Landscape which we really see (original) (raw)

We admire some kinds of landscape and dislike others. Some prefer one kind of landscape and some prefer another. This phenomenon is dependent on a variety of factors, some of them well known and some moot. Our aesthetic evaluation of landscape is usually seen as an obvious, natural, human reaction. Despite this general opinion, our ability to perceive the aesthetic value of landscape is very influenced by our cultural environment, and acquired during our socialization. This becomes apparent when we focus our attention on a different cultural environment and find that the differences are remarkable. "Our excitement about the landscape or nature is often received as a default reaction in spite of it is influenced maybe even created by the culture. We can see it when we look at the different cultures how they see it, or just to our own europian history." (Stibral, 2008:193) Our preferences are particularly based on ancient theories of an ideal landscape, one which is able to provide enough food and refuge. This means that our consciousness is permanently searching for a landscape like home, with resources suited to our lives. In simple terms, we can say that our visual preferences are strongly influenced by our needs. On the other hand, we can be enthralled by a distinct different kind of landscape. Our evaluation is always dependent on the culture in which we are raised. The reason is clear; the needs of various other peoples living in different climatic conditions are distinct from our own and their aesthetic preferences reflect this. We can easily recognize the pleasant feelings evoked by a landscape which appears to be bountiful and well supplied with water and quarry. This place should have enough trees to provide shade and, simultaneously, enough light and space for growing plants and grazing animals. These coinciding elements are easily recognizable and searching for them is straightforward On the other hand we can encounter optical phenomena which positively affect the majority of observers, even though it is not easy to find any rational cause for our fancy. An interesting example is the reflection of moonlight on water. This phenomenon is so significant in our culture, that we have a particular word, moonglade, for it. This phenomenon occurs as a pleasant aesthetic experience to the majority of people who have the opportunity to see it. However, we may ask, what is the link between this and our pragmatic subconscious, which prefers suggestions with a sensible context? Here is the point where we ask if our mind is really manipulated only by its needs. In this specific example we just can´t find the coherence. What influences, other than pragmatic necessity, affect how our subconscious synthesizes meaning? The landscape is perceived not only visually but also by our other senses. Thus, when we assess all the preferred visual parts of a landscape, it is also important what we are feeling or hearing at that moment. This is the view of the anthropologist Sarah Pink. Indeed, the visual aspect may occupy a quite different position in the sensory hierarchy of