Is Landscape …?

Is Landscape . . .? surveys multiple and myriad identities of landscape. Rather than

seeking a singular or essential understanding of the term, the collection postulates
that landscape might be better read in relation to its cognate terms across expanded
disciplinary and professional fields. The publication pursues the potential of multiple
provisional working definitions of landscape to both disturb and develop received
understandings of landscape architecture. These definitions distinguish between
landscape as representational medium, academic discipline, and professional ident-
ity. Beginning with an inquiry into the origins of the term itself, Is Landscape . . .?
features essays by more than a dozen leading voices shaping the contemporary
reading of landscape as architecture and beyond.

Gareth Doherty is Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Senior

Research Associate at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. His
research and teaching focus on the interactions between design and anthropology.
Doherty is a founding editor of New Geographies journal and editor-in-chief of New
Geographies 3: Urbanisms of Color. Doherty edited Ecological Urbanism with
Mohsen Mostafavi. Current book projects include, Paradoxes of Green: An
Ethnography of Landscape in a City-State and Landscape as Art and Ecology:
Lectures by Roberto Burle Marx.

Charles Waldheim is John E. Irving Professor of Landscape Architecture and

former Chair of the Department of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University
Graduate School of Design. Professor Waldheim’s research focuses on landscape
architecture in relation to contemporary urbanism. He coined the term landscape
urbanism to describe emerging landscape design practices in the context of North
American urbanism. He has written extensively on the topic and is author of
Landscape as Urbanism: A General Theory as well as editor of The Landscape
Urbanism Reader. Citing the city of Detroit as the most legible example of urban
industrial economy in North America, Waldheim is editor of CASE: Lafayette
Park Detroit and co-editor, with Jason Young and Georgia Daskalakis, of Stalking
Detroit.
Edited by Gareth Doherty and
Charles Waldheim

Is Landscape …?
Essays on the Identity
of Landscape
First published 2016
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2016 Gareth Doherty and Charles Waldheim

The right of Gareth Doherty and Charles Waldheim to be identified as

the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Is landscape . . .? : essays on the identity of landscape / edited by
Gareth Doherty and Charles Waldheim.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Landscape architecture – Philosophy. 2. Landscape assessment.
I. Doherty, Gareth, editor. II. Waldheim, Charles, editor.
SB472.I7 2016
712 – dc23
2015015924

ISBN: 978-1-138-01844-0 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-01847-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-69758-1 (ebk)

Typeset in Frutiger
by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK
Contents

Acknowledgments vii
Notes on contributors ix
Foreword by Mohsen Mostafavi xiii

Introduction: What is landscape? 1

GARETH DOHERTY AND CHARLES WALDHEIM

Is landscape architecture? 9
GARETH ECKBO

1 Is landscape literature? 13
GARETH DOHERTY

2 Is landscape painting? 44
VITTORIA DI PALMA

3 Is landscape photography? 71
ROBIN KELSEY

4 Is landscape gardening? 93
UDO WEILACHER

5 Is landscape ecology? 115

NINA-MARIE LISTER

6 Is landscape planning? 138

FREDERICK STEINER

7 Is landscape urbanism? 162

CHARLES WALDHEIM

8 Is landscape infrastructure? 190

PIERRE BÉLANGER
 Contents 䊏

9 Is landscape technology? 228

NIALL KIRKWOOD

10 Is landscape history? 247

JOHN DIXON HUNT

11 Is landscape theory? 261

RACHAEL Z. DELUE

12 Is landscape philosophy? 285

KATHRYN MOORE

13 Is landscape life? 302

CATHARINE WARD THOMPSON

14 Is landscape architecture? 327

DAVID LEATHERBARROW

Index 339

vi 䊐
Acknowledgments

This book was initially conceived and informed by a graduate-level course at the
Harvard University Graduate School of Design. For four years from 2009 through
2012, the Proseminar in Landscape Architecture focused on the myriad of meanings
in landscape and its cognate fields. This work is indebted to the graduate students
of the seminar for their rigorous discussions on many of the topics introduced in
the book.
Special thanks are due, of course, to the contributors to the book, nearly all
of whom participated in the proseminar. Presenters in the proseminar not repre-
sented here but who added so much to the discussions included John Beardsley,
Alan Berger, Anita Berrizbeitia, Susannah Drake, Sonja Dümpelmann, Ed Eigen,
Richard T.T. Forman, Gary Hilderbrand, Mark Laird, Elizabeth Meyer, Chris Reed,
Melanie Simo, Anne Whiston Spirn, Carl Steinitz, John R. Stilgoe, Michael Van
Valkenburgh, and Christian Werthmann.
Teaching assistants included Andrew TenBrink (MLA, ’09), Andrew Zientek
(MLA, ’10), and Conor O’Shea (MLA, ’11, MDes, ’12). Mónica Belevan, a former
student in in the proseminar, provided helpful copyediting at an early stage. Conor
O’Shea later assisted with the image research for the book itself aided by Jian He,
Miguel Lopez Melendez, and Felipe Vera. Sara Gothard helped with image
permissions.
Thanks to Ines Zalduendo, Special Collections Archivist, and Alix Reiskind,
Digital Initiatives Librarian, Visual Resources and Materials Collection, at the Frances
Loeb Library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design for their assistance.
Permission to reproduce the Eckbo essay was facilitated by Brooke S. Hinrichs,
Research and Collections Analyst, American Society of Landscape Architects,
Washington DC, and Chris Marino, Reference Archivist, Environmental Design
Archives at the University of California, Berkeley.
Lastly, we acknowledge the professional and dedicated editorial team,
including Hannah Champney, the production editor, for keeping the book on
schedule; Hamish Ironside for copyediting; Louise Fox and Sadé Lee for their
support and editorial advice from the beginning of this project to the end.

vii 䊐
viii 䊐
Notes on contributors

Pierre Bélanger is Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Co-Director

of the MDes Postgraduate Design Research Program at Harvard University Graduate
School of Design. Bélanger teaches and coordinates graduate courses on the
convergence of ecology, infrastructure, media and urbanism in the interrelated fields
of design, communications, planning and engineering. He recently authored the
latest edition of Pamphlet Architecture #35, “Going Live: From States to Systems”,
and guest edited Harvard Design Magazine #39 “Wet Matter”. Current book
projects include Landscape Infrastructure, and Landscape of Defense.

Rachael Z. DeLue is Associate Professor of Art History at Princeton University. She

specializes in the history of American art and visual culture, with particular focus
on intersections between art and science. She is currently at work on a study of
Charles Darwin’s diagram of evolution in On the Origin of Species as well as a book
about impossible images. Publications include George Inness and the Science of
Landscape (2004), Landscape Theory (2008), co-edited with James Elkins, and
Arthur Dove: Always Connect (2016).

Vittoria Di Palma is an Associate Professor in the School of Architecture of the

University of Southern California. She is a co-editor of Intimate Metropolis: Urban
Subjects in the Modern City (2009), and the author of Wasteland, A History (2014),
which received the 2015 Louis Gottschalk Prize from the American Society for
Eighteenth-Century Studies, a 2015 J. B. Jackson Book Prize from the Foundation
for Landscape Studies, and a 2015 PROSE Award.

John Dixon Hunt is Professor Emeritus of the History and Theory of Landscape at
the University of Pennsylvania and a Visiting Professor at Harvard University
Graduate School of Design. Current interests focus upon landscape architectural
theory, modern(ist) garden design, and ekphrasis. He is the author of numerous
articles and books on garden history and theory, including Garden and Grove,
Gardens and the Picturesque, The Picturesque Garden in Europe, The Afterlife of
Gardens, Historical Ground: The Role of History in Contemporary Landscape
Architecture and, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Press series on
Landscape Architecture, of which he is the series editor, SITE, SIGHT, INSIGHT: Essays
on landscape architecture.

ix 䊐
 Notes on contributors 䊏

Robin Kelsey is the Shirley Carter Burden Professor of Photography at Harvard

University. Professor Kelsey has published on such topics as the role of chance in
photography, geographical survey photography, landscape theory, ecology and
historical interpretation, and the nexus of art and law. His books include Archive
Style: Photographs and Illustrations for US Surveys, 1850–1890, The Meaning of
Photography (co-edited with Blake Stimson) and Photography and the Art of
Chance.

Niall Kirkwood is Professor of Landscape Architecture and Technology at the

Harvard Graduate School of Design. Kirkwood’s teaching, research and publishing
broadly concerns technology and its relationship to design in the built landscape
environment. Kirkwood’s books include The Art of Landscape Detail: Fundamentals,
Practices, and Case Studies, Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Land-
scape, Weathering and Durability in Landscape Architecture, and, with Justin
Hollander and Julia Gold, Principles of Brownfield Regeneration: Cleanup, Design,
and Reuse of Derelict Land. Kirkwood’s most recent book, with Kate Kennen is,
Phyto: Principles and Resources for Site Remediation and Landscape Design.

David Leatherbarrow is Professor and Chair of the Graduate Group in Archi-

tecture, at the School of Design at the University of Pennsylvania. Leatherbarrow
has published widely including Architecture Oriented Otherwise, Topographical
Stories, Surface Architecture (with M. Mostafavi), Uncommon Ground, The Roots
of Architectural Invention, and On Weathering: The Life of Buildings in Time (with
M. Mostafavi). Leatherbarrow’s research focuses on the history and theory of
architecture and the city.

Nina-Marie Lister is Graduate Programme Director and Associate Professor of

Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. Lister is the
founding principal of plandform, a creative studio practice exploring the relation-
ship between landscape, ecology, and urbanism. Lister’s research, teaching and
practice focus on the confluence of landscape infrastructure and ecological
processes within contemporary metropolitan regions. She is co-editor of Projective
Ecologies (2014) and The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and
Managing for Sustainability (2008) and author of numerous professional practice
and scholarly publications.

Kathryn Moore is Professor of Landscape Architecture at the Birmingham Institute

of Art and Design, Birmingham City University, United Kingdom. Moore is President
of the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) and a Past President
of the Landscape Institute. Moore has published extensively on design quality,
theory, education and practice. Moore’s publications include Overlooking the
Visual: Demystifying the Art of Design (2010), and “The Regeneration Game,”
Railway Terminal World (2014).

Mohsen Mostafavi is the Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design and
the Alexander and Victoria Wiley Professor of Design. His work focuses on modes
and processes of urbanization and on the interface between technology and

x 䊐
 Notes on contributors 䊏

aesthetics. His books include On Weathering: The Life of Buildings in Time (co-
authored, 1993), Delayed Space, Architecture, Logique Visuelle, Landscape
Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape, Structure as Space, Ecological
Urbanism (edited with Gareth Doherty), Implicate & Explicate, Louis Vuitton:
Architecture and Interiors, In the Life of Cities, Instigations: Engaging Architecture,
Landscape and the City, and Architecture is Life. Current book projects include Ethics
of the Urban: The City and Spaces of the Political.

Frederick R. Steiner is the Dean of the School of Architecture and Henry M.

Rockwell Chair in Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin. His most recent
books include Urban Ecological Design (with Danilo Palazzo), Design for a Vulnerable
Planet, Planning and Urban Design Standards (student edition, with Kent Butler),
The Essential Ian McHarg: Writings on Design and Nature, and Human Ecology:
Following Nature’s Lead.

Catharine Ward Thompson is Professor of Landscape Architecture at the

University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on inclusive access to outdoor
environments, environment-behaviour interactions, landscape design for older
people, children and teenagers, and salutogenic environments. Catharine is founder
and Director of OPENspace research centre, where current research projects include
studies on the effectiveness of environmental interventions to enhance psychological
wellbeing in deprived communities and among different sub-groups in the older
population.

Udo Weilacher is Professor of Landscape Architecture and Industrial Landscapes

at the Technical University of Munich. Weilacher’s research is on connections
between landscape architecture, fine arts and history of garden art in relation to
contemporary urban and cultural landscape developments. He is author of many
books including Between Landscape Architecture and Land Art (1995), Syntax of
Landscape (2007) and Feldstudien: Zur neuen Ästhetik urbaner Landwirtschaft/Field
Studies: The New Aesthetics of Urban Agriculture (2010).

xi 䊐
Foreword
Mohsen Mostafavi

It seems to me that Garrett Eckbo’s thought-provoking text, “Is Landscape

Architecture?,” to which this volume is a critical, multivalent response, is chiefly
arguing for a relationship – a relationship between landscape and architecture –
rather than simply defining what landscape architecture is. By asking “Is landscape
architecture?,” Eckbo foregrounds the importance of relationality, or the productive
zone in which disciplinary knowledge meets transdisciplinary practice.
Landscape is intrinsically caught between varied associations. The array of
contributors to this volume represent a broad range of disciplines and positions,
allowing landscape to be discussed in relation to fields in addition to architecture.
When we ask “Is landscape planning?,” for example, we are inherently discussing
landscape’s relationship to planning. Similarly, “Is landscape photography?” ques-
tions landscape’s representation through photographic methods. Through the
various chapters of this volume, you will find many glimpses of particularities of
identity that emerge from these associations.
Writing elsewhere, Kenneth Frampton suggests that when you look at the
Parthenon, you see a building that seems to grow out of the mountain. Even though
the building is distinct from the mountain, there is a clear relationship; the visual
appreciation of the building is ineluctably tied to its locality. This relationality
becomes a kind of method in the work of certain architects. One particularly exciting
example of the tension between architecture and landscape is the Villa Malaparte
on Capri, which epitomizes the idea of an architecture that incorporates land-
scape but is also distinct from it. Frampton highlights an architecture that continues
the argument of Eckbo, in physical terms, where architecture is architecture, and
the constructed landscape is seen as a sort of integrated, holistic project. He thus
opposes the notion of the architectural object and promotes examples of continuity
between landscape and architecture. Asking “Is landscape architecture?” is there-
fore to seek an equivalence of architecture within landscape – not only to define
landscape through its relationality with architecture but to speak of that equiva-
lence.
The Centre Pompidou is one of the most powerfully charged projects in this
respect in its complex relationship with the landscape of Paris. An escalator moves
vertically along the outside of the structure, offering a fresh perspective on the city

xiii 䊐
 Mohsen Mostafavi 䊏

in terms of one’s relationship to the ground, as opposed to the more quotidian

experience gained by walking or traveling by car, bus, or bike. The escalator is a
very deliberate way of experiencing the city, for viewing the urban landscape. The
building functions almost as a kind of camera – as a mechanism for constructing
spatial relationships with the city.
Yet if you define something – a building, a landscape – in terms of something
else, what is its position with regard to its own core practices and conventions? In
considering the notion of relationality, it is also important to talk about distinctness,
to talk about difference. Aldo Rossi was a vocal proponent of the notion of
disciplinary autonomy, or the autonomy of architecture. Architecture is architecture.
Poetry is poetry. Literature is literature. Painting is painting. Photography
is photography. What issues are specific, distinct, to the core of landscape as a
discipline, and to landscape as a certain set of practices? Such specificities are
a necessary precondition for relationality with other things: you need to know the
particular qualities of something before invoking a relationship. I would argue that
landscape has had a harder time defining its disciplinary condition than have most
other fields.
A recognized part of the problem with landscape is that it still frequently gets
conflated with conceptualizations of nature, including discussions around nature
and agriculture, and traditions of gardening. Inadequate attention is devoted to
the artifice of landscape – the highly artificial, highly deliberate, highly constructed.
In this sense, there’s very little that’s natural about landscape.
It is vital to argue to some degree for the autonomy of the discipline of
landscape by defining landscape relative to landscape, in the same way that archi-
tecture has had a long gestation period of being able to articulate itself. In short,
in examining the relationships arising from the multiple identities of landscape, it
is necessary to look within landscape too.
So the question that I would most like to pose is: “Is landscape landscape?”

xiv 䊐
Chapter 12: Is landscape philosophy?
Kathryn Moore

We have lost an important connection with the landscape, a way of seeing and
understanding its profound significance in our everyday life and culture. This gap
in our knowledge is the consequence of a rationalist paradigm that continues to
dominate western thinking, a conceptual void that threatens the landscape in the
face of twenty-first-century challenges. An alternative philosophical approach
argues that refocusing attention on materiality and re-evaluating the relationship
communities have with the land would be an important step towards addressing
the problem, but it does demand a very different role and agenda for philosophy.
This chapter illustrates the potential of a new way of thinking about landscape,
consciousness and design and aims to initiate a new discourse by abandoning the
philosophical filters that currently obscure a meaningful engagement with the built
environment. This would help to establish an expanded definition of landscape
as a vital means of achieving a better quality of life and robust sustainable
development.

REDEFINING THEORIES OF PERCEPTION

The main premise for this work is set out in Overlooking the Visual Demystifying
the Art of Design (Moore 2010). Offering a redefinition of the relationship between
the senses and intelligence, the book argues that perception is not just close to
intelligence, but is intelligence. This gives a startlingly different view of the world,
an entirely different way of conceptualizing perception, one that challenges the
prevailing rationalist paradigm. This new approach allows us to work without the
need to engage or leap between different modes of thinking, or the notion that
there are fundamentally different types of truth or pre-linguistic starting points of
thought.
For the first time, one of the main preoccupations of contemporary cultural
debate, the argument for and against the existence of universal truth, is carried
into the perceptual realm, applying a pragmatic line of inquiry that questions the
very nature of foundational belief.1 This establishes a new philosophical argument
systematically questioning the existence of the sensory interface/mode of thinking
– a disastrous idea that has haunted western civilization since the seventeenth

285 䊐
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

century, one that remains absolutely integral to current theories of perception and
epistemology.
This radical move cuts across the separatist constructs that have habitually
divided facts and values, nature and culture, art and science, language and
emotions. Redefining the nature of design expertise, together with artistic and
aesthetic sensibility provides the basis for a strong conceptual and artistic rationale
for arts education. Stripping out the metaphysical dimension from perception
shows the design process to be a critical endeavour not a mystical experience,
enabling us to talk about design more sensibly. But perhaps the most significant
thing this paradigm shift does for the relationship between landscape and
philosophy is to bring materiality back into the picture.
Currently, landscape has an uneasy relationship with philosophy, it could be
argued that it’s being badly let down by it. To some however, landscape IS
philosophy and a way of life, but it is also clear that many others feel exactly the
same way about their own particular disciplines. From a pragmatic perspective, this
professional evangelism is not really philosophy, but more a kind of “moral recipe”
as Dewey wryly observes (Dewey [1934] 1980: 319). A high ground from which
to make judgements about how we live our lives, often based on old values,
supposedly tried and tested, a nostalgia for the way things used to be. The “desire
to restore old conceptions from past epochs” thought to be “essential to the
redemption of society from its present evil state” (ibid.).
Landscape is no more philosophy than poetry or mathematics. But as with
poetry and mathematics, philosophy and landscape are inextricably linked. The
beliefs and values we hold, our own “philosophy” if you like, determines our view
of the world. The culmination of a lifetime’s observations, sometimes casual,
sometimes intense, of contemplation, meditation or just simply trying to work things
out. It may not be clearly articulated and we may not be aware of the extent to
which the sense we make of things is swayed and shaped by countless presumptions
and preconceptions. These underpin our hunches, intuitions and the judgements
we make, frame our view of the landscape, our experience of the landscape and
inform what we might imagine for its future.

THE RATIONALIST PARADIGM

These assumptions are still very much rooted in the arcane tenets that underpin
the rationalist philosophy, the foundation of all sense datum theories of perception.
Each of them requires a “hidden layer” of unconscious understanding to guide us
through the process. As a sensory interface, this has innumerable incarnations, for
example, as a black box, separate modes of thinking, the haptic, the visual, the
experiential, the mind’s eye, creativity, the subconscious and something that
supposedly lies just beneath cognition. These are essentially variations on a theme
acting as a veil between us “in here” and the world “out there”. This is precisely
what perpetuates the dichotomy thought to exist between body and mind. Despite
concerted efforts over the last few decades to dispel this duality, it remains

286 䊐
 Is landscape philosophy? 䊏

stubbornly endemic. Concealed in plain sight in sense datum theories of perception,

it is endlessly re-hashed through cultural habits, anecdotes and adages. In fact, it
is so common, this way of thinking is considered to be more a way of life, the
nature of things, simple common sense rather than one way of seeing the world
as opposed to another. It is so firmly wedged into the foundations of epistemology,
institutionalised in faculties, educational frameworks and curricula, that the extent
to which rationalism still pervades cultural discourse, influencing our judgements
and decision-making is frankly alarming.
Having a devastating impact on many disciplines in the arts and sciences,
rationalism distorts the idea of knowledge, defines intelligence too narrowly and
misrepresents the role of language, the emotions and the visual. Maintaining
and exacerbating the divide that exists between knowing and doing, theory and
practice, this perspective continues to diminish our understanding of materiality
and experience.
The rationalist inquiry tends to fall either side of what Dewey refers to as the
dual knowledge thesis. Each has its own agenda and discourse, but they are bound
by the same philosophy. Broadly speaking, we have positivism which searches for
or presumes the existence of “real truth”, inviolable and neutrally objective and
relativism, a half-world of values and subjectivity, seeking essences, archetypes
and meaning. By definition they are diametric opposites, but in reality, they are
two sides of the same coin.
The compelling certainty offered by a positivist view has proved seductive,
but an often disastrous combination of cost effectiveness, functionality and the
lowest common denominator, has fostered a simplistic and damaging impulse to
categorize, measure and delineate the landscape to within an inch of its life. This
is why it is fragmented into different elements, the responsibility of numerous
agencies, NGOs and departments, generally considered to be a matter of bio-
diversity, ecology or technology, “things that grow” that might help to “ameliorate”
the impact of development.

PHILOSOPHICAL DAMAGE

In the grip of this reductive approach, the landscape has been transformed from
a highly complex, symbolic and powerful economic and cultural resource into a
pale imitation of itself. Anonymous, monotonous, even banal, so anodyne and
bereft of meaning it is often regarded as nothing more than the space left between
the highways, buildings, towns and cities, something just waiting to be taken advan-
tage of, used up or titivated.
Apart from in the care or creation of parks and gardens, landscape is too
often regarded as “landscaping”, just sticking plaster or cosmetic makeovers for
areas blighted by poor spatial decision-making, a green veneer to be applied in a
vain attempt to soften dysfunctional parts of the city, qualitative add-ons to be
made after the major economic decisions have been implemented, provided of
course, the money hasn’t run out. In contrast, the Landscape Advisory Committee

287 䊐
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

included an engineer, landscape architect, planner, architect and surveyor all

working together equally, to determine the best route for major design projects
such as the M40 motorway between London and Birmingham in the United
Kingdom. The Committee was abandoned during the Thatcher years. We may never
fully quantify the damage done by that decision.
Unwittingly or by stealth, the landscape is being shunted into a technological
backwater. Instead of ideas, experience, expression and form, we have the
quantification or identification of detail, of components, ticked boxes and quotas.
It’s a dangerous habit, easy to pick up but hard to drop. Even within the sustainable
development agenda or the current trend for reinventing the garden cities, fresh
ideas can be all too easily sidelined as the debate slips comfortably into a
deliberation of space standards, various technologies or technical fixes, rather than
a rigorous understanding of the place in terms of its physical locality, its culture,
context and broader social concerns. How it might look and feel in 25 years’ time
if we get the aspirations right now rather than forever playing catch-up and patch
up. Repairing the damage caused by a lack of knowledge and foresight.
Unfortunately the landscape is equally undone by the subjectivist argument.
Philosophically, inquiry from this perspective is also compromised, underpinned by
what is inevitably a fruitless quest for sensing the unconscious, subconscious
archetypal structures in our minds, universal deep-seated truths, or the essence of
place. Take this singing rock syndrome to its logical conclusion and the sense you
make of things apparently depends not on what you see, but what you feel or
understand without thinking. It is a search for meaning, for something other,
without physical manifestation. This renders what you see in front of you redundant,
irrelevant or even worse, an obstacle between you and what is really there beneath
the surface. It is an illustration of what Cosgrove identifies as “the wildest excesses
of a post structuralist treatment of landscapes as little more than simulacra, discon-
nected from any link with the material earth and actual social practice” (Cosgrove
1984: xxvii). We might just as well walk blindfold through the landscape.
There are also widespread implications for design in theory and practice. The
nuts and bolts of the design process have typically been thought to involve a visual
mode of thinking and therefore seen as innate, subjective and effectively impossible
to teach. This curiously censorious view is both unhelpful and deeply undemocratic
for students struggling to achieve a degree of expertise in a spatial, visual medium.
Teachers and students alike should be aware that understanding and working with
the visual is as critically important, fundamental even, as learning to read and write.
The main pedagogical thrust of Overlooking the Visual (Moore, 2010) is the sugges-
tion that the sense we make of what we see is absolutely dependent on what we
know, what we have learned, in other words, what we have been taught. This applies
not only to design, but to all critical endeavour. It’s education, not black magic.
Rorty explains that from the twentieth century onwards, philosophers put
forward language itself as a kind of buffer between us and the world, in other words,
yet another interpretative veil (Rorty 1999: 24–25). The combination of what

288 䊐
 Is landscape philosophy? 䊏

Goldschmidt calls a “sweeping linguistic imperialism” (Goldschmidt 1994: 159), and

Stafford describes as a “hierarchical ‘linguistic turn’ in contemporary thought”, leads
inexorably to the “identification of writing with intellectual potency” (Stafford 1997:
5).2 Philosophers simply stopped talking about experience and started talking about
language. An approach eagerly adopted by design theorists, the humanities provid-
ing rich pickings to embellish a somewhat undernourished discipline. The problem
was and remains that whilst this work might appear to be highly theoretical and
sophisticated and therefore more serious or worthy, it is often jargon laden, obscure
and self-referential. However highbrow or difficult some of this stuff might seem, it
can still be as ephemeral as yesterday’s news, subject to the vagaries of fashion and
the zeitgeist. Most importantly, though, in design theory, it is the way in which it
pushes materiality and experience further down the agenda. This is theory resolutely
without practice. Perhaps it’s not entirely coincidental that in order to move design
forward, it has recently been suggested that in light of the advances in digital tech-
nologies, architecture need no longer rely on discourses from the humanities (AHRA
2014). Is this the recognition of a problem? And if so, is it any kind of solution?
The negative impact rationalism has had on our surroundings, the everyday
places where we live and work is there to be seen in the careless, casual treatment
of a hugely important resource. So in a sense, yes, landscape is philosophy mani-
fested. It is there to be seen. Just think about all that lost knowledge. A glance at
photographs of Tewkesbury in the UK, flooded in 2008 for example, show quite
clearly that the medieval monks knew precisely where to build – if you want to
keep your feet dry during time of flood, head for the high ground, head for a
medieval church. The Victorian railway engineers responded meticulously to the
shifting patterns of geomorphology, geology and hydrology to ensure good, safe
effective drainage. Now we seem to see landscape as a limitless resource. We tip
rubbish on valuable marshlands, plant solar panels instead of crops and we
masterplan by cutting and pasting bits of Shanghai onto Birkenhead. Power stations
have been built on fault lines in Japan, homes on friable cliffs in Mexico. We’ve
built towns in Thurrock, on the Thames flood plains that aren’t flood proofed and
major cities in the desert where there is limited water. Our priorities are so awry
that it is now acceptable to contemplate cutting down an iconic avenue of 150-
year-old “problem” trees in a Leicester street rather than lift the pavements because
of cost. Let’s go for the cheaper option, lose the trees! Geographical sensibility or
expertise is increasingly disregarded in the face of technological brute force. The
focus is on processes rather than knowledge and checklists rather than experience.
This, together with an effortless capacity to digitally enhance and manipulate
structure and space, enables us to play fast and loose with the landscape. It is now
plausible, even desirable to ignore the dynamics of larger scale hydrological,
geomorphological, climatic or cultural systems. In effect, anything is possible!
We no longer recognize the pivotal role that landscape plays in shaping
identity, culture, self-confidence and worth in everyday life. Detached from the
fabric of our lives, from our experience, the stories and myths, memories and

289 䊐
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

celebrations that make up a sense of place, it is taken for granted, taken as read.
It can look after itself. Its potency, complexity and value are therefore all too often
overlooked within the development process. Objectified, we think of it as something
out there, beyond the city, green, blue or grey a place to pass through, to visit and
admire provided it’s pretty enough. But ultimately, it’s up for grabs, there to be
used or abused, manhandled or bulldozed.

A NEW LOOK AT LANDSCAPE

The groundswell of criticism against this cultural vandalism has been evident for a
considerable time now. Ian Nairn’s campaign for example “to convince the public
– as well as the planners – of the full horror of what is happening in England today”
(Nairn 1964) and Fairbrother’s “New Lives, New Landscapes” (Fairbrother 1972),
in which she presents “plans to halt haphazard and thoughtless modern develop-
ment” (ibid.: cover page) were significant in drawing attention to the crisis of what
seemed like the uncontrollable despoliation of urban and rural England. They were
asking us to observe what was happening. Look and understand, make critical,
informed judgements about our surroundings.
In their singular and some might say, idiosyncratic ways, critics such as Denis
Cosgrove, Simon Schama, Jonathan Meades and Paul Shepheard disclose the rich
cultural and social significance of landscape. Cosgrove, writing in response to the
“profound collapse” in the 1970s and 1980s “disciplinary coherence, scientific
method and verification, objectivity and the politics of knowledge”, interprets the
symbolic, social and economic ideas evident in maps and paintings, formulating
what he calls the “landscape idea”. Primarily concerned with the expression of
politics, economics and power in landscape imagery, he admits in the introductory
chapter to the later edition that he never seriously grapples with the aesthetic and
emotional qualities of landscape (Cosgrove 1984: xx).
Moving us closer to a more tangible relationship with landscape, Schama
“excavates below our conventional sight line to recover the views of myth and
memory that lie beneath the surface” (Schama 1996: 14). He explains “what
Landscape and Memory tries to be: a way of looking; of rediscovering what we
already have, but which somehow eludes our recognition and our appreciation.
Instead of being another explanation of what we have lost, it is an exploration of
what we might find” (ibid). His concern for the gross neglect of landscape is clear
when he adds:

in offering this alternative way of looking, I am aware that more is at stake than
an academic quibble. For if the entire history of landscape in the west is indeed
just a mindless race towards a machine driver universe, uncomplicated by myth,
metaphor and allegory, where measurement, not memory is the absolute arbiter
of value, where our ingenuity is our tragedy, then we are indeed trapped in the
engine of our destruction.
(Ibid.)

290 䊐
 Is landscape philosophy? 䊏

Jonathan Meades drags us kicking and screaming into the ordinary landscape.
Face to face with the bizarre, neglected and the obscure, earthy and controversial,
he documents what he calls “his obsessive preoccupation with places, mainly British
places, with their ingredients, with how and why they were made, with their power
over us, with their capacity to illumine the societies that inhabit them and above
all, with the ideas that they foment”. His adds “everything is fantastical if you stare
at it for long enough, everything is interesting. There is no such thing as a boring
place” (Meades 2012: p xiii).
Shepheard suggests science has taken the lead so much in the last 100 years
that our understanding of the world is shaped by the “invisible forces: quantum
physics, relativity, genetics and evolution”. Calling these four contemporary frames
the “dark knowledge” that cannot be seen or touched, is his explanation as to
why “the world we experience and the world we know about are different”.
Arguing that it is “as though the material world has taken on a metaphysical
aspect” he takes us on “a kind of pilgrims progress, a journey through this invisible
wilderness, through the confusions arising from the clash between that re-
engineered metaphysics and the mundane world” (Shepheard 2013).
An important aspect of the work of these scholars and critics is that it is
gloriously free of literary theory. It’s a perspective we can all learn from. These texts
and many others, reflect the fast growing fascination with landscape from many
disciplines and organizations around the world. Connecting this thoughtful,
imaginative criticism with practice, not just as background reading, but to actively
inform practice is how landscape and philosophy can achieve a more productive,
symbiotic relationship. But this simply will not happen with the same traditional
epistemology. A radical overhaul is required here, a re-conceptualising of many of
the assumptions that we currently depend on, using an interpretative definition of
perception. Having used this to redefine the design process in Overlooking the
Visual, it can also be deployed to closely examine the relationship between
landscape and philosophy.

A NEW ROLE FOR PHILOSOPHY

Landscape can be described in many ways, for example, its ecological diversity,
botanical or cultural significance, its history and traditions, through its evolution,
spatial structure, economic value as well as the countless narratives describing the
way it impacts on us and the aspirations we have for its future. This is the idea of
landscape, that is to say the relationship we, as communities, individuals and nations
have with the landscape in response to its materiality. It is not just an abstract,
academic concept. It is not simply about technical details. It is the whole package.
This holistic view is in stark contrast to the habit we have fallen into of compulsively
evaluating its constituent parts.
To understand materiality in this way changes everything. The relationship
we have with a place, inevitably influenced by knowledge, mood and context,
locates us, not as cool observers of a world “out there”, but as an indispensable

291 䊐
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

part of that world. We are not just in close relationship with the landscape, but
part of it. It is as impossible to separate or detach ourselves from it as the air we
breathe. This rids us irrevocably of the object/subject dichotomy. We no longer need
to reconcile the irreconcilable.
From this perspective, landscape is not only concerned with the countryside
or matters of heritage, it is not just a physical entity. It is our values and memories,
the experience we have of place, our culture and identity. This is altogether a more
powerful, evocative idea. Landscape, what we see and experience around us, from
the towns and cities to the most remote corners the world, reflects our principles
and ambitions and the expression of these aspirations in form, shape the quality
of this experience. This compelling new idea of landscape is what is opening up
debate, encouraging different ways to articulate the social, cultural and physical
context of our lives.
In the context of research methodologies in design, “Shifting inquiry away
from the unequivocal towards the ambiguous” (Moore 2013b) examines how
redefining perception challenges the nature and parameters of much philosophical
inquiry by offering what Putnam calls “a middle way between reactionary meta-
physics and irresponsible relativism” (Putnam 1999: 5). This means that essentially
there is no need to choose one or the other, releasing us from endless debate
between positions that are natural or cultural, scientific or artistic, theoretical from
practical, value laden from quantitative. Theory and philosophy need not necessarily
be metaphysical by nature. There are alternatives. Theory does not have to depend
on French or German philosophy, the philosophy of language, notions of identity,
difference, self, subject, truth or reason or most crucially, the impossibility of any-
thing. Nor does it have to be packed with complex jargon or abstract language,
which can often be exclusive and intimidating.
There has long been a tendency to believe that philosophy involves “a special
faculty called reason”, or has a “preeminent place . . . within culture as a whole”
(Rorty 1999: xxi). We have hoisted it on to a pedestal, locked it securely in an ivory
tower and only a privileged few hold a key. But how does this particular discipline
differ from any other? What makes it more lofty, more intellectually adroit? From
a pragmatic point of view, there is no reason to suggest that any line of inquiry is
any more or less valid or valuable than another.
On this basis, philosophy is just another kind of discourse and it can be put
to practical use, playing a pivotal part in future-planning and decision making. Rorty,
mapping out a crucial role for philosophy, explains how Hobbes, Locke, Marx
and Dewey, for example “formulated their taxonomies of social phenomena and
designed the conceptual tools they used to criticise existing institutions, by reference
to a story about what has happened and what we might reasonably hope could
happen in the future”. This is a considerable shift from what he refers to as the
“politically sterile” tradition of taking the philosophy of language as a starting
point for philosophical inquiry, which he suggests, represents “a loss of hope – or
more specifically of an inability to construct a plausible narrative of progress” (ibid.:
232).

292 䊐
 Is landscape philosophy? 䊏

Here, then, the role of philosophical investigation is to throw more light on

the problems of the past, to give a clue as to how to solve the problems of the
future, in order Rorty suggests, to “speed up the pace of social change”. With the
benefit of this philosophical hindsight, we can usefully reveal past mistakes and
avoid their repetition by “having our attention called to the harm we have been
doing without noticing that we are doing it” (ibid.: 237).

PRAGMATISM IN PRACTICE

“Design: Philosophy and Theory into Practice” (Moore 2013a) explores the impli-
cations of breaking down traditional conceptual and institutional silos, examines
how we can operate and conceptualize ideas without relying on the notion of a
sensory interface and looks at the possible outcomes for theory and practice when
we abandon these resistant, arcane, philosophical constructs. Talking about land-
scape in this holistic way, about the idea of landscape, is establishing it at the
forefront of development and as the context within which the development
processes take place.
Giving the opportunity for a vastly expanded field of practice, encompassing
policy, advocacy and planning, it is clear that by adopting a genuinely holistic vision
of the landscape, we can avoid the splintering of the environment into components
vying for control. Helping to unite, rather than divide, cutting across disciplines and
hierarchies, the argument is proving very persuasive. Of course, it’s never quite that
simple, that straightforward. Concepts carefully knitted together, can be pains-
takingly even innocently unpicked by those not familiar with the ideas or ambition
of the work. If we want to move beyond existing traditions, we need to change
views, change minds, change the way we talk about the world, expanding our ideas,
developing a better descriptive vocabulary to help us and others see things from
a different perspective. The role of language, advocacy, patience and determination
in all of this is as demanding as it is vital. It requires strong leadership and support.
This new definition of landscape, central to the European Landscape Conven-
tion, underpins a number of projects that are generating considerable interest
globally, including the proposal for the International Landscape Convention (ILC) from
the International Federation of Landscape Architect’s (IFLA), as well as HS2LV (see
below) and Big Skies Big Thinking (BSBT) in Thurrock, both in the United Kingdom.
The ILC proposal, taking this new approach into the policy arena is influencing
international organizations at the highest level, directing United Nations agen-
cies, NGOs and other civic institutions to the wider value of ordinary as well as
outstanding landscape. Politicians and key stakeholders are beginning to realize
the potential of the landscape to mediate between administrative, technical, social
and cultural forces, recognizing that there is a more productive and effective way
to deal with development and change. It is also clear that the relationship between
a population and its landscape is as powerful in the everyday, as it is with extra-
ordinary monumental landscapes such as Stonehenge, or world heritage sites in
beautiful cities like Florence. It is as powerful in Birmingham, Thurrock or Salford,

293 䊐
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

as it is in Yawuru or Canning Stock in Australia. This became evident when we had

the first meeting with all the experts in Paris to discuss setting up an ILC in 2010.
Whenever there was the temptation to fall back on particular disciplines, scientists
or biologists, sociologists or designers, we simply reminded people that we were
talking about where they lived, where they had grown up and how much it had
shaped them. Whatever the background, whatever the discipline, it struck a chord.
In general, this everyday landscape has no voice, no champion and this is why we
are calling for a global landscape initiative.
A more expansive definition and way of talking about the landscape, making
it tangible and resilient in the face of development pressures, is crucial in meeting
the major global challenges created by industrialization, demographic shifts, climate
change, deforestation, the depletion of natural resources and a host of issues
relating to the quality of life and other aspects of land use development. These
challenges, like financial infrastructures, do not respect territorial boundaries. The
proposal also responds to an urgent need to provide strategic design leadership at
a regional, national and international level. With a new strategic vision, we can
bring together many organizations each with their own interest in the landscape
and very different agendas.

Figure 12.1
HS2LV Birmingham composite.
Hand-coloured geo-referenced and ortho-rectified drawings, layout paper, Copyright © Kathryn Moore; 1M Res LiDAR data
Copyright © Environment Agency & HS2 GIS data sets November 2013 issue (inc. 2014 Rev), HS2 Ltd & Ministry of Transport.

294 䊐
 Is landscape philosophy? 䊏

Evidence of this can be seen in initiatives such HS2LV, a proposal to transform

the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail link, the UK’s largest infrastructure project for gen-
erations, from a linear engineering scheme into an iconic landscape vision that
would be a catalyst for wider social and economic transformation. Representing a
unique opportunity to create an enduring legacy by placing the landscape at the
core of the project, it has been described by Andrew Grant of Grant Associates as
“continuing the spirit of all Britain’s great landscape evolutions, seizing an oppor-
tunity to rediscover and celebrate the connection between communities and the
countryside” (see Figures 12.1–7).

Figure 12.2
Isometric layers of data.
Moore & Cureton, isometric stack of data layers. Hand-coloured geo-referenced and ortho-rectified drawings, layout paper, ©
Kathryn Moore, 1M Res LiDAR Data © Environment Agency & HS2 GIS data sets November 2013 issue (inc. 2014 Rev), HS2 Ltd
& Ministry of Transport.

295 䊐
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

Figures 12.3–4
Mapping Curzon Street station, environmental assessment and engineering works, Birmingham. Mapping station heights and
the zone of theoretical visibility for future integration of the HSLV.
1M Res LiDAR data Copyright © Environment Agency & HS2 GIS data sets November 2013 issue (inc. 2014 Rev), HS2 Ltd &
Ministry of Transport.

Working with the landscape as the context within which development takes
place is an effective way to increase environmental quality. Conserving and high-
lighting the richness of Thurrock’s landscape, improving degraded and derelict land
and avoiding suburban spread, it will provide a mix of affordable social housing,
accommodation for large families and professionals, a graduated range of densities
and visual, physical connections with the water to re-establish a symbiotic relation-
ship between local communities, the river and the landscape.
A pilot for the future, the study aims to put the city of Birmingham and beyond
at the forefront of sustainable spatial development, conservation and urban
regeneration, cementing its reputation as a leading global destination for business,
tourism and education. It is a real opportunity to create an enduring legacy for the
region and the UK as a whole. It could mean the re-imagining of an immense valley
system, largely unloved and unnoticed, as the productive and sustainable heart of
the region. By adopting an inclusive approach to the overall planning of HS2, it is
possible to engage communities in the project, promoting social cohesion and
economic development incorporating bio-diversity, culture, ecology, spatial quality
and identity. Since large parts of the area are blighted by 20th century infrastructure,
it is hugely important to drive home the message that HS2 will not necessarily be
another blot on the landscape – if we learn some hard lessons from history, after
all we do have over 200 years of industrial despoliation to put right, HS2LV could
re-establish a symbiotic relationship between the city and its landscape, bringing
radical change to the identity of the area.

296 䊐
Figures 12.5–6
Central Birmingham
super sections, plan and
perspective. This proposal
provides the impetus to
ask how it might be
possible to integrate the
stations so much into the
city regions’ fabric that
they become almost
invisible, major anchors
for major investment, led
by the public realm
strategy. Shaping the
quality of the experience
people have of the city
and region, using the
stations in a positive,
progressive way to
ensure they contribute
significantly to the
quality of life.
Curzon Street station
building footprint, 1M
Res LiDAR data Copyright
© Environment Agency
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

Already influencing policy locally, this work has the potential to impact Figure 12.7
HS2 full route, London
significantly on the planning process. Thurrock Garden City uses a similarly
to Birmingham.
integrated approach to build confidence and inspire an aspirational way of working HS2LV composite, 1M
to achieve radical change in a borough that has until recently been regarded as an Res LiDAR data Copyright
impoverished dumping ground for London (Figure 12.8). A measure of its success © Environment Agency
& HS2 GIS data sets
is that it is being used to create an overarching landscape vision to guide the process November 2013 issue
of development and change in Thurrock, to ensure that the area will no longer be (inc. 2014 Rev), HS2 Ltd &
regarded as a repository for landfill and the debris of the capital city, but as a Ministry of Transport.

borough with its own identity, taking pride in its relationship to the river Thames,
its growing European and international reputation for arts, music, wildlife and
biodiversity. Investing in its educational and cultural capital, encouraging high value
productive agriculture, green industries, innovative transport infrastructure and
passive housing.
The HS2LV and Thurrock proposals are helping to create a significant,
contemporary, physical and cultural landscape frameworks, responsive to scale and
context, respectful of tradition yet full of ideas for the future. It is the visual, spatial

298 䊐
 Is landscape philosophy? 䊏

Figure 12.8 nature of these ideas that makes this approach so compelling. These will be signifi-
Big skies, big thinking: a cant twenty-first-century transformations. Operating seamlessly between disciplines,
new water, land,
development and
linking theory and practice, ideas and form, art and design, evaluating the social,
transport strategy for aesthetic and ecological nature of both physical and imagined environments brings
Thurrock 2015–2040. fresh insights and impetus to shape the future of our environment.
Proposing a new kind of
urban living, this draft
proposal is prompting
CONCLUSIONS
debate about what the
borough should look like
An interdisciplinary and more expansive definition of both design and landscape
in future, based on a
holistic, integrated needs to inform professional and educational documents to help meet the
approach, connecting challenges of a rapidly changing practice, a vision of what landscape architecture
housing, transport, might yet become, rather than a snapshot of what it is now. Reflecting this
planning and landscape.
It is firmly believed that
cultural, even generational shift, landscape architects increasingly require a
the transformational geographic sensibility, a strong sense of social and ethical responsibility as well as
agenda proposed will knowledge of the spatial implications of governance, finance and transport, health
improve the quality of
and education.
life, level of skills and
economic prospects Looking at the spatial implications of philosophy and the philosophical
throughout the borough. implications of space and collapsing intransigent dichotomies, presents tremendous
It underpins a potential
academic and practical potential. If we achieve a more supportive relationship
Thurrock Garden City
proposal. between landscape and philosophy, it will go a long way towards providing much
Hand-coloured drawing needed political and intellectual leadership. For decades the emphasis has been on
Copyright © Kathryn
Moore.

299 䊐
 Kathryn Moore 䊏

towns and cities, on built form, on the processes of exchange. The value of
buildings. The objects of the city. As a consequence we have virtually ignored the
land. Now a shift in mind-set is warranted – move the focus away from the outline
of the buildings to the structure of the spaces, adding value to our relationship
with the countryside, the wilderness as well as the squares and parks needed to
make great towns and cities. As teachers and practitioners of landscape architecture,
we need to capture the moment and gather the momentum. This is an important
time for landscape and philosophy. Time for a new philosophy of landscape.

NOTES
1 Since its emergence as an intellectual movement in the latter part of the nineteenth
century, pragmatism’s main thrust has been to question and debunk the metaphysical
basis of disciplines. Cutting across the “transcendental empiricist distinction by questioning
the common presupposition that there is an invidious distinction to be drawn between
kinds of truths” (Rorty 1982: xvi), pragmatism sets itself against the traditions of analytical
philosophy, including those of language, evolutionary psychology, ecopsychology
and phenomenology, which currently underpin much of design discourse. The aim of
pragmatism, far from finding universal truths, Rorty explains, is: to undermine the reader’s
confidence in “the mind” as something about which one should have a “philosophical
view”, in “knowledge” as something about which there ought to be a “theory” and
which has “foundations” and in “philosophy” as it has been conceived since Kant (Rorty
1979: 7).
2 The phrase “linguistic turn” can be attributed to Richard Rorty: Rorty, R. (1966, 1992)
The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AHRA (2014) Call for papers. Available at www.thisthingcalledtheory.org/call-for-
papers/4587708712.
Cosgrove, D. E. (1984) Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm.
Dewey, J. [1934] (1980) Art as Experience. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.
Fairbrother, N. (1972) New Lives, New Landscapes. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design Studies
15: 158–174.
Meades, J. (2012) Museum Without Walls. London: Unbound.
Moore, K. (2010) Overlooking the Visual: Demystifying the Art of Design. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Moore, K. (2013a) Design: philosophy and theory into practice. In C. Newman, Y. Nussaume
and B. Pedroli (eds), Landscape and Imagination. Pisa: Bandecchi & Vivaldi.
Moore, K. (2013b) Shifting inquiry away from the unequivocal towards the ambiguous. In
M. Jonas and R. Monacella (eds), Exposure/00, Design Research Practice in Landscape
Architecture. Melbourne: Melbourne Books.
Nairn, I. (1964) Your England Revisited. London: Hutchinson and Co.
Putnam, H. (1999) The Threefold Cord; Mind, Body and World. New York: Colombia University
Press.
Rorty, R. (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

300 䊐
 Is landscape philosophy? 䊏

Rorty, R. (1982) Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays, 1972–8. Minneapolis, MN: University

of Minnesota Press.
Rorty, R. (1999) Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin.
Schama, S. (1996) Landscape and Memory. London: Fontana.
Shepheard, P. (2013) How to Like Everything, A Utopia. Alresford: Zero Books.
Stafford, B. M. (1997) Good Looking Essays on the Virtue of Images. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

301 䊐