Environmental forms highlight the meaning assigned to places, i.e., the values incorporated into determined forms. Regardless of whether we are talking about ordinary environmental forms (e.g., a communal garden), or extraordinary ones (e.g., the Earth, greenways and wetlands, remarkable mountains and valleys), the representations place the parties and the entire environmental form within an important relationship for given individuals or groups.

Therefore, the aesthetic experience constitutes a mode of intermediation between the requalification of the environment by the individuals or the civil society and the construction /reconstruction processes of collectives or local communities, whereas the exogenous forms of revalorization (i.e., through redevelopment, transformation of the image of the neighborhood, social support, etc.) do not generally recognize the universes of meaning and relationships through which citizens connect with their environment (Blanc, Emelianoff, 2008). Civil society organizations mobilize relational universes to environments that are likely to set in motion territorial transformation. They enable circular production between the territory and the collective and generate a commitment that makes sense as much in the transformative actions of the milieus as in the collective itself. However, this commitment can have a democratic aspect by increasing the competence and legitimacy of the actors, taking the experience into account and including local residents in the scope of the action. The forms of the environment in this sense offer a complex, socio-natural take on these transformations.

Hence, some environmental forms give rise to an ethical-aesthetic value that produces a specific configuration on which many agree or disagree, producing temporary consensus as well as dissensus or dynamic conflicts [18]. Landscape and heritage for example comprise these environmental forms that give rise to social and legal conventions. Environmental forms are intermediaries in the governance of social and environmental relationships. Forms convey complexity as they integrate, organize and coordinate both the whole and parts within their surroundings. 

Lastly, talking about forms means introducing the seeds of a rebellion against contemporary approaches that favour techno-centric processes and a productive approach to nature. Nature could therefore be defined, in terms of tradition and from the perspective of its acceptance and definition, as being all of what – unintentionally or otherwise – produces environmental forms in overlapping material-discursive practices (Dolphijn & Van der Tuin, 2012, p. 50), i.e., a crucible of metamorphoses and exchanges between practice and representation, matter and image, perception and concept.

Bibliographical references:

Arrif T., Blanc N. & Clergeau P. (2011) Trame verte urbaine, un rapport Nature- Urbain entre géographie et écologie, Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography [En ligne], document 574, [ref. du 16 août 2013].

Ahern, J., (1995), «Greenways As a Planning strategy», Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 33, p. 131-155.

Barad, K., (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham (nc), Duke University Press. Blanc, Nathalie et Emelianoff, Cyria (2008), L’investissement habitant des lieux et milieux de vie : une condition du renouvellement urbain ? Étude européenne prospective (France, Pays-Bas, Allemagne, Russie), Rapport de recherche pour le PUCA (en ligne sur Urbamet).

Blanc, N., 2013, « Le face-à-face citadins/nature », Multitudes 54, 3, 129-139,

Blanc, N., Benish, B., (2016), Form, art, and environment: engaging in sustainability, London, Routledge.

Blanc, N., Legrand, M., (in prep.), Vers une recherche création : textes, corps, environnements, ACME.

Boutot, A., (1993), L’invention des formes, Paris, Odile Jacob.

de Certeau, M., (1990), L’invention du quotidien. Arts de faire, t. i [1980], Paris 
Gallimard; de Certeau, M., Giard, L. et Mayol, P., (1994), L’invention 
du quotidien. Habiter et cuisiner, t. ii [1990], Paris, Gallimard.

Degeorges P., Nochy A. (2009) L’impensé de la ville, sous la direction de Patrick Bouchain, Lieux Communs, Site indépendant et ordinaire pour une auto-transformation radicale de la société,

Dolphijn, R.,van der Tuin, I. (2012) New Materialism : Interviews and Cartographies, Ann Arbor, MI : Open Humanities. 

Fox, N. J., Alldred, P. (2015) New materialist social inquiry: designs, methods and the research-assemblage, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18:4, 399-414, DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2014.921458

Guattari, F. (1995), Chaosmosis: An Ethico-aesthetic Paradigm, Bloomingdale, Indiana University Press.

Jacobs, J.M. (2011) Urban geographies I: Still thinking cities relationally. Progress in Human Geography 36, 412–422.

Kant, I., (1986), Œuvres philosophiques. Les derniers écrits (Métaphysique des mœurs ii: doctrine du droit), T.III, sous la direction de Ferdinand Alquié, Paris, Gallimard.

-(2000) [1787], Critique de la faculté de juger, traduction, présentation, bibliographie et chronologie d’Alain Renaut, Paris, Garnier-Flammarion.

Massumi, B., 2008,  “The Thinking-Feeling of What Happens” 4 Inflexions 1.1 “How is Research-Creation?” (May 2008), p. 4)

Pareyson, L.i, (2007), Esthétique. Théorie de la formativité, trad. de Rita di Lorenzo, éd. de Gilles A. Tiberghien, Paris, Éditions rue d’Ulm-Presses de l’École normale supérieure.

Petitot, J., (2004), Morphologie et esthétique, Paris, Maisonneuve et Larose.

Pinchemel, G. et P., (1988), La face de la terre. Éléments de géographie, Paris, Armand Colin.

Rancière, J., (2000), Le partage du sensible. Esthétique et politique, Paris, Fabrique.

-(2004), Malaise dans l’esthétique, Paris, Galilée.

-(2008), Le spectateur émancipé, Paris, La Fabrique.

Raynaud, D., (1999), «Forme urbaine. Une notion exemplaire du point de vue de l’épistémologie des sciences sociales», In : Boudon, Philippe (éd.), Langages singuliers et partagés de l’urbain, Actes du Colloque Louest, CNRS UMR 7544, Paris, L’Harmattan, p. 93-120.

Stengers, I., (2005), Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices, Cultural Studies Review, Volume11, N°1, 183-196.


[18] Thanks to Andrej Radman who most interestingly reviewed this paper and added some comment referring to the work of Chantal Mouffe : : “What is at a given moment considered as the ‘natural’ order - jointly with the ‘common sense’ which accompanies it - is the result of sedimented hegemonic practices; (…) An agonistic conception of democracy acknowledges the contingent character of the hegemonic politicoeconomic articulations which determine the specific configuration of a society at a given moment. (…) According to the agonistic approach, public spaces are always plural and the agonistic confrontation takes place in a multiplicity of discursive surfaces. (…) My approach is therefore clearly very different from the one defended by Jürgen Habermas, who when he envisages the political public space (which he calls the ‘public sphere’) presents it as the place where deliberation aiming at a rational consensus takes place. (…) according to the perspective that I am advocating, the impediments to the Habermasian ideal speech situation are not empirical but ontological and the rational consensus that he presents as a regulative idea is in fact a conceptual impossibility. Indeed it would require the availability of a consensus without exclusion which is precisely what the agonistic approach reveals to be impossible.”