The evolution of the cultural landscape of Lithuania and proposals for its spatial optimisation (1918-2008) ; Lietuvos kultūrinio kraštovaizdžio formavimo raida ir jo erdvinio optimizavimo prielaidos (1918-2008)
Description
VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY Evaldas Ramanauskas THE EVOLUTION OF THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF LITHUANIA AND PROPOSALS FOR ITS SPATIAL OPTIMISATION (1918-2008) Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Art Criticism (03 H) Kaunas 2011 The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with Institute of Architecture and Construction on July 15, 2003, by decision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The research was carried out in 2004- 2008 at KTU Institute of Architecture and Construction. The dissertation is defended in an extramural way. Scientific Consultant: prof. habil. dr. Vladas STAUSKAS (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H). Chairman of Council of Defence of the Doctoral Dissertation: prof. habil. dr. Vytautas LEVANDAUSKAS (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H). Members of Council of Defence of the Doctoral Dissertation: prof. habil. dr. Jurgis BUČAS (Kaunas University of Technology, Technological Sciences, Environmental Engineering – 04 T); prof. dr. Zigmas Jonas DAUNORA (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H); prof. dr. Petras GRECEVIČIUS (Klaipėda University, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H); doc. dr. Kęstutis ZALECKIS (Kaunas University of Technology, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H). Official Opponents: prof. habil. dr.
Sujets
Informations
| Publié par | vytautas_magnus_university |
| Publié le | 01 janvier 2011 |
| Nombre de lectures | 38 |
| Langue | English |
Extrait
VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY Evaldas Ramanauskas THE EVOLUTION OF THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF LITHUANIA AND PROPOSALS FOR ITS SPATIAL OPTIMISATION (1918-2008) Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Art Criticism (03 H) Kaunas 2011
The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with Institute of Architecture and Construction on July 15, 2003, by decision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The research was carried out in 2004- 2008 at KTU Institute of Architecture and Construction. The dissertation is defended in an extramural way. Scientific Consultant: prof. habil. dr.Vladas STAUSKAS (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H). Chairman of Council of Defence of the Doctoral Dissertation: prof. habil. dr.Vytautas LEVANDAUSKAS Magnus University, (Vytautas Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H). Members of Council of Defence of the Doctoral Dissertation: prof. habil. dr.Jurgis BUČAS (Kaunas University of Technology, Technological Sciences, Environmental Engineering 04 T); prof. dr.Zigmas Jonas DAUNORA Gediminas Technical University, (Vilnius Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H); prof. dr.Petras GRECEVIČIUS (Klaipėda University, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H); doc. dr.Kęstutis ZALECKIS University of Technology, Humanities, Art (Kaunas Criticism 03 H). Official Opponents: prof. habil. dr.Algirdas GAIUTIS(Vilnius Pedagogical University, Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H); doc. dr.Vytautas PETRUONIS Gediminas Technical University, (Vilnius Humanities, Art Criticism 03 H). The official defence of the dissertation will be held at public meeting of the Council of scientific Field of Art Studies in the Art Institute of Vytautas Magnus University in Laisvėav. 53, “Art Gallery 101, at 2 p.m. on May 27, 2011.s Address: K. Donelaičio 58, LT 44248, Kaunas, Lithuania. Phone: (+370 37) 323599, fax: (+ 370 37) 203858. The summary of doctoral dissertation was distributed on April ____, 2011. The dissertation is available at the National Martynas Mavydas library, library of Vytautas Magnus University and library of Architecture and Construction Institute.
2
VYTAUTO DIDIOJO UNIVERSITETAS Evaldas Ramanauskas LIETUVOS KULTŪRINIO KRATOVAIZDIO FORMAVIMO RAIDA IR JO ERDVINIO OPTIMIZAVIMO PRIELAIDOS (1918-2008) Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra (03H)
Kaunas 2011
Doktorantūros ir daktaro mokslo laipsnių teis suteikimoė Vytauto Didiojo suteikta universitetui kartu su Architektūros ir statybos institutu 2003 m. liepos 15 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimu Nr. 926. Disertacija rengta 2004-2008 metais KTU Architektūros ir statybos institute. Disertacija ginama eksternu. Mokslinis konsultantas: prof. habil. dr.Vladas STAUSKAS (Vytauto Didiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H). Disertacijos gynimo tarybos pirmininkas: prof. habil. dr.Vytautas LEVANDAUSKAS (Vytauto Didiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H). Disertacijos gyn tar bos nariai: prof. habil. dr.BUs giurJyimo ČAS (Kauno technologijos universitetas, technologijos mokslai, aplinkos ininerija ir kratotvarka 04);T prof. dr.Zigmas Jonas DAUNORA (Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H); prof. dr.Petras GRECEVIČIUS (Klaipėdos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H); doc. dr.Kęstutis ZALECKIS (Kauno technologijos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H). Oficialieji oponentai: prof. habil. dr.Algirdas GAIUTIS pedagoginis universitetas, (Vilniaus humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H); doc. dr.Vytautas PETRUONIS Gedimino technikos universitetas, (Vilniaus humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H). Disertacija bus ginama vieame Menotyros mokslo krypties tarybos posėdyje, kuris įvyks 2011 m. geguės 27 d. 14 val. Vytauto Didiojo universiteto “Menų galerijoje 101, Laisvės al. 53. Adresas: Donelaičio g. 58, Kaunas 44248. Tel.: (8 37) 323599, faksas: (8 37) 203858. Disertacijos santrauka isiųsta 2011 m. balandio ____ d. Su disertacija galima susipainti Lietuvos nacionailnėje Martyno Mavydo, Vytauto Didiojo universiteto, Architektūros ir statybos instituto bibliotekose.
4
Introduction Relevance of the thesis. the historical process, many factors influenced During the development of the landscape and caused its continuous changes. At the very start of its changes the landscape was affected by survival and defence objectives. Later, the spatial structure of the landscape was increasingly influenced by functional and technological factors and by the nature of landscape-related human activities. Thus, the anthropogenic landscape emerged, which we call the “cultural landscape. From the historical perspective we can state that the most important factors influencing the landscape are land and economic reforms (Wallach reform (1557), the individual-farm (1906 and 1922) and the collective-farm (1940) reforms, the reform held after the restoration of independence (1990)), intensive urbanisation and industrialisation (mid-20thC), territorial planning, environmental, heritage protection and other provisions. The present development of the Lithuanian landscape acquires new features as a result of new legal system, technologies, political and social factors. Unfortunately, the current development process of the spatial structure is barely regulated, and this leads to the loss of the valuable and highly aesthetic and functional environment that was developed during the earlier stages. Furthermore, in many cases no new spaces of higher residential, occupational and leisure value are created. Therefore, such landscaping process prompts to perform a more detailed evaluation of the evolution of the development of the new as well as older spatial structures (which developed in earlier stages and which are currently being restructured), the reasons behind such development and its qualitative results. Even though the physical structure of the Lithuanian landscape has been analysed by many Lithuanian scientists (cf. section “Sources and references), still there is a shortage of (a) studies evaluating the development of landscape in 1918-2008; (b) complex visual aesthetic evaluation of landscape types of the said period (jointly for rural and urban landscapes); (c) clarification which legal, socio-economic and technological factors had and still have the most significant impact on physical and visual aesthetic characteristics of landscape. Object of the study:the cultural landscape of Lithuania of 1918-2008 covering rural and urban areas. Goal of the thesis: to evaluate the evolution of the development of the spatial structure of the Lithuanian cultural landscape by highlighting factors that determine aesthetic characteristics, and to provide preliminary proposals regarding the optimisation of the development of the spatial structure of landscape. Objectives of the thesis: 1. analysis of the physical structure and the development of theTo perform the cultural landscape of Lithuania during the three periods of the 20thC. (interwar, Soviet and restored independence). 2. determine the stages of evolution of landscape in different periods.To 3. To highlight the physical types of landscapes during the different stages of the periods. 4. To evaluate the aesthetic qualities of spatial structures of landscapes during the different periods as well as factors that determine their characteristics. 5. provide preliminary proposals regarding the improvement of theTo development of the national landscape and the enhancement of the aesthetic quality.
5
Methods employed.The method of the analysis of scientific literature sources, project-based theses and legislative documents has been used for the evaluation of the evolution of landscape development. The fusion method of the analysis of architecture and landscape fusion has been employed for the identification of the spatial structure of landscape. The method of Nicos Angelos Salingaros of the identification of the successive scales of physical elements has been used for the identification of the architecture of the spatial structure of landscape (USA). Martynas Purvynas’ method of visual spatial distribution has been used for the identification of optimal physical parameters of the spatial structure of landscape. The universal method and principles of N. A. Salingaros of the identification of structural changes and the changes in value of physical elements has been used for the evaluation of the aesthetic characteristics of the spatial structure of landscape. Methods of urban and landscape analysis performed at site, the method of analysis of archive project-based architectural urban material and legal documents dating back to the individual reference periods, current territorial planning works and the results of their practical implementation, the author’s experience related to territorial planning and landscaping projects and their implementation have also been employed for the purpose of collecting sources and analysis data for the thesis. The analysis at site were performed: agricultural analysis - in middle part of Lithuania and its villages; urban analysis - in the biggest towns as Vilnius, iauliai, Kaunas, Klaipėda and they suburbs, as well in middle size towns as Kelmė, Raseiniai, townsresorts and they surround area Palanga, reigonal parks as Trakai, Kernavė surround area. Scientific novelty of the thesis; evaluation of the practical significance. The novelty of the thesis lies in the following: The analysis of the development of the spatial structure of the Lithuanian landscape of 1918-2008 Determination factors having material influence on the changes of the spatial structure; The aesthetic evaluation of the development of the spatial structure of the new Lithuanian landscape by applying N. A. Salingaros’ universal evaluation method of visual structures; The practical significance of the thesis: application of the analysis results for the elaboration of the methods ofThe spatial landscape design and the improvement of legislative framework; The use of the analysis results for the improvement of aesthetic quality of the cultural landscape. To what extent the topic has been analysed. Up till now the development of landscape was usually analysed separately as rural landscape and as urban landscape. The rural landscape until the middle of the interwar period has been analysed by V. Balčiūnas. K. eelgis and J. Bčuas have analysed the historical development and the landscape evolution factors from the olden times to the restoration of Lithuania’s independence. J. Bučas identified the types of landscape and developed their evaluation system based on international landscape protection regulations. The architectural aspect of the rural landscape has also been widely analysed. The distinctive characteristics of the construction of rural settlements have been investigated by F. Bielinskis, K. eelgis, I. Butekvičius, J. Barauskas, S. Stanevčiius, V. Rupas, S. Vaitekūnas.
6
There are studies that can be used for the analysis of the recreational landscape, the evaluation of its aesthetics and practical recommendations for its development (G. Daniulaitis, V. Stauskas, A. ipaila, A. Vergunov (Russia)). A. Tauras dwelt on issues such as the landscape planting and spatial arrangement of large areas. Landscape has also been analysed in specific fields, such as physical geography (A. Basalykas, P. Kavaliauskas, D. Veteikis, R. Skorupskas); K.Ėringis has researched the aspect of the preservation of natural characteristics of landscape. Issues related to landscape planting are analysed by K. eelgis, J.P etrulis, M. Purvinas, R. Pilkauskas. K. eelgis analysed urban aspects, P. Kavaliauskas natural aspects of large regional areas. The evaluation of the analysis of changes in the spatial structure of individual composite functional elements of landscape is provided, and proposals regarding the development of the spatial structure are submitted. V. Palys analysed the optimisation of the spatial structure of agrarian landscape in the central flatlands of Lithuania during the Soviet period. G. Vaskela, B. Povilaitis, P. Aleknavičius, A. Aleknavičius, A. Poviliūnas and E. Monkevičius give evaluation of changes in the development of agricultural areas. Methodological fundamentals of the development of landscape protection territorial units as well as the methods of complex evaluation of landscape are provided by P. Kavaliauskas. M. Purvinas submitted proposals regarding the identification of optimal physical parameters of the spatial structure. K. eelgis and J. Bčuas analysed the principles of the structural evaluation of the rural landscape. There is fragmentary aesthetic evaluation of the recreational landscape (G. Daniulaitis, V. Stauskas, P. Kavaliauskas) and of the natural landscape in general (K.Ėringis, A. Būdriūnas). J. Kamičaitytėdeveloped the methods of the visual environment evaluation by survey and performed the necessary research. Also, there were theses analysing the specific features of spatial structures of individual landscapes (M. Purvinas). J. Bogdanowski (Poland) also tried to perform the aesthetic and cultural evaluation of landscape. The physical structure of the urban landscape has also been analysed at length. A. Mikinis investigates the history of Lithuaniancities and towns from the olden times to the restoration of Lithuania’s independence. Factors behind the establishment of cities/towns prior to the 16thC. are analysed by R. Jaloveckas. V. Jurktas investigated problems related to the maintenance of the old sections of cities/towns and provided sound recommendations. The history of urban development was reviewed by K. eelgis as well. J. Vanagas was engaged in the anlaysis of social and theoretical aspects of urban development. G. Daniulaitis and K. Jakovlevas-Mateckis performed aesthetic analysis of urban landscape. The cultural, sociologic, semantic aspects of architecture are analised in the works of A. Gaiuits, V. Petruonis, K. Zaleckis. The urban landscape has also been analysed from the perspective of its constituents. I. Alistratovaitė examined the change in the urban morphological has structure from the perspective of the land parcel of the smallest administrative unit. J. Zagorskas has investigated urban development issues as well as the aspects of its compactness. There are some studies of the legislative framework that influenced the development of landscape as well. The scientific research of S. Elzbergas includes a rather substantial analysis of legislative documents pertaining to the land reform during the interwar period. It provides the evaluation of legal documents of the land reform process issued
7
during the period from 1919 to 1932. G. Likas has performed a detailed analysis of the construction laws of the interwar period. His analysis provides the evaluation of the then system of the organisational structure of construction, urban planning, urban and rural construction and road building regulations, their evolution and significance for the development of the environment. L. Dringelis analyses issues on the use of public areas following the land reform. Methodological recommendations for the territorial planning are also provided by Z. J. Daunora, E. Staniūnas, P. Jukevčiius, M. Pakalnis, M. Burinskienė, L. Dringelis, D. Dimindavičiūtė. They analyses the functional application of individual components of landscape and the development of such application from the perspective of a balanced environment. There are theses pertaining to the preservation of the unique character of landscape. Foreign countries also face landscaping problems related to the intensive urbanisation process. Rapidly developing countries (USA, Germany, etc.) evaluate the negative results of the urban sprawl and promote new trends of spatial development based on urban control (smart growth). These processes are evaluated by scientific institutions and by theoreticians of architecture and related fields (K. Jackson, J. Gareau, H. Frumkin, J. Norman, L. Heather and A. Christopher, P. Calthorpe, J. A. Mougeot, etc.). These processes are being evaluated with regard to health, economic, transport organisation, decentralisation of activities. New instruments for the development of landscape are proposed (G. Ashworth, P. Howard). However, their theses mostly consider the issues and problems of their countries and often pay little attention to the objectives of aesthetic quality. The thesis is structured as follows: Introduction. Five chapters: 1. Spatial structure of landscape and methods of its aesthetic evaluation; 2. Development and evaluation of landscape of the interwar period (1918-1941); 3. Development and evaluation of landscape of the Soviet period (1945-1990); 4. Development and evaluation of landscape of the period after the restoration of Lithuania’s independence (1990-2008); 5. Comparison of analysed periods. Proposals for the spatial optimisation of landscape. Conclusions, references and sources, annexes. Key definitions: Cultural landscaperesult of the omni-directional interaction between the the -nature and the man. These are areas that are more or less affected by anthropogenic activities (this concept is used slightly differently than provided inKratotvarkos pagrindai by J. Bučas (2001)). For the purpose of this thesis, this definition includes both rural and urban areas. Cultural landscape is hereinafter referred to as landscape. Territorial planning.definition shall be used differently when applied inThis relation to the interwar or Soviet period or the period of restored independence of Lithuania. Currently used definitions, such as “territorial planning, were not very common in the laws of the interwar period; however, the following definitions were used for the regulation of construction: “planned urban construction, “rural construction. These definitions were linked to planned construction of buildings, their design in a territory and drafting of the design documentation of buildings. The concept of territorial planning was also denoted by the following definitions related to the rearrangement of land parcels: “land use planning,“urban land use planning. These definitions were related to the territorial planning to the extent that they included the implementation of projects regarding the design of the entire territory (whether smaller
8
or larger), the implementation of specific solutions by planning the land use, and by improving functional and aesthetic quality. The current definition of territorial planning includes particular objectives of complex development of the entire environment. Meanwhile, the definition of construction currently regulates the construction of buildings on a given land parcel irrespective of its planning. The planning of land use has been isolated as well; for restitution purposes of the land reform, it no longer is linked to territorial planning solutions. Therefore, different meanings of these definitions of territorial planning, construction and land use planning shall not be identical when used in different periods. Landscape development be the development of spatial structures of shall landscape affected by the complex of various factors. 1. Spatial structure of landscape and methods of its aesthetic evaluation This thesis analyses landscape in rural and urban areas by identifying individual key elements, which constitute its spatial structure. The key elements of the spatial structure shall be identified as:(a) volumetric buildings, green plantations;(b) plane - water bodies, plazas, squares, land farmlands, parcels;(c) linear- roads, streets, rivulets, overhead power transmission lines, land reclamation canals, etc. The landscape analysis links individual elements of the spatial structure with factors that determine their aesthetic characteristics. The method of N. A. Salingaros (1997) has been selected and applied to Lithuanian landscape conditions. The method consists of the following two parts: 1. The evaluation of the compositional architecture of the identified elements of the landscape spatial structure by establishing (a) visual intensity, (b) visual harmony. 2. Summary of the identified visual intensity and visual harmony: parameters of (a) aesthetic attractiveness, and (b) aesthetic chaos. Composite characteristics of landscape are established individually for the elements of the spatial structure with due consideration to the size of components that they and their combinations make. Elements of the spatial structure are grouped into three structures, viz. small, medium or large-scale elements. Small-scale elements are buildings, homesteads, small residential quarters; medium-scale elements are large residential quarters, townships, groups of residential quarters; large-scale elements are townships and their surroundings, groups of urban districts, the overall territory of the city/town and its suburban areas. Aesthetic characteristics are summarised for individual types of landscape. They are rated by awarding points. The key evaluation criteria of the visual intensity of landscape are defined for small-scale elements or their structures, because people perceive small scale as being the optically brightest and the psychologically most active. These are:brightness of elements; distinctiveness of elements; curvature of shapes and lines; depth of colours; contrast of colours(N. A. Salingaros, 1997).Each criterion is rated by awarding 0 to 2 points. The total visual intensity rating is obtained by adding up the points.
9
The criteria of visual harmony are defined for all scale elements and structures. These are: reflection symmetries; rotation symmetries and rhythm; repetition of shapes of elements; geometric links; harmony of materials and colours (N. A. Salingaros, 1997). These criteria are also rated by awarding 0 to 2 points. The total visual harmony rating is obtained by adding up the points. The importance of these criteria for Lithuania is inherited from the method proposed by N. A. Salingaros. Aspects of the evaluation of criteria themselves are selected and linked to the evaluation of landscape on the basis of general consistency of physical elements (summarised by N. A. Salingaros) and with due consideration to the architecture of elements of the landscape spatial structure: natural conditions, the nature of anthropogenic elements. The second part of the method summarises the values of the identified visual characteristics using a mathematical method according to the following formula: L TH, = C=T(10-H) to N. A. Salingaros) (according where T visual intensity; H visual harmony; L aesthetic attractiveness; C aesthetic chaos. This mathematical method yields aesthetic attractiveness values 0 to 100, and aesthetic chaos 0 to 100 as well. The aggregate value of aesthetic attractiveness and chaos cannot exceed 100, yet it can be less than 100. This method shows how much attractiveness and at the same time chaos is contained in the spatial structure, and allows to identify determinant individual aspects of visual intensity and harmony. Attractiveness is the effect of comfort, relaxation, emotional lightness and visual “pleasure. Chaos is interest, excitement and anxiety, visual “provocation and the “rejection reaction. This method of landscape evaluation demonstrates a general functional and psychological acceptability of the composition of the development of spatial structures, as well as the compatibility of the interaction between the natural environment and anthropogenic structures. It allows to evaluate aesthetic composition characteristics of the spatial structure of landscape rather objectively, also to evaluate their emotional impact by reducing the degree of subjectivity. However, this method fails to evaluate the complex landscape system. The stated criteria clearly guide towards the evaluation of characteristics of composition, visual and physical elements. This criteria of this method are not directly linked to the territorial usage functions, technologies, and factors of using the environment. In this respect the method requires additional evaluation in order to obtain more particular results of the territorial evaluation for the purpose of their technological or functional application. One of the advantages of this method is the opportunity to evaluate rural and urban landscapes using the same principles of evaluation. 2. Development and evaluation of landscape of the interwar period (1918-1940) The chapter analyses the development of the individual-farm landscape and urban development during the interwar period. Evaluation of aesthetic characteristics of landscape in given locations is carried out.
10
2.1. Development of individual-farm rural landscape Prior to the declaration of Lithuania’s independence, the Stolypin land reform was started in the country, which provided for the development of the individual farming system. However, this system was more of a technological reorganisation, as it failed to consider social issues such as the shortage of land for peasants and the increased property differentiation between the gentry and the peasants. The individual-farm reform took a different turn once the independence of Lithuania was declared (1918). The land reform became not only technological but social as well. Not only individual farms were set up but also equal farming conditions were provided and family farm units were developed. For this purpose some of the land has been expropriated from the gentry and given to the volunteers of the War of Independence, landless people and people who had little land. One of the principal authors of the social framework of this land reform was Mykolas Krupavičius. At the beginning of the interwar period, rural areas inherited the strip structure of land parcels and rural settlements that evolved during the Wallach period. Such structure was no longer technologically progressive: agricultural areas in use of a single farm were scattered throughout the entire territory of a village and far from the homesteads located in rural settlements. Following the declaration of Lithuania’s independence the spatial structure of the rural landscape was subject to rearrangement, which was based on the individual farming system that was already in operation abroad (in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark). The key requirements for the rearrangement of the existing structure were defined in the laws on land reform as well as the regulations on its implementation, also in legal documents on rural construction. They defined the principles of the rearrangement, size differentiation of land parcels, road design, layout and design of homesteads and elements thereof. The laws established that the shape of new land parcels had to be close to a square or a quadrangle. Due consideration had to be given to natural boundaries and access to bodies of water. Provisions are made for building roads as well as for their reconstructions with due consideration to natural conditions and the relief and by bypassing sites not suitable for construction. Requirements are established for the site of a homestead, its orientation regarding natural conditions and roads, and its layout in the farm parcel. There were also instructions regarding the regulation of the type of fencing. Guidelines for homestead design were developed. A plan for brick construction was drafted for Lithuania. More significant differences of the spatial structure of the individual-farm landscape emerge as a result of the development of the old legislation and political attitudes. The initial land reform regulations provided for the consistent development of spatial structures of medium-sized farms, i.e. farms of 20 to 40 ha. The size of a farm parcel is evaluated with due consideration to its proximity to a city/town. This system ensured the preservation of competition among farms and provided conditions for the development of the consistent spatial structure with the exception of urban areas and in the vicinity of cultural farms. However, later provisions (1931) adjusted this structure; they provided conditions for emerging small-sized as well as large farms, viz. farms of 0.5 to 150 ha. Based on these specific features of the spatial structure, the development of landscape during the interwar period can be divided into two stages, viz. I-st 1918-1931 and II-nd 1931-1940. In each stage it is excluded different types of landscape: in I-
11
© 2010-2024 YouScribe