Namita Bhattacharya

In his essay, author, W.J.T. Mitchell, designates a section in which distinguishes between a landscape painting and a landscape itself. For me, thesis #4: “Landscape is a natural scene mediated by culture… both represented and presented space, both a signifier and a signified, both a frame and what a frame contain…” presents a unique perspective on what a landscape as a both a physical and metaphysical space. In a similar vein, Allen Island, as a landscape, is a “physical and multisensory medium… in which cultural meanings and values are encoded.”(Mitchell 169). To me Allen Island sort of an indescribable place. When we were there I was amazed by the natural beauty of the place, but at the end of the trip when Ben had told us that most of the vegetation was put there purposely by Betsy Wyatt, I was surprised. Why is it that the place lost some of its meaning once I had realized it was planned? Perhaps its because I was now aware of the power that was encoded into the landscape. Inexplicably, once I was aware of how human power was affecting the landscape, it changed the landscape. That is not to say that nature has no power or that human ability has triumphed over this power, but for this specific instance, the landscape was changed. I think it’s just a matter of trying to be aware of how different types of power affect a landscape and the culture that makes up a landscape. In addition, it is important to breakdown the framework/lens through which we view these types of power and the construct of landscape.

For my groups Timeline JS project we are looking at the history of the island through the lens of ownership and use. Paul Theroux’s Art Notebook: On Allen Island gives a fairly detailed history of the sail-loft-turned-museum that sits on the edge of the island. In class we have been discussing the power dynamics that can shape a space or place. I think the sail-loft’s history when viewed through the lens of ownership and use tells a interesting narrative of power dynamics and the institutions that may control them on the island and in the mid-coast region as well. It began as a store in Port Clyde; then is was a sail loft, and when the trade became obsolete it was converted again. The building was eventually converted to a co-op, where is “amounted to almost a club, the men gathering, smoking and talking.” (Theroux). When the company insuring the building decided that the activities that took place in the building were not controllable they stopped insuring it and the building fell into ruin. In a sense when the building stopped being profitable to the group insuring it, they decided to cut their losses. This, to me, is an example of how Power can affect/control power. The sail loft as a co-op held a strong social power in the community—at least for the fishermen of the region. However in a area where fishermen have a strong social and economic influence the power they hold is quite significant. And yet, even with the power of fisherman, the power of institutions, like insurance companies, reins supreme. When looking a place, it is important to be aware of the power dynamics and institutions that affect these power dynamics. This plays a pivotal role in the way ownership and use of a space are viewed.

In class we have been discussing the concept of spacetime in great detail. However, relative space-time has put on the back burner slightly. In terms of cartography, the relative view of space-time provides an interesting lens when looking at a map. In Deconstructing the Map, Harley describes cartography as both a science and an art. (Harley 2). His argument states that we should shift the way we think about the nature of cartography. I believe that Harley would interpret Harvey’s view of space-time as a successful epistemological shift. Harvey states, “each map projection tells its relative truth.” (Harvey 13). This ‘relative truth’ is what Harley wants others to recognize in maps. The implicit message that is expressed in maps is only relative and is extremely subjective.

For example, the map of Mohegan is less of a ‘traditional’ map (in that directions can not really be ascertained from its depiction) but more of a landscape. It tells more of a story instead of giving instruction or direction. It also depicts Mohegan at a specific time, 1896 to be exact, and in its illustration it shows a small village and boats in the harbor–but this map is from a specific point of view. Another person viewing Mohegan on the same day may see something else, depending on their point of view. The identity of Mohegan at that point in time and space is completely relative. Harley asks the question “where is the history of landscape and where is the space-time of human existence” on a map. (Harley 13). But I believe that these are not questions that can be answered in a map. While it is true that a map is a piece of science and art, that expresses “an embedded social vision,” that social vision is that of the cartographer. (Harley 13) The bias and experience of a single person are expressed in that social vision, and therefore the “space-time of human existence’ can not be shown in a piece of paper. When looking at a map through the lens of space-time, one is simply acknowledging how the map is expressing a relative identity of place but not a concrete identity.

Harvey states that in the relational view of space “an event, process, or thing cannot be understood by appeal to what exists only at some point. It crystallizes out of a field of flows” (Harvey, 14) Goat Island is an example of an event/process/thing crystallized out of a fields of flows. The Reach is a story told by the point of view of Stella Flanders, the oldest resident of Goat Island. She is an embodied of the place because she alone can tell the human narrative of the island, as she has never left. But it is not just own experiences that make the place… but rather the web of communication and stories she tells (and even the stories she doesn’t tell, like those of the death of the child molester or the crib-death of an infant) that make up the fields of flows from which Goat Island is constructed. Without this field of flows, Goat Island is just a space but with it, it is a place. It is a place that cannot “be understood by appeal to what exists only at some point”–a place in spacetime. Stella’s narrative is a good example of how we understand things/events/processes in term of relational spacetime. Her own narrative capture sections of other narratives; her memories and visions include people who she may not fully know (like the man from the mainland who once upon a time played cribbage on the island) but whose own experiences help to crystallize Goat Island out of the field of flows. This woven mesh of experiences, memories, dreams, and visions are what define Goat Island in the relational view of spacetime.