In the reading of culture landscape studies after J. B. Jackson, although Michael Cozen’s observation (“the indeterminate disciplinary boundaries of Jackson’s teaching about the landscape were its greatest problem and its greatest strength”) was cited, it seems that the author did not agree with this idea. On the contrary, the author indiscriminately applaud the expansion of landscape’s conception made by J. B. Jackson. From my limited reading experience of J. B. Jackson, I feel like he gave the conception of culture landscape unlimited possibilities especially when it related to the individual, which sometimes confused me about what landscape is. I wonder is that really good for a conception that expanded to be so comprehensive that lose its defined boundary?