The semiotics of landscape design communication: towards a critical visual research approach in landscape architecture

Abstract

In landscape architecture, visual representations are the primary means of communication between stakeholders in design processes. Despite the reliance on visual representations, little critical research has been undertaken by landscape architects on how visual communication forms work or their socio-political implications. In this theoretical paper, we argue that such research is of great importance. We explain how concepts of visual and critical social theory such as visual semiotics, simulacra and simulation, and power/knowledge can be used to critically reflect on landscape architectural representations. We further propose to study these representations at different stages of meaning-making by using visual methodologies such as visual discourse analysis, iconographical content analysis and social semiotic analysis. We conclude that these research approaches have the potential to explain issues such as dominant power structures, miscommunication between participants, and visual path-dependencies during landscape design processes.

Reading landscape design representations as an interplay of validity, readability and interactivity: a framework for visual content analysis

“…Current issues include human health and well-being with attention to climate, water and energy as well as spatial quality issues arising from ongoing urbanization (Van den Brink and Bruns, 2014). In addressing these issues, landscape planners and designers use diverse visual representations such as sketches, drawings, maps, models and video to express design proposals for future spatial layout and aesthetic quality to an increasingly diverse set of stakeholders (Raaphorst et al, 2017).…”

“…There is a lack of a critical visual research approach to studying visual landscape design representations in a comprehensive way (Dee, 2004). In developing such a critical visual research approach (Raaphorst et al, 2017), we aim to contribute to an understanding of the principles of effective visual communication in participatory landscape planning and design processes. Although research on visual methodologies generally identifies three stages in visual meaning-making: the production, the image and the audiencing stage (Rose, 2012), in this article we will focus primarily on the analysis of the image stage.…”

Phylosophic-Artistic Analysis of the Architectural Monument � the Mansion of P.I. Gadalov in the City of Krasnoyarks as a Method of Studying Visual Arts

“…[2], Xuan G., Wenzheng P., Yi W. [3], Raaphorst K., Duchhart I., Knaap W., Roeleveld G., Brink A. [4], Р Mallgrave H.F. [5]. The rich visual potential of Krasnoyarsk architecture is revealed in the study by Sertakova E. A. and Koptseva N. P. [6].…”

Knowing your audience: the contingency of landscape design interpretations

“…Different sign components, i.e., the visual characteristics and content of landscape design representations, but also the socio-political context in which they are used strongly influence the creation and interpretation of landscape designs (Van Assche et al 2012). The communication of design ideas through this creation and interpretation of landscape design representations can be defined as a triadic process of semiosis (Raaphorst et al 2017). Eco (1976), following Peirce, defines triadic semiosis as an action or influence that involves three sign components: a representamen, its object and its interpretant.…”

“…In an attempt to improve understanding and reduce the unpredictability of interpretation, the agency of plans and designs in landscape planning and design processes is becoming an increasingly important object of critical study (van Dijk 2011;Kallus 2016;Raaphorst et al 2017). Furthermore, planning and design visualizations are 'being produced with new techniques and by new actors, within increasingly complex scopic regimes ' (Swords andLiu 2015, 1235).…”