art replete with meanings, as 'expressions or representations
of a culture's position vis-avis nature' (Hunt 1993, p.14o). Perhaps as designers we should also learn
more about interpretative techniques practised in museums or in heritage management. It is generally
accepted, for example, that the more knowledge that accrues about a place and its layers, the more is
the social sense of attachment. Landscape architects, therefore, need to interpret and present their
designs so that users can read them.
On the question of significance we need to be more cautious, particularly in present-day society
where the system of beliefs is more diffuse than, say, in eighteenth century Britain. Significance is a
characteristic that develops over time through understanding symbolism in places. Clues to
symbolism can be built into a design and will assist the emergence of significance over time. To help
this emergence, we should try to understand more about experience of landscape and how to capture
an essence of locality and place meaning. In developing meaning and significance in landscape designs,
we must also relate to the modern context as well as to history and memory so that designed places can
make a plurality of cultural connections and engage continuity. Perhaps we ought also, from time to time,
to respond to Luis Barragan's proposal (quoted in Krog I991, p.103) that in view of the environmental,
social, psychological and political chaos of the twentieth century, it is the duty of every garden to offer a
place of serenity. To this I would add the notion of landscape designs giving pleasure and enjoyment to
our senses in the long honoured tradition of the sensibility of the pleasure garden. This is a common
sensual theme throughout different cultures and it resonates through our historical and philosophical
underpinnings as a profession. It suggests a common experiential need in human beings, offering the
philosophical foundation for a phenomenological approach to design. This approach is one where cultural
context and meaning inextricably weave a web of richness and diversity which is suggestive of deeply felt
human ideas on the relationship between art, culture and nature. Such a mix may then be seen as an
experiential equation where human identity in landscape designs evolves from Relph's three
componentsphysical features, activities/functions and symbolism/meaning- and itself becomes the
touchstone for human significance to accrue in designs.

Landscape and Memory: cultural landscapes, intangible values and some
thoughts on Asia KEN TAYLOR
The connections, therefore, between landscape and identity and hence
memory, thought, and comprehension are fundamental to understanding of
landscape and human sense of place.

But memory of landscape is not always associated with pleasure. It can be
associated sometimes with loss, with pain, with social fracture and sense of
belonging gone, although the memory remains, albeit poignantly.
We see and make landscapes as a result of our shared system of beliefs and
ideologies. In this way landscape is a cultural construct, a mirror of our
memories and myths encoded with meanings which can be read and
interpreted.
Simon Schama (1995, pp.6/7) in Landscape and Memory contends that:
Before it can ever be the repose for the senses, landscape is the work of the
mind. Its scenery is built up as much from strata of memory as from layers of
rock.
Yet in this proposition, wilderness like all ideas of landscape, is a cultural
construct, a product of the mind framed by ideologies and experience.
Landscape is memory, there is no unmediated perception of nature. (Ignatieff
1995).
A common theme underpinning the concept of the ideology of landscape itself
as the setting for everything we do is that of the landscape as the repository of
intangible values and human meanings that nurture our very existence. This is
why landscape and memory are inseparable because landscape is the nerve
centre of our personal and collective memories.
Physical components Activities
IDENTITY
Symbols/Meanings
Figure 1 Place identity and its components (after Relph, 1976)

cultural landscapes are at the interface of culture and nature, tangible and
intangible heritage, biological and cultural diversity they represent a
closely woven net of relationships, the essence of culture and peoples
identity they are a symbol of the growing recognition of the
fundamental links between local communities and their heritage,
humankind and its natural environment.
Intimately connected with these landscapes are peoples stories and the things
of which memories are made: the cultural richness that promotes a sense of
local distinctiveness.

A living entity and record of social history: interface of culture and nature
Whilst there exist relict or fossil landscapes, most cultural landscapes are living
landscapes where changes over time result in a montage effect or series of
layers, each layer able to tell the human story and relationships between people
and natural processes. This is summarised in paper Understanding Cultural
Landscapes Definition (Leader-Elliot et al 2004) with the commentary that It
is now widely accepted that landscapes reflect human activity and are imbued
with cultural values. They combine elements of space and time, and represent
political as well as social and cultural constructs. As they have evolved over
time, and as human activity has changed, they have acquired many layers of
meaning that can be analysed through historical, archaeological, geographical
and sociological study. The character of the landscape thus reflects the values
of the people who have shaped it, and who continue to live in it. Culture itself is
the shaping force. Landscape is a cultural expression that does not happen by
chance but is created by design as a result of human ideologies (Figure 2).

Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural
and/or cultural heritage and its attributes. Examining the conditions of integrity,
therefore requires assessing the extent to which the property:
a) includes all elements necessary to express its outstanding universal value;
b) is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and
processes which convey the propertys significance;
c) suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect