Oct 25

The perception of landscape as a medium for culture connects well to the creation and interpretation of maps. While maps often depict more explicitly scientifically driven motives, the influence of cultural and political powers is evident. Landscape is framed by the perception of place within a cultural context, and a map tells of a certain cultural phenomenon in time.

Similarly, maps tell the story of what the cartographer wants you to see, and landscapes tell the story of what the artist wants you to see. “Landscape is ideal, not real estate” (Mitchell 6). Even Betsy Wyeth’s creation of Allen is an idealist landscape. She recreated an island and its cultural definition based upon what landscape she had envisioned–clearings, ponds, building the blockhouse, recreating the sail loft. All of this allowed her to transform landscape in terms of her perception of the place, of what she thought Allen once was, and what she wanted it to represent–forming landscape. Betsy is an artist in this regard, she uses Allen as an artist would a painting, or a cartographer would a map. It is still recognizable, but the physical form of place is always changing. Clearly landscape for her is not stagnant, but instead is malleable to her own desires–putting ponds in because it seemed like the island needed them. In this sense, her imperialism on Allen is a tremendous example of Mitchell’s historical proposition. Culture and landscape is defined by the interpretation of those who have influence, and Betsy has been the sole influence of Allen, interpreting previous cultures in ways that make the island her own.

Landscape carries more value than money. Being an Economics major, W.J.T. Mitchell’s second “Thesis of Landscape” (Thesis #2) caught my eye: Landscape is a medium of exchange between the human and the natural…As such, it is like money: good for nothing in itself, but expressive of a potentially limitless reserve of value. I have never thought of a landscape beyond its physical structure. I always thought it was aesthetically appealing, but never thought to ask, “what is this landscape telling us?” In contrast, I never thought of money as “good for nothing in itself”. I always thought of its value, but never the reality of its physical structure: a piece of paper.

Now, those with a lot of money carry a lot of value and therefore a lot of power. But the reality about money is that not everyone can have limitless dollars and limitless power. There is an uncontrollable restriction on the power of money. On the other hand, a landscape carries a “potentially limitless reserve of value” and power. The power that a landscape carries is uncontrollable and endless. It has the ability to reveal human relations while being concealed, or protected, behind the “beautiful” natural environment depicted within a typical landscape. There is this sense of secrecy behind a landscape and its meaning, which only few can reveal and truly understand. While W.J.T. Mitchell used money as a metaphor to help us better understand a landscape, it appears he failed to discuss a landscape’s dominance over money in regards to the value it carries.