What is landscape’s contemporary role?
A forthcoming interdisciplinary symposium supported by the LI will explore how landscape could become a new form of critical agency...
Held at University College London on 17 February, the Landscape and Critical Agency symposium will ask the question: “What agency does landscape possess, as a means of territorial organisation and creative production, to engage critically with the conditions that define the collective aspects of our environment?”
Until recently, landscape designers have largely relied on a scenographic approach to their work, focusing on the physical production of landscape and neglecting the ‘collective’ man-made terrain of the 21st century, which encompasses the spheres of finance, technology and the media. Yet in the context of the current environmental and financial crises, there is a growing need to explore the social and political role that landscape can play, notably in addressing issues such as mass mobility, consumption and rapid urbanisation.
The symposium will open up a debate about how, in a radical departure from the current state of affairs, both the theory and practice of landscape design could help answer pressing contemporary questions.
For more information or to book a place, please visit http://landscapeandagency.wordpress.com
Latest headlines
- Deadline to register for LI Awards 2012 is 10pm on Tuesday 15 May
- The long view: Spring issue of Landscape out next week
- Next Olympic Learning Legacy event to be held in Birmingham
- LI practices chosen for Legacy Committee
- World’s first online flora database
- Obituary: Jack Lowe OBE
- Sheffield-based practice designing interior planting for Qingdao’s Plant Pavillion
- West 8 to restore Korea’s Yongsan Park
- Provisional planning agreed for Broadmoor Hospital redevelopment
- Enter the Student Design & Build Award 2012
- Thinking of applying for fellowship? You still have time
- Members subscriptions due for 2012/13
- Salary survey findings published…
- Celebrating 300 years of Capability Brown
- Battersea ‘Park’ Power Station
I find the question utterly opaque.
Landscape is an agent of health: physical, mental, social ... my research is actively engaged in promoting this angle. I believe the catalyst for better quality landscape design will come from the health inequalities debate.
This won’t win any crystal mark prizes for plain english that’s for sure. The question is not really how the world of landscape design could answer the pressing questions, its about how we move beyond design to look at real engagement of landscape professionals in the everyday policy and decision making of others which enables landscape, sense of place and quality of life to be placed right at the heart of true sustainable development (as opposed to sustainable economic development which isn’t the same thing)
????? You what???
I second the comment about the need to use plain English. If we are to influence the agendas of others we need to speak our messages in their languages, often in soundbyte form. Philosophical discussion is of course relevent internally for the profession to engage in, and perhaps this is what the symposium is really about. But dont let us think that by talking amongst ourselves in jargon will be understood by those we are seeking to influence.
A further thought is that as many government and environmental advisors are now talking the language of the ecosystems approach, we would be foolish not to think of the influence and easier ride we we could gain by stepping onto that particular bandwagon. Indeed if we did not do this we may perpetuate the psychological ‘gap’ between the science of ecology and the art of landscape - when we should be working to close that gap as key to our strategy of mainstreaming our thinking in decision-making.
OMG LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After much puzzling, re-reading and consultation of the thesaurus, I presume this loosely translates to:
“In the current economic climate do landscape architects need to work smarter with other design professionals, clients in whatever guise (planners, politicians, developers, communities etc.) and the end users of the spaces we produce to ensure our relevance?”
To which I would argue the answer can only be yes if as a profession we are to be viewed as integral to the whole process of sustainable development, and with our broad knowledge base ideally placed to achieve the best possible balance between the demands of all parties, something many of us are already striving towards.
There are many organisations out there working on realising social, economic and environmental benefits through various forms of partnership. It would be nice to see more of us promoting the profession and making a real difference by getting involved in these rather than starting our own introspective huddle.
There is a real world out here and I believe if more people who represent our profession were in it, we would begin to make a difference instead of pontificating about change. True landscape solutions are achieved by communication and understanding, between the professionals delivering them and by the individuals who experience the end product. Let’s try and get the basics right first.
Worthy of a spot in Pseuds Corner, methinks
I fully agree with the previous comments about the need to use plain English. There may be an interesting topic lurking somewhere in that text but it’s so opaque that it turned me off after the first paragraph and I only continued reading it in the hopes it got better - it didn’t!
I agree with the above comments, adding that it is not possible to write plain English until one has done some plain thinking.
The language is obscure. So what!
1. This event is aimed at academics and practitioners with an interest in theory and future direction - NOT the general public. Why shouldn’t the language be challenging?
2. The language pushes you to think… which is, afterall, the purpose of a symposium;
3. The post has got us all talking so as a piece of publicity it seems to work!
4. It is perfectly legitimate to use complex or specialised language to discuss complex or specialised issues. Don’t you use Latin for specifying plants?
5. Someone has arranged a FREE event for us.
It’s optional. What’s not to like?
Poetry is obscure. Prose should be clear. The challenge should be in the ideas conveyed.
What is so dismaying about the symposium’s notice - and so definitely something to care about given it speaks of our profession - is the language inflates and generalises to a degree that robs it of any precision in favour of being emphatic and large in scope.
Have any landscape designers “until recently” relied on a scenographic (scenography: the design and painting of theatrical scenery) approach to their work? How would the ideas of Jellicoe, McHarg, Colvin or Turner fit into that? How would the bulk of UK landscape design work since 1945 in town planning, industrial reclamation, urban design, forestry, transport design, ecology and the whole issue of the proper management of land? What is the “collective man-made terrain of the 21st century” that we have neglected?
What is worse, this kind of apparently complex, hyperbolic and urgent statement of case reeks of the worst excesses of academic writing of a kind I am sure we all recognise; and it robs the case being made of respect by raising the suspicion that the obscurity is deliberate to make the point being made seem bigger than it is. Which is a pity, because landscape and urban design and planning clearly has a growing and important role in many issues of urban living. The comparison with the use of latin names for plants could not be more inappropriate: the use of those terms makes the meaning more particular, not less.
This kind of language is unnecessary and it places a barrier between the speaker and the listener. We have enough trouble making people understand the finer points about the landscape: it should not be made it worse.
I would encourage everyone to read a bit further and have a look at the list of speakers and the abstracts to see if the content interests you. This symposium is strictly academic and theoretical. We do plan future events based in the thinking showcased at this symposium that will interpret the same issues from a more practical or practice-based standpoint, so if this event remains opaque to you, don’t fret, we haven’t forgotten you.
Agree with much of what appears above. Theoretical debate is great. It would also be useful to understand how this may relate to other discussions to define a real and tangible sense of purpose, priorities and ambition related to making the LI a critical agency with a more powerful voice. There is a significant enabling and facilitation role for landscape architecture to educate others about the critical and complex role of our diverse environments. Some clear strategic priorities would help us all to understand how best to apply ourselves as effective advocates within the process.
Why not have the same interesting debate in a language that is understood by all and not that which is understood only by those who value pomp and pretention?
I am sure that if the language was more accessible that the message of the debate would be able to spread much further - as that is surely the aim? Otherwise, what is the point?
I totally agree with the above comments regarding the choice of words. The less pretentious we are and more able to communicate clearly with the common man (or woman) the more understanding and support we will get. It is worth bearing ‘The Big Society’ proposals in mind here!
I don’t find the language used that difficult to grasp, but I agree it is extremely esoteric. I also think that it is good to have industry discussions in any terms or language people like, LA is not going to set the agenda by appropriating existing ideas like ‘The Big Society’. I think the best way to do this is through building up a language of precedents, built works and saying…like that, people get that and will get more excited about landscape architecture.
I just read the whole chain and don’t have a clue what anyone’s talking about. I’m clearly on a different planet (called Earth).