In this paper, I will address the aspects of the article titled The Semiotics of Landscape Design Communication: Towards a Critical Visual Research Approach in Landscape Architecture, written in 2016 by Kevin Raaphorst, Ingrid Duchhart, Wim van der Knaap, Gerda Roeleveld, and Adri van den Brink, that I find problematic. I find the article valuable in terms of critical theory and emancipatory movements that emerged in the 1990s and became a focal point of the era through numerous studies. However, I believe the epistemological, methodological, and ontological analyses in the article are insufficient.
I will attempt to present my argument—that the article fails to adequately interpret Foucault’s concepts of the knowledge/power relationship and discourse analysis, Baudrillard’s simulacra and simulation, Derrida’s concept of différance, and Panofsky’s iconographic analysis strategy, and that the authors did not recognize how these could be better utilized within the framework of the article—by drawing on the works of the authors I have mentioned. The authors’ tendency to cite names and concepts has led the article to remain ornamental rather than deepening its analysis. In this paper, I will first present a brief summary of the article, followed by a detailed elaboration of my analytical points.
The article addresses the lack of studies on the sociopolitical reflections of visual landscape representations within the fields of social sciences and communication studies. Furthermore the article aims to offer an epistemological and methodological proposal on how concepts such as semiotics, simulacra and simulation, and power/knowledge can be utilized to adopt a critical perspective in the representation of landscape architecture. Methodologically, the authors suggest that visual discourse analysis can be conducted through the works of Saussure, Barthes, and Pierce; iconographic content analysis based on Panofsky; and a social analysis drawing on Foucault. Derrida is also utilized. A photomontage taken from BMD is used in the article; first, the names of the objects it contains are listed, and then what these objects might signify is indicated. The article notes that Saussure perceived the linguistic sign as a two-part whole consisting of the signifier and the signified, while Pierce developed a logic-based semiotic theory advocating a triadic understanding of signification comprising the representamen, object, and interpretant (Raaphorst et al., 2016, p. 123). The article also states that Barthes, like Pierce, advocates a semiotic approach that emphasizes the interpretant—and thus not only literal meaning but also connotation—and can deconstruct an image by dividing it into three messages: non-coded message, sign, and coded message (ibid., p. 124).
Following these explanations, the authors note that iconographic landscape studies have a deep-rooted connection with art history and suggest that iconographic analysis can also be utilized in landscape research and design (Raaphorst et al., 2016, p. 124). First, I would like to offer a critique of this point. Panofsky states that evaluating a painting from an iconographic perspective involves three stages: pre-iconographic description, iconographic analysis, and iconographic interpretation (Panofsky, 1955, p. 34–35). In the analysis of the photograph taken from the BMD in the article, such a method was not followed. Furthermore, regarding the motifs, images, and allegories we observe in the painting Panofsky refers to, “the way objects and events are expressed through forms under changing historical conditions” Panofsky’s judgment that “understanding those fundamental principles underlying the production and interpretation of what we see—and even the formal arrangements and technical procedures employed—cannot be achieved through ‘synthetic intuition’” has been completely disregarded (Panofsky, 1955, pp. 34, 36) Furthermore, how can we equate Leonardo da Vinci’s work The Last Supper, which Panofsky referenced, with a landscape design representation produced using textures available in design programs like AutoCAD? From literary, cultural, and political perspectives, I believe it may be forced to examine these two vastly different objects using the same method.
Another problem lies in the phrase “it looked better in the pictures” (Raaphorst et al., 2016, p. 126). The authors, who draw on Baudrillard’s concepts of “simulacra” and “simulation,” fail to see the obvious distinction here. As Baudrillard himself notes, “representation,” by definition, requires equivalence between the sign and the real, whereas simulation is the reversal of the sign and the signing of its death warrant (Baudrillard, 1994, p. 6). According to Baudrillard, the image is first and foremost a reflection of a deep reality; it masks reality, masks the absence of reality, severs its connection with reality, and becomes its own simulacrum (ibid., p. 6). We cannot view landscape architecture designs as simulacra, because they are representations that will ultimately attain reality. The representation of landscape design can only be a part of a project file. ,
The fundamental problem in the ways Derrida is interpreted stems from the authors’ arguments that there is a fixed, self-identical design idea imagined in the designer’s mind. Does the image of the child flying a kite in the photomontage taken from BMD come to the designer’s mind spontaneously? No. It originates from previous images and textures found in the design program. In other words, the child flying a kite in the design is not an image that has never been created before; it is an image formed under the influence of previous designs. So how do they quote Derrida? “The meaning of signs is constantly influenced by the ever-changing context.” (Raaphorst et al., 2016, p. 124). The problem here is that the argument about meaning not having a fixed structure is presented as emerging only during the stage where stakeholders interpret the representation of landscape design—in other words, the designer’s mental concept is still being presented as a given reference point. But what does Derrida say? There is no such thing as an origin; everything derives from something that existed before (Derrida, 1999, p. 54). The authors’ citation of Derrida appears intended to demonstrate that meaning is not fixed, but to do so, they must also accept that there is no such thing as an origin.
Finally, I wish to address the superficiality of the authors’ approach to Foucault. In the “Power/Knowledge” section of the article, it is stated that, drawing on Foucault, power makes a claim to truth through the construction of knowledge. Yet this is a flawed conclusion. In Gözetleme ve Cezalandırma: Hapishanenin Doğuşu [Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison], Foucault states that “power and knowledge directly imply one another” (2026, p. 34). Just as a power relationship can only exist if a knowledge domain linked to that power is established, knowledge is also only possible through power relations (ibid., p. 34). Another problematic aspect is the authors’ disregard for Foucault’s claim that power is not a property or possession (ibid., p. 34). This is evident from the following statement: “Stakeholders who present their ideas, knowledge, and design solutions in a thorough and persuasive manner are the ones who become dominant in a design process” (Raaphorst et al., 2016, p. 127). According to Foucault, power relations are not static but constitute a network that is always tense and in flux (2026, p. 33). Consequently, various groups—such as stakeholders, designers, spectators, or neighborhood residents—may hold power at different times.
The Foucauldian visual discourse analysis proposed in the article stands in contrast to the definition of discourse analysis in his book The Archaeology of Knowledge. The article poses questions such as: “Who produces the image? What is the social authority of the producer? What media or materials specific to the producer are used? What is the preferred meaning of the image?” (Raaphorst et al., 2016, p. 129). These questions reveal an approach that posits the subject as the producer of discourse. However, in Foucault, discourse precedes the subject. Continuing his analysis from the field of medicine, Foucault states that medical discourse does not originate from any individual, and that it “cannot be conceived apart from roles defined by law” (Foucault, 2014, p. 67). In other words, laws precede individuals. Overlooking this point reveals that the methodology they propose is incompatible with Foucault.
In conclusion, I must note that the article’s intent to be written with a critical approach is valuable from the perspectives of communication studies and landscape architecture. The authors’ efforts to demonstrate that analytical methods in communication studies are not limited to what we see in visuals—or to the analysis of the denotations and connotations carried by objects in those visuals—are commendable. In line with this objective, their use of concepts such as semiotics, knowledge/power, simulacra, and simulation also indicate that this article was written with an interdisciplinary approach. However, the end result is a 13-page article in which the mentioned concepts are stretched to the point of losing their meaning, and the article’s contribution to the field may remain quite limited. My recommendation would be for the authors to expand their literature review, present the proposed methodology in the article—if necessary, through a case study—and address the theory by drawing from the field. This would result in a study that is enriching and inspiring for both academia and the field, and one that could open doors to new research.
REFERENCES
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan press, 1994.
Derrida, Jacques. ‘DIFFERANCE’. Toplumbilim, translated by Önay Sözer, no. 10, 1999, pp. 51–64.
Foucault, Michel. Gözetleme ve Cezalandırma: Hapishanenin Doğuşu. Translated by M. Erşen, Ayrıntı Yayınevi, 2026.
Panofsky, Erwin. Meaning in the Visual Arts. Doubleday Anchor Books, 1955.
Raaphorst, Kevin, et al. ‘The Semiotics of Landscape Design Communication: Towards a Critical Visual Research Approach in Landscape Architecture’. Landscape Research, vol. 42, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 120–33. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1257706.