Since all of these derive partly or wholly from an evolutionary perspective, a brief review of Darwin’s theory will precede the four derivative theories. In this section, four theories are examined that have been developed to explain landscape aesthetics. Also, because of rapid changes to landscapes, some argue that practitioners were not going to fiddle with theory while the landscape burned. It may partly be that the philosophy of aesthetics and the literature on landscape design and art history have much about aesthetics but notoriously little of a practical orientation which could apply to landscape quality assessment (Dearden & Sadler, 1989). While the lack of theory has been widely recognized, the reason for the void is less apparent. While the years since Appleton’s comment have seen the emergence of a range of theories, described by some as a scattering of diverse theoretical origins (Sell et al, 1984), nevertheless they agreed with Appleton that the lack of a unifying theoretical structure does not allow a rational basis for ‘diagnosis, prescription and prognosis’.
#AESTHETIC SCENERY PROFESSIONAL#
As Appleton aptly put it: Just as the Brisbane wicket after rain used to be said to reduce all batsmen to an equal plane of incompetence, so this absence of aesthetic theory brings the professional down to the same plane as the man in the street (1975b). Information processing theory, Stephen & Rachel Kaplan click hereĪlthough much research has been conducted of landscapes to better understand how they are perceived by people, indeed the field has been described as “rampantly empirical” (Porteous, 1982), there has been a general lack of theory to guide it.
Prospect and refuge theory, Jay Appleton click hereĪffective theory, Roger Ulrich click here