These places only become real more through the action of the man, the environment if fortifies while place for the aspirations human beings, the necessities and the rhythms of the personal life and the groups. (TUAN, 1983) the difference between the places is the result of the space arrangement in the particular ways of production. ' ' valor' ' on each place it depends on qualitative and quantitative levels in the production ways and on culture and in the way as they agree themselves. (SAINTS, 1979) While the place if translates daily of the affection the landscape is only possible through the perception, over all the appearance. As symbolic systems conceived by the culture or the society (as the representation systems), the landscape is the perceived space.
The landscape has the dimension of the look, with all the constructions that the society constructs in the human knowledge. The space of the landscape possesss a horizontal perspective, with depth and graduation of objects in the horizon, and an upright. (COLLOT, 1990) the landscape is the result of the combination between the physical, biological and antrpicos elements, interacting ones on the others, making of this, a indissocivel set only e, in permanent evolution. All the object that is perceived in the space has an occult face to the vision, but the total structure of the object hardly escapes to the other directions of the perception, or still the mind works in a possible one contextualizao from the observed part. For total being accumulated of stocks with the vision it is not that the landscape I constituted a coherent totality, being exactly thus fragmentary, that is it has many independent elements. ' ' Thus the landscape if defines as space to the reach of the look, but also the disposal of the body; it arms with on meanings to all the possible behaviors of the citizen. .