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.