Modern landscape science before the challenges of Postmodernism

Keywords: landscape studies, Postmodern, Modern, complexity, paradox, multiculturalism, multihistoricism, metaphysics


Purpose of the article: to determine the distinctive features of the subject of research, methodology and method of landscape studies in the state of transition from late Modern to early Postmodern (late 20th – early 21st century).

Research methodology: historical and cultural analysis with the involvement of hermeneutics, philosophical comparative studies.

Results. The research objects specific to postmodern landscape science are characterized: ambivalent, socially devastated, camp landscapes, anti-landscapes, landscapeoids. It is pointed out the complexity nature of the research subject of modern and future landscape science, in particular, such research phenomena as the landscape nature of subjectivity; the immanence of contradiction, paradox and absurdity in a complexity geosystem; and also on virtual landscape reality as a product of artificial intelligence. New philosophical and methodological approaches – multiculturalism and multihistoricism – are proposed.

Scientific novelty: for the first time in the Ukrainian-language scientific geographical and philosophical literature, an attempt has been made to analyze the current and potential features of landscape science in the Postmodern era.

Today, landscape science is in a state of transition to a new historical stage – the Postmodern era. This transition is not a “scientific revolution” in the sense of T. Kuhn, but is coupled with more profound changes that touch the very foundations of rational world perception, scientific world explanation and goal setting in the field of scientific activity – changes that have an existential and metaphysical nature, changes that associated with the transformations of the historical process on a global scale. Areas of study of landscape objects and phenomena, which were methodologically, epistemologically, and existentially inaccessible to the scientific thought of the New Age, the Modern Era, and landscape studies of the 20th century are becoming very popular. were mostly ignored. Actual and future transformations in the methodology of landscape science are also related to the introduction of paradox, contradiction, and absurdity into the scientific discourse. One of the cornerstone and already clearly visible empirical challenges to modern landscape science is the formation of virtual landscape reality. Postmodern landscape science is characterized by a movement towards the assimilation of metaphysical and discursive systems of non-European cultures of mankind (for example, the category of “Delusions” of the indigenous Australian aboriginal civilization). It should also get rid of the new European supremacy in relation to the methods of scientific and quasi-scientific world explanation by European discourses from antiquity to the 16th century. Examples here can be turning to Pythagorean numerology (O.K. Cherkashin) or the so-called eniogeography (G.I. Shvebs) when studying the landscape. As a result, profound future shifts in the landscape scientific discourse will not be dialectical, but fundamental metaphysical in nature. Perhaps this will force a person to radically reconsider his place and his own role in the landscape envelope and in history.

Practical significance. A number of unusual, to some extent unusual, methodological approaches to the further development of landscape science in the 21st century have been proposed, with the fact that the very concept of development must be fundamentally rethought in all respects, primarily existential and ecological.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Yulian Tyutyunnik, National Botanical Garden named M.M. Hryshko of the NAS of Ukraine

DSc (Geography), Professor, Acting Head of the Bioindication Laboratory


Arshinov, V.I., Svirsky, Ya.I. (2015-2016). The complexity world and its observer. Philosophy of science and technology. 20, 2, 70-84 (part I); 21, 1, 78-91 (part II)

Vladlenova, I.V. (2011). Formation of the NBIC-convergent paradigm. The future of fundamental science: Conceptual, philosophical and social aspects of the problem. M.: Publishing house KRASAND. 99-108.

Grodzinsky, M.D., Savitska, O.V. (2008). Landscape science. Kyiv: Publishing and Printing Center “Kiev University”, 318 [in Ukrainian]

Gusev, Yu.P. (2007). “Cultural landscape” of the twentieth century: “Without fate” by Imre Kertesz. Landscapes of culture. Slavic world. M.: Ed. “Progress-tradition”, 176-188.

Descola, Ph. (2012). Beyond nature and culture: trans. from fr. M.: Publishing house “New Literary Review”, 584.

Drozdov, A.V., Kagansky, V.L., Kolbovsky, E.Yu., Treivish, A.I., Shuper, V.A. (2017). Leitmotifs of geographical research: what are they and do we need them? News of the RAS. 3, 118-128.

Zamyatin, D. (2014). Postgeography. Capital(ism) of geographical images. M.: Publishing house “Humanitarian Academy”, 592.

Kagansky, V.L. (2001). Cultural landscape and Soviet inhabited space. M.: Publishing house “New Literary Review”, 572.

Kruglov, I. (2020). Transdisciplinary geoecology. Lviv: Lviv National University Publishing House, 292. [in Ukrainian]

Lavrenova, O.A. (2021). “The outside of the city”: marginal landscapes and contemporary visual culture. Science of television. 17-2, 88-117.

Lacoue-Labarthe, Ph. (1999). Musica ficta (Wagner's figures): trans. with fr. SPb: “Axiom” Publishing House, Ed. “Azbuka”. 224.

Lyseev, I.K. (2022). Ecological perspective: a radical turn. Cultural and historical dimension of modern science. M., SPb., B.: Ed “Center for Humanitarian Initiatives”, 117-117.

Podoroga, V.A. (2013). Metaphysics of landscape. Communicative strategies in the philosophical culture of the 19th–20th centuries; 2nd ed., revised. and additional. M.: Ed. ROOI “Rehabilitation”. 552.

Priest, G. (2022). Beyond the Limits Thoughts: trans. with English. M.: Ed. "Kanon+"; Publishing House ROOI “Reabilitation”, 456.

Sevalnikov, A.Yu. (2011). Concept of reality and new fundamental science. The future of fundamental science: Conceptual, philosophical and social aspects of the problem. M.: KRASAND Publishing House. 234-247

Smirnov, N.A. (2018). Composition of geocultures of the Arctic: new foundations of geocultural analysis. Geocultures of the Arctic: methodology of analysis and applied research. M.: Publishing house “Canon+"; Ed. ROOI “Rehabilitation”, 38-80.

Sysuev, V.V. (2019). Introduction to the physical and mathematical theory of geosystems. M.: URSS Publishing House. 600.

Tyutyunnik, Yu.G. (2019). Landscape and landscapity. Kyiv: Institute of Evolutionary Ecology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 124.

Tyutyunnik Yu.G. (2003). Landscape: etymology, hermeneutics, exegetics. Totallogy-XXI: Post-no-classical studies. Kyiv: Center for Humanitarian Education of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 10, 54-71.

Tyutyunnik, Yu.G. (2020). On the landscape nature of subjectivity. Questions of philosophy. 3, 194-203.

Tyutyunnik, Yu. (2022). Ruins and landscape. Problems of geography. 3-4, 45-67.

Fucks, R. (2020). Green revolution: Economic growth without damage to the environment: trans. from German. 2nd ed. M.: “Alpina Nonfiction” Publishing House, 330.

Heidegger, M. (1988). European nihilism: translated from German. Problems of man in Western philosophy: translations. M.: Ed. Progress, 261-313.

Khoroshev, A.V. (2014). On the discussion about neolandscapes: determinism, multi-scale, polystructural. Izvestia of the R. Geographical Society. 146, 4, 58-69.

Cherkashin, A.K. (1997). Polysystem analysis and synthesis: Application in geography. N.: Ed. “Nauka”. 502.

Shwebs, G.I. (2000). Introduction to eniogeography. Book 1. Eniogeology. Odessa: Odessa University Publishing House. 256.

Adorno Th.W. (1999). Negative Dialektik. ‎Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, ‎408.

Capra F., Mattei U. (2015). The Ecology of Law: Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community Hardcover. 1st edition. Oakland: ‎Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 240.

Delgado D.H. (2018). Preguntas cortas… respuestas en context. Boletín OPCA (Observatorio del Patrimonio Cultural y Arqueológico). 4, 18-28.

Dillon B. (2011). Ruin Lust. Cambridge: MIT Press, 240.

Lyotard J.-F. (1979). La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 128.

Maiz T. (2002). El Pais Vasco como paisaje industrial. Fabrikart. 2, 170-185.

How to Cite
Tyutyunnik, Y. (2023). Modern landscape science before the challenges of Postmodernism. Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series "Geology. Geography. Ecology", (59), 237-248.