This article draws on and expands upon a number of posts
recently written for the Landscapism blog and appears on the Save Our Woods website.
My rationale for starting up this blog was straightforward:
as someone who is constantly immersed in the landscape, both physically (as we
all in fact are) and conceptually (a more specialised pursuit) I am just as fascinated
by theoretical concepts of cultural and physical landscapes as spending a day
walking in a National Park or observing the natural history of an ancient
woodland; or indeed looking at a collection of landscape paintings or
photographs, experiencing an urban adventure in a new city or working to
landscape my own modest garden. I could go on with further diverse examples of landscapism. To my mind these are all
naturally linked activities and areas of interest, and I do not consider myself
unusual in this regard.
The frustration that I, and many other like-minded souls,
have felt is observing these landscape themes, which should be organically but
messily inter-twined, grow further and further apart from each other as the
individual professional, academic and organisational structures develop into
their 21st century maturity; this is the curse of specialisation, an
evolving feature of Western society since the heyday of the Enlightenment and Victorian
polymaths.
Yes, there are many examples of relatively modest
inter-disciplinary exchange and collaboration in academic research or
conservation projects, and some more enlightened local authorities have taken
steps towards a more holistic approach to landscape planning. Maybe if a cultural
geographer, a landscape art historian, a farmer, a landscape architect, a
mountain-biker, an ecologist and a landscape archaeologist were put together in
a room you would hope for a degree of common ground and certainly some lively
discussion; but each would soon return to the familiarity of their divergent
agendas and objectives back in the workplace.
Moreover, in responding professionally to a government policy proposal,
a threat to a particular landscape or some other specific challenge (a
hose-pipe ban for instance) they would narrow their focus to one of
self-interest, because this is the received wisdom of how a pluralistic society
operates.
Why does this matter? Well, I would argue that this
segregation has contributed to the marginalisation of landscape in terms of both
government policy and public opinion. Given the importance that many people
attach to their local, regional and national environments and landscapes as an
essential part of the bedrock of who they are and where they come from, should
this not be a central motif of public policy, given the same weight as key
elements of education, health and economic development? Instead landscape has
been channeled into the comparative back-waters of the environment, planning, heritage
and tourism, from where it modestly shouts to be heard but is often pushed back
by more assertive beasts: ‘global warming!’, ‘jobs and growth!’, ‘housing
targets!’.