Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015, 99-125
geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs slovenian landscapes
geografsko zamisljanje pokrajin: analiza fotomonografije slovenske krajine
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina
The Logar Valley: an example of the visual appearance of an Alpine landscape. Logarska dolina: primer izgleda alpske pokrajine.
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs ...
Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs Slovenian landscapes
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.836 UDC: 911.5:77.047(497.4) COBISS: 1.01
ABSTRACT: The article focuses on the geographical imagination of landscapes, depicted in the photographs. The research stems from the assumption that photographs play an important role in shaping and preserving individual and collective imagination of a landscape and that geography as a science is closely connected to visual representations ofthe world. The empirical part ofthe research entails selecting and defining/coding the photographs from the book Slovenian Landscapes by Dušan Ogrin and their analysis through statistical methods. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate what kind of image of the landscape this book creates. The goal is to design/formulate a methodology for photograph interpretation, especially to select the indicators and their categories as well as the criteria for a quantitative photograph evaluation. Using these methods, the appearance of the landscapes is analysed according to the individual indicators, placing special emphasis on surface form as the most important landscape element.
KEY WORDS: geography, surface, landscapes, landscape imagination, photographs, statistics, Slovenia
The article was submitted for publication on May 19th, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Mimi Urbanc, Ph.D.
Anton Melik geographical institute
Research centre of the Slovenian academy of sciences and arts Novi trg 2, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: mimi@zrc-sazu.si
Primož Gašperič
Anton Melik geographical institute
Research centre of the Slovenian academy of sciences and arts Novi trg 2, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: primoz.gasperic@zrc-sazu.si
Jani Kozina, Ph.D.
Anton Melik geographical institute
Research centre of the Slovenian academy of sciences and arts Novi trg 2, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: jani.kozina@zrc-sazu.si
100
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
1	Introduction
Symbols and rituals and their dissemination and reception play an important role in shaping a nation (Hvithamar et al. 2009). National iconographies and tradition, whether existing or newly constructed and just arising, help build, strengthen, and maintain a nation's connectedness (Jager 2009; Cosgrove and Daniels 1988). Texts (in the widest sense of the word; Anderson 2007) and photographs (Jager 2009) play a decisive role in this process, which can be defined by the term geographical imagination.
Geographical imagination as a discursive practice has accompanied man since the beginnings of mankind. But it is much younger as a concept within geography in light of its scientific paradigm, which was formed during the post-Enlightenment era systematics of modern science. It is even younger in Slovenian geography, which has dealt with individual aspects of geographical imagination, but within other conceptual traditions.
the concept relates to the perception of space through pictures, texts, and discourses. It gained notice through post-modern approaches in social theories and practices, which also had a resounding influence on geography. In human geography, these kinds of approaches focused on understanding the ways in which society and its way of life are reflected in space, settlements, and landscapes (Gregory 1994; Hoelscher 2006).
Geographical imagination, a process as well as a result, has placed great importance on photographs since the very beginnings of photography techniques. their fundamental communicative value is in their visual representation. Visual culture is embedded in the modern social-political context (Davison and Falihi 2010). Visuality shapes knowledge as well as entertainment and what we see is almost if not more important than what we hear or read. Visuality is closely connected to geography, as graphic images are very important to it for shaping knowledge and disseminating it. Some even go so far in their discussions on the close link between geography and visuality as to claim that geography is a »visual science« (Gregory 1993; Smith 2000; Sui 2000).
Even though visuality is integrated into the very core of geography, it only became an object of geographical studies in the late twentieth century. Previously to that, it was regarded mostly as a supplement or addition to geographical knowledge or as merely one of the ways to acquire it. the idea of geographical imagination caused visuality, especially visuality through photographs, graphs, and maps, to become the primary study target and a tool in cultural and historic analyses (Rose 2001; Crang 2003; Driver 2003; Matless 2003; rose 2003; Schwartz and Ryan 2003; Cosgrove 2006; Duncan and Duncan 2009; rose 2012).
the bond between geography and visuality is most solid precisely in the case of the landscape. tian (1976) states that humanistically oriented geographers are not interested in landscape as part of a territory, but as a visual and aesthetic experience. Influenced by humanist and behaviourist ideas, Cosgrove (2008) defined the landscape as »way of seeing«. With this, landscape got two new dimensions, a cognitive and an experiential one, which have become the means and the result of landscape dynamics, balance, symbolism, ideology, and identity (terkenli 2001).
Geographical imagination combines the imagination and the depiction of space from outsiders as well as from insiders. this article focuses on the latter, the inhabitants of Slovenia and their imagining of the landscape. More specifically, on the book of photographs Slovenian landscapes (Ogrin 1997). the purpose of the paper is to illustrate what kind of landscape images the book creates; what photographs it uses to depict it. the goal is to uncover the typical landscape elements and to determine to what degree the surface as the most important landscape component part (Perko 2007; Hrvatin and Perko 2009) influences other landscape elements that are depicted in the photographs.
the title of the aforementioned book adopts the term »krajina«, where the term »pokrajina«, landscape, is usually used. the use of the two terms and their mutual delineation in content and concept has been discussed in several instances (Ogorelec 1987; Lovrenčak 1996; Gams 2007) and will not be continued at this time, as it is not relevant to the contents of the article. Approaching the subject from a geographical standpoint, the term »pokrajina« will be used as it can be interchangeable with »krajina«. the terms in English remain »landscape« for both instances.
2	Methodology of the photograph interpretation
the subject of the analysis was the book of photographs entitled Slovenian landscapes, by author Dušan Ogrin, more specifically the second revised edition (Ogrin 1997). the book selection was chosen for its overwhelming presence of photographs among the text and because the author is a landscape architect,
101
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs ...
an expert and undoubtedly an opinion leader in the field of landscapes. In addition, landscape architects are a step in front of geographers in understanding and studying the non-material aspects of the landscape. The works of Kučan (1996, 1998, 2007) merit mentioning, in which she defined the subtle and logical interweaving of geographical imagination and of landscape; another extensive work is the Regional distribution of landscape types in Slovenia. The result was obtained through field work in an intuitive and holistic manner (Marušič 1995; Marušič, Ogrin and Jančič 1998); it is presented in five volumes and defines the elemental morphological landscape units of Slovenia (Marušič s sodelavci et al. 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1998d, 1998e).
The book of photographs reflects landscape taste, meaning the cherished, the preserved, the reproduced (Lowenthal and Prince 1965) and, as the author writes in the introduction, that which is beautiful and worth preserving. The nearly square shape and larger book format (width 285 mm, height 305 mm) enable wide and unhindered photographs to be displayed, which increases the expressive power of the depicted area. The analysis encompassed 307 photographs of different sizes: almost 73% are full-paged or half-paged, while the smallest photographs aid in additionally illustrating the discussed topic.
The photographs contain titles, which stated the location of the depicted area in most cases. In some cases, the location was also determined through the expert knowledge of the authors, who recognized the photographed areas. Each photograph was first categorized into a certain landscape type. Here, the research adopted the natural geographical typization, which divides Slovenia into an Alpine, Mediterranean, Dinaric, and a Pannonian landscape types (Perko 1998). The only further distinction was the division of the Alpine types into two parts due to quite distinctive internal differences. The area consisting mostly of Alpine mountain ranges was placed in the true Alpine landscapes and the area consisting of mostly Alpine hillsides and interim plains was placed with the Prealpine landscapes (Figure 1).
Each photograph was then defined/coded according to nine predetermined indicators, each signifying a certain landscape element. To unify the defining/coding process as much as possible, it was done in its entirety by only one person. First, the prevailing landform unit was determined in each image. Then, each photograph was virtually divided into two parts and the landforms and the land use was separately determined for the foreground and the background. Next, the prevailing settlement type, infrastructure type, along with any visibly movable and water elements was recognized in each photograph. The selected indicators with the corresponding categories are as follows:
•	landform units (plain, hummocks, hills, low plateau, high plateau, mountain range, cliff, coastal plain;
•	landforms in the foreground (valley, shore, flat surface, gentle slopes, steep slopes, karst surface, undulating surface);
•	landforms in the background (valley, shore, cliffs, flat surface, gentle slopes, karst surface, undulating surface);
•	land use in the foreground (rocks, built up, shrubbery, field, permanent crop, grassland, park, forest, mixed use);
•	land use in the background (rocks, built up, shrubbery, field, permanent crop, grassland, park, forest, mixed use);
•	settlement (nucleated settlement, dispersed settlement, individual buildings, not settled);
•	infrastructure (road, electrical wiring, footpath, no infrastructure);
•	movable elements (living creatures, transportation vehicles);
•	water elements (still bodies of water, running bodies of water, no water elements).
Photographs of poorer quality, depictions of a larger area and photographs with a greater number of unevenly distributed elements proved a special challenge in evaluating the photographs. Figure 2 illustrating the Škofja Loka hills presents a challenge in delineating between the foreground and the background. The infrastructure is also not visible, but definitely exists considering the settlement and land use. As the photograph is in a smaller format and the depicted territory is very diverse in its landforms, the land use and the movable elements are also that much harder to determine. Photograph 3, depicting the Kamniško polje plain, has some elements in the background that are harder to detect. The problem does not lie in recognizing the individual categories (landforms, land use, and settlement are recognizable), but in their share and type.
The landscape elements depicted in the photographs were analysed in more detail using the location coefficient, association analysis, and factor analysis.
Figure 1: A map of the landscapes and the photograph locations. p
102
o
O
O

o
CD hO
O ® °
c^cPcg
V °
Landscape types/tipi pokrajin
Alpine landscapes/ alpske pokrajine Prealpine landscapes/ predalpske pokrajine Dinaric landscapes/ dinarske pokrajine Pannonian landscapes/ panonske pokrajine Mediterranean landscapes/ sredozemske pokrajine
Location of photographs/ O lokacije fotografij
Authors/avtoli a vsebine: Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina Cartographer/kartograf: Jani Kozina Source/vir: Ogrin 1997; Perko 1998 © Anton Melik Geographical Institute ZRC SAZU
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs ...
Figure 2: An example of problematic determining of the landscape elements in the Skolja Loka hills in the Prealpine region (Ogrin 1997).
Figure 3: An example of problematic determining of the landscape elements in the Kamniško polje plain in the Prealpine region (Ogrin 1997).
104
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
3 Visual appearance of the landscapes
The majority of the photographs depict landscapes in the Prealpine area, as some of the largest and most densely populated areas in Slovenia fall in this category, like the Ljubljana and Celje basins. Landscapes in the Alpine area along with the ones in the Prealpine area, as their name implies, together form the Alpine area; they are depicted on almost half of all the photographs. they are followed by a fifth of the photographs from the Pannonian area, with equally small shares of both the Dinaric and Mediterranean landscapes (Figure 4).
An interesting aspect is the comparison of the proportion of the share of the photographs to the share of surface area of the individual landscape type. While there are no noticeable differences in the case of the Alpine and Pannonian landscapes, these do occur in the other three landscape types. A greater share of the photographs in comparison to the share of landscape type coverage can be detected in the Prealpine and the Mediterranean landscapes, while the opposite is true of the Dinaric landscapes.
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Alpine Prealpine	Dinaric	Mediterranean	Pannonian
landscapes/	landscapes/	andscapes/ landscapes/	landscapes/
alpske	predalpske	dinarske	sredozemske	panonske
pokrajine pokrajine	pokrajine pokrajine	pokrajine
Figure 4: Comparison of the shares of the photographs with the shares of the surface area and population in the landscapes.
the landscapes that are depicted in the photographs in the selected book can be further described using selected indicators of landscape elements:
•	Alpine landscapes are expressly hilly, mountainous, or contain high plateaus. the foreground usually shows steeper or gentler slopes or a valley with steeper slopes in the background. Land use in the foreground is mostly grassland or forest, only occasionally with mixed or built up lots. the background is predominantly forest and rocks. Settlement occurs in the form of individual buildings or there is no settlement at all. there is also mostly no infrastructure and if there is, it is a road, electrical wiring, or a footpath, which is also typical of the other landscape types. there are practically no movable elements, only a sporadic living creature. Water elements rarely occur.
•	Prealpine landscapes illustrate an intertwinement of hillsides and plains. Hummocks make up a smaller share as well. the landforms in the foreground are mostly flat, with a few valleys and steep and gentle slopes. the background consists predominantly of steep slopes, with gentler slopes in some places or a plain surface. Land use in the foreground is varied. the majority consists of grassland, followed by fields, forests, and built up lots. the forest prevails in the background. Settlement is depicted similarly to the Alpine landscapes. A few more condensed settlements occur. Movable and water elements are rare.
105
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs .
Figure 5: An example of a photograph of an Alpine area depicts the Špik mountain group in Upper Carniola (Ogrin 1997).
Figure 6: An example of a photograph of a Prealpine landscape depicts the transition of the level part of Upper Carniola towards the edges of the Kamnik mountains (Ogrin 1997).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
• Dinaric landscapes are depicted as hilly and hummocky. A few high and low plateaus appear. The foreground is prevailed mostly by karst and undulating surfaces and gentle slopes. the background has a similar appearance, only with more steep slopes replacing the undulating surface. Land use in the foreground is similarly varied as in the Prealpine landscapes. A few more instances of fields and rocks can be noted. Forest is most common in the background. Settlement is illustrated to be somewhat more dispersed in comparison to the (Pre)Alpine landscapes. transportation vehicles occur more often and, surprisingly, even running bodies of water that are a very rare phenomenon in this type of landscapes.
Figure 7: An example of a photograph of a Dinaric landscape depicts the wavy surface near Unec in Inner Carniola (Ogrin 1997).
Figure 8: An example of a photograph of a Mediterranean landscape depicts the Šmarje settlement in Slovenian Istria (Ogrin 1997).
107
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs ...
•	Mediterranean landscapes are similarly depicted in their landforms as the Dinaric landscapes with hills and hammocks. An additional element is the coastal plain, with less high plateaus. The foreground depicts mostly karst and flatland; the former is also featured greatly in the background. In addition, gentles slopes and coasts are pictured. Land use in the foreground is similar to the Dinaric landscapes. In place of fields, there are more permanent crops. The background is still mostly covered with forest, however, built up and mixed lots and permanent crops are also important categories. The settlement is usually depicted as condensed settlements and individual buildings. The landscape is rarely depicted as not settled or in a dispersed settlement form. Mediterranean landscapes feature transportation vehicles and still bodies of water more than any of the other landscapes.
•	Pannonian landscapes depict an intertwining of flatlands and hummocks. The foreground is prevailed by a flat surface with occasional gentle slopes that are more prominent in the background. Fields are most abundant in the foreground with regards to the land use, with grasslands and permanent crops following in frequency. The background is mostly covered in forest; however, an important share of the background is also assumed by fields and permanent crops. Settlement is depicted as not settled as well as with individual buildings, and dispersed settlement. Running bodies of water are present in a considerable number of cases.
The differences in the appearance in the landscapes can be compared in more detail using the location coefficient. Its value illustrates to what extent the depiction of a certain indicator category in a landscape deviates from the national average. The more the location coefficient value exceeds the value 1, the more the depiction of a certain indicator category among all the photographs is higher than the Slovenian average. Values below 1 indicate a below average concentration. The location coefficient calculation can be formulated using the equation:
the number of photographs depicting a certain indicator category in a landscape the number of all the photographs of the landscape
location coefficient = -
the number of photographs depicting a certain indicator category in Slvenia the number of all the photographs of Slovenia
Table 1 contains the most important indicator categories of landscape elements that express an above average deviation from the national average in an individual landscape type (location coefficient > 1.25).
Table 1: The visual landscape characteristics that are most prominent in relation to the other landscapes (location coefficient > 1.25). The order of the categories in an individual cell indicates a decreasing succession of deviation strength.
Indicators of landscape elements	Alpine landscapes	Prealpine landscapes	Dinaric landscapes	Mediterranean landscapes	Pannonian landscapes
Landform unit	Mountains, high plateau, hills	Hills, flatland	Hummocks, high plateau, low plateau	Shore platform, low plateau, hummocks	Flatland, hummocks
Landform in the foreground	Valley, steep slope	Level surface, steep slope	Wavy surface, karst surface, gentle slope	Coast, karst surface	Flatland
Landform in the background	Steep slope	Steep slope	Karst surface, gentle slope	Coast, karst surface	Flatland, gentle slope
Land use in the foreground	Mixed use, grassland, forest	Built up	Mixed use, field	Park, permanent crop, mixed use	Permanent crop, field
Land use in the background	Rock	/	Grassland	Mixed use, built up, permanent crop	Field, permanent crop
Settlement	/	/	Dispersed settlement	Condensed settlement	Dispersed settlement
Infrastructure	/	/	Electrical wiring, footpath	Footpath	/
Movable elements	Living creature	Living creature	/	Transportation vehicle	/
Water element	/	/	Running body of water	/	Running body of water
108
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
Figure 9: An example of a photograph of a Pannonian landscape depicts the Kobilje settlement in Prekmurje (Og rin 1997).
109
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs ...
Table 2: The level of correlation between the indicators of landscape elements and their representation in the landscape types.				
Indicator of landscape element	/2	Degrees of freedom	p (2-tailed)	V
Landform unit	301.122	40	0.000	0.443
Landform in the foreground	214.801	35	0.000	0.374
Landform in the background	281.923	40	0.000	0.429
Land use in the foreground	88.105	45	0.013	0.240
Land use in the background	120.186	50	0.010	0.280
Settlement	48.724	20	0.016	0.199
Infrastructure	14.157	20	0.814	0.107
Movable elements	23.751	10	0.017	0.197
Water elements	36.225	15	0.001	0.243
The correlation between non-numeric indicators of landscape elements and their representation in individual landscape types were determined through association analysis. It indicated that almost all the indicators, except infrastructure, were statistically significantly correlated to their representation in the landscapes (p < 0.05) (Table 2). This means that statistically significant differences exist in the appearance of the landscapes in relation to the discussed indicators. The amount of the Cramer coefficient (V; interval between 0 and 1) shows a very strong correlation for landform units and landforms, a moderately strong correlation for land use and water elements, and a weak correlation for settlement and movable elements.
4 Landform as the most important element in landscape appearance
Since landforms were detected as the most important landscape element in our analysis, we discuss it here in more detail. We were interested in how landforms influence the other landscape elements depicted in the photographs. This case deals with more complex dimensions, so the explorative factor analysis (EFA) was implemented (see Fulgosi 1988; Rogerson 2001).
The descriptive data collected through the photograph defining/coding were converted into numeric data by cross-tabulating the data on the landscape type (Alpine, Prealpine, etc.) and the landform unit. The 307 photographs were divided into 27 groups that represented the new units for this analysis. In addition, the remaining eight indicators of landscape elements were divided so that their categories became the new variables. After eliminating a large portion of »non-essential« contents (categories represented in less than 5% of the photographs within an individual indicator) and by considering the other assumptions for implementing a factor analysis (see Larose 2006; Field 2009), 24 variables were included in the analysis.
Since most of the variables are not distributed normally, their values had to be converted into ranges and the EFA was carried out using thepolychoric correlation matrix, which enables the R-Menu command in the SPSS program (Basto and Pereira 2012). The main component method with a varimax orthogonal rotation was used for the factor extraction. The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin test confirmed the suitability of the sample size, KMO = 0.800, which is considerably above the recommended minimal value of 0.5 (Kaiser 1974). The Bartlett's sphericity testx2 (276) = 2902.032,p <0.001 indicated that the variables are correlated highly enough. In order to determine the number of common factors, the parallel analysis measure (Courtney 2013) was used, which identified three factors (Table 3), which together account for 80.8% of the common variance and express a high degree of reliability, , , . , t. >0.9 (Field 2009). The coefficients values,
£	o o	/ polychoric correlation	v	'
GFI > 0.95, AGFI >0.95, and RMSR <0.1 confirmed a very good adjustment of the model to the results (Basto and Pereira 2012).
The results showed that the factor 1 accounts for over a third (37.7%) of the common variance. It expresses that steep slopes, gentle slopes, and valleys are the prevalent landforms in the foreground, while steep slopes are most common in the background. Land use is mostly forest, but grasslands are also typical for the foreground. Settlement is dispersed or individual buildings are pictured. The photographs also depict movable elements (living creatures) and linear infrastructure. This factor could be summed up with the term »hill factor«.
110
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
Table 3: Factor matrix.			
Rotated factor loadings			
Variable	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Landforms in the foreground_steep slope	0.954	-0.145	-0.017
Landforms in the foreground_valley	0.945	-0.001	0.196
Landforms in the background_steep slope	0.934	-0.176	-0.066
Land use in the foreground_forest	0.828	0.327	0.085
Land use in the background_forest	0.807	0.495	0.130
Land use in the foreground_grassland	0.806	0.293	0.167
Movable elementsjiving creature	0.785	0.236	-0.016
Settlementjndividual building	0.749	0.480	0.223
Landforms in the foreground_gentle slope	0.722	0.295	0.346
Infrastructure_electrical wiring	0.684	0.599	0.124
Infrastructure_road	0.680	0.635	0.038
Infrastructure_footpath	0.605	0.506	0.298
Settlement_dispersed settlement	0.585	0.376	-0.101
Land use in the foreground_field	0.244	0.881	-0.044
Landforms in the foreground_flatland	0.188	0.798	-0.273
Movable elements_transportation vehicle	0.224	0.772	0.265
Land use in the background_field	-0.162	0.767	-0.460
Landforms in the background_gentle slope	0.413	0.741	0.106
Water element_running body of water	0.564	0.729	-0.219
Settlement_condensed settlement	0.586	0.649	0.292
Land use in the foreground_permanent crop	-0.087	0.609	0.330
Landforms in the background_karst surface	0.096	0.159	0.968
Landforms in the foreground_karst surface	0.131	0.124	0.964
Landforms in the backround_flatland	-0.099	0.465	-0.855
Own values/eigenvalues	9.045	6.750	3.589
% of variance	37.689	28.127	14.956
a ,„ .	0.966	0.911	0.938
polychoric correlation			
Factor 2 accounts for more than a quarter (28.1%) of the common variance. The landforms in the foreground are flatland with gentle slopes in the background. Fields are prevalent in the background with regards to land use, with permanent crops also appearing in the foreground. the settlement is condensed. the depiction of running bodies of water is characteristic. the lineal infrastructure from factor 1 correlates quite highly with factor 2. the factor can be described as »flatland factor«.
Factor 3 accounts for about a sixth (15.0%) of the common variance. It is expressed by a prevalence of karst forms in the foreground as well as in the background. Flatlands occur only rarely in the background. Its simplicity and clean lines can deem it the term »karst factor«.
table 4 depicts the representativeness of the factors for each individual landscape type. the factors that are more than one standard deviation above average and are therefore most characteristic of an individual landscape type are marked in bold letters. the remaining above average characteristic factors are marked, but not in bold. this has proven that some landscape types are more diverse than others, as the characteristics of multiple factors are combined in them. the Prealpine hills and the Dinaric and Mediterranean hummocks have proven the most varied (intertwinement of all three factors). Alpine and Dinaric hills, Prealpine flatlands, and Pannonian hummocks and flatlands also belong among the more diverse landscapes (intertwinement of two factors). In some (for a certain landscape less characteristic) landform units no factor stands out (for example the mountains in the Prealpine landscapes or the hills in the Pannonian landscapes).
An overview of the factors indicates that factor 1 (hill factor) stands out expressly in the hills of the entire Alpine region and also in the Alpine mountains, the Dinaric hills, the Prealpine and Pannonian flatlands, and in almost all the hummocks. Factor 2 (flatland factor) is most expressly characteristic of the Prealpine hills and flatlands and the Pannonian hummocks and flatlands, as well as the hummocks in the Dinaric
111
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs ...
Table 4: Representativeness of the factors for the individual landscape types and their landform units.
Landscapes	Landform units	Representativeness of the factors
Alpine landscapes	mountains high plateau hills	hill factor karstfactor hill factor, karst factor
Prealpine landscapes	mountains	/
	high plateau	/
	hummocks	hill factor
	hills	hill factor, flatland factor, karst factor
	low plateau other flatland	/ / hill factor, flatland factor
Dinaric landscapes	high plateau	karst factor
	hummocks	hill factor, flatland factor, karst factor
	hills	hill factor, karst factor
	low plateau	karstfactor
	other	karst factor
	flatland	/
Mediterranean landscapes	cliff	/
	shore platform	karstfactor
	hummocks	hill factor, flatland factor, karst factor
	hills	karstfactor
	low plateau	karst factor
	other	karstfactor
	flatland	/
Pannonian landscapes	hummocks	hill factor, flatland factor
	hills	/
	low plateau	/
	flatland	hill factor, flatland factor
and Mediterranean landscapes. Factor 3 (karst factor) is most expressed in the Dinaric hummocks and Mediterranean hills, but it is typical for almost all the landform units of the Dinaric and Mediterranean landscapes and also of the (Pre)Alpine hills and the high and karstified Alpine plateaus.
5 Discussion: landscape taste
The photographs of the selected monograph reflect the author's landscape taste, which, in addition to individual taste, also undoubtedly reflects and, at the same time, shapes and generalizes the landscape taste. The author's view of the landscape is affected by the cultural, social, and intellectual environment, while his »expert« geographical imagination of the landscape or his »landscape scientific reasoning« is a medium that (co)creates the taste of the wider public and its idea of social and spatial reality. The analysed photographs illustrate how society and its way of life are mirrored in the landscape and, inversely, how the depicted landscape wishes to indirectly steer social development.
If landscape is understood as a way of perception, the question arises what kind of perception does the selected monograph trigger? What kind of landscape, what kind of Slovenia can be recognized in it? The first result is certainly Alpine, as almost half (48%) of the landscape imagination is based on the image of Alpine life, even though Alpine landscapes (true Alpine and Prealpine ones combined) encompass a somewhat smaller share (42%) of the Slovenian territory. The conclusion that the share of the Mediterranean photographs (15%) is considerably larger than the share of Mediterranean landscapes (9%) leads to the assumption that an important share of the landscape imagination is also based on Mediterranean life. From that aspect, the Dinaric landscapes have a less important role, while the meaning of the Pannonian landscapes is balanced. The great density of the photographs of the Mediterranean landscapes is most likely
112
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
the consequence of at least three factors: the first is that Mediterranean landscapes must be more firmly anchored in the geographical imagination of Slovenians, as they are burdened by a historical political heritage. The second reason lies in the diversity and landscape variety that offers an abundance of attractive photographic motifs. the third group of reasons could be deemed a fashion trend and a longing for the popular Mediterranean diet and lifestyle.
the fact that the Prealpine image of Slovenia is more highly ranked than the true Alpine one is surprising, considering the fact that the mountainous region had and still has a notable role in the identification of the Slovenians (triglav, the fight between the Slovenian and German camps in conquering the mountains in the past, and similar factors). Perhaps, part of the deciding factor was that Prealpine landscapes are marked by a greater variety and diversity, while the mountainous region is more »uniformed« in shape and colour and relatively less »sensitive« to the seasons. It is also surprising that the (true) Alpine landscapes are less represented in the book than Pannonian landscapes considering that dramatic landscapes with a high relief energy are more attractive for the camera lens and that flatlands offer fewer attractive motifs.
As expected, the correlation between the landscape elements depicted in the photographs and their representation according to the individual landscape type indicates that the location in a certain landscape (Alpine, Prealpine, etc.) is very determined by the landform units, landforms, land use, and water elements; settlement and movable elements determine it to a lesser extent, while the depiction of infrastructure does not differ noticeably between the landscapes. this points to a polycentric or proportional regional structure, because the entire country is covered quite evenly with regards to settlement or the presence of man and transport axis (Kozina 2010a; Kozina 2010b).
A more detailed overview of land use leads to a number of interesting conclusions. For instance, in more rarely settled Dinaric landscapes, where there are fewer tilled lots and surface waters, fields and running bodies of water stand out in the photographs; in Prealpine landscapes, which are more abundant with agricultural lots and water sources, this prevalence cannot be detected. the reason for this is most likely that fields and waters are a rare source in Dinaric landscapes and therefore receive more attention. Water, in this case still bodies of water or marine waters, stand out together with transportation vehicles in Mediterranean landscapes, which stresses or strengthens the maritime and traffic position of that part of Slovenia. this landscape element also stands out in the depiction of Pannonian landscapes and points to the importance of the Mura River, water for agriculture and other activities like the milling industry, and to drought protection.
Forest depictions are especially expressive. they occur less often in the foreground (most often in the Alpine area), while it is a prevailing category in all landscapes. It is apparent that the forest is understood as a frame, a constant that does not need to be expressly emphasized because it covers more than 60 % of the Slovenian surface (Hrvatin in Perko 2003).
As a whole, a third of the photographs do not depict settlements; living creatures are also a real rarity in most cases. the absence of (condensed, city) settlement and living creatures implies a static and humanless character of the landscapes. the absence of people undoubtedly expresses a latent perception of landscape as a natural formation, which leads to the conclusion that an urban landscape does not exist here. the photographs point only to a rural (as opposed to an urban) landscape, which reflects an anti-urban character of the Slovenian way of life (Hočevar et al. 2005; Poljak Istenič 2011, 2012; Uršič and Hočevar 2007; Uršič 2010, 2015) and an image of rurality that, it seems, has not faded together with the diminishing numbers of the farming population and the meaning of agriculture. this rurality is reinforced by the large share of fields depicted in the foreground. the (agricultural) activity creates a cultivated landscape, an inactivity that results in a forest that is placed in the background. the image of rurality has become a construct; this is undoubtedly true of cultural landscapes. the analysis results for the discussed book confirm this fact.
6 Conclusion
the results of the analysis of the book of photographs have shown that especially the Prealpine and Mediterranean landscapes are overrepresented in volume in it, while the Dinaric landscapes are under-represented. Field surfaces are also overrepresented. Forest is relatively evenly represented; however, it is
113
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geographical imagination of landscapes: analysis of the book of photographs ...
depicted only as a background/framework feature, not a central factor. Water is stressed where it is a rare or limited source, but is vital for agriculture. This agriculture is evidently the main topic and the clearly expressed designing element of the cultural landscape. The other fundamental type, the antipod to the farming landscape, the urban landscape, is completely omitted. The most important landscape shaping factor is the landform, which is usually depicted in the form of three dimensions in the photographs: a higher, more scattered, more scarcely settled, and forest landform (factor 1), a lower, flatter/gentler, more densely settled, and more cultivated landform (factor 2), and a karst, less diverse landform (factor 3).
Photographs shape and distribute knowledge. In the same way, landscapes effect and shape landscape taste and vice versa; landscape taste shapes the landscape (Lowenthal and Prince 1965). This mutual and layered process is geographical imagination, defined as a spatially oriented cultural and historical knowledge that defines social groups. Geographical depiction blurs the differences between the actual and the imaginary world and shapes people's identity, their understanding of the world, and the world itself. This kind of analysis speaks more of the people than of the landscape: it reveals what a society cherishes, how it pictures its landscape, what is people's self-image, and what kind of image they want to pass on to others.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This article was created as part ofthe J6-4138 Textbooks as tools for shaping the geographical imagination of Slovenian landscapes project, financed by the Slovenian Research Agency. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, who contributed to the article's improved quality.
7 References
Anderson, B. R. O'G. 2007: Zamišljene skupnosti: o izvoru in širjenju nacionalizma. Ljubljana. Basto, M., Pereira, J. M. 2012: An SPSS R-menu for ordinal factor analysis. Journal of statistical software 46-4. Cosgrove, D. 2006: Geographical imagination and the authority of image. Stuttgart. Cosgrove, D. 2008: Social formation and symbolic landscape. London.
Cosgrove, D., Daniels, S. 1988: The iconography oflandscape. Essays on the symbolic representation, design
and use of past environments. Cambridge. Courtney, M. G. R. 2013: Determining the number of factor to retain in EFA: Using the SPSS R-Menu v2.0
to make more judicious estimation. Practical assessment, research & evaluation 18-8. Crang, M. 2003: The hair in the gate: visuality and geographical knowledge. Antipode 35-2. Davison, M., Falihi, A. 2010: The conscious gaze: visuality as practice in the post-modern world. International
journal of diversity in organisations, communities 10-3. Driver, F. 2003: On geography as a visual discipline. Antipode 35-2.
Duncan, N., Duncan, J. 2009: Doing landscape interpretation. The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography. London.
Field, A. 2009: Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock'n'roll). Los Angeles. Fulgosi, A. 1988: Faktorska analiza. Zagreb.
Gams, I. 2007: Pokrajina, krajina in regija v luči Geografskega terminološkega slovarja. Dela 28. Gregory, D. 1993: Geographical imaginations. Blackwell.
Hočevar, M., Uršič, M., Kos, D.,Trček, F. 2005: Changing of the Slovene urban system: specific socio-spatial
trends and antiurban public values/attitudes. Paths of urban transformations. Frankfurt am Main. Hoelscher, S. 2006: Imaginative geographies. Encyclopedia of human geography. Hrvatin, M., Perko, D. 2003: Surface roughness and land use in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 43-2.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS43202 Hrvatin, M., Perko, D. 2009: Suitability of Hammond's method for determining landform units in Slovenia.
Acta geographica Slovenica 49-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS49204 Hvithamar, A., Warburg, M., Jacobsen, B. A. 2009: Holy nations and global identities, civil religion, nationalism, and globalisation. Leiden, Boston. Jager, J. 2009: Picturing nations: landscape photography and national identity in Britain and Germany in the mid-nineteenth century. Reproduced in picturing place. Photography and the geographical imagination. London.
Kaiser, H. F. 1974: An index offactorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
114
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
Kozina, J. 2010a: Prometna dostopnost v Sloveniji. Georitem 14. Ljubljana.
Kozina, J. 2010b: Transport accessibility to regional centres in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 50-2.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS50203 Kučan, A. 1996: Dejavniki nacionalne prostorske identitete v Sloveniji. Doktorska disertacija, Univerza
v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta. Ljubljana. Kučan, A. 1998: Krajina kot nacionalni simbol. Ljubljana.
Kučan, A. 2007: Constructing landscape conceptions. Journal oflandscape architecture 2-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/18626033.2007.9723378 Larose, D. T. 2006: Data mining methods and models. New Jersey. Lovrenčak, F. 1996: O uporabi pojma pokrajina. Geografski vestnik 68.
Lowenthal, D., Prince, H. C. 1965: English landscape tastes. Geographical review 55-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/212710
Matless, D. 2003: Gestures around the visual. Antipode 35-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00318 Marušič, J. 1995: Značilni krajinski vzorci Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Marušič, J., Jančič, M., Zakotnik, I., Kravanja, N., Piano, S. 1998a: Krajine alpske regije. Ljubljana. Marušič, J., Jančič, M., Hladnik, J., Kravanja, N., Kolšek, A., Piano, S., Simič, M. 1998b: Krajine predalpske regije. Ljubljana.
Marušič, J., Ogrin, D., Jančič, M. 1998c: Krajine primorske regije. Ljubljana. Marušič, J., Ogrin, D., Jančič, M., Kolšek, A. 1998d: Krajine subpanonske Slovenije. Ljubljana. Marušič, J., Ogrin, D., Jančič, M. 1998e: Kraške krajine notranje Slovenije. Ljubljana. Marušič, J., Ogrin, D., Jančič, M. 1998: Methodological bases. Ljubljana.
Ogorelec, B. 1987: Za pomensko razmejitev med pokrajino in krajino in proti njej. Geografski vestnik 59. Ogrin, D. 1997: Slovenske krajine. Ljubljana.
Perko, D. 1998: The regionalization of Slovenia. Acta geographica 38. Perko, D. 2007: Landscapes. Slovenia in focus. Ljubljana.
Poljak Istenič, S. 2011: Texts and contexts of folklorism. Traditiones 40-3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/ Traditio2011400304
Poljak Istenič, S. 2012: Aspects oftradition. Traditiones 41-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2012410206 Rogerson, P. A. 2001: Statistical methods for geography. London.
Rose, G. 2001: Visual methodologies: an introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London. Rose, G. 2003: On the need to ask how, exactly, is geography »visual«? Antipode 35-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1467-8330.00317 Rose, G. 2012: Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. London. Schwartz, J. M., Ryan, J. R. 2003: Picturing place: photography and the geographical imagination. London. Smith, S. J. 2000: Performing the (sound)world. Environment and planning D: society and space 18. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d225t Sui, D. Z. 2000: Visuality, aurality and shifting metaphors of geographical thought in the late twentieth century. Annals of the Association of American geographers 90-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 0004-5608.00197
Terkenli, T. S. 2001: Towards a theory ofthe landscape: the Aegean landscape as a cultural image. Landscape
and urban planning 57, 3-4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00204-3 Tuan, Y. F. 1976: Review of »The experience of landscape«. Professional geographer 28-1. Uršič, M., Hočevar, M. 2007: Protiurbanost kot način življenja. Ljubljana.
Uršič, M. 2010: Destruktivna tekmovalnost med slovenskimi mesti in podeželjem. Teorija in praksa 47, 2-3. Uršič, M. 2015: Skriti pridih podeželja? Razrednost in 'urbanost' v primeru Ljubljane in Maribora. Teorija in praksa 52-1.
115
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geografsko zamišljanje pokrajin: analiza fotomonografije Slovenske krajine
Geografsko zamišljanje pokrajin: analiza fotomonografije Slovenske krajine
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.836 UDK: 911.5:77.047(497.4) COBISS: 1.01
IZVLEČEK: V središču prispevka so geografske predstave o pokrajinah, izražene s fotografijami. Izhajamo iz predpostavke, da imajo fotografije pomembno vlogo pri oblikovanju in ohranjanju individualnih in kolektivnih predstav o pokrajini ter da je geografija kot veda tesno povezana z vizualnimi predstavami sveta. Empirični del obsega izbor in opredeljevanje/kodiranje fotografij iz knjige Dušana Ogrina Slovenske krajine ter njihovo analizo s pomočjo statističnih metod. Namen prispevka je prikazati, kakšno podobo pokrajin ustvarja omenjena knjiga. Cilj je zasnova/oblikovanje metodologije interpretacije fotografij, zlasti nabor kazalnikov in njihovih kategorij ter kriterijev za kvantitativno vrednotenje fotografij. Na tak način smo želeli analizirati izgled pokrajin po posameznih kazalnikih in se posebej osredotočiti na oblikovanost površja kot najpomembnejšo prvino pokrajin.
KEYWORDS: geografija, relief, pokrajine, zamišljanje pokrajin, fotografije, statistika, Slovenija
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 19. maja 2014.
NASLOVI: dr. Mimi Urbanc
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Novi trg 2, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: mimi@zrc-sazu.si
Primož Gašperič
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Novi trg 2, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: primoz.gasperic@zrc-sazu.si
dr. Jani Kozina
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Novi trg 2, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: jani.kozina@zrc-sazu.si
116
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
1	Uvod
Simboli in rituali ter njihovo posredovanje in sprejemanje imajo zelo pomembno vlogo pri oblikovanju naroda (Hvithamar s sod. 2009). Nacionalne ikonografije in tradicije, bodisi obstoječe bodisi na novo skonstruirane ali porajajoče pomagajo graditi, krepiti in vzdrževati povezanost naroda (Jager 2009; Cosgrove in Daniels 1988). Besedila (v najširšem pomenu besede) (Anderson 2007) in fotografije (Jager 2009) so odigrala odločilno vlogo v tem procesu, ki ga opredeljujejo s izrazom geografsko zamišljanje.
Geografsko zamišljanje kot diskurzivna praksa spremlja človeka od začetkov človeštva. Kot koncept znotraj geografije v luči njene znanstvene paradigme, izoblikovane v porazsvetljenski sistematiki modernih znanosti, pa je mnogo mlajši. Še mlajši je v slovenski geografiji, ki se je s posameznimi vidiki geografskega zamišljanja že ukvarjala, vendar v okviru drugih konceptualnih tradicij.
Koncept, ki se nanaša na dojemanje prostora preko slik, besedil in diskurzov, se je začel uveljavljati s post-modernimi pristopi v družbenih teorij ah in praksah, ki so v veliki meri vplivali tudi na geografij o. V humani geografiji so se tovrstni pristopi osredotočali na razumevanje načinov, kako se družba in njen način življenja zrcalita v prostoru, krajih in pokrajini (Gregory 1994; Hoelscher 2006).
V	geografskem zamišljanju, ki je tako proces kot tudi rezultat, igrajo fotografije od samih začetkov fotografskih tehnik pomembno vlogo. Njihova temeljna sporočilna vrednost je v njihovi vizualni predstavnosti. Vizualna kultura je vtisnjena v sodobni družbeno-politični kontekst (Davison in Falihi 2010). Vizualnost oblikuje tako znanje kot tudi številne oblike zabave in, kar vidimo, je vsaj tako pomembno ali celo bolj kot tisto, kar slišimo oziroma preberemo. Vizualnost je tesno povezana z geografijo. Zanjo so grafične podobe zelo pomembne pri oblikovanju znanja in njegovem podajanju. Nekateri gredo v svojem razmišljanju o tesni povezanosti med geografijo in vizualnostjo tako daleč, da trdijo, da je geografija »vizualna veda« (Gregory 1993; Smith 2000; Sui 2000).
Čeprav je vizualnost vgrajena v samo bistvo geografije, je šele ob koncu 20. stoletja postala predmet geografskega preučevanja. Prej je bila večinoma razumljena kot dopolnilo oziroma dodatek h geografskemu znanju in način njegovega pridobivanja. Z idejo geografskega zamišljanja je vizualnost zlasti prek fotografij, grafov in zemljevidov postala primarni vir preučevanja in orodje v kulturnih in zgodovinskih analizah (Rose 2001; Crang 2003; Driver 2003; Matless 2003; Rose 2003; Schwartz in Ryan 2003; Cosgrove 2006; Duncan in Duncan 2009; Rose 2012).
Vez med geografijo in vizualnostjo je najtrdnejša prav na primeru pokrajine. Tuan (1976) pravi, da humanistično usmerjenih geografov pokrajina ne zanima kot del ozemlja, ampak kot vizualna in estetska izkušnja. Pod vplivom humanističnih in behaviorističnih idej je Cosgrove (2008) pokrajino opredelil kot »način videnja«. S tem je pokrajina dobila novi dimenziji, kognitivno in izkustveno, ki sta postali sredstvo ter proizvod pokrajinske dinamike, uravnoteženosti, simbolizma, ideologije in identitete (Terkenli 2001).
Geografsko zamišljanje združuje zamišljanje in upodabljanje prostora, tako zunanjih opazovalcev (outsiders) kot tudi udeleženih opazovalcev (insiders). V tem prispevku se bomo osredotočili na slednje, na prebivalce Slovenije in njihovo zamišljanje pokrajine. Natančneje na fotomonografijo Slovenske krajine (Ogrin 1997). Namen prispevka je prikazati, kakšno podobo pokrajin ustvarja omenjena knjiga; torej s kakšnimi fotografijami jo prikazuje. Razkriti želimo tipične prvine pokrajin in ugotoviti, v kolikšni meri oblikovanost površja oziroma relief kot najpomembnejša pokrajinska prvina (Perko 2007; Hrvatin in Per-ko 2009) vpliva na ostale pokrajinske prvine, prikazane na fotografijah.
V	naslovu omenjene knjige je izraz krajina, sicer uporabljamo izraz pokrajina. Njuna raba in medsebojna vsebinska ter konceptualna razmejitev je bila že večkrat obravnavana (Ogorelec 1987; Lovrenčak 1996; Gams 2007) in je na tem mestu ne bi nadaljevali, saj ni bistvena za vsebino članka. Izhajajoč iz tradicije geografije uporabljamo izraz pokrajina, ki ga pomensko enačimo s krajino.
2	Metodologija interpretacije fotografij
Predmet analize je bila fotomonografija z naslovom Slovenske krajine, avtorja Dušana Ogrina, in sicer 2. dopolnjena izdaja (Ogrin 1997). Izbor knjige utemeljujemo z razlogoma, da fotografije prevladujejo nad besedilom, avtor pa je krajinski arhitekt, strokovnjak in nedvomno mnenjski vodja s področja pokrajine. Poleg tega so krajinski arhitekti korak pred geografi v razumevanju in preučevanju tudi nematerialnih vidikov pokrajine. Omeniti velja dela Kučanove (1996, 1998, 2007), v katerih je opredelila subtilno in logično
117
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geografsko zamišljanje pokrajin: analiza fotomonografije Slovenske krajine
prepletanje geografskega zamišljanja in pokrajine, in obsežno nalogo Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji. Rezultat, opredelitev temeljnih krajinskih morfoloških enot Slovenije, ki je nastala s terenskim delom na intuitiven in holističen način (Marušič 1995; Marušič, Ogrin in Jančič 1998), je predstavljen v 5 knjigah (Marušič s sod. 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1998d, 1998e).
Fotomonografija kaže pokrajinski okus, torej cenjeno, ohranjeno, reproducirano (Lowenthal in Prince 1965) in, kot je sam avtor zapisal v uvodu, kar je lepo in je vredno ohraniti. Skoraj kvadratna oblika in večji format knjige (širina 285 mm, višina 305 mm) omogočata prikaz širokih in preglednih fotografij, ki povečajo izrazno moč prikazanega območja. Analiza je zajela 307 slik različnih velikosti; skoraj 73 % je celostranskih in polstranskih, najmanjše pa dodatno osvetlijo obravnavane teme.
Slike so vsebovale podnapise, kjer je bila v večini primerov navedena lokacija prikazanega ozemlja. V nekaterih primerih smo lokacijo ugotovili tudi kot poznavalci prikazanih območij. Vsaka fotografija je bila najprej uvrščena v posamezen tip pokrajin. Ob tem smo se naslonili na naravnogeografsko tipizacijo, ki Slovenijo deli na alpski, sredozemski, dinarski in panonski svet (Perko 1998). Zaradi notranje pestrosti alpskih pokrajin smo jih razdelili na dva dela. K pravim alpskim pokrajinam smo prišteli alpsko visokogorje, k predalpskim pokrajinam pa alpska hribovja in vmesne ravnine (slika 1).
Slika 1: Zemljevid pokrajin in lokacije fotografij. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Vsaka fotografija je bila nato opredeljena/kodirana glede na vnaprej dogovorjenih devet kazalnikov, ki prikazujejo posamezne pokrajinske prvine. Da bi bil postopek opredeljevanja/kodiranja čim bolj enoten, ga je v celoti izvedla ena oseba. Najprej nas je na vsaki sliki zanimal prevladujoč reliefni tip. Nato smo vsako fotografijo poskušali »v mislih« razdeliti na dva dela in ločeno določiti reliefne oblike ter rabo zemljišč v ospredju in ozadju. V nadaljevanju smo na posamezni sliki prepoznavali še prevladujoč tip poselitve, vrsto infrastrukture ter določili vidne premične in vodne elemente. Izbrani kazalniki s pripadajočimi kategorijami so naslednji:
•	reliefni tip (ravnina, gričevje, hribovje, nizka planota, visoka planota, visokogorje, klif, morska obalna ravnica);
•	reliefne oblike v ospredju (dolina, obala, ravno površje, položna pobočja, strma pobočja, kraško površje, valovito površje);
•	reliefne oblike v ozadju (dolina, obala, klifi, ravno površje, položna pobočja, strma pobočja, kraško površje, valovito površje);
•	raba zemljišč v ospredju (skalovje, pozidano, grmičevje, njiva, trajni nasad, travinje, park, gozd, mešana raba);
•	raba zemljišč v ozadju (skalovje, pozidano, grmičevje, njiva, trajni nasad, travinje, park, gozd, mešana raba);
•	poselitev (strnjeno naselje, razpršena poselitev, posamezne stavbe, neposeljeno);
•	infrastruktura (cesta, električna napeljava, pešpot/steza, ni infrastrukture);
•	premični elementi (živa bitja, prevozna sredstva);
•	vodni elementi (stoječe vode, tekoče vode, brez vodnih elementov).
Poseben izziv pri ocenjevanju so predstavljale slike slabše kakovosti, prikazi večjega območja in večjega števila neenakomerno razporejenih elementov. Na sliki 2, ki prikazuje Škofjeloško hribovje, je težje določljiva meja med prednjim in zadnjim delom slike. Prav tako ni vidna infrastruktura, ki glede na poselitev in rabo zemljišč prav gotovo obstaja. Ker je slika manjšega formata, prikazano ozemlje pa reliefno zelo razgibano, je težje določljiva tudi raba zemljišč in premični elementi. Na sliki 3, ki prikazuje Kamniško polje, so težje določljivi elementi v ozadju. Težava ni v prepoznavi posameznih kategorij (reliefne oblike, raba zemljišč in poselitev so prepoznavni), temveč v njihovem deležu in vrsti.
Pokrajinske prvine, prikazane na fotografijah, smo podrobneje analizirali s pomočjo lokacijskega koeficienta, analize asociacije in faktorske analize.
Slika 2: Primer problematičnega določevanja pokrajinskih prvin v Škofjeloškem hribovju predalpskega sveta (Ogrin 1997). Glej angleški del prispevka.
Slika 3: Primer problematičnega določevanja pokrajinskih prvin na Kamniškem polju predalpskega sveta (Ogrin 1997). Glej angleški del prispevka.
118
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
3 Izgled pokrajin
Največ fotografij prikazuje predalpske pokrajine, kjer je nekaj naših največjih in najgosteje poseljenih območij, denimo Ljubljanska in Celjska kotlina. Alpske in predalpske pokrajine, ki - tako kot pove že njihovo ime - skupaj tvorijo alpski svet, so prikazane na skoraj polovici vseh fotografij. Njim s petinskim deležem sledijo panonske, tem pa z enakomerno najmanjšima deležema dinarske in sredozemske (slika 4).
Zanimiva je primerjava razmerja med deležem fotografij in deležem površin določenega tipa pokrajine. Medtem ko v primeru alpskih in panonskih pokrajin večjih razlik ni, se te pojavljajo v ostalih treh tipih pokrajin. Večji delež fotografij v primerjavi z deležem površja je zaznati v predalpskih in sredozemskih pokrajinah, ravno obratno pa velja za dinarske pokrajine.
Slika 4: Primerjava deležev fotografij z deležem površin in prebivalcev pokrajin. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Pokrajine, kot jih kažejo fotografije v izbrani knjigi, lahko s pomočjo izbranih kazalnikov pokrajinskih prvin opišemo na naslednji način:
•	Alpske pokrajine so izrazito hribovite, visokogorske oziroma z visokimi planotami. V ospredju so bodisi strma ali položna pobočja bodisi dolina, v ozadju zgolj strma pobočja. Raba zemljišč v ospredju je večinoma travinje ali gozd, le redko mešana in pozidana zemljišča. V ozadju prevladujeta gozd in skalovje. Poselitev je v obliki posameznih stavb oziroma je ni. Prav tako večinoma ni infrastrukture, če pa že, je to cesta, električna napeljava ali pešpot/steza, kar je značilno tudi za ostale tipe pokrajin. Premičnih elementov praktično ni, le sem ter tja se pojavi kakšno živo bitje. Redki so tudi vodni elementi.
Slika 5: Primer fotografije alpskega sveta prikazuje visokogorje Špikove skupine na Gorenjskem (Ogrin 1997). Glej angleški del prispevka.
•	Predalpske pokrajine kažejo preplet hribovij in ravnin. Manjši delež predstavljajo tudi gričevja. Reliefne oblike v ospredju so v glavnem ravne, nekaj pa je tudi dolin ter strmih in položnih pobočij. V ozadju prevladujejo predvsem strma pobočja, ponekod tudi položna ali pa je svet raven. Raba zemljišč v ospredju je pestra. Največ je travinja, ki mu sledijo njiva, gozd in pozidana zemljišča. V ozadju prevladuje gozd. Poselitev je prikazana podobno kot pri alpskih pokrajinah. Nekoliko več je le strnjenih naselij. Redko so prikazani premični in vodni elementi.
Slika 6: Primer fotografije predalpskega sveta prikazuje prehod ravninskega dela Gorenjske proti obronkom Kamniških planin (Ogrin 1997). Glej angleški del prispevka.
•	Dinarske pokrajine so upodobljene v obliki hribovij in gričevij. Nekaj je tudi visokih in nizkih planot. V ospredju prevladuje predvsem kraško in valovito površje ter položna pobočja. Podoben izgled je tudi v ozadju, le da je namesto valovitega sveta več strmih pobočij. Raba zemljišč v ospredju je podobno pestra kot v predalpskih pokrajinah. Nekoliko več je samo njiv in skalovja. V ozadju prevladuje gozd. Poselitev je v primerjavi s (pred)alpsko prikazana malce bolj razpršeno. Večkrat se pojavljajo prevozna sredstva in, presenetljivo, tudi tekoče vode, ki so v tem tipu pokrajin zelo redek pojav.
Slika 7: Primer fotografije dinarskega sveta prikazuje valovito površje pri Uncu na Notranjskem (Ogrin 1997). Glej angleški del prispevka.
•	Sredozemske pokrajine so reliefno prikazane podobno kot dinarske, v obliki hribovij in gričevij. Dodatno nastopa še morska obalna ravnica, manj pa je visokih planot. V ospredju je videti večinoma kraško in ravno površje, prvo izrazito prevladuje tudi v ozadju. Poleg tega se pojavljajo tudi položna pobočja in obala. Raba zemljišč v ospredju je podobna kot v dinarskem svetu. Namesto njiv se pojavlja več trajnih nasadov. V ozadju še vedno prevladuje gozd, vendar so pomembne kategorije tudi pozidana in mešana zemljišča ter trajni nasadi. Poselitev je najpogosteje prikazana v obliki strnjenih naselij in posameznih stavb. Redko je pokrajina prikazana neposeljena oziroma v obliki razpršene poselitve. Sredozemske pokrajine v največji meri od vseh prikazujejo prevozna sredstva in stoječe vode v obliki morja.
Slika 8: Primer fotografije primorskega sveta prikazuje območje naselja Šmarje v Slovenski Istri (Ogrin 1997). Glej angleški del prispevka.
119
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geografsko zamišljanje pokrajin: analiza fotomonografije Slovenske krajine
• Panonske pokrajine kažejo preplet ravnin in gričevij. V ospredju izrazito prevladuje ravno površje z redkimi položnimi pobočji, ki pridejo bolj do izraza v ozadju. Pri rabi zemljišč v ospredju prevladujejo njive, ki jim sledijo travinje in trajni nasadi. V ozadju je večinoma gozd, vendar pomemben delež zavzemajo tudi njive in trajni nasadi. Poselitev je prikazana tako v obliki neposeljenega sveta kot v obliki posameznih stavb in razpršene poselitve. Precejkrat so prisotne tekoče vode.
Slika 9: Primer fotografije panonskega sveta prikazuje območje naselja Kobilje v Prekmurju (Og rin 1997). Glej angleški del prispevka.
Razlike v izgledu pokrajin lahko natančneje primerjamo z lokacijskim koeficientom. Njegova vrednost ponazarja, v kolikšni meri prikaz posamezne kategorije kazalnika v pokrajini odstopa od državnega povprečja. Čim bolj vrednost lokacijskega koeficienta presega vrednost 1, tem bolj je prikaz posamezne kategorije kazalnika med vsemi fotografijami v pokrajini višji od slovenskega povprečja. Vrednosti pod 1 kažejo podpovprečno koncentracijo. Izračun lokacijskega koeficienta lahko zapišemo v obliki naslednje enačbe:
število fotografij, ki prikazujejo posamezno kategorijo kazalnika v pokrajini število vseh fotografij pokrajine
lokacijski količnik = -
število vseh fotografij, ki prikazujejo posamezno kategorijo kazalnika v Sloveniji število vseh fotografij pokrajine
V preglednici 1 so navedene najpomembnejše kategorije kazalnikov pokrajinskih prvin, ki v posameznem tipu pokrajin v večji meri nadpovprečno odstopajo od državnega povprečja (lokacijski koeficient >1,25).
Povezanost neštevilskih kazalnikov pokrajinskih prvin z njihovo zastopanostjo po posameznih tipih pokrajin smo ugotavljali z analizo asociacije. Izkazalo se je, da so skoraj vsi obravnavani kazalniki, z izjemo infrastrukture, statistično značilno povezani z njihovo zastopanostjo po pokrajinah (p <0,05) (preglednica 2). To pomeni, da obstajajo statistično značilne razlike v izgledu pokrajin po obravnavanih kazalnikih. Velikost Cramerjevega koeficienta (V; interval med 0 in 1) kaže, da prihaja do zelo močne povezanosti v primeru reliefnega tipa in reliefnih oblik, zmerno močne povezanosti v primeru rabe zemljišče in vodnih elementov ter šibke povezanosti v primeru poselitve in premičnih elementov.
Preglednica 1: Vizualne lastnosti pokrajin, ki najbolj izstopajo v razmerju do ostalih pokrajin (lokacijski koeficient >1,25). Vrstni red kategorij v posamezni celici kaže padajoče zaporedje moči izstopanja.
kazalniki pokrajinskih prvin	alpske pokrajine	predalpske pokrajine	dinarske pokrajine	sredozemske pokrajine	panonske pokrajine
reliefni tip	visokogorje, visoka planota, hribovje	hribovje, ravnina	gričevje, visoka planota, nizka planota	morska obalna ravnica, nizka planota, gričevje	ravnina, gričevje
reliefne oblike v ospredju	dolina, strmo pobočje	ravno površje, strmo pobočje	valovito površje, kraško površje, položno pobočje	obala, kraško površje	ravno površje
reliefne oblike v ozadju	strmo pobočje	strmo pobočje	kraško površje, položno pobočje	obala, kraško površje	ravno površje, položno pobočje
raba zemljišč v ospredju	mešana raba, travinje, gozd	pozidano	mešana raba, njiva	park, trajni nasad, mešana raba	trajni nasad, njiva
raba zemljišč v ozadju	skalovje	/	travinje	mešana raba, pozidano, trajni nasad	njiva, trajni nasad
Poselitev	/	/	razpršena poselitev	strnjeno naselje	razpršena poselitev
infrastruktura	/	/	električna napeljava, pešpot/steza	pešpot/steza	/
premični elementi	živo bitje	živo bitje	/	prevozno sredstvo	/
vodni element	/	/	tekoča voda	/	tekoča voda
120
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
Preglednica 2: Stopnja povezanosti med kazalniki pokrajinskih prvin in njihovo zastopanostjo po tipih pokrajin.
kazalnik pokrajinske prvine	/2	stopinje prostosti	p (dvostranska)	V
reliefni tip	301,122	40	0,000	0,443
reliefne oblike v ospredju	214,801	35	0,000	0,374
reliefne oblike v ozadju	281,923	40	0,000	0,429
raba zemljišč v ospredju	88,105	45	0,013	0,240
raba zemljišč v ozadju	120,186	50	0,010	0,280
poselitev	48,724	20	0,016	0,199
infrastruktura	14,157	20	0,814	0,107
premični elementi	23,751	10	0,017	0,197
vodni elementi	36,225	15	0,001	0,243
4 Oblikovanost površja kot najpomembnejša prvina v izgledu pokrajin
Ker se je oblikovanost površja tudi v naši analizi pokazala kot najpomembnejša pokrajinska prvina, smo se odločili za njegovo natančnejšo obravnavo. S tega vidika nas je zanimalo, kako relief vpliva na ostale pokrajinske prvine, prikazane na fotografijah. Ker imamo v tem primeru opravka s kompleksnejšimi razsežnostmi, smo se odločili za uporabo eksplorativne faktorske analize (EFA) (glej Fulgosi 1988; Rogerson 2001).
V ta namen smo opisne podatke, zbrane z interpretacijo/kodiranjem fotografij, pretvorili v številske s križanjem podatkov o tipu pokrajin (alpske, predalpske ...) in reliefnem tipu. Tako smo 307 fotografij razdelili v 27 skupin, ki so bile nove enote te analize. Obenem smo osem preostalih kazalnikov pokrajinskih prvin razdelili tako, da so njihove kategorije postale nove spremenljivke. Po izločitvi velikega dela »nebistvenih« vsebin (kategorij, prikazanih na manj kot 5 % fotografij znotraj posameznega kazalnika) in ob upoštevanju ostalih zahtev za izvedbo faktorske analize (glej Larose 2006; Field 2009) smo vanjo vključili 24 spremenljivk.
Ker se večina spremenljivk ne porazdeljuje normalno, smo njihove vrednosti pretvorili v range in EFA izvedli na podlagi polihorične korelacijske matrike, kar omogoča ukaz R-Menu v programu SPSS (Basto in Pereira 2012). Za ekstrakcijo faktorjev smo uporabili metodo glavnih komponent z ortogonalno rotacijo varimax. Kaiser-Mayer-Olkinov preizkus je potrdil ustreznost velikosti vzorca, KMO = 0,800, kar je precej nad priporočeno minimalno vrednostjo 0,5 (Kaiser 1974). Bartlettov preizkus sferičnosti x2 (276) = 2902,032, p< 0,001, je pokazal, da so spremenljivke med seboj dovolj visoko povezane. Za določitev števila skupnih faktorjev smo uporabili merilo Paralelne analize (Courtney 2013), s čimer smo identificirali tri faktorje (preglednica 3), ki skupaj pojasnijo 80,8 % skupne variance in izkazujejo visoko mero zanesljivosti, aplh - k , ->0,9 (Field 2009). Vrednosti koeficientov, GFI>0,95, AGFI>0,95 in RMSR<0,1, so potr-
polinoricne korelacije	v	'	£
dile zelo dobro prileganje modela dobljenim rezultatom (Basto in Pereira 2012).
Rezultati so pokazali, da faktor 1 pojasnjuje dobro tretjino (37,7 %) skupne variance. Zanj je značilno, da od reliefnih oblik v ospredju izstopajo bodisi strma oziroma položna pobočja bodisi dolina, medtem ko so v ozadju v glavnem strma pobočja. Raba zemljišč je večinoma gozdnata, se pa pojavljajo v ospredju tudi travinja. Poselitev je razpršena, ali pa gre za prikaz posameznih stavb. Na fotografijah se pojavljajo tudi premični elementi (živa bitja) in linijska infrastruktura. Z enim izrazom lahko ta faktor imenujemo »faktor hribovitosti«.
Faktor 2 pojasnjuje dobro četrtino (28,1 %) skupne variance. Zanj je značilno, da so reliefne oblike v ospredju ravne, v ozadju pa položna pobočja. Od rabe zemljišč tako v ospredju kot v ozadju prevladujejo njive, se pa pojavljajo v ospredju tudi trajni nasadi. Poselitev je strnjena. Značilen je prikaz tekočih voda in prevoznih sredstev. Linijska infrastruktura iz faktorja 1 se precej visoko povezujejo tudi s faktorjem 2. Po opisu sodeč lahko ta faktor poimenujemo »faktor ravninskosti«.
Faktor 3 pojasnjuje okoli šestino (15,0 %) skupne variance. Zanj je značilna prevlada kraških oblik tako v ospredju kot v ozadju. Le redko je v ozadju prikazana ravnina. Zaradi svoje enostavnosti in čistih potez ga lahko imenujemo tudi »faktor kraškosti«.
121
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geografsko zamišljanje pokrajin: analiza fotomonografije Slovenske krajine
Preglednica 3: Faktorska matrika.
uteži rotiranih faktorjev			
spremenljivka	faktor 1	faktor 2	faktor 3
reliefne oblike v ospredju_strmo pobočje	0,954	-0,145	-0,017
reliefne oblike v ospredju_dolina	0,945	-0,001	0,196
reliefne oblike v ozadj u_strmo pobočje	0,934	-0,176	-0,066
raba zemljišč v ospredju_gozd	0,828	0,327	0,085
raba zemljišč v ozadj u_gozd	0,807	0,495	0,130
raba zemljišč v ospredju_travinje	0,806	0,293	0,167
premični elementi_živo bitje	0,785	0,236	-0,016
poselitev_posamezna stavba	0,749	0,480	0,223
reliefne oblike v ospredju_položno pobočje	0,722	0,295	0,346
infrastruktura_električna napeljava	0,684	0,599	0,124
infrastruktura_cesta	0,680	0,635	0,038
infrastruktura_pešpot/steza	0,605	0,506	0,298
poselitev_razpršena poselitev	0,585	0,376	-0,101
raba zemljišč v ospredju_njiva	0,244	0,881	-0,044
reliefne oblike v ospredju_ravno površje	0,188	0,798	-0,273
premični elementi_prevozno sredstvo	0,224	0,772	0,265
raba zemljišč v ozadju_njiva	-0,162	0,767	-0,460
reliefne oblike v ozadju_položno pobočje	0,413	0,741	0,106
vodni element_tekoča voda	0,564	0,729	-0,219
poselitev_strnjeno naselje	0,586	0,649	0,292
raba zemljišč v ospredju_trajni nasad	-0,087	0,609	0,330
reliefne oblike v ozadju_kraško površje	0,096	0,159	0,968
reliefne oblike v ospredju_kraška površje	0,131	0,124	0,964
reliefne oblike v ozadju_ravno površje	-0,099	0,465	-0,855
lastne vrednosti	9,045	6,750	3,589
% variance	37,689	28,127	14,956
a .. , , ..	0,966	0,911	0,938
pohhmne korelaoie			
Preglednica 4 prikazuje reprezentativnost faktorjev za posamezen reliefni tip pokrajin. Faktorji, ki so nadpovprečni za več kot en standardni odklon in so torej najbolj značilni za posamezen reliefni tip pokrajin, so označeni odebeljeno. Ostali nadpovprečno značilni faktorji so označeni neodebeljeno. Ob tem se je izkazalo, da so nekateri reliefni tipi pokrajin pestrejši od drugih, saj se v njih prepletajo značilnosti več faktorjev. Kot najbolj pestri (prepletanje vseh treh faktorjev) so se izkazali predalpska hribovja ter dinarska in sredozemska gričevja. Med bolj pestre (prepletanje dveh faktorjev) sodijo tudi alpska in dinarska hribovja, predalpske ravnine ter panonska gričevja in ravnine. V nekaterih (za posamezno pokrajino manj značilnih) reliefnih tipih noben faktor ne prihaja do izraza (na primer visokogorje v predalpskih pokrajinah ali hribovje v panonskih pokrajinah).
Pregled po faktorjih kaže, da faktor 1 (faktor hribovitosti) izrazito izstopa v hribovjih celotnega alpskega sveta, poleg tega pa še v alpskem visokogorju, dinarskih hribovjih, predalpskih in panonskih ravninah ter skorajda vseh gričevjih. Faktor 2 (faktor ravninskosti) je najbolj značilen za predalpska hribovja in ravnine ter panonska gričevja in ravnine, hkrati pa še za gričevja dinarskih in sredozemskih pokrajin. Faktor 3 (faktor kraškosti) je najbolj poudarjen v dinarskih gričevjih in sredozemskih hribovjih, sicer pa je značilen za skoraj vse reliefne tipe dinarskih in sredozemskih pokrajin in tudi (pred)alpska hribovja ter visoke in zakrasele alpske planote.
5 Razprava: pokrajinski okus
Fotografije izbrane monografije odsevajo pokrajinski okus avtorja, ki poleg edinstvenega in individualnega okusa nedvomno odraža in istočasno oblikuje tudi obči pokrajinski okus. Na avtorjevo videnje pokrajine
122
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
Preglednica 4: Reprezentativnost faktorjev za posamezne reliefne tipe pokrajin.		
pokrajina	reliefni tip	reprezentativnost faktorjev
alpske pokrajine	visokogorje visoka planota hribovje	hribovitost kraškost hribovitost, kraškost
predalpske pokrajine	visokogorje visoka planota	/ /
	hribovje nizka planota	hribovitost, ravninskost, kraškost /
	drugo	/
	ravnina	hribovitost, ravninskost
dinarske pokrajine	visoka planota gričevje	F3 hribovitost, ravninskost, kraškost
	hribovje nizka planota	kraškost
	drugo ravnina	kraškost /
sredozemske pokrajine	klif morska obalna ravnica	/ kraškost
	gričevje hribovje	kraškost
	nizka planota drugo ravnina	kraškost kraškost /
panonske pokrajine	gričevje hribovje	hribovitost, ravninskost /
	nizka planota ravnina	/ hribovitost, ravninkost
vplivajo kulturno, družbeno in intelektualno okolje, obenem pa je njegovo »strokovno« geografsko zamiš-ljanje pokrajine oziroma njegovo »pokrajinsko znanstveno rezoniranje« medij, ki (so)oblikuje okus širših množic in njihove ideje o družbeni in prostorski realnosti. Analizirane fotografije kažejo, kako se družba in njen način življenja zrcalita v pokrajini in, obratno, kako upodobljena pokrajina želi posredno usmerjati družbeni razvoj.
Če pokrajino razumemo kot način videnja, se porodi vprašanje, kakšno videnje prinaša izbrana foto-monografija? Kakšno pokrajino, kakšno Slovenijo torej vidimo v njej? Prvi izsledek je, da gotovo alpsko, saj skoraj polovica (48 %) pokrajinskega zamišljanja temelji na podobi alpskosti, čeprav alpske pokrajine (prave alpske in predalpske skupaj) obsegajo nekoliko manjši delež (42 %) slovenskega ozemlja. Ugotovitev, da je delež fotografij sredozemskih pokrajin (15 %) precej večji od deleža površin sredozemskih pokrajin (9 %), vodi v domnevo, da pomemben del pokrajinskega zamišljanja temelji tudi na sredozemskosti. S tega vidika imajo manj pomembno vlogo dinarske pokrajine, medtem ko je pomen panonskih pokrajin uravnotežen. K veliki gostoti fotografij sredozemskih pokrajin verjetno prispevajo vsaj trije dejavniki, in sicer, potreba po trdnejši umestitvi sredozemskih pokrajin v geografsko zamišljanje Slovencev, saj jih bremeni zgodovinska politična dediščina. Drugi razlog je v razgibanosti in pokrajinski pestrosti, ki nudita obilo privlačnih fotografskih motivov. Tretjo skupino razlogov bi lahko imenovali modni trend in iskanje priljubljenega Sredozemlja v načinu prehranjevanja in življenjskem slogu.
Dejstvo, da je predalpska podoba Slovenije pred pravo alpsko, je presenetljivo ob vedenju, da je visokogorje odigralo in še vedno igra vidno vlogo v identifikaciji Slovencev (Triglav, boj med slovenskim in nemškim taborom pri osvajanju visokogorja v preteklosti in podobno). Mogoče je pri tem odločalo tudi dejstvo, da predalpske pokrajine zaznamuje večja pestrost in raznolikost, medtem ko je visokogorje oblikovno
123
Mimi Urbanc, Primož Gašperič, Jani Kozina, Geografsko zamišljanje pokrajin: analiza fotomonografije Slovenske krajine
in barvno bolj »uniformirano« in razmeroma manj »občutljivo« na letne čase. Prav tako presenetljivo je dejstvo, da (prave) alpske pokrajine po deležu fotografij zaostajajo za panonskimi pokrajinami, saj so dramatične pokrajine z veliko reliefno energijo privlačnejše za fotografski objektiv in obratno, ravninski svet nudi manj privlačnih motivov.
Po pričakovanjih povezanost med pokrajinskimi prvinami, prikazanimi na fotografijah, z njihovo zastopanostjo po posameznih tipih pokrajin, pokaže, da lega v določeni pokrajini (alpski, predalpski...) določa predvsem reliefni tip, reliefne oblike, rabo zemljišč in vodne elemente, v manjši meri pa poselitev in premične elemente, medtem ko se prikaz infrastrukture med pokrajinami bistveno ne razlikuje. To nakazuje na policentrično oziroma skladno regionalno strukturo, saj smo z vidika poselitve oziroma prisotnosti človeka in prometnic razmeroma enakomerno prepredli praktično celo Slovenijo (Kozina 2010a; Kozina 2010b).
Vrsto zanimivih ugotovitev ponuja podrobnejši pregled rabe zemljišč. Tako denimo v redkeje poseljenih dinarskih pokrajinah, kjer je sicer manj obdelovalnih zemljišč in površinskih voda, po koncentraciji na fotografijah izstopajo njive in tekoče vode, v predalpskih pokrajinah, ki so sicer bogatejše z vidika kmetijskih zemljišč in vodnih virov, pa tega iz fotografij ni zaznati. Razlog je verjetno v tem, da so njive in vode v dinarskih pokrajinah redek vir in se jim zato pripisuje večji pomen. Voda, v tem primeru stoječa oziroma morska, izstopa skupaj s prevoznimi sredstvi v sredozemskih pokrajinah, kar poudarja oziroma krepi maritimni in prometni položaj tega dela Slovenije. Ta pokrajinska prvina izstopa tudi v prikazu panonskih pokrajina in kaže na pomen Mure oziroma vode za kmetijstvo in druge dejavnosti, kot so denimo mlinarstvo, ter varstva pred sušami.
Upodobitve gozda so zelo povedne. V ospredju se sicer redkeje pojavlja (še najpogosteje v alpskem svetu), medtem ko je v ozadju prevladujoča kategorija v vseh pokrajinah. Očitno je gozd razumljen kot okvir, stalnica, ki je ni potrebno posebej poudarjati, saj pokriva več kot 60 % površja Slovenije (Hrvatin in Per-ko 2003).
Celokupno tretjina fotografij ne kaže naselij, živa bitja pa so v večini primerov prava redkost. Odsotnost (strnjene, mestne) poselitve in živih bitij implicira statičen in ahuman značaj pokrajin. Odsotnost ljudi nedvomno izraža latentno dojemanje pokrajine kot naravne tvorbe, kar nas vodi do ugotovitve, da urbana pokrajina ne obstaja. Fotografije kažejo zgolj podeželsko (za razliko od urbane) pokrajino, kar odraža protiurbani značaj slovenskega načina življenja (Hočevar s sod. 2005; Poljak Istenič 2011, 2012; Uršič in Hočevar 2007; Uršič 2010, 2015) in podobe kmečkosti, za katero se zdi, da ni bledela sočasno z nazadovanjem deleža kmečkega prebivalstva in pomena kmetijstva. Kmečkost utrjuje tudi že omenjeni velik delež njiv, ki so postavljene v ospredju. (Kmetijska) aktivnost je ustvarila kultivirano pokrajino, neaktivnost, katere rezultat je gozd, pa je postavljena v ozadje. Podoba kmečkosti je postala konstrukt in za kulturne pokrajine lahko to trdimo z gotovostjo. Rezultati analize obravnavane knjige to nedvomno potrjujejo.
6 Sklep
Rezultati analize fotomonografije so pokazali, da so v njej po obsegu precenjene zlasti predalpske in sredozemske pokrajine, podcenjene pa dinarske. Ravno tako so precenjena njivska zemljišča. Gozd je prikazan dokaj uravnoteženo, vendar nastopa le kot obrobje in ne kot središče. Voda je poudarjena tam, kjer je redek ali omejen vir, vendar nujen za kmetijstvo. Slednje je rdeča nit in jasno izražen oblikovalec kulturne pokrajine. Drugi temeljni tip kot antipod kmetijski pokrajini, to je urbana pokrajina, pa je povsem izpuščen. Najpomembnejši oblikovalec pokrajine je relief, ki je na fotografijah večinoma prikazan v treh razsežnostih. Poudarjeni so višji, bolj razčlenjen, redkeje poseljen in gozdnat relief (faktor 1), nižji, ravnejši/položnejši, gosteje poseljen in bolj kultiviran relief (faktor 2) in kraški, manj razgiban relief (faktor 3).
Fotografije znanje oblikujejo in ga tudi podajajo. Enako pokrajine vplivajo na oblikovanje pokrajinskega okusa in obratno; pokrajinski okus oblikuje pokrajino (Lowenthal in Prince 1965). Ta dvosmerni in večplastni proces je geografsko zamišljanje, definirano kot prostorsko orientirano kulturno in zgodovinsko vedenje, ki opredeljuje družbene skupine. Geografsko upodabljanje briše razlike med dejanskim in navideznim svetom in oblikuje identiteto ljudi, razumevanje sveta in tudi svet sam. Zato tovrstna analiza več pove o ljudeh kot o pokrajini: razkriva, kaj družba ceni, kako si predstavlja svojo pokrajino, kakšno samopodobo imajo ljudje in kakšno podobo hoče posredovati drugim.
124
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-1, 2015
ZAHVALA: Članek je nastal v okviru projekta J6-4138 Šolski učbeniki kot orodje za oblikovanje geografskih predstav o slovenskih pokrajinah, ki ga je financirala Agencija Republike Slovenije za raziskovalno dejavnost. Zahvaljujemo se anonimnima recenzentoma, ki sta pripomogla k večji kakovosti članka.
7 Literatura
Glej angleški del prispevka.
125