Покомпонентний підхід дослідження естетики ландшафту

Н. О. Олексійченко, Н. В. Гатальська



N. O. Oleksiichenko, N. V. Gatalska


As a result of analytical studies of existing principles and approaches to assess the aesthetics of landscapes, aspects of which the systematization of them is carried out - the presence of a person in a medium at the time of analysis or detachment (the theory of activity and distant theories of aesthetic perception, respectively) are revealed; orientation to the study of the landscape as an aesthetic object (objective or object-oriented) and human as a subject of perception of aesthetic qualities (subjectivist or subject-oriented).

In the context of the distant theories of aesthetic perception, aesthetics is seen as an internal property of objects and does not depend on individual features of a person. In this time, as theories of activity are based on the work of J. Dewey's "Art as experience," in which the author states that for the understanding of aesthetics, a connection is needed between the works of art and the everyday of man and proves the validity of "popular art".

It was established that focusing of scientists' attention on objective factors influencing the aesthetic attractiveness of landscapes contributed to the development of approaches and methods of studying its material forms. At the same time, a central place in the research of other scientists was occupied by a person as a subject of perception and appreciation of the aesthetics of the landscape. It is found that the greatest achievements of scientists are concentrated in the range of object-oriented approaches, strategies and methods for studying aesthetics of the landscape, in particular those that focus on the evaluation of its individual components and can be defined as a component-based approach.

The subject of studies of the component approach is to assess the aesthetic qualities of the landscape as a total value of the qualitative characteristics of its components. Specific methods used within the component approach are phytocoenic and morphological analysis, estimated cartography, photo fixation, gis technology, etc. The results of the analysis of the aesthetic qualities of the landscape are reduced to parameterization of the object (a separate component of the landscape), which become the basis of the evaluation.

It is established that within the framework of the component approach among theoretical and methodological works the most important role in assessing the aesthetic qualities of the landscape is given to the relief and planting. The importance of relief for the aesthetics of the landscape is also emphasized by D. L. Linton (1968), which distinguishes two main components that, in his opinion, form the landscape of landscapes - a relief and a cover of relief (both natural and artificial). To assess the characteristics of the relief author identified six criteria - relative heights, slope steepness, area dissection, depth and frequency of occurrence of valleys, the degree of isolation of individual forms of relief from each other.

Investigation of the aesthetic qualities of plantations, as the main form-forming component of park landscapes, is oriented on the definition:

- vitality of plantations, and aesthetic factor is defined as a consequence of plant resistance due to their biological characteristics to a complex of environmental factors;

- decorative characteristics of individual plants and groups, indicators of which determine the aesthetic quality of park landscapes.

The approaches to studying the aesthetics of landscapes, based on which the evaluation of the qualitative characteristics of individual components of the object is the method proposed by L. N. Vdoviuk and A. A. Motoshina (2012), which involves the use of a scale of a number of criteria (contrast of landscapes, color gamma, depth, and the diversity of prospects, the presence of water objects in the landscape structure, the participation of the forest in the formation of the landscape, the degree of anthropogenic transformation of the landscape, the presence of symbolic objects in the landscapes), by which the values obtained should be conducted in scoring points.

Focusing on the qualitative characteristics of the spatial-spatial structure of plantations and its evaluation according to the means of harmonizing the composition distinguishes the approach David E. Whiting (2007), which distinguishes eleven key aspects in the composition of plantations to create a harmonized spatial-object structure of the object , namely: unity, scale, balance, simplicity and diversity, emphasis and consistency in their relation to the line, form, texture and color. The approach involves identifying and analyzing the use of each of the principles of composition, as well as the degree of their expression and harmony, is descriptive in nature.

To the complex component-based methods, which involves the study of aesthetic characteristics of the landscape, along with their taxonomic-phytocoenic features, is the method of aesthetic assessment of biocenoses, developed by VP Cucumber, which includes two evaluation scales – taxonomic phytocenotic (phytocenosis bonite, its longitude, soil moisture, the nature of the relief, species composition and the richness of the grass cover, the age of the tree stands, litter of the site, etc.) and the aesthetic, which is based on subjective estimation of plantings according to certain parameters. The scores aesthetics of the landscape and its emotional assessments are further united into a single system.

Thus, in spite of the relatively large number of component-based approaches and methods for assessing the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, it's worth noting that they are not all integrated into the general system and only characterize the individual components of the park landscape from different perspectives. The most sophisticated in this context is the method of aesthetic assessment of biocenoses, developed by VP Cucumber, which includes two evaluation scales – taxonomic phytocenotic and emotional. An important aspect of existing component-based methods and approaches is the use of quantitative indicators that are oriented to assess the state of the components of the park

The space, undoubtedly, influences the aesthetics of the park landscape, but their excellent sanitary condition does not guarantee high aesthetics.

Повний текст:




Galushko, R. V. (1999). Biomorfologicheskie priznaki dlia ekologo-esteticheskoi otcenki parkovykh soobshchestv [Biomorphological features for the ecological-aesthetic assessment of park communities]. Biull. Nikit. botan. sada, 81, 23–27.

Hrynasiuk, A. R. (2014). Metodychni osnovy otsinky atraktyvnosti landshaftiv [Methodical bases for assessing the attractiveness of landscapes]. Pryroda Zakhidnoho Polissia ta prylehlykh terytorii, 11, 132-135.

Hrozdynskyi, M. D., Savytska O. V. (2005). Estetyka landshaftu. [Landscape aesthetics]. Polihraf. Tsentr «Kyivskyi universytet»,183.

Gurskii A. V. (1955). Metody otcenki sostoianii drevesnykh nasadzhenii i prognoz ikh rosta i dogovechnosti [Methods of estimation of the condition of tree plantations and the forecast of their growth and longevity]. Biulleten Glavnogo botanicheskogo sada, 21, 16–24.

Dirin, D. A., Popov E. S. (2010). Otcenka peizazhno-esteticheskoi privlekatelnosti landshaftov : metodologicheskii obzor [Estimation of landscape-aesthetic appeal of landscapes: methodological review]. Iz-vo Altai. gos. un-ta, 3, 120–124.

Kant, I. (1994). Kritika sposobnosti suzhdeniia [Criticism of judgment]. «Iskusstvo, 367.

Kochurov, B. I., Buchatckaia N.V. (2007). Otcenka esteticheskogo potentciala landshafta [Estimation of the aesthetic potential of the landscape] Iug Rossii: ekologiia, razvitie, 4. 25-34.

Kurdiuk, M. G. (1982). K voprosu otcenki dekorativnosti parkovykh nasazhdenii [To the question of assessing the decorativeness of parkland] Sokhranenie i vosstanovlenie starinnykh parkov: (sbornik nauchnykh trudov), 65-68.

Kucheriavyi, V. P. (1991). Urboekologicheskie osnovy fitomelioratcii [Urboecological basis of phytomelioration] Fitomelioratciia, 288.

Margailik, G. I. K metodike otcenki dekorativnosti derevesnykh nasazhdenii [Tekst] / G. I. Margailik, L. A. Kirilchik // Biulleten Glavnogo botanicheskogo sada. – 1979. – № 114. – S. 58–60.

Motoshina, A. A., Vdoviuk L. N. (2012). Otcenka esteticheskikh svoistv landshaftov Tobolskogo raiona Tiumenskoi oblasti v rekreatcionnykh tceliakh [Estimation of aesthetic properties of landscapes of the Tobolsk district of the Tyumen region for recreational purposes]. «Geograficheskii vestnik» Permskogo universiteta, 4 (23), 10–20.

Nikolaev, V. A. (2005). Landshaftovedenie: estetika i dizain: Uchebnoe posobie. [Landscape science: aesthetics and design]. Aspekt Press, 176.

Osychenko, H. O. (2012)/ Evoliutsiini vytoky estetychnoi potreby liudyny [Evolutionary origins of the aesthetic human need]. Mistobuduvannia ta terytorialne planuvannia. Naukovo-tekhnichnyi zbirnyk : KNUBA, 44, 404-413.

Osychenko, H. O. (2011). Analiz evoliutsiinykh pidkhodiv do estetychnoi otsinky mistobudivnoho seredovyshcha [Analysis of evolutionary approaches to the aesthetic assessment of the urban environment]. Problemy rozvytku miskoho seredovyshcha:Nauk.-tekhn.zbirnyk: NAU, 5, 185-195.

Osychenko, H. O. (2011). Kohnityvni pidkhody do otsinky estetychnykh yakostei mista [Cognitive approaches to assessing the aesthetic qualities of the city]. Mistobuduvannia ta terytorialne planuvannia. Naukovo-tekhnichnyi zbirnyk: KNUBA, 39, 312-319.

Osychenko, H. O. (2014). Kontseptsiia paradyhmy estetyky mistobuduvannia [The concept of the urban development aesthetics paradigm]. Mistobuduvannia ta terytorialne planuvannia. Naukovo-tekhnichnyi zbirnyk: KNUBA, 51, 413-422.

Osychenko, H. O. (2011). Semiotychni pidkhody do analizu estetychnoho spryiniattia arkhitektury [Semiotic approaches to the analysis of aesthetic perception of architecture]. Mistobuduvannia ta terytorialne planuvannia. Naukovo-tekhnichnyi zbirnyk : KNUBA, 41, 319-327.

Priakhin, V. D. (1970). Novoe v metodike landshaftnoi taksatcii lesov [New in the method of landscape forest taxation] Ozelenenie gorodov : (nauch. tr. Akad. komun. khoz-va im. K. D. Pamfilova), 71, 25–30.

Stetsiuk, V. (2004). Estetychna funktsiia reliefu Ukrainy u konteksti ekolohichnoi heomorfolohii [Aesthetic function of relief of Ukraine in the context of ecological geomorphology]. Problemy heomorfolohii i paleoheohrafii Ukrainskykh Karpat i prylehlykh terytorii, 150-162.

Frolova, M. Iu. (1994). Otcenka esteticheskikh dostoinstv prirody landshaftov [Estimation of aesthetic advantages of natural landscapes]. Vestnik Moskovskogo u-ta. Seriia 5. Geografiia, 2, 30-33.

Khoroshikh, O. G., Khoroshikh O. V. (1999). Shkala kompleksnoї otcіnki dekorativnikh oznak derevnikh roslin [Scale of integrated assessment of decorative signs of tree plants]. Naukovii vіsnik: Doslіdzhennia, okhorona ta zbagachennia bіorіznomanіttia : zb. naukovo-tekhnіchnikh pratc, 9.9, 167–170.

Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. Penguin Group, 371 p.

Kane, P. S. (1981). Assessing Landscape Attractiveness: a comparative test of two new method Applied geography. Chapter 1, 77–96.

Kaymaz, I. C. (2012). Landscape Perception Landscape Planning. In Tech, 251-276.

Linton, D. L. (1968). The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scotish Geograph. Mag, 84.

Osychenko, G. (2014). Classification of the aesthetic qualities of the urban environment. The new university. Series: Engineering science, 3-4, 28-34.

Rudi van Etteger, Ian H. Thompson, Vera Vicenzotti (2016). Aestheticcreation theory and landscape architecture. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 11, 80-91.

Whiting, D. Е. (2007). Principles of Landscape Design [Text] / David Е. Whiting // Garden Notes № 413. – Colorado: Master Gardener training, 2007. – 33 p.

Wöbse, H. H. (1984). Erlebniswirksamkeit der Landschaft und Flurbereinigungsuntersuchung zur Landschaftsästhetik. Landschaft und Stadt, (1-2), 33-54.

Метрики статей

Завантаження метрик ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • Поки немає зовнішніх посилань.