Oct 25

In the article, Imperial Landscape, Mitchell brings up the idea of a “dark side” of landscapes. He alludes to the fact that landscapes are not all that accurate in portraying a natural scene and that there are always aspects of landscape that are misinterpreted. Mitchell writes that, “we say landscape is nature, not convention, in the same way we say landscape is ideal, not real estate.” And, “that is how we manage to call landscape the natural medium in the same breath that we admit that it is nothing but a bag of tricks, a bunch of conventions and stereotypes.” This makes me think about Allen Island and the way that it is described in Betsy Wyeth’s vision in the Theroux and Ralston articles. For Betsy, Allen island was a “blank canvas”. A canvas that she then physically altered by planting trees and other vegetation on, and one that she constructed buildings on. While being on the Island, the landscape felt very authentic to me and that everything there was natural, though after reading these articles, I question whether the landscape of Allen Island that I saw, is one that is authentic.

This reading shows a connection between our previous conversations about place as culture, as well as our conversations about power and Power. He draws the connection to place as culture when he says  “landscape is already artifice in the moment of its beholding, long before it becomes the subject of pictorial representation” (Mitchell,169). By saying that the landscape has intrinsic social and cultural significance before it is depicted by an artist, he is recognizing the underlying structural Powers that form the perception of said landscape. His deconstruction of landscape as Western-centric and modern connect to our conversations about cartography and our own perceptions of maps and depictions of landscapes. He evokes this thinking in his 3rd thesis, where he states: “Like money, landscape is a social hieroglyph that conceals the actual basis of its value. it does so by naturalizing its conventions and conventionalizing its nature” (Mitchell,166). Since landscape is a part of who we are as individuals and as members of a society, when we look critically at maps and landscape it seems to go against even the most seemingly natural and universal principals we have. This is a place where I get stuck when looking at Allen Island and its nature. While the island has many astounding “natural” qualities to it, like the ferns the sporadic forests, these images came from Betsy’s own interpretation of nature. When you’re on the island, you cannot deny that it is naturally beautiful. However, if it is the realization of someone’s image of what nature is or what a specific landscape should look like, can it be taken as an undeniably “natural” or “true” landscape?

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.

W.J.T Mitchell’s Imperial Landscape reminds me of our previous reading Harley’s Deconstructing the Map. Neither the landscape nor the maps should be showing the exercise of power over them, but the influence is inevitable. For the maps, we can see “how they extend and reinforce the legal statutes, territorial imperatives, and values stemming from the exercise of political power” (Harley 11). Meanwhile, the imperialism over landscape does not only shows in how artists portray the sceneries, but also shows in the landscape itself–or more accurately, how we perceive the landscape. Since the presence of exercise power is almost omniscient, there is no way we can see the landscape and maps in an absolutely objective way. Both the landscape and maps are presenting themselves, and though such presence seems unchanged over time, how we understand it altered as the society and the historical context around us changed.

 

Mitchell explains the three fold effect of landscape paintings as “emancipation, naturalization, and unification,”  demonstrating the strong effect that they can have on western society.  Mitchell even goes on to say that landscape is a medium for “cultural expression” responsible for historical shifts in western society.  Thus making it a medium of modernism as well, based on the definition of modernism as an aesthetic and cultural response to modernity.  But is it the landscape that acts as the medium for shaping “cultural expression” and modernism, or is it the way the landscape is depicted in art?  Mitchell seemed to refer to landscape and landscape paintings as if they were synonymous.  Landscape is certainly a visual experience, but I would differentiate it from artwork in the sense that it is natural scene where as the painting of the landscape is a man-made scene.  In a similar sense, a landscape could remain relatively the same over the course of a century, but the way man depicts it through his artwork could change greatly.  The cultural and societal changes that occur are connected to the change in artistic expression of the landscape, not the landscape itself.  Therefore landscape in the natural sense is not directly acting as a medium for “cultural expression,” rather it has the ability to (indirectly) effect a society through the way it is expressed through various art forms.

For me, Mitchell’s “Imperial Landscape” answered questions I have long harbored about why humans are so taken with landscape, both in concept and in physicality. Let me clarify this quandary: there is a delightfulness that comes with immersing oneself in a landscape that feels distinct and special, whether that’s an NYC street or a dreamy seascape, and I constantly find myself asking why this is true. Engaging with landscape is certainly addictive; it’s why we (humans) like to hike, swim, read in coffee shops and sightsee. But why are we drawn to these activities? The strength of their allure suggests something far more powerful at work than mere aesthetics. I found Mitchell’s “Theses on Landscape” compelling because they not only shed light on this question, but also helped me apply these questions of landscape and meaning to the content of our class–specifically, Betsy Wyeth’s illustrious affair with island life.

“Landscape is not a genre of art, but a medium,” reads Mitchell’s first thesis on landscape. This statement is striking for a few reasons. First, it suggests that the building blocks of landscape: geological forms, human infrastructure, and of course, the life that inhabits place itself, are all instrumental in its creation. This thinking allows us to imagine our own active role in the creation of any landscape we find beautiful; we cultivate our own aesthetic in order to complement that of our surroundings. I imagine it’s why bean boots more fashionable at Colby College than in Manhattan. In this way, we become integral to the landscape we enjoy. As Mitchell says, we are “medium”: paint on canvas. Immersed.

Translating this metaphor to Betsy Wyeth’s endeavor to make a project of Allen Island reveals fresh commentary on the question Ben asked us through an in-class worksheet: “What stories do the Wyeths tell themselves about themselves?” It’s probably the same story we are all drafting: that our existence is important, that our story enhances that of our surroundings.