Krajobraz - zupełnie inna wartość, zabytek, ochrona

• Authors: Zwiech Tomasz

Title variants

EN

The Landscape — a Completely New Value, Monument, Protection

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

EN

During the post-war decades of the twentieth century there has been an evident increase of common awareness about the crucial character of the quality of the natural environment. In different periods, this awareness assumed various names such as „biosphere”, „natural environment”, and „ecology”. The meaning itself, however, remains the same: social concern for the future of civilisation. Recently, the most frequently applied term has been „landscape”, in its broad sense. At the same time, the landscape is not only the focus of universal interest but belongs to each individual. It is regarded as indispensable but, at the same time, it has been described as an „interdisciplinary orphan”. The numerous professions dealing with the landscape include a branch which concentrates its attention to a particularly intense degree — the landscape architects. So far, the latter have not developed a specific methodology and appear to be adopting assorted methods from such domains as architecture or the natural sciences. In the first case, the visual and functional aspect of the landscape tends to be overemphasised; in a second instance, the main goal seems to be balanced natural conditions enhanced by aesthetic value. There is one thing the both options have in common, which is identifying landscapes with territories. Both methods also prove correct in the realm of landscape models such as gardens and parks, but they seem to fail in dealing with problems which embrace vast areas and the diversity of landuse. By way of example, today the only method to preserve valuable landscape appears to be either to limit the landowners’ rights or to purchase at least a large part of the land in order to introduce special conditions for its management. Obviously, both solutions are quite unreal in democracy and a free market economy. The missing element in the above described approach towards the landscape is a due appreciation of its human dimension and hilistic character. Recognition of the multidimensional quality of the landscape e.g. its natural social and mental aspects bring the contemporary stance closer to a New Age ontology relevant to quantum physics, the relativity theory and Oriental mysticism, as exemplified by „The Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra. The following ideas of the so-called new paradigm are easily applicable for any landscape issue and could be developed into a landscape methodology that would meet current standards and needs: 1. The mechanistic classical scientific paradigm believed that in any complex system the dynamics of the whole could be derived from the properties of fragments. The new paradigm, on the other hand, assumes that these properties certainly contribute to our understanding of the whole but, simultaneously, they can be fully understood only through the dynamics of the whole. 2. The old paradigm declares that there existed certain fundamental structures and that the mechanisms through which they interacted gave rise to a new process. The contemporary paradigm claims that the process itself is primary and that every structure we observe is a manifestation of its underlying counterpart. 3. The old paradigm contended that scientific descriptions were objective, in other words, independent of the human observer and the process of knowledge. The new paradigm leads us to believe that the understanding of the process of knowledge has to be included explicitly in the description of natural phenomena. 4. The age-old metaphor of knowledge as a construction with solid foundations has been used by Western science and philosophy for thousands of years. Currently, we may replace it by one of an interconnected network which represents the observed phenomena existing by virtue of their mutually consistent relationships. 5. The paradigm of old was based on a belief in the certainty of scientific knowledge. Today, it is recognised that all scientific concepts and theories are limited and approximate descriptions of reality which never provide complete and definitive understanding. 6. Finally, the paradigm of science and technology used to be based on the conviction that understanding nature implies domination by man. The new paradigm advocates a shift from that attitude towards one of co-operation and nonviolence.

• Publisher: Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
• Journal: Ochrona Zabytków
• Year: 1995
• Issue: 3-4
• Pages: 288-296

Dates

published

1995

Contributors

author

Zwiech Tomasz

References

• E. Bartman, Landscape Planning in Poland: methodological remarks, Hannover University 1990.
• A. Michałowski, T. Zwiech, Zasady ochrony krajobrazu kulturowego (projekt), Warszawa 1994.
• D. Lowenthal, Historie Landscapes: Indispensable Hub, Interdisciplinary Orphan (Keynote speech, The Historic Landscape Reconsidered, Landscape Design Program Symposium, George Washington University), Washington, D.C. 1990.
• J. B. Jackson, Discovering the Vernacular Landscape, New Haven and London 1984.
• Yi-Fu Tuan, Topophilia, a Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values, New York 1990.
• R. Dubos, A God Within, a Positive Philosophy fo r a More Complete Fulfillment of Human Potentials, New York 1972.
• J. B. Jackson, The Necessity fo r Ruins and Other Topics, Amherst 1980.
• F. Capra, Tao fizyki. W poszukiwaniu podobieństw między fizyką wspołczesną a mistycyzmem Wschodu, Krakow 1994.
• F. Capra, Punkt zwrotny. Nauka, społeczeństwo, nowa kultura, Warszawa 1987.
• F. Capra, The Tao of Physics. An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modem Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Third Edition, Expanded, Boston 1991.
• D. L. Armand, Nauka o krajobrazie. Podstawy teorii i metody logiczno-matematyczne, Warszawa 1980.
• B. Jałowiecki, Społeczne wytwarzanie przestrzeni, Warszawa 1988.
• H. Libura, Badania wyobrażeń geograficznych na przykładzie mieszkańcow Sanoka, Wrocław 1988;
• K. H. Wojciechowski, Problemy percepcji i oceny estetycznej krajobrazu, Lublin 1986.
• K. Lynch, The Image of tbe City, Cambridge-London I960.
• P. Groth (ed.), Vision, Culture and Landscape. Working Papers from The Berkeley Symposium on Cultural Landscape Interpretation, Berkeley 1990.

Identifiers

ISSN

0029-8247