Hold on, guys. Let's try to clear up the confusion by looking at some definitions:
I did some research on the origin of the word "landscape" and I discovered the following in Wikipedia
The word landscape is from the Dutch landschap, originally meaning a patch of cultivated ground, and then an image. The word entered the English language at the start of the 17th century, purely as a term for works of art; it was not used to describe real vistas before 1725.(1)
With this footnote:
(1) OED [i.e., Oxford English Dictionary] - Its first use as a word for a painting is from 1598.
So, in English, the word started out first in reference to a type of painting, and then was used for a vista.
But, checking the OED, I found the following [I've given the dates of the earliest citations in brackets for each entry]:
1. a. A picture representing natural inland scenery, as distinguished from a sea picture, a portrait, etc. 
spec. The background of scenery in a portrait or figure-painting. Obs. 
2. a. A view or prospect of natural inland scenery, such as can be taken in at a glance from one point of view; a piece of country scenery. 
b. A tract of land with its distinguishing characteristics and features, esp. considered as a product of modifying or shaping processes and agents (usually natural). 
3. In generalized sense (from 1 and 2): Inland natural scenery, or its representation in painting. 
4. In various transf. and fig. uses.
a. A view, prospect of something. 
b. A distant prospect: a vista. (Cf. 2b.) 
c. The object of one's gaze. 
d. A sketch, adumbration, outline; occas. a faint or shadowy representation. 
e. A compendium, epitome. 
f. A bird's-eye view; a plan, sketch, map. 
g. The depiction or description of something in words. 
So we have a whole lot of ambiguity going on here.
Now first, an interesting thing to notice is that not only does the word "landscape" occur as a type of picture at an early date (1.a.), but also as a vista, view or prospect (2.a, 4.a,b,and even f), contrary to what the Wikipedia states.
Second, aside from a type of picture, we can distinguish between "landscape
" as meaning "a physical piece of land" (a piece of country scenery, a tract of land, inland natural scenery) and "landscape
" as meaning "a view of a piece of land from a particular location or point of view" (view, prospect, vista). Let's agree to call the first one "landscape
" and the second one "view of the landscape
Now let's look at the passage from Ortega in question [I've changed the emphases
from the previous post, and followed the above convention by adding words in brackets to the text, to illustrate what I think is Ortega's intended meaning]:
Two men may look, from different view-points, at the same landscape. Yet they do not see the same thing. Their different situations make the [view of the] landscape assume two distinct types of organic structure in their eyes. The part [of their view of the landscape] which, in the one case, occupies the foreground, and is thrown into high relief in all its details, is, in the other case, the background, and remains obscure and vague in its appearance. Further, inasmuch as things which are put one behind the other are either wholly or partially concealed, each of the two spectators will perceive portions of the landscape which elude the attention of the other. Would there be any sense in either declaring the other's view of the landscape false? Evidently not; the one is as real as the other. But it would be just as senseless if, when our spectators found that their views of the landscape did not agree, they concluded that both views [of the landscape] were illusory. Such a conclusion would involve belief in the existence of a third [view of the] landscape, an authentic one, not subject to the same conditions as the other two. Well, an archetypal [view of the] landscape of this kind does not and cannot exist. Cosmic reality is such that it can only be seen in a single definite perspective [at a time]. Perspective is one of the component parts of reality. Far from being a disturbance of its fabric, it is its organising element. A reality which remained the same from whatever point of view it was observed would be a ridiculous conception.
As you notice, I have also emphasized in red
the words "real
" and "reality
." Once we examine the passage from the "point of view" (if you'll pardon the expression) of what is real
, the point that Ortega is trying to get across becomes clearer. As you may have read in other threads about Ortega's thought, Ortega regards "My Life
," our lives, the lives of each one of us, as the "Radical Reality
" in the sense that all other realities
occur or are "rooted" in it ("radical" comes from the Latin radix, meaning "root").
Now using the phenomenological method developed by Husserl, Ortega examines the types of realities
that occur in the "Radical Reality
" that is "My Life
." In this passage Ortega is trying to point out that for each person their "view
" is a "reality
" that occurs as a part of the "Radical Reality
" that is their life or what is "My Life
" for them.
And since for each person their "view
" is real
for them, in this instance, the reality
that is "their reality
" is "such that it can only be seen in a single definite perspective." Although he doesn't say it here, he means "at any given time." And so the next sentence, "Perspective is one of the component parts of reality,
" should be interpreted as a claim that any "view
," as a "reality
" which is a part of the "Radical Reality
" that is "My Life
," has the structure or organization of a "perspective"; and that, analogously, any other cases of "reality
" that "occur" in the "Radical Reality
" that is "My Life
" also, analogously, have the structure of a "perspective," although for these other cases the word "perspective" should be taken metaphorically.
I'll have more on this in my next post: Ortega's Idea of Perspective