Small Scale Landscapes

In a previous post I focused on the large-scale manipulation of landscape in the Americas (as seen in our highways and dense urbanizations of our cities). Throughout history the push and pull of these large scale spaces or systems versus the small-scale landscape such as personal gardens or community parklets are often placed opposition or at odds with the other. Small-scale landscapes in the context of large-scale systems of oppression or mass urbanization have much to offer in terms of landscape theoretical inquiry. We often study the spaces of small-scale landscapes, looking at its form and function. Less often discussed are the practices that happened in these spaces.

Anthropologist Catherine Benoit studies this very concept in her comparative study of Caribbean and African American slave dooryard gardens. These spaces present the concept of the production of culture and construction of self in the context of domination. These gardens were characterized by a diversity of plants and vegetables in comparison the large-scale single-crop forced work spaces. As the development of these small scale landscapes required skills and techniques that differed from the large-scale plantation agriculture, a unique and original aesthetic developed in these spaces. By the practice of personal dooryard gardens, inhabitants of these spaces were creating culture and cultural practices. The comparison and interaction of the large-scale monoculture space with the small-scale dooryard garden reminds me of Taussig’s thesis in his exploration of the issues that existed among South American tin mine workers in Peru and Bolivia in the early days of Spanish conquest. He asserts that the practices of these small-scale communities such as kinship ties that defined these South American communities were "disrupted" by the oppressive ways of European conquest and large-scale ideas of Capitalism. On the other hand, a case can be made for the small-scale dooryard garden “disrupting” or acting as a symbol of retaliation in the context of large scale oppressive, dominant spaces. This leads me to question if practices of small-scale landscape are always in opposition or retaliation to those of large-scale systems of oppression and domination? Certainly in the case of dooryard gardens.

A detail with PETROBRÁS Building with Marx's surface and suspended gardens

Burle Marx, gets us closer to creating a balance between small-scale gardens with that of large-scale systems of dense urbanization in his “experimentation” and implementation of native flora in his designs. In a transcribed speech by Marx, he emphasizes the challenge of this balance: . “..as space began to disappear, as the buildings which were the contractor’s delight began to spring up selfishly, tightly packed around Copacabana Bay, what scope was there for a landscape gardener in Brazil?...I began to experiment.”(202) Marx was unique in his experimentations of small-scale gardens in the large-scale urbanized spaces. He would choose plantings that would act as a “volume in motion” against the static architecture. His use of plantings was a means of expression to create a link with infrastructure and architecture that would act in compliment to eachother instead of in opposition. 

Hybrid Landscapes

The theme of a hybrid identity is a concept commonly found in the American landscape; one that is a “self reflection” of a hybrid culture identity. This supports Dussel's thesis from my first post where Europe's confrontation with the "Other" was central to the birth of modernity. In North America, Europe defined itself as discoverer, and colonizer of Americas. Dussel would agree the american landscape is a product of this “encounter”, of two worlds and the repercussions of their meeting. Similarly, landscape theorist Anita Berrizbeita, when talking about Venezuela, says that Latin American modernism, springs from this hybridization of indigenous, Spanish colonial, African and European cultures. Berrizbeita uses Brazilian Landscape Architect Burle Marx’s Parque de Este in Venezuela to demonstrate this concept.  And what better way to demonstrate her thesis than in the work of Roberto Burle Marx.  

Marx did what no other landscape architect had done at the time: play up the abstraction of a common material and elevated it to that of art. Marx is famous for his import, discovery and hybridization of tropical plants in his landscape designs. These imported plants became referent of these spaces. According to Berrizbeita, the plants and courtyards at Parque de Este represented one of the components that reflected Marx's understanding of the complexities of the Venezuelan cultural condition: a continually developing hybrid identity. It is easy to see how the use of plants and courtyards alluded to this hybrid identity. However did Marx truly understand the complexity of the Venezuelan cultural condition? What about the cruel aspects of this so called utopia? Berrizbehita certainly does not talk about the darker social aspects of  Venezuela's cultural condition. This landscape was also formed by societal struggles of contestation and violence.  

Marx's promenade in Rio is said to also express this harmonious view of hybrid identity.  As Berrizbeita points out in Parque de Este, Marx's use of pavement juxtaposed with greenery was symbolic of a mixing of colonial and indigenous cultures.  Marx's design for the promenade in Rio includes red, black and white Portuguese pavement that is said to represent the three races that shaped Brazilian culture. This harmonious view of the the difference cultures and races in Brazil could not be further from the reality of this space which has be historically characterized by race riots and class warfare (Freeman, 2002). 

www.exphilip.com11408_im_grande.jpg

Although purposeful in some of Marx's designs, the theme of a harmonious hybrid identity in landscape shows up throughout the Americas. Designed landscape spaces tend to avoid the darker aspects of this theme. While European influences are clear, along with a mix of local influences, it is harder to find examples of landscape spaces that represent contestation and violence. This brings me of spaces of memory.  Are our monuments and memorials successful in their representation of the darker aspects of hybrid identity? How are they played out? At least in North America these spaces are often removed from the space where contestation actually occurred.The landscape of the Americas are spaces of contestation, mobility and production of both indigenous and colonizing culture. Does that make our designed spaces imported or referent? Invented or discovered? Today, these aspects are evident (at a much bigger scale) in our cities, parks, and transportation landscape.

The Frontier Landscape

Nogales U.S-Mexico Border 2008 and 1898.posted here.

We can't talk about the American concept of space without talking about the symbolic landscape of the frontier. What is the frontier? It can be defined as both physical space and symbolic space.  Many colonial historians have romanticized the idea of the frontier in its power to define the American capacity for mobility and settlement. The myth, or romanticized version of the frontier portrays the Americas as a space rich with "free" land and resources, virtually unoccupied. Historian Fredrick Jackson Turner takes on this thesis. It is not just the expansive and free terrain, but the interaction of settlers with the "other". These interactions are symbolic boundaries that mare the frontier. Encounters consist of civilization with wilderness, settlers with the indigenous, that later grow into a space for cultural exchange and interaction mostly characterized by violence and the perception of danger.

The familiar story of the American pioneer in his individualistic exploratory pursuit stressed by other frontier theorists such as Walter Prescott Webb. Webb looks beyond the frontier as a space of mobility to say that it is also characterized by themes of individualism, innovation, democracy, and lawlessness. But who are the other actors in this tale? So far, these theorist gloss over the role of other players in the formation of the frontier (Native Americans, Mexicans, Spanish). There was also environmental destruction, disease, and massacre. These too played their part. Historian Herbert Bolton expands on the frontier thesis with his assertion, "Who has tried to state the significance of the frontier in terms of the Americas?" (52)

Bolton begins to give us a more complex picture by focusing on the way people were using space in the west before colonization (non-traditional farming, construction of missions, etc). This was just as important as the march west to the frontier. In Bolton's frontier thesis, he rejects Turner and Webb's focus on unity, freedom and democracy. "In the revolt of the colonies the people were far from unanimous. Only thirteen of the [30] provinces joined, though appeals were made to all..Even in the thirteen, a third of the people were opposed to the revolution" (22).  We were not, after all, a unified culture built on sameness. And so, it is in the uncoordinated acts of many including the "other" along with bureaucratic, governmental influences that formed the frontier and in turn, the "American ideology of space".

Where are these frontiers now? Both Turner and Bolton talk about borders as space of interest.  Today's borderland zones are just as much a space of contestation as ever.  Along with still being characterized as spaces of violence, they are sites of production and cultural development. Culture is not something bounded by physical borders. We can see in the US/Mexican border where housing and landscapes look similar on both sides. Even language is shared regardless of physical barriers. It would seem that new space is created here. How can we take the creativity of these spaces and apply it in practice? This takes me back to where I was getting at the end of my original post.  As landscape architects and designers of spaces, we too only design with Olmsted's Eurocentric approach in mind. The clash of cultures formed at borders has the potential for the formation of a new approach. One that has roots in Eurocentric themes but is more representative of the concept of space in the Americas.

Concepts of Space

The concept of space is an idea developed, written and discussed in detail throughout Europe and the western world. Lefebvre's main hypothesis is that space is a social product, or result of a social interaction/construction based on values that in turn, affect spatial practices and perceptions. Today's Landscape Architects and Architects (perhaps subconsciously) draw from this theory of spatial practice as the dominant representation/view of space. If we take Lefebvre's conceptual triad (representational space, spatial practice and representations of space) and apply it to something tangible, like the design of a landscape, this way of thinking of space becomes familiar as a design process in western design.  

The War Rooms, St. James’s Park by Ned Scott

A modern day park design, viewed from Lefebvre's concept of "representation of space", would represent the physical planning and form of that space, looking at aspects such as site history and context. The park would be physically planned and produced through labor and modern technology. Lefebvre's "representational space" is how the park's users inhabit, coexist and utilize this space and how it is adapted and transformed by these groups. It is through these social interactions that the local meaning of the park is born. Finally, Lefebvre's "spatial practice" is the routine or daily reality of the designed park.  It is a multi-functional, public space where groups of similar interest can meet and engage in recreational or educational activity.  The familiar cycle of designing a landscape and having people then using/recreating in that space is typical of modern practice. But what about other meanings landscape and space? In other words, can the landscape itself inform the design, and can some new concept of space come from the landscape?

Lefebvre's conceptual triad is generally accepted in Western thought as the dominant concept of space, however it does leave room for other perspectives/ worldviews on representations of space and landscape. Lefebvre himself acknowledges that his view is Eurocentric: "How much can we really learn for instance, confined as we are to Western conceptual tools...?" (31). Other worldviews have different conceptual tools and ideas of space.  Landscape as a social production, is not the only method in which landscape is formed. In reality, landscapes are complex and layered with conflicting meanings that can be constructed through other conceptual tools such as cultural memory, nature or in conflict/power struggle.

Landscape is formed by more than just social production. Archaeologist Leslie Cecil, in her evaluation of colonial period Maya and their particular view of space demonstrates a different perspective. The designation and location of structures in Maya concept of space placed emphasis on nature. Solar and cosmic alignment informed much of their space. Thus, the Mayan formation of landscape and concept of space was s=not just a product of social production, but that influenced by the landscape itself. Their concept of space was layered as they conceived the universe to be divided in three realms: the upper world of the cosmos, the terrestrial world where the living resided and the underworld. In a way, Maya culture viewed their world conceptually from space and thus conceived of their surroundings from the more richly layered and complicated natural world. In the same way Cosgrove alludes to this richness in his evaluation of seeing landscape in aerial view. So can a new concept of space come from the landscape itself? Mayan cultural view and connection with forces of nature can make a case for this. Space as a social product is one way of forming landscape but there are other worldviews of defining space to be considered. The relationship between landscape, construction of space and natural forces in the formation of landscape is richly layered with history, complexity and meaning.

Mapping Territory

Paisaje or Landscape in Spanish, comes from the word pais, which translates to country or homeland. Peruvian architect Wiley Urquizo Ludeña asserts, that the word ‘pais’ is also symbolic of a territory or boundary. Similarly, British geographer Denis Cosgrove emphasizes the American concept of landscape as an 'idea' or ‘invention’ that stems from the need of early colonizers to set territories and domination over land.  The American 'idea/invention' of landscape was formed through boundaries, mapping, and domination of space. Referring to James Corner and Alex Maclean's project of analyzing the American landscape in aerial view, Cosgrove tells us that this territorialized concept of space changes from this view to reveal the complexities of the American landscape.

Julian Hinds Pumping Plant , California (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times) 

Today, in the U.S. much of our landscape has been transformed into spaces of production or extraction. There is often the juxtaposition of technology and nature, and it is only from aerial view that we can see this relationship more clearly. The way landscape was territorialized and controlled contrasts with the harmonious relationship the Inca had between nature/landscape and society. The Inca viewed the landscape through a mythological-religious lens. In this case, the landscape was not a product of violence or domination, but a place where form and nature worked together. Every tree and mountain not only embodied a spirit, but the landscape was also the spirit of a place. Ludeña then asks, how could the Inca have built a space set against nature with this kind of spiritual connection with the landscape? If the early colonizers had the same type of harmonious relationship with nature, perhaps the America landscape would look different today? Instead the American landscape was transformed so that we controlled all its aspects. We have even exercised control over the landscapes’ most ferocious aspect: water. Cosgrove talks about the how the scale of rivers was unlike anything European settlers had ever seen. Over the years as our cities and populations grew, we put up dams where we wanted water to move and if water did not naturally occur in an area, we built canals to pump it over mountains.

The Colorado River Aqueduct   (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times) 

We have mimicked the landscape in its massive scale with equally massive projects like the 242-mile long Colorado aqueduct pumping water supply into California. Despite our efforts to control and establish dominion over the landscape, we see, from the air, (through Alex MacLean’s lens) that landscape is complex, multi-layered and much more than what we experience on the ground. As Landscape Architects, Planners and Designers, how do we work with such grand scales and yet represent this complexity? We must work past the view that landscape is a space we own, extract from, and dominate. As those who form landscape, we must work to represent its’ complexity.

The Scale Jump

In the previous post I explored (through the writing of philosopher Enrique Dussel) how the American landscape was formed by both invention and discovery and how this has been manifested in landscape and our sense of place. In addition to these formative aspects, the Americas are also defined by mobility and migration of populations, societal struggles and violence.

In reading Australian anthropologist, Michael Taussig’s The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America, we can see how these societal struggles are played out, as Taussig discusses the issues that existed among South American tin mine workers in Peru and Bolivia in the early days of Capitalism and Spanish conquest. Taussig asserts that the kinship ties that defined these South American communities were "disrupted" by the oppressive ways of European conquest and ideas of Capitalism. Folk beliefs like magic were essentially "replaced" with those of materialistic and commodity driven beliefs of Capitalism.

In landscape, we can see how this has played out in spatial terms through an analysis of scales. Taussig eludes to a shift from small-scale, dispersed mining (and likely other processing of materials) in the Americas, to a large-scale, even, industrial sized production of space. As mass production, labor and movement of materials (such as tin ore) increased with European expansion, so did aspects of inequality, identity crisis and social/cultural ways of operating.

Besides the social and cultural implications of this scale jump, we can see how the “interruption” by colonialism manifested itself in landscape, as populations and migration to the Americas has increased over time.  We have essentially dominated landscape in the Americas with industrial space, cities and highways. This large-scale production of space is evident in the American landscape through mega-public works projects like the Pan American highway and the U.S. transportation landscape. An interesting comparison of this scale jump can be seen in comparing the extensive foot traffic roads and infrastructural production of space like canals of the Incas with the massive scale infrastructure projects of New York “master builder” Robert Moses and others. The transportation landscape in the Americas is direct a product of the role of technology (like the car) in shaping our modern day landscape.

The Inca Road Network http://www.discover-peru.org

A friend recently posted a review/commentary by Brooklyn based designer Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan on the aerial photography of artist Peter Andrew. Andrew documents America’s highway interstate system, particularly stacked interchanges from above. Particularly in Andrews aerial photography below, we can see the massive level at which we have manipulated landscape.

Peter Andrew's shot of the Phoenix interchange (winner of the 2013 Communication Arts Photo Annual) fastcodesign.com 

We can form a visual of this manipulation of landscape and “scale jump” through modern day mapping, drawing and aerial photography. In Taking Measures across the American Landscape, Landscape Architect James Corner and aerial photographer Alex Maclean document how through aerial photography, analytical drawings and writing, we can see, (in the words of Michael Van Valkenburgh), how “the notion that the designed landscape can become a representation of the more anonymous cultural and regional landscape.” The implications of a “scale jump” such as our massively designed highway systems, results in less human-to-human interaction to a human-to-technology interaction. And so, do we demonize our love affair with technology and landscape or do we celebrate it? I tend to side a happy medium. Now that we live in the large-scale American landscape, we need to reflect on the small scale, human-to-human operations of the past and incorporate it into our designed, and technologically advanced spaces.

America: Discovered or Invented?

The "discovery" of America often glosses over the existence of thriving, advanced societies that existed for many years prior to Columbus’s arrival to the Americas. Before European expansion in the 1400's, advanced societies of the world, although different politically and agriculturally, were connected by linkages of trade such as the Silk Road (as North American anthropologist Eric Wolf points out). Wolf stresses the interconnectedness of the world’s societies and cultures. Thus, the view that before European expansion, societies of the world were isolated is not entirely accurate. However, European expansion did take these linkages from the regional level to the global level. Philosopher Enrique Dussel from Mexico goes further to discuss the European expansion and encounter with the "Other" into the Americas.

European conquest of the Americas gave rise to "Eurocentrism" which effectively promoted domination over all that was not European or the "Other". Dussel stresses that Europe's confrontation with the Other was central to the birth of modernity, in that Europe defined itself as discoverer, and colonizer of Americas. According to Dussel, following "discovery" and the birth of modernity, came the "invention" or projection of what America and its inhabitants should be (with Vestucci finishing Columbus's work). The "encounter" of the "two worlds" both physically (through violence) and socially, constructed and invented a society that belonged neither to America nor Europe. An identity crisis arose from the discovery, invention, conquest and colonization of the Americas, that has lasting effects in our culture and sense of place today.

The narrative of this "invention" and identity crisis that arose from the "meeting of worlds" is manifested in our sense of place and can be seen in our cities and landscapes, both past and present.

Evidence of the Europe's influence is seen in some of America's most loved park landscapes such as Central Park. Considered to many the "father" of landscape architecture, Fredrick Law Olmsted taught us the manipulation of the American landscape into European picturesque winding paths, expansive lawns and formal elements like flowerbeds and topiaries. These formal elements are still promoted and taught as the "ideal” American landscape. The result being further identity crisis in landscape, as our cities and towns become both more populated and dense. Today, the urban landscape architect’s medium consists of artificial ground and space that must be compressed within urban seams and borders. Evidence of European influence is evident in even some of these compressed spaces, as we still emphasize aspects of the formal plaza, lawn and expansive green spaces. If our identity in the Americas was invented as Dussel asserts, how do we break free of invented European influences in the spaces we inhabit? Perhaps there is potential in the movement to regress to native/natural spaces.