Von der Schwierigkeit, „Landschaft“ oder „Kulturlandschaft“ allgemeingültig zu definieren

Autor/innen

  • Ludger Gailing Leibniz-Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung (IRS), Flakenstraße 28–31, 15537, Erkner, Deutschland
  • Markus Leibenath Leibniz-Institut für ökologische Raumentwicklung (IÖR), Weberplatz 1, 01217, Dresden, Deutschland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-011-0129-8

Schlagwörter:

Cultural landscape, Landscape, Space, Culture, Second-order observations, Social constructivism

Abstract

Instead of striving to define ‘landscape’ and ‘cultural landscape’ universally, the contribution highlights the multiple perspectives from which these terms might be regarded: They are valuable in academic and practical contexts exactly because they can carry heterogeneous meanings, because they evoke positive connotations and because they can tie together diverse approaches in spatial research. The article is intended to identify and describe central positions by pairs in the semantic fields of ‘landscape’ which are fraught with tension. The elements of each pair, e.g. normative versus descriptive or subjective versus objective notions of landscape, are to be understood as opposed poles between which productive frictions can arise. Furthermore the semantic differences between ‘landscape’, ‘cultural landscape’ and the related terms ‘space’ and ‘culture’ are discussed. The authors adopt a moderate constructivist perspective, which can be characterized as discourse-analytical in a wider sense: By analyzing and systematizing how other scholars employ ‘landscape’ and ‘cultural landscape’ and how they define them in relation to other terms, the authors present second-order observations. One finding is that the constitution of the meaning of the words ‘landscape’ and ‘cultural landscape’ always is a matter of perspective: It is crucial from which academic perspective (second level of observation) which processes of ascribing meaning (first level of observation) are studied.

Downloads

Download-Daten sind nocht nicht verfügbar.

Literaturhinweise

Assmann, A. (1994): Zum Problem der Identität aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Sicht. In: Lindner, R. (Hrsg.): Die Wiederkehr des Regionalen. Über neue Formen kultureller Identität. Frankfurt am Main, New York, 13–35.

Bausinger, H. (1999): Identität. In: Bausinger, H.; Jeggle, U.; Korff, G.; Scharfe, M. (Hrsg.): Grundzüge der Volkskunde. Darmstadt, 204–263.

Bender, B. (2006): Place and Landscape. In: Tilley, C.; Keane, W.; Küchler, S.; Rowlands, M.; Spyer, P. (Hrsg.): Handbook of Material Culture. London, 303–314.

Blotevogel, H. H. (2000): Zur Konjunktur der Regionsdiskurse. In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 27, 9/10, 491–506.

Downloads

Veröffentlicht

2012-04-30

Ausgabe

Rubrik

Forschungsbeitrag

Zitierweise

1.
Gailing L, Leibenath M. Von der Schwierigkeit, „Landschaft“ oder „Kulturlandschaft“ allgemeingültig zu definieren. RuR [Internet]. 30. April 2012 [zitiert 15. August 2026];70(2):95–106. Verfügbar unter: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/862

Teilen

Am häufigsten gelesenen Artikel dieser/dieses Autor/in

1 2 > >>