Landscape Ente xe is Edited by W. J. T. Mitchell @ THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS + Chicago and Londoneet pul Lye semguUD NOSIuuVH sa1u¥HO £07 >deospur7 Jo 82a >I. w20,ns 720° S21 AydesSor0yq euown9, nung aiava Ley sodeaspuey mousy sauug seuoys, tur aoedg ansotuoq pure apsueD19Py {2079 POA A INO, wa0nte13H Wigavzi7a COT pueffug jo voneuosadoy ou pur sum L, nyHONIMUaS NNY ZL S621 pmione Buyweagy adeospuey ‘ys Sug Jo sonqog 2yJ, :donseusqy pure IapIQ “woIs4g sWaY NaSNar NV se. funureg odeaspuey yong, Aimauap-rpusouasag pure AAMUDPT ,adomg jo Sog 21H, 217 UT sonMMUNNOD SuNadut0;y anu L-rom ¢ edesspury jeuodust vraHoui ron YL womnponey HA sqUsWpapnouyoy squaqu0g, ———— —__ ee ora 6r7, Isicy snowy Aeagr poaumy 20 seg Jo svouRWD DUDS Topetsojup 36j PRPS [HOHNER UESIDAAY yp 70 suwsDInkSs ‘aman paseo woneyged sap pom ded 49, an coshes oep~98540 094 foot 9ETSOZRN. “cre ‘seo, (Cas PHU Te jeoweg ze en ade>spUET “T "pr pest sapere if an 69 paps / 80d pur adespe ‘earcr uoneargn,.n Buoy suey fo AegrT (aid) qunees-seeo (wp) £H0CES-9¢e 0 NAST SETI $6 96 96.26 $6 65 00 10 00 £0 xoury jo es poHN 8 4661 oye TaMom a seh 30 amr 9 Sa LD epuot “pry se Oban AON A 1290) SFM) and oR Jo fs, aL “eta penny eno 2 32082 a egy 20 ty “Soon fo mg 1 -OBONEY He dsb "uy pu mig 9 sunset ss soya poosnane Mapaiog MOHD 99. TAP 3 AL Pn OL TeIntroduction W. J.T. MITCHELL The aim of this book is to change “landscape” from a noun to a verb. It asks that we think of landscape, not as an object to be seen or a text to be read, but as a process by which social and subjective identities are formed. The study of landscape has gone through two major shift in this century: the first (associated with modemism) attempted t0 read the his- tory of landscape primarily on the basis of a history of landscape painting, andl to narrativize that history as a progressive movement toward purifica tion of the visual field;) the second (associated with postmodernism) tended to decenter the role of painting and pure formal visuality in favor of a semiotic and hermeneutie approach thar treated landscape as an alle gory of psychological tyn uF tTpous sip Jo 20 adeospur] 30 .s9mod, >4p joaumonse uy -aqunsqns pmnow atmos slip yo Sioangunttog Sip fe Y>L ‘01 aod & 40 yrypumu sn sdo04 uosteyy sOwods 2tp Jo stioggnUNstIOD TevBojoap! or aouersisa2 Jo. saunter sr AffeDadso “sioayo sm sozKy tur pure ‘wstexr9pbui Jo soonnesd feHowid ax ur SUNT} sw sone Fut red yo a1ta8 v se adeospur] jo uonssonb ayp susdoon ,‘adeaspur'] Jo Tap FA DLL, “AeS99 BurprpUoD SHOSLIEFT soPeYZD “WORIUSSAIGD peiojoo jo anbmnpor e se ruswsojduu> sa pure 2smostp rstux2poUr Ut ade>spur] JO adoouoo axp usoagaq ay 24p 2104439 02 pure SeIpouu A>tpO Jo ADL apLa E Ur pouasaid-o1 st etp uonetosaudos JO wirypous v se ade>spury jo 31m0> 3 ue 1ago o Sderspur] Jo Sunor2e uoAsTY-ane UF AaEMUS> sy wos} unuted adeospur| jo sawn aap apeydsip o7 co sas ade>spue | FAST, “Kesso Ayy “sdepue jo uonsonb atp 01 soypeoidde eonatpnu aya eK siess Jo ared © 4q pu pur Surumnoq orp ie poureyy s! uoRD9T|O> S14, -Anmequrey pu uist9 nox? ‘uoneonsSWOp pur 2]H9 Jo suoNDAPenuos jenusTiadxo atp aBeuew ox pu soot wooo ofp Jo dontad 2p ayeiney ox om adexpum UeouFy tpmos Jo stone uasoxdos fensta pure [equDs Ypog Ut SINNED} ony oud, pur ,uontsten, slew 2p vO Aus, “LSARESA yee aan oy SS TETORTOTSU!akp woyy (ysnnag Apriedso) suonus,Lo> ade>spury isSdo yo souarysuedt xp SOURED UU pivecy dsBUEdx> CUCISS}Oud £4 suo padstal 29 ue> 2etp romod snouaBiaep JO ToIgo ure se portasard-aa 34 01 uondunsuos remded yo sopow wioxy poreudie ‘19M AE se St (ues, HINS.© Aypounyy 30 30% sep UT) Lotp pure AmaUD> tpuDaraUTE Kp UH Ay -esBonoyd ade>spur] Aq poreansouop pur parudordée rsay s| zauoy} ue> -pomy 242 y>tyn 4g sosso90rd atp sotturex> z9paug jao{ "sxoyds ayqnd uu Aaneussaidar peanjod Jo"sORTpHOD {49s a1p uo “wana mt Seq Sy su ret waasts e SusyenDdun pue “wsyeuoneiy “wistinos ysniag BurU038 sang JO SOIDNUT Sse IULUTSSIP ax Ip pareHosse souls SUMED, Jo swanshs v sawary Ang sous pesraeU wu>soxdax Appr0W Us20p ade>spuR Suny, 10} ‘moy smoys J0BUIS|aH] YpOqeaTy “UoReUIIBa] peoRIOd pur euonminsin jo ssooid e ano Aue on x9pro ut adeospury jo Aamqepeay SorEMOARSIP pue asmodsip soups yey sonDeAd TEMMUjND e se pure Pore] nope 9g dew suontsod reantjod snomea yprtps UF ,asMonstp,, & se YBOq adesspur] yo uonenusudas aip sean s96Z 1 >P Ul .Suusesp adeaspue] stu Jo somjod, 21p Jo umoove gureysiuruniag uy “dea ses © UY € vonanpexut “sonmuop! jeuoneu pur jeuotan Aq posndly soaps aygnd sjaeuruzarep pure sonnuap! ,arealad,, dyqepeoaun se sioolqns [Pos Jo woneuto 24p tn ajo1 fenus9 ¥ Buide|d‘suseuOsatD pouossadyy ue year atp taog ur ONiy saya exp soonDed srwoUORD pue pRAEAD Jo 4poq e ang 2x0 jeouoasty ut, paraudionst aq or sBunued jo Apoq ® Afprour ou st ade>spury (eingy ‘unospe ssuepy UT “soNMuap ean ur YerD0s ‘Teonod Jo -Lomaou xojdwwoD v Jo UoReusO} axp pur (eos 219 Woy spuey 24RON JO YOREaID pei9T aKp) UORNIOAD! fea¥SOIOr9 ue ut soxed ned aetp uorteti203 euontsuen “smureuAp ¥ se UoRDe|f09 sit ur suepY tuuy fq powon st ‘dana tausuaass 2p Jo Sunued yng, ‘ony -soe adeospuy] jo 320/qns feuonpen ysou yp uaK9 ‘Sn “AAnUEpH Jo OR BuO} 947 20¥ snd05 & “voLeLIdosdde fensta Jo ons e 2SueypRD jo wMNpOU © se rep adexpur| kem 2p auTuex> uONTOD simp ur shess> oH ‘woneiaidroaur 10 wone}duso409 fens 303 st2a{go se parton saoejd pry 30 “(ydesSoxoyd “Sunured ‘sanaexon}) expous poxy ‘(yer ‘onbsaznaoid “9g -raneog ‘>umgs) sauua8 poxy Jo stuss) ur sonoipsse adeaspu jo auounean Trnsn 2p 02 asenuo> uy “BoYPoUR or auM 40 aoe|d DUO tuo} UONOW UL SH St eyp umMpous e osfe ang “Bulag sno 9Aey PUE 2AOW pue DAK, 248 {yes Ur “Uunypous esp e st Sdeaspury rey st sAess9 280%p Jo auDUNSIE 1seq 24, pour aoqpo pure ‘Bununed “KdesFoio4d ur soBean adeospuy Ssauonows evonrpen jo sumone asitiorstaay asayp JO xoxqhts Sep “9sUDs [ead ‘aan e ut Se adeaspur} jo sosmoid Baiaou Aya zeapp 39 PInoys at ‘ode>s pur) 2prUv2UI3 yo siess9 dure uteAWOD 20U S20p UOHDD/[OD stp YNOL_TY ‘amo pu adespusry jo sioolqns yeas axp axe ,adeospur},fe> 244 ‘voneiussosda1 Jo erpout 2tp Ur porpeud are , Buiop,, 2851p MOY pure “940 yea 01 op aa ey azzTEMTEU am MOY ‘sn O3 SOP UAL UE WouruostAUD 241 rey “UoUTORAtS mo Or BufOp ze pure auOP anty 2m yA “sI9 J-Ploy>q uso su Jo ,sotsorsy femaeU >Up, pay ag ays Tey O UOREpDD }ur ssoooad ae pueissapun asnur pure asi sazyfemseu pur Aapigepeos uno su sooeye adeospury ypiyys g ssaaoad ap sven on sey 1 LGOSoHE aqge peo 8 JO 1008 ue cudtpeaed asrusopous a¢p Jo Aayensta 2jqySoq =U. soeqd “tp on ffduns suawos aq rouue> ssoyaryp ea sia ut poorsiopun adeos -Pue| Jo auMo29e UY “Ssxjpsino—2s0] 30—puy (adeaspurj axp ut sorry 2p, Se pamdy) 21, pry unpLA eIp se SurouroNaUD se ‘ooeds se sm ‘nooi8 see ([eanget 30 erayrae ‘Tens 30 Egan soxpoyan) deospur| sy] ‘als pur ays se ssotrtoni8 s1 o1 uoney>s axeUIULIOIOp sso] 10 aU0Ur aUuGS 9 sapjoypq. 91 BuneTPdionn Aq yeuonesado uoneitossiday 224 SOx Ore 3 pur ‘qeuisou pure ust Ajdums arom at Hse pom [ePyRTE ue Senuosoudos ‘uoponnsuoo pesos pue jem e sozfeameu a :AROFOOpr a9 Bempowos o1 sodsox yates [63 3]gMOp e sey snap wmgpou jesTayM> e SE adeospury ‘suonuasut uewmy yo iwapuedaput (se jjosit stuasoidor Jpuonb “23 20) st aeip somod Jo aussie ue uaa> sdequod “omod yearuyno Jo 1usur Wow LM Z4 WoL T.Mitonet! representation; that very exhaustion, however, may signal an enhanced power at other levels (in mass culture and kitsch, for instance) and a potential for renewal in other forms, other places. Notes 1. This approach to landscape aesthetics is most fully developed in the influen- tial work of Ernst Gombrich, particularly his essay “The Renaissance Theory of ‘Art and the Rise of Landscape,” in Norm and Form: Stualc iv the crt of he Renaissance (Chicago, 1966). See also Kenneth Clark, Landscape into Are (Boston, 1963), which popalarizes and universalizes Gombrich’s claim, 2. See, for instance, Readiny Landsape: Ceuntry—Ciry— Capital, ed. Simon Pugh (Manchester, 1990): “This collection of essays proposes that landscape and its representations are a text” and are, as such, ‘readable’ like any other cultural form” (2-3), ONE PARAL eta Imperial Landscape Sere Theses on Landscape 1. Landscape is not a genre of art but a medium 2. Landscape is 4 medium of exchange between the human and the natural, the self and the other. As such, itis like money: good for nothing in itself, but expressive of a potentially limitless reserve of value. 3. Like money, landscape is a social hieroglyph that conceals the actual basis ofits value, It does so by naturalizing its conventions and conven- tionalizing its nature. 4. Landscape is 2 natucl scene mediated by culture. Its both a repre: sented and presented space, both a signifier and a signified, both a frame and what a frame contains, both a real place and its simulacram, both a package and the commodity inside the package 5. Landscape is a medium found in all cultures, 6. Landscape isa particular historical formation associaced with Euro- pean imperialism. 7. Theses 5 and 6 do not contradict one another 8. Landscape is an exhausted medium, no longer viable as a mode of artistic expression. Like life, landscape is boring; we must not say so. 9. The landscape refered to in Thesis 8 i the same a that of Thess 6,‘upyps sown wt etp st yn o¢p ang “Aatande penaytds ano jo a7ed Buuunpus pur jewiou e st adesspir] Jo Sunred axp pue Aaneoq yeamaew jo on enaidde atp wip 2umsse 01 de aze ay nop o4 oe ep VON axey OS aydoog,, #1410} fezouo8 asOUr s4, UE UOSSD] D4p Sassazdx> Pe] AMID, ‘joidor sip jo siubunean eopostef-axe 30} 3utod 22uo19}3 215eq ap fips s1'Sunuted ueadomng Amausy-rpuaoias un adeaspure] payfe> asu8 wou yo soueBiowo ,AseUORN]OsDA, stp Jo AroIs si ypUm “(EgT) ade Dspure 1 4 ory 2th pur Ly Jo Aroayy,DouesseUDY a4,, Aes 21S SYaHIgWOS {sung “stuapmas satp 01 uo ssed sueLorsiy adeaspur] SUOss 334 tp JO 200 st ‘soueisut 10} “Sumuted adeospur] ueadomg Jo ARupow ayy, “sna a7e Amp ae1p uondumsoid Fuons st soup uoKp “wotp Jo suoneUR|dx> sp ‘oy dqurew Buuaysp “poruesd 303 sump asoup oyea Suorsensiad wo32Hp {Aqjeotped jo soap jy “a1e Karp popumos [Jom mou asl jo BIS v 2g [fam AOU —aouass> feuomid/fensia sit pue ‘Aanuopour sit ‘adeaspury 0 ,9ou-U> Soy, 21 WOIp [> s1 19} —,S1>ep, >I5eq FanKP 2894p YO AUEUDATE YT, aintp powenodied 2ousqots jempe 2tp Jo yo Tutusex>s pure 40} uonesuadwuon ¥ se peor st adeaspure ut aysnos _AUoULeY,, oxp ws, -yenideo jo auatudoyasap pure ast aup Jo worduués e se peas st advospur] Jo “auowdopaxop pur 2st, 21p ‘ABo|oapt jo 3pomureaip xp se peor st odes “pury ort spot jo uonsofoid Areuideun pue ,29tooy, 2 PUR] 2p {wous toneuaie jo words v se peas st amaeu jo .oIMINAIS MD!!P, AP :pstoe 214od! Ue Ut pooxsrepun are Sutin A2y sit Ao J! amas pe Se Ped} 24 ‘eur ‘soueisut 40} “ydesSezed Suuodo s24re1Q ‘sosoddo ax an2xpsoe 3s1E2p! atp pue anbrauo peondays axp uasauiog AnouuuiXs roxztur Jo Pury v 2290} {Aon “wston> 20} adeqs oanesmen pur rere uourwo> e spiaosd Soup aeip auana 2xp 01 pue Sdeospue] ystug Jo suowsn2stp Areodu2U0> ur sonsed ayp qe Aq pardance Aqqersuss axe suondumsse soul “Suo9s 4 dem 00 © (pia poreposse Sunred Jo asua8 x se poanazisuo> Ajpenua> [pur Ajjeuriuo star weyp (g) ‘Aamauio> ypuoorouna oxp a yeod su soxpeas pue Xamgus> ypuaoiu96es otp UL soBsowo at aetp (Z) ‘woUoWoUDyd Wapout pur uradomg waisom © “unos amd, sir ur ‘st a aeup (qT) :2despury anoge , 5138, Jolet aoxtp ase9| 28 UO w>uuDox8e Suispapun te “suororuns o> 253tp punos wouWO> Jo [e>p Pood & si araqp ‘Suaddey a1 sy suones -sadsonun peondays pure asyeap! St tog tn pororensuod st adeospur] jo 42238 “reup ofoipsoe 40 sHonuDs pure “ors ‘men stp aetA “TeMoLaed uy “Aes stp —parmansuod are adeaspue] moge se} piyjn UE oAuTEy, 4p ¥ YOO] {9prey, aye 01 ang adeaspue] inoge sI>e prey fo 01s 21°01 ppe or {jpreunad jou st ‘ioaamoy ‘kess> sup ur we Ap y'SBumes pozieap! Ht pop =poquus ,s1>e} prey, axp pores set ys! dmAYA IY YBrop Spos erp aannadsiod prone € woyy syqez9prsuod ayatog ‘TexsuD8 ut “WED Ue YAY, {jo Bumpuessiopun ang ‘Surpeor sup oa sayMY ainquivo> o1 xdumue Te £ edeaspuey jevedua, st Aesso stip wecp pue sonoypsoe adeospue jo Suspeas yeondoys Sionyep sip {pu dtpedwds ur spurew we | aerp weno axp ae Aes yom se myTUE | ¢ Anuesead ysnBurg atp Jo worsossodsip 21p pur spppy uouwo> Jo aunsoppuo axp Jo IxoIUOD 2up UE TuDUDAOW dts pur] ysqiug op ind Aowp wows op weyurmsg wy pure [pure UGOL se ‘suonerppisuo> jeuorew pur araoU02> ,2e8}nn, 2pIsBuoye adeaspur] JO ‘uonezreapr sntpsze 2up 29814 01 Afoyy axe AY. ¢ SOHN UOSTAA PAUP Jo Som stp vo ydeaiouow aap pue uoRIgNpS sAzof[eED ae] 247 4ON0 {As1osontio> ausva1 ain se ‘TeaUDIOd pu smONUAUOD 24 O1 Say are ade>s pur] J0 suowsnostp Arexoduiawor ysassaudea eI wsHLAp! wua>0uN, J n08 24psjassand tals J]AH 19409 rep ssoUNFEP feoRod pure “e>18o] -oap! ‘TeIOW e ang ,2IMEU,, UELIMYUOU Yplas poeDosse soAup EMDUTSUE ‘onjssaaiior o4p JO oameay © Afprow rou “onpedur Aorou 20U st ap%s ase snp etp pure ,ddeospurey otp Jo opis spep,, © st auotp exp ‘sn MOY 98ey eareg uyo{ 299 som> rey st ou sour 298 ey SOY aTPPIWY 91H D9 Sudoprop,, pur Susu, uweadomg e uoas 10 “kuowzey Supjoos ands ‘teumy yesroatum vor Sinpuodsou0> ,‘om,, >mew}goudun “3pduuis Ot st SINp IP Mow KOU ,244,, ‘HOMsU FumaMbsp s1ou wDAo pre suonsond Sunumey onn suomrosse speID JO TE SUNOJSUEN reIpL 25U90uUT Jo $80} Jo wonemone ue se poorsispin ag sjaBze] ue2—Fuiopie’ ade>spur] pur ‘smaerony ypxen ‘uonsy ‘Anood apnpsur or Funured yo Aaorsiy a4 uokog [Pom $908 3eIp ploy e—sonaIpsoe adespur| Jo WSL 1UDI9y gauioutuos}auo sa yptas AUOWLEY, 02 ads ‘ucumy,,2tp 201891 pow wey ae ue poumbos uondeusp weysy Funued adeospury dq soffeis, om .poyeuu, st aime 9504 pure ALOIS 2s0K|M4 {8e2PI pure spoour timo su! Jo WORDoyP e se 1 BueDI>-93 Aq aDUBID|Rp SH soser9 UIP pur ,spnop ‘sy ‘Sroxl ‘sosseaB ‘SIDMOy “5M, WON} 29U rtp 11 Aq gjost soup eI. Om, sUp st O44 “SEU ONION Jo 9pxs ano sjasit soidxo 298u0] ou ue> soueansse y>ns tpi syeods (3 wy 20} 2m, 2up ‘sdeqrod ‘Aiqeiou wsoyy -uey ores aderppuy Or so>udIUIs Bunvado $4915 qpouuDy Jo 2ouR90uUN 24p WOH AeA BuO] e aLUOD axEy DAA (6461) HY one adorn Soe WUE — qvowvonsuo sum ‘uowsey® 80,00} e10W 2au0 peycwone wads Lew ou oIUM U 9j9K9 #50 ie 5} s96¢ o[ppiu aut sours yueurdojanop pue ABU 5 “uM Jo UoNKdogU09 sno u} s980}8 24) SEW BuRUIES odeaspuRy “eiNIBU pa BNEW OM YOWA 9p! ue 01 Bunnquiuog 6 Wout Jo wUNA oF Bwo9 @Rey OM PUY “SPoOu! sno 19919101 suoneUIBEw sn Ut WoW pereei20s aney aM UEip 1 S99Ia0 UOeA ane fa ame pu hjsopno sim sn pasesuyaney fou SBUMIURD 404 "SPNO:D sit /0n s055018 “Samo ‘S00 7UMO 3NO WO UAHABIP AIM}aNNS PUP eI ano yoru puP ape TOU ney am ou SBUNH QUE pAPUNOLINE aI aan ve L M98B W.d.T. Mitchell the human spirit seems to have bumed most brightly the painting of landscape for its own sake did not exist and was unthinkable.”* Marxist art historians replicate this “truth” in the narrower ficld of English landscape aesthetics, substituting the notion of ideology for Clark’s “spiritual activ- ity.” Thus Ann Bermingham proposes “that there is an ideology of land- scape and that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a class view of landscape embodied a set of socially and, finally, economically determined values to which the painted image gave cultural expression.” Neither Bermingham nor Barrell makes the explicit claim for world-historical uniqueness that Clark does; they confine their attention quite narrowly to the English landscape tradition, and to even more specific movements within it, But in the absence of any larger perspective, or any challenge to Clark’s larger claims, the basic assumption of historical uniqueness remains in place, subject only to differences of interpretation. A similar point might be made about the visual/pictorial constitution of landscape as an aesthetic object. Bermingham regards landscape as an ideological “class view” to which “the painted image” gives “cultural ex- pression.” Clark says that “the appreciation of natural beauty and the painting of landscape i” (emphasis mine) a historically unique phenome- rnon. Both writers eide the distinction between viewing and. painting, perception and representation—Bermingham by treating painting as the “expression” of a “view,” Clark by means of the singular verb “is” that collapses the appreciation of nature into its representation by painting, Clark goes on to reinforce the equation of painting with seeing by citing with approval Ruskin’s claim in Modern Painters that “mankind acquired ‘a new sense” along with the invention of landscape painting. Not only landscape painting, but landscape perception is “invented” at some moment Of history; the only question is whether this invention has a spiritual or a matcrial basis” ‘There ate two problems with these fundamental assumptions about the aesthetics of landscape: first, they are highly questionable; second, they are almost never brought into question, and the very ambiguity of the word “landscape” as denoting a place or a painting encourages this failure to ask questions, But the blurring of the distinction between the viewing and the representation of landscape seems, on the face of it, deeply prob- Jematic, Are we really to believe, as Clark puts it, that “the appreciation of natural beauty” begins only with the invention of landscape painting? Certainly the testimony of pocts from Hesiod to Homer to Dante suggests that human beings did not, as Ruskin thought, acquire a “new sense” sometime after the Middle Ages that made them “utterly different from all the great races that have existed before.”® Even the more restricted claim thar landscape paiazing (as distinet from perception) has a uniquely Imperial Landscape 9 Wester and modern identity seems fraught with problems. The historical claim that landscape is a “postmedieval” development runs counter t0 the evidence (presented, but explained away as merely “decorative” and “digressive” in Clark’s text) that Hellenistic and Roman painters “evolved a school of landscape painting.”!? And the geographic claim that landscape is a uniquely western European art falls to pieces in the face of the over- swhelming richness, complexity, and antiquity of Chinese landscape paint- ing.!" The Chinese tradition has a double importance in this context. Not only does it subvert any claims for the uniquely modern or Western lin- cage of landscape, the fact is that Chinese landscape played a crucial role in the elaboration of English landscape aesthetics in the eighteenth cen: tury, so much so that le jardin anglo-chinots became a common European label for the English garden.!? ‘The intrusion of Chinese traditions into the landscape discourse I have been describing is worth pondering further, for it raises fundamental ques: tions about the Eurocentric bias ofthat discourse and its myths of origin. ‘Two facts about Chinese landscape bear special emphasis: one is that it flourished most notably at the height of Chinese imperial power and began to decline in the eighteenth century as China became itself the ‘object of English fascination and appropriation at the moment when En: gland was beginning to experience itself as an imperial power.!? Is it possible that landscape, understood as the historical “invention” of a new visual/pictorial medium, is integrally connected with imperialism? Cer- tainly the roll call of major “originating” movements in landscape paint ing—China, Japan, Rome, seventeenth-century Holland and France, eighteenth: and ninetcenth-century Britain—makes the question hard t0 avoid. At a minimum we need to explore the possibility thatthe represen- {ation of landscape is not only a matter of internal polities and national ‘r class ideology but also an international, global phenomenon, intimately bound up with the discourses of imperialism. This liypothesis needs to be accompanied by a whole set of stipulations and qualifications. Imperialism is clearly not a simple, single, oc homoge- neous phenomenon but the name of a complex system of cultura, polit cal, and economic expansion and domination that varies with the specif ity of places, peoples, and historical moments." Te is not a “one-way” phenomenon but a complicated process of exchange, mutual transforma- tion, and ambivalence.!* It is a process conducted simultancously at con- crete levels of violence, expropriation, collaboration, and coercion, and at a variety of symbolic or representational levels whose relation to the con- crete is rarely mimetic or transparent. Landscape, understood as concept or representational practice, does not usually declare its relation to imperi alism in any ditect way; its not to be understood, in my view, a8 a meresem Gonau2> quooydie 2p uy nod pue ‘Bumopres Funured ysysuy wo souonyuT asBuoNs ap Pey Aigegoud rey» uoneWdenoruoD ade>spuy Jo dmoode 2HLE kee ay 3A Joy wwoUUOAIAUD fesNaeL step 40 sone Stp auisnnd 01 Soop yo ano Huu sueseod ypuaiy sa2pupIy 01 Spook Sutpuy pur vores sy uodn Suejoo] sHeaoypy wo “psonppe 2g ays spur Jo Suwon aip ut siuowour Guo, soypo snout, [ear 8 Fao] 30 vonerduoy ap 08 pagiundons pe sed aneeeg AS a10}99 uo} pur yprenog 2x0}9q UO] “smaeU Jo uone|duimUoD a4) 30 Ayabaue 24 01 Auownsy sR st YoNTuOWpE sauMsHNy 3g weUED § sovousy adeospur| jo mowdopanap a1 Jo aynezzew «eouowly, S20 Bey gyosuny vod ake peanut, sty sum pur ,uterMoW >4p 40 yStiour woos, Sey a4 3eKA sapnp>uo> Ypreneg “purus snord sup ky pousege 248 pure tr290 oxp Jo amno4D 24a pur ‘si9ma jo daams opus a49 pure eos 348 30 sont AyStur 24p pur ‘surerutous >uR Jo say8io4 xp we 19ptoM or anage of waxy pay, :samaeu Jo uone|duioiu05 axa s2ounoUDp rein afessed © 01 swtsafued saunsnBay “ag jo Adoo siy wopues re uddo 9 Wy on pa1in220 2, “now aap Burkolu> st yoseneg aMawoW Azan 940 1 KA sovou 2HR1D ‘smu. "wensHyD TeAorpou e pue astuEwIMy wiapOLU e ypoq 5 “SpPom {nog ur saay JPswy ypseneg ep Buoys Aq ,paroud, st Ua2poul on 2uomue wos auowoU euonIsUER, “Areingi20 axa ze adeospue jo uond>di9d Suprenog joausuooed fetio3sty anbrun auf -deau{ue 900 afd o1 uo 908 PMID Ing auoUUNEHE Ue soubor KppIey .swoU UOKIOD, yey Hy Y sya 00 27 cxoug ota a4 KofUD 02 pu ‘SAEs UO SuMIEU Jo suORODSIP 4p ano sYa>8 34 {AnUMIOD dip Jo SUOAUIOD axP He sory ois pood u ap ap 2g en asop ypitng esotsnorcs EON, 1 2oud pasotyse aunb 200 st {298 uno Sif 49}, OTA aif. Jo ruotusofus ayp aryr aut Aiqeqoxd pynos 24 1nq ‘Teiorsed sap yo ated auopue sip ut davonbay ype exeade wonou tipo woken seen exp pe ay eID ,-aprsdnumo> axp Jo >>¢ad aif cit saMD yo ows 3 218 Woy adeos9 01 Sap 2¢p ‘spuodsp AppRse] os Sunuied adeospe Jo aouaisn> 249 ypty8 uo uonow ay ss91d80 on ueUH S14 a4P Kyqeqord, 52 3 Fg aardns ou 813108 pur , ue uDpOU yxy atp st SYOog AION, 2p Trew sreadde,, ‘sn sy 9H ,yorenog,, “upjs01d aos yal porep 34 ue 2eKB oURtUOUDYd F ,“Ss2uSHOPSUOD WHpOUE, O1 AUD aqhssod St sod ondod atespor pn 9) poe maton sme jo suon * 20u ,SuOEsSSi8ip,, pur ,spunor8ypeq, se se UEWOY pouzo wen unwed “epee Satan ee eee ny, “adeas -Pur Jo Dusuadxo 2nd, 10 ,aadaad, 2x9 souyop 2u0 MOY Wor DeaTIo> 30 “spuodep Sumpazoag gpostoared 99 01 usiog way ade>spury sop eanyay TH adeospue7 jaca (02-861 £96~F61 :AT 7 aapHAN “WO ‘Aye wows 1 paid ui uoed pey ‘peEn jJom "TEU “oadsoud 105 pasn Avo tng “jueid Suln\6-oy YUL 10 tuBnouy any ey; uo Jou shueiouoo v oy 85 ‘wai8 yen ov ouBy PUP 99) sp But “art Jo 0011 943 Uo puP ‘mol 04 cn eoUet (ova woman nc fo aang KOH — ioj0q wows sos J0n0u eu fou fap Te Uo win hq posenoosi ou ‘Busse A ueisu0D ‘10m Koy) soya ‘Séde0SpUR] OU PUP SUIEIUNOL ‘S184 8801 foes 03 2608s “Uh 3814 Aut 10} Kuned sot8 BulpIONDR VO io} @1800d Jo0d oF048 {o1um vonote out 0: Asay suum esau) Jo t820Nag “oanIBU JO worssessod su vodn potojuoos pey eu ynq ‘SWB iy posonbuCDe! Kuo 104 peu LE adeospue JO 25 UL casrerraduuy uvadomg se umoty woneuraop egoj8 Jo waisks oxp—Ainnun9 wAUadIoUTU a4 JO ODFAD JOR, 191NO Dy 02 336 FeamyN> srt JO ona 24 p104dX9 01 Isto] Ye Po>tl 346 SKM stiop qnusd.eurU 2ip Jo YONA sHsEAe joIy> 2xp sem BunutEd adeaspur, aeip Aes on ayBtr st eID ypouwDy, JQ “duimbut ue oy uonroK01d & se ang “ti91 2oypT> yo BuyuaL aig p98 U9 aetA |PPOUI aANIMpaP ¥ se 2324 paryo 10U st adeospue| pu wisreEaduur aoa.129 Wonepp e Jo Buisod axp “toys uy ‘s2treysisox passauddnsun pure oouayearque posjosoiun Jo saBeut pamisey pure radsoud elnodusr paisafiod oxp Jo saisenmey uerdoan ypoq 2s0[9sp 03 sem Uo ¥>eq Sipjop pur Uso Jo TUIOd renuD9 & toy 29eds Pur atn uF muowisAoW uKo sit Sumpjopun “wsIHEdWH yo YOMUEIp, aap 9x Bumpowos se dfqeyoid as0un usos 9q aya deospaey or Ttuojosnue pure jerdunt se éjsnoou eyuts pocuonerey> 9q aySur et suoneUo} adeaspue] pLgsY Jo An -iqussod 24 saxon m pure ‘ouerp ued aorigead yeamajn9 e JO aUDTAYONTAUD eongod 42 Ajponsexp pure Apppmb soy aeay dion oup ae sovesmpun Lam ia) ypupoitianys axp Jo JTEY puoods axp tn aridurp suze e OWT Auo}OD snoupqas ® Woy spuRLOIpEY axp Jo UONeMIO}suEN o4p ‘axeAso8 fed ouseuoneu pur yeuodun-rire ue Se aed ur aseay 28 w22s 9g ast ‘odes Pur] Jo 20n2e2d reno‘ otp pur asIndosp 21 YI09 Jo wIBLO Ueadoxoe ain uog Wms poupary cayo st ypRys ‘oueIsut 20} ‘ode>spue| yInch -usyeuodum Xq pasnes Ajpnbrun se 30u ‘sufisop yeLodur snouyau 40 joan Wow LM OL12 Wd. T. Mitchell Miton’s description of Paradise, a viewing, we should recall, chat is framed by the consciousness of Satan, who “only used for prospect” his vantage point on the Tree of Life. The “dark side” of landscape that Manust historians have uncovered is anticipated in the myths of landscape by 2 recurrent sense of ambivalence. Petrarch fears the landscape as 2 secular, sensuous temptation; Michelet treats it as a momentary revelation Sf beauty and freedom bracketed by blindness and slavery; Milton presents it.as the voyeuristic object for a gaze that wavers between aesthetic delight ‘and malicious intent, melting “pity” and “Honor and empire with revenge enlarged” (iv. 3743 390). Tree ambivalence, moreover, is remporalized and narrativized. It i almost as if there is something built into the grammar and logic of the landscape concept that requires the elaboration of a pseudohistory, com- plete with a prehistory, an originating moment that issues in progresive historical development, and (often) a final decline and fal. The analogy swith typical narratives of the “rise and fall” of empires bcomes even more Striking when we notice that the rise and fll of landscape painting is ically represented as 2 threefold process of emancipation, natvraliza- ton, and “fieation “The article “Landscape Paincng” in The Orford Companion to Art provides a handy compendium of these narratives, Com: Cn een in Rome an the HOY Roman Empie of esi feenth century and “endings” in twentieth-century Sunday, painting Landscape painting is routinely described as emancipating itself from sub- ndinate roles like literary illustration, religious edification, and decoration to achieve an independent tarus in which mare is sen “for 9 ov ake” Chinese landscape is prehistoric, prior to the emergence of nature sascyat ibe its own sake" In China, be oter hand, de development of landscape painting is bound up with... mystical reverence for the powers of narue.""? wate The “osher hand” of landscape, wheter it isthe Orient the Mi ‘Ages, Egypt, or Byzantium, is preemancipatory, prior to the perception. Ae eee oh Than, the emancipation of landsape as # genre of painting is aso a naturalization, a frecing of nature from the Bonds of Convention. Fosmerly, nature was represened in, “highly conven ized” or “symbolic” forms; laterly, it appeats in “naturalistic transcripts of nature,” the product of a “long evolution in which the vocabulary of rendering natural scenery gained shape side by side with the power to see ature a8 scenery.” This “evolution” from subordination to emareipation, Convention to nature has as its wkimate goal the smfeatin of nature in we perception and representation of landscape: “It scems chat until fairly vee erie me look a nate 38 an aserblage of olaed obec Imperial Landscape 13 without connecting trees, rivers, mountains, roads, rocks, and forest into 2 unified seene.”" Each of these transitions or developments in the articulation of land- scape presents itself as a historical shift, whether abrupt or gradual, from ancient to modern, from classical to Romantic, from Christian to secular. Thus, the history of landscape painting is often described as a quest, not just for pure, transparent tepresentation of nature, but as a quest for pure painting, feced of literary concerns and representation. As Clark puts it, “The painting of landscape cannot be considered independently of the trend away from imitation as the raison tre of art.” One end t0 the story of landscape is thus abstract painting. At the other extreme, the history of landscape painting may be described as a movement from “con: ventional formulas” to “naturalistic transcripts of nature.” Both stories are grailquests for putity. On the one hand, the goal is nonrepresenta- tional painting, fieed of reference, language, and subject matter; on the ‘other hand, pure hyperrepresentational painting, a superlikeness that pro- duces “natural representations of nature.” ‘Asa pseudohistorical myth, then, the discourse of landscape is a cracial means for enlisting “Nature” in the legitimation of modernity, the claim that “we moderns” are somehow different from and essentially superior | to everything that preceded us, free of superstition and convention, mas- ters ofa unified, natural language epitomized by landscape painting. Bene- dict Anderson notes that empires have traditionally relied on “sacred silent languages” like the “ideograms of Chinese, Latin, or Arabic” to imagine the unity of a “global community." He suggests that the effectiveness of these languages is based in the supposed nonarbitrasiness oftheir signs, their status as “emanations of reality,” not “fabricated representations of it” Anderson thinks of the nonarbitrary sign as “an idea largely foreign to the contemporary Western mind,” but itis, as we have seen, certainly not foreign to Western ideas of landscape painting. Is landscape painting, the “sacred silent language” of Western imperialism, the medium in which ic “emancipates,” “naturalzes,” and “unifies” the world for its own pur poses? Before we can even pose this question, much less answer it, we need to take a closer look at what it means to think of landscape as a medium, a vast network of culrural codes, rather than as a specialized genre of painting, ‘The Sacred Silent Language The charming landscape which | saw this morning, is indubitably made up of some twanty of thirty farms. Miller owns this field, Locke that, and Manning{Jo 2101941 2xp UL asaHe9|9 1 ERT 9H JO dwITDD SHY soy a0 94, ; eg 8RUUT UO AO Jo AnD! >4p soya aeip Areugeuy 2p pure jeay 2yp Jo Aanuopr ue Surkeydstp ‘os 2 jjosu Sunupsoadas asmMeN suiqupD uorto9yo1 2U,‘sjood Bun%sy91 40 syP] tim sode>spury uo onyes petods v aoeid a0 Ayr st sup sdeysDg “sea veredde pemdooiod mo uo somionins enuass9 su Hurpoous pue Sunuadur ipa aumueu jt se ‘jos ue sg aucaeU Jo UOD! 0 ape ‘SUDNS feUEG yo Voneiussaids) enzow e ang “suods jesmaed e JO Uoneasaa2udds e asl 2ou pu ‘uo08 natu ¥ Afuo 20U s 4 As plnow Stoayp AarauE>-puBey =f82 © omen, pe en 20 Teaey 2m PE IO a SEPA jexpur'] wen] Uot 2p Pure UeLINGY 3tf UD248I9q UOHEDSIMUNLOD 105 -sqe>tpes Isout—suossad uoswioq voneorunutuo> 105 ‘SurueoU Funssoud -x9 10} ose sng anyea Russoidx> 30} Afuo 204 wmpou v st adeaspuey] , ade 2a we ya 8 920 op 0H sein pen joker pura da fy 2% pmnor ~adeospure] se anyea sat asneUpx9 On aye a See rae sudesBonoyd Aureus oy ang -Paisnetx9 st ype SI pur “opIsureuOW e 1 plod oup fe ano ict 32eds Furjanp pure “ores “vores ‘sexounu ut xpte2a Jo Anrasenls pata e sureauo> ‘{assdoad peor Spar] 3t,"9U0 eusreus ve ump apupes ‘oseayd Suossouug ut “nadoad apsod,,e st ‘S089 [P Jp wopuodopur aun 2189 ops, ue se .“PUR, JO SOAP ax Se Sa “gos avosaidar asnutl .adeospuey,, faneaq feunaeu jo uoneydurswos poudosogyd ain Simpods woy sfiom app dooy ox adexpur] ysysug 38.208 ef HE oy He sonoge] Aes 3A UsoN SY TPH EOL ure, ode>spury © 1089 Aprey st Anumo> SuppiOM e,, 3e4p SOU SUNT, _puowiey ¢.c8 pre PY 21n Ut Snip axe siouoqe| yt ‘ade>spu 3;qou ® aunupe desy/ our Tod, :suonesapstio =msG0%092 4g PojOds sjsu oj adeospury jo Burson Sind ap pur imo OU sey, “wOSIDU sits _codeospuer, ‘oayes yerands ajgasmeypoin ‘amd yo a0an0s e 291d puos 2p S€ psi! suasaidas adeaspury ‘2ouid aypods © spurewituo> ar exp atta URS ap AY ‘sfeo2U09 3] suoRep feDOS Ap Jo wa|quID Ue ,ydAPFOuory OOS, pope EA yA st ade>spury “Aypounwo> poziyshay e sy ‘suonaus ajqeadiver rows wavs stor Aq sods fesnuap! Uo Uy syd onoyd qeonuapr jo onnodar ssopruny up Butsjoain seoused SnsrysA9y yo 191go 2¢p st ade>spur] ‘joquuss jenayeo ausiod pu ;poUIWuOD se 2101 2Iqnop 1 UT “sunqye 104d pur spue=sod se ypns suTUaANOS Jo WHOS 2 1 auioy ayfn01q U9A9 pu ‘Pouumsuod ‘paseypnd aq 03 19IgO Ue ,‘sITeR podeyped,, ur pouosoad-a1 pue pamssaid 2q 01 Anpoumwoo ajqriogreut ve sy adeaspur-[ “pure, may 20 “dry 2¢p ‘Wemeyy “S9PPOY 21f 00 99H ued jo antad au !anfea ates feat UF Mota |ryBNEaq * JO 3809 Pape ae :po1id agioods w u psu sossoudx ade>spue Jo anes ayp A} a “aiseg St adeospuey 1evedy ssouu ap a “pao o4pO atHOS WE anyea Jo jogs sop Afandso=AF ese Borasoe on ‘anyea-asn se BumpoU 305 poo’ st aeaspue] “Aouow MT gee aftuetpxa so wous(s3xp tu 2fou agoquas anbqon ested ip Apu sao yo u0s pads x se Stuonnuy “SauoUl yo 3849 2y] ssuRes MINS sees e seq mt nea Fussoudx 20) wenepoU! B SY “Songea pur sur ‘uous ssoudxo 01 paceysoy pue poxontn Bu oq 30 ajqede> suuse3 2k Jo {ipog e uonojumurao pue vor yruBs feamsy Jo woupest © vf PPPS ‘ua ured 30 afenry 248] (ABojourausoy SOROSEY no1i0q o1) SHOU, Feupael st pos 3p Jo 25008 soy agp ungpous vst adeSPUEL fuowewusoidas feuoxsid Jo spalqns 21p s2tw072q auoyoq Buoy Supjoug st yo auowoww ayn UE aogre Apart st 2deosPU | Zroepumpon smb ay ont ade ‘pm set wou Owe a asojdunts ayy, omaes 4a, “Aes | prot 01 st aujod yp azareasuEns 01 Kea ‘ba € Spouusoy gould ® ul pronaf 30 “oun ty oped jo uoneuossuen pessiyd 2p spoposus ave sonqes. pure sSmtveaus eo upze pure Buruspres adeospur] Hq aanap_ad axe SOUP BUN mo qpryar ut (302 “SSoUP REP BaP ouons pe panos “js sate “uomenHon ouoNs Ue) UPR Flosuaenyaun pu peotsiné © SPA st adeaspuP] I2r2MOU, Kepuonss 29\9 fe 20)41 SUL PUN umoaid pure poods ‘Suu 4q SAzauo0s F>UTENKP pure “Uy * gq ‘BusexBup 20 “Buywexp Humured 4 ¢ j« ‘Ssuomenuosoidan 195, FARO. PUP dIsMAL TOAD AIOE ‘iydesBoroyd ponuosaxdos aq Aeus odeaspuey [ fen anni ag 8 204 “ota ‘poowsnpi 309 ane odeaspure | e-umed fa ponsosazdos aq seas eye sane Tensin pure swofgo Jo spurs 242 UE ang ‘seaue? UO TUR | is umo sir ur uoneaupsaidas © Apeosre st ein Suypawos Jo WOR eeoafoa e se ang ‘2dea5pue] Zuja0s Jo sess o2 ssa38 sn Sues 364 NYPL red Suman Jo sem tr 300 Mroveg suonouanp ff 29°—snbsomaig 219 pur sumans Og ATER Fp use agp IO.9EL 48 TR9PY 34s ns suOROA— sox owt 3urnured adeaspue] Jo 21U08 aep apiap 2eUR 5 tumo sar ut w9y 2qoquts e Apeome sAeaye st sera ron mer sas you st stew BO!GES, TH FAH SE TDDB Sqodhoy on puon ant Tey4A “TEU We{gNs se SDI thea 4 Ajosoot Aan pouyp ‘ade>spue] se unour ubued Jo ono Si jureanoo aisyy, “SEOW STP ey SAID we|deo o2 BUH MOU SLIT HE Suu uo Huraued Jo 2138» you ‘uowsoxdho Testa Jo wmIPouU © SE POO 2Tapar asoq st adeospr] up sed as4p nouBnostp Turse dog 208K | (ost) sano “vosDeea— aolne> seu DUT, 142 ang ured ur postisexda: uy go yeanzeu uo siseydu> e ns “anys ou wou ani8 sp29p-PUR} HOKn SIAR oy ok “sure s.uoUs es0un 2 Jo ee 152q OWN $1 SL 1908 BANS! TELA "sue sure exesSayul VEO ofa asoum ou 1M SEY YEU! OU Yoqyr UOZUOU eM Ul A8 “oad e s} e104 “edeospue| aun sume WOU yo ouou ing “puoteg PUB/pIOM at oun rm a ¥16 Wed. T.Mitenel! scientific, topographical illustration, with its craving for pure objectivity arene repay and the suppression of aesthetic signs of “Se” ot “gene.” But even the most highly formulaic, conventional, and stl LLmdscapes tend to represent themselves as “true” to some sort of nature, ereeeeal seructure of ideal” nature, oft codes that ae “wited in tothe visual cortex and to deeply instinctual roots of visual pleasure associ- ted with scopophilia, voyeurism, and the desire to see without being, seen, Tn The Experience of Landscape, Jay Appleton connects landscape formu- oe and haba then spa to the © 8 predator who seans the landscape a5 a strategic fed, 2 network of pros- pects, refuges, and hazards The standard picturesque landscape is expe- Filly pleasing to this eye because it typically places the observer in a protected, shaded spot (a “refuge”), with sereens on cither side to dart behind of to entice curiosity, and an opening to provide deep access at the center. Appcrn's oberer is Hobber’s Natural Man, hiding in the icket t0 pounce on his prey of t0 avoid a predator. The picturesque scene of “natural representation” itself, “framing” or putting it on a stage Tt hardly matters whether the scene is picturesque in the narrow sense; even if the features are sublime, dangerous, and so fom, the fame is ways there as the guarantee that it is only a picture, only picturesque, ae the Doerr afte in anther place -outside the frame, being the binoculars, the camera, or the eyeball, in the dark refuge ofthe skull. "Appleton's ideal spectator of landscape, grounded in the visa field of violence (hunting, war, surveillance), certainly is a crucial figure in the Jeathetics of the picturesque. The only problem is that Appleton believes this spectator is universal and “natural.” But there are cleatly other possi- bilities: the observer as woman, gatherer, scientist, poet, interpreter, OF tourist, One could argue that they are never completely free from the Subjectivity of (or subjection to) Appleton’s observer, in the sense that the threat of violence (like the aesthetics of the sublime) tends to preempt iil other forms of presentation and representation. Appleton’s landscape esthetic applies not just to the predator but to the unwilling prey as well ‘We might think of Appleton’s “predatory” view of landscape, then, 2s cone of the strategies by which certain conventions of landscape are forcibly ppaturalized, Nature and convention, as we have seen, are both diflerenti- bed and identified in the medium of landscape. We say “landscape is rrature, not convention” in the same way we say “landscape is ideal, not feal estate.” and for the same reason—to erase the signs of our own Constructive activity in the formation of landscape as meaning or value, to produce an art that conceals its own artifice, to imagine a representation Imperial Landscape 17 that “breaks through” representation into the realm of the nonhuman. 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. Histories of landscape, as we have seen, | continually present it as breaking with convention, with language and| textuality, for a natural view of nature, just as they present landscape as transcending property and labor. One influential account of the European origins of landscape locates it in the “free spaces” of medieval manuscript illumination, an “informal space left vacant by the script” in “the margins and bas-de pages of manuscripts” where the painter could improvise and cape from the demands of doctrinal, graphic, and illustrative subordina- tion wo “the severe lines of the Latin text” for 2 romp with nature and pure paincing,®? This double semiotic structure of landscape—its simultaneous articulation and disarticulation of the difference between nature and con- vention—is thus the key element in the elaboration of its “history” as a Whiggish progress from ancient to modern, from Christian to secular, > from the mixed, subordinate, and “impure” landscape to the “pure” land: scape “seen for itself from “convention” and “artifice” to the “veal” and, the “natural.” These semiotic features of landscape, and the historical narratives they! generate, ae tailor-made for the discourse of imperialism, which conceives itself precisely (and simultaneously) as an expansion of landscape under- stood as an inevitable, progressive development in history, an expansion ‘of “culture” and “civilization” into a “natural” space in a progress that i itself narrated as “natural.” Empires move outward in space as a way of moving forward in time; the “prospect” that opens up is not just a spatial scene but a projected future of “development” and exploitation.” And ) this movement is not confined to the external, foreign fields toward which ‘empire directs itself, itis typically accompanied by 2 renewed interest in the re-presentation of the home landscape, the “nature” of the imperial center. The development of English landscape conventions in the eigh: teenth century illustrates this double movement perfectly. At the same time as English art and taste are moving outward to import new fandscape conventions from Europe and China, it moves inward toward a reshaping and re-presentation of the native land. The Enclosure movement and the accompanying dispossession of the English peasantry are an internal colo- nization of the home country, its transformation from what Blake called “a green & pleasant land” into a landscape, an emblem of national and imperial identity. Pope's “Windsor Forest” is one such emblem, epitomiz- ing British political and cultural sovereignty (“Ar once the Monarch’s and the Muse’s seats”), and its imperial destiny, figured in the “Oaks” that provide the material bass for British commercial and naval power: “Whileatured adeospury, 2eyp sfes 21> ypowuoy ¢.’st 310329 poasns9 axty 2K soves yea 249 Te Woy UD:2yFP, se sn season ree (SBuNooy pore >osse st ue) Simnured jo puny © Suromposd wy .Aouarejdut09 Jo ipoighs anew 33] F axey aA, aoipayos Buyuonsonb ‘sdesspury jo .Aajaxou, >1p poresge}>> 34 sP Hard sp posUos anet{ OF SuID9s Uys -sUIRU pur’ sxfar se sodas -pur| axA puryag Fuyseoy ‘pu vE or Funuod yo Aem © axeysourdiry ‘anted Jo Woneiuasoidos snstqeamaew auf se poors pun adeospuy] preor azawarou jeono9peIp v se poorsi9pun , “Voss, eusduat cextoang nq seq Ypnog 2¢p. 10u $4 a90/qns [eau a4, “UORUD® “Uod pue 2>yhue ox AUBURPEUE UG SU Jo FUTWODaA0 SU IYMOKP Uod -oung Jo Bumpjojun yeusoum xp 305 swusUDK0W jerodwor ‘PeouONsIY pure <8upqRp, [fe soaNOH ey UO “UommuDsoiday apsTEE pu yRUa!DS jo +2a{go we se poronzisuoo pur ,‘paiosoosp, ,“Pausdo,, 2q 01 aiatp sem itp vwordos eneds © se ayioeg 2yp Sean tpn, UIs jemgeU e pL aud oa ue sejnuny fexsse>-09U tprn yeorq o3 SSduuone ssoqre9p, ut puny Aiea 14a are Sunted adeospue] jo sunaace sapnug ur sruaunocrferani> af ‘vorreussoidas snsiqeaniea pu “uostas ‘souD!96 Aq ayi>eq xp Jo Sunanb {40> axp UY suoR2ypenuoD je soutoDso,0 weIA DampeaTeU HiyAy >atssaiond ¥ om uondiosqe su 4q poterpout st (,uonemoads feomydosoryd,, stision storsseudo pur uopenuy, .-2yTAOYE (eBOWOIG,, sAs198 ,uUsIISSeP>00U,, SGRUIDS, sMSIon SHUEWOY,) Yorsta vESdomNg jo a0URfeaIquie 24), or toneiniods eorydosomnid jo ago ue se aoe] 248 JO ase> a1p Ur Wowssardy> pub womEUT $0 139/g0 4p se J9ULIO} aYp 40 23t 2p ‘oy Fs aamaeU Jo Plow 249 Suu29u09 IynoKa uRadoxey pore|NNS DUE a4 JO PHOM a4p MOY} AusDsq0 01 Youn UE SPLOT AUNT za. pur ane -2au09 apiiond spjay oma 2s21R 04 3yBno4A feovFojoIg uodn pue Sunured ade>s Pur} Jo sondesd pure Asooyn 24> wodn vonesoydva agiaeg jo Hedken ayp On WOAtd 294 Mh wonton sejmpued ai0ur ‘Sppay Fema UF UBISsEPooU OL aBuDeED ap (01 pomngunuos oupseg 21n 30 Aipwossip 249 ol, UUs 9 lo 3 IsTyAA “SoHo JO PHO Aammuo> tpuoouTY 2x uF aDUIHS pue uPAURWO! fo Yau ax OF Bunnquanuoo saz} asoxp Tuoure poxoguamu aq Oy" **s! oye 2ep 0 Reresdo ay 2 TE 3609 sie A2ons 2B JO waIAIBNO SMUG st >u9Ff “sHMAeUE pontoosad sat JO SarmmanstOD sy ‘ade>spuey paztuojo> ayp o .ssoussipo, 20 ,2auapkiadap, ap ynoge PUL “uormeuasoidos jo stui9} 1odoad axp anoge sousqeatgure wtp swaRne sees ur] 24eq yANOS aep jo wwKudoyarap a4p Jo MODDE SAME ING SI 728 [elUo]09 19) Padsoud peaorsed samemIe ue 10 ‘SpprAUOD pauicdstEn, 20) Usted ormosop ‘ouosse2y e—amip ops 01 pote 11184 JO 9623 mo s.purjdu ut soupyearqure a1p yo amne2oq ang “(outed nog stp Ut adood soeno Aue ueyp Appnb aso adeospur|2xp toy poseio pue pared -nlgns Aigeqosd 2199 sourBuuoge up) souesstsox aareu Aue Jo ashe399) 100 61 edbospue7 yersdu, “Agqpo> on amour s10U ge sem EMENSHY ge. MPUEG,, Hoey ALN 22914 Wop ‘esoy JO reafeg UO PaJapoU ssouzDPIIN MueUIOS k Se PULTEIZ, MON, pur ureuo7] apne) Jo 2p ayp Ut asmpered Uempeose ue se poxudseidos nye. apie ‘sdeospy ueadonn fo seo¢ivoscioy ay 01 pareensse APpDINb aA Sanejd 2ypads 12m Aem ap SuaoU “Pep ypadopéous ut ssI903d sp suaumDdp syne danas agi us wow wuedounT Sxpuug prEUIag anaeu jo 228s ® ul 39 @2 pooassapun a9ejd [er © Aq ppoccayuoo 31951 puy poy suonuastiog asoKp Jo ,sSOUTEAMIEL,, TP 3294p Sous .oanea,, Aq popadiutun fijenma ano soappsuraxp Hos pio> suonuasuos advaspur] ueadomng aiotjs a5e]d & Swisteuoduut ueadomg 30 solseiuey otf 40} ese EINgE JO pune ‘OFAN ‘popinoud ue yIMOS DULL jeu 9MMEH Jo 21eH8, B UT a[doad poztaraud “quOrsMoxd Jo soyar ase] 2p fa0rsty Jo spurs, se ‘aseayd sn|yes EGS. ur “UDd8 aza% soudjog Jo soamjno pazates aU], ¢"191099 ueayjodonstt “isda We aq, 03 suoystsaid 2uapuadapur umo sit dopaxop Appmb 20u pp ay uSUTY WBION DTN gg."KO» YSHUUG 02 >jqyssor2eu sosseU PU] 2} PrUDS oid ay ‘eury Sx, "woUeZIUOIOD asIso1 or sHUDUAYSHIGEISS Are 30 suontamar peodun ‘poztuegn auspue ou pet au!>ed tANOg a4p ‘Ise, SIPPHNY axp 20 “euNAD ‘PAPUT Jo sadeaspuy feRIO}OR axp AU “Ieospure[ FO Burpuersrapum agp op asoz01ut feDads Jo mF So¥eUI SaNbuoD stp JO 98€> 24, suoneu Supweads-ysn ug auapuodopar on dopaaap pynom 3e1p s91u0j09 pated pue oyiseg yanog arp ut Aoetwasdns pexeu poyeatsun paysyqeass sng oun “Tet et apis eexsrect so a8b40a 249 pue BOLT HOOD ted ‘dec Jo a¥e4os ay 2up Udasnag “elfensny Jo 9zad yeuDUTaUOD JOBE ay pue 2ypeq tpNog xp JO spuejst akP arom aNoUDACU ade>spur] AaMaUDD “ipuariguy Ape pue -tpuadnysio atp jo aysiay amp 3e Mod ros YsMUG, 40 SHO, AP OF d]qRIOUTIA SeoMeUTEAp wou Posoud IeEP SUDA, U4], 2dtospury jo APRON 242 UO, “URE “ssauyeo16 umo sno jo 10014 ap se panlaoay 29 90U0 ye 10UU8D ‘en axo}ea porsiK9 te4t S99e« T8010 ay ine wor, 1us04)P Kem o64eN autos u ore om yeu 98) ods oy -oU0 BUY -ouue Ue weed sey e6ueY9 Siu rey) JO YoHEUILEXD eyEsn9De Aion e inoUL “ounsse 1 4B! OU aney OMA" JANIEW siyt UO UOIDIdSNE eWOS paulo} Pey 24 wu ‘asrusouto veut ‘PEG 8g seuIe4 PInous |°*-“pulW Siy O1U os BUIeQ Sy J0 1gn0p fue 1nd 01 AOS 09 Pinos | 410m Kuieou PUE "YEH ‘pOoB Ina BuIA hue Sem Bunuled-sdeospuel 1ewy poisadsns s0NeU Sey 19pee4 24 “p=BDUI Ted pure sea (ze—Te sou) .wope saaxy 28048 prs popurwraas seapeas play | “us0q 248 speO} sNORaLd DUP SFO sno q Neo MT20 Wed T.mitenell ing, like all forms of art, was an act of faith” in a nineteenth-century religion of nature that seems impossible today; for Clark, abstract paint- ing is the successor to landscape, a logical ourgrowih of its antimimetic tendencies, Perhaps abstraction, the international and imperial syle of the ‘owentieth century, is best understood as carrying out the task of landscape by other means.* More likely, the “end” of landscape is just as mythical a notion as the “origins” and developmental logic we have been tracing Bur there is no doube chat the classical and romantic genres of landscape painting evolved during the great age of European imperialism now seem Fexhausted, atleast for the purposes of serious painting.** Traditional eigh: teenth- and nineteenth-century landscape conventions are now part of the repertory of kitsch, endlessly reproduced in amateur painting, postcards, packaged tours, and prefabricated emotions. That doesn’t mean that beat fifal scenery has leat its capacity to move great numbers of people; on the contrary, more people now probably have an appreciation of scenic beauty, precisely because they arc so estranged from it. Landscape is now ‘move precious than ever—an endangered species that has to be protected from and by civilization, kept safe in museums, parks, and shrinking “wil- dlerness areas.” Like imperialism itself, landscape is an object of nostalgia ina postcolonial and postmodern era, reflecting a time when metropolitan cultures could imagine their destiny in an unbounded “prospect” of end- less appropriation and conquest. 'As 4 conclusion to this essay, I would like to examine two imperial landscapes that exhibit in quite contrary ways this “precious” and “endan- gered” condition in the rearview mieror of a postcolonial understanding. ‘The first is New Zealand, a land tha is virtually synonymous with pristine natural beauty, a nation whose principal commodity is the presentation and representation of landscape; the second is the “Holy Land,” the con- tested territories of Israel and Palestine. It is hard to imagine two land. scapes more remote from one another, bath in geographic location and in cultural/poliical significance. New Zealand is at the periphery of Euro- pean imperialism, che last and remotest outpost of the British Empire, an unspoiled paradise where the nineteenth-century fantasis of ideal, pictur esque, and romantic landscape would seem to be perfectly preserved. The Holy Land has been at the center of imperial struggle throughout its long, history, its landscape is a palimpsest of sear tissuc, a paradise that has ‘been “despoiled” by conquering empires more often than any other region ‘on carth, ‘The juxtaposition of these two landscapes may help to suggest something about the range of possibilities in colonial landscape—the ‘poles or antipodes between which the global features of imperial landscape Tighe be mapped in (Say) Africa, India, China, the Americas, and the South Pacific. More important than any global mapping, however, is the Imperial Landscape 24 possibility thar a close reading of specific colonial landscapes may help us to See, not just the successful domination of a place by imperial representa tions, but the signs of resistance to empire from both within and without. Like all scenes framed in a rearview mirror, these landscapes may be closer to us than they appear. Circumference and Center Columbus's voyage on the rourd rim of the world would lead, he thought, back to the rocks at its sacred center. —Stephen Greenblatt, Marvelous Passions New Zealand would seem at first glance to be the site of least possible resistance t0 the conventions of European landscape representation. Its sublime “Southern Alps,” its picturesque seacoast, lakes, and river valleys, and its sheep-herding economy make it seem tailor-made for imposition Of European versions of the pastoral. The fact that New Zealand was originally colonized by missionaries who rapidly converted the Maori inhabitants to Christianity redoubles its identity asa “pastoral” paradise.*® If Australia was imagined as a prison-scape for the incarceration of the British criminal class, New Zealand was thought of as a garden and a pasture in which the best elements of British sociery might grow into an ideal nation, bringing the savage inhabitants into a stare of blessed har- mony with this ideal nature. It’s hardly surprising, then, that landscape painting has always been the dominant mode in New Zealand art, and that this painting has consistently been bound up with questions of na- tional identity. New Zealand represents itself as a nation of backpackers, ‘mountain climbers, shepherds, and Sunday painters (a glance at any travel byrochure will confirm this), refuge from the problems of modern civiliza: tion, a nuclear-free English socialist utopia in the South Paci. ‘The hegemony of New Zealand landscape had, however, a contradic- tion built into it from the very frst. How could New Zealand present itself as a unique place with its own national identity, while at the same time representing itself with conventions borrowed from European land- scape representations? How could ie reconeile its desire for difference with its equally powerful desire to be the same? An answer was suggested in the erly eighties by Francis Pound, a New Zealand art crc who caused a storm of controversy by questioning the uniqueness and originality of ew Zealand landscape parting, Pound show that the history of this painting, like that of its European predecessors, has largely been told as the familiar story of the movement from convention to nature, from the Ideal to the Real, and that this story underwrites a progression from‘wspanag 2veds uonstten oxp ‘Burnuted atp Jo pjoysoayp axp Uo pouosut aut soil Seq, soundly ur prop, se aos ou nq apisaq uous Pores pu uewon anbsaueniy,, 24}—oaa 142039 uBisap sipp uF saeay up Ht 30 39H Moy say>nays jouad asi20ud apeus, ‘sn sTsI Pung “UETTIS oun pur 2rd aypods © ut suonuaauo> aroun Jo am feaeojoopr auf svotdha ang Snqeuonuoauo> a194p anaina1 Ajdunis 20u ‘sx914 AU UL Spmnom Sunred Joos sup jo Bumpursipan SstHoIsIY e Woy UNS se feuoIs y vdaquopr feuoneu pu feiuojo> e Jo UoHWLIO} 249 ut LORIN) Pouors si yo osuodso oyp ae ang “Aaors1y Jo suey a4 ur paresis adeospury petisdun yo oxmozstp ou ‘pae|nouizay Ayduns axe suontanuoy ssarp 01 attuidoadde siuoumuas axp pue—prynineag axp Suaygaas ae ‘ans -anipid 249—sayud> feuonous aretsdoadde sip ptm stust PuoRUDn =o sit 30 381] pazsuioat ue on BurnuMed oup aonpas O2 spuot “soqrEIUdLAos Si Jo sou 24 “Sous oj ‘odeospary ueITYTUD a4p Jo stsKfeue S,puNog | PEST, aN, “wpemmar “SreageT wopoyy ap Asano 94 fo pow aaeRe “wm WL Ty £7 sdeospue7 jeveduy ‘uonoury feouorsty ayboads aay) Zumuonsonb moxpiny suonusnuod ders -pury feudu jo sooRane> ayp azerstaz Ades ,0SSOp 2N0ur SHY DYDOE| st uonsonb ou, -adeospue| pueresz, may JO voReuosoxdaryps pur Sunpurysiopun-yps atp 01 ateiadosdde sonodowe> feouowsty axp tpt AU asqeuoneu axnsadsonos & JO suonisoddo Aremq ¢p sopejdon pumog op 2] Aan © ‘ou jo sunspu0o angqevoneu ap sos SIS ep so%R UMP DYED BRUTE >yp Jo aus agp ae posn sidsouo> Suayo 30 afeaueape 2p axey svOMERYESEP saxataupoid a, PUERI’Z MON Ov aU kp poe SAN 9p sOYUOOSID one ant Fagras ata sodeospuey poRye77 ONT SeMUaN FOHUD op UL SsTOLNS Ie ‘vous oop pe Poisasur 2q ve 3p ssIOIEduN 3K PLE AERI¥S 2Ip “onbs> -arund ayy “ouiesodon ap “surygng up ‘apy ap SaTMEN, UE POD 3p PAIEG <2] 9704 sip—sojoyueddid owl adespuel Asmauan quasuN pur yy Jo Luoneoutssyp prqateejaowe st ey wouDelgo ayn asnore few prESIONE aE TY :Spajmounpe on xpinb st 4 yeep urD}goxd sou soser stonusatos feouorsty WAL solseney asyeanaeU yo uD De|dDx IK angq AY aM ASHOD AeIp suODUAsUED yensHe 94t pure AOI Up JO BuypuErs “s9pun 9 uDtoLa 2]qezapIsuoD e st 89 HLT. "WSTPEUORUDALOD puTE ‘ustanepe? eam Jo asmoosp aseuoneusoien ue cpus Asoasty ae puperz, oN RUOnIpen JO WIE IsYEMeUASTEuOMEL ay HpENe punog ‘souuadi> fensis Jo sorzaizes ayp 02 89008 0 “AsOUND Tensta Jo wLi0g s1U0D! oun se “reO}Y sous seo] 1 “pootssopun Iq Pe veep ,aneag Jo aun, atmnodi3s otp Onur ‘]oUNOD em YOR 21P 22170, Teamjn> 24p jo auoutsoe4d oxp st 23ey stKp JO BouDpiad IoHeDp 94LL“AaNEO 900 #20 9}fa8 mou B Jo L:as0osIp agp aour ‘Funured adeaspur jo aps aoqpeo ue OF yoequon| e stat TIA aqnop ou aq uE> aiDip “Funured sp 430 IS FETT xp pure Aameaq oxy astwape Kew a4 YPM ADADWORE (TL ‘By 99s) anbsomnid urapness 941 jo suontissuos adeospuey reNURe, 2p ‘nur suoeyy 2am, 2tp suDsin yA (Se) ara fo pHa aussON Imi) 1PpUEXATY UYOf S| uoNeZIUO|OD yeLOIIC sip yo 2]dumex9 ood y SIDqOSP> PaIUOAUT SuORUDANOD pur ‘sonbyyPa: ‘so/48 Jo UMUDe|MUNS [Pavenuone ‘Saneauap © snap st pueye>7, MON tw Sunuted adeospury “wo ‘otur pur] uayfe axp Poquasge pur suoneaxt9 ueodomng pauodun Ads siaured puejtoz son ‘Aaemuo9 aff uo Aq s2u>22}Fp 10} 2389p 24 MSU punog ,»,.ksitmon e Suntan, Jo asodand aef 10} postaap seo 3e4p AA oip yo Aste, © sur eon, © ang SuMpOU s1 wsHEATNeU suKA Ie~ ‘asoins pur ,>roqdsoune pur ayy Jo sonyfenb eas, sr puss adeospury PUEEOZ MON JO, E SI D3oqR Ep" "+ AOU TE, 2p s|fe> 24 aeyar sosodx> unog ‘souopuadspur feunpew or ouspuad3p pur wstetUe|o> rexmN9 WOU LPM tz24 WALT. Mitchell “observer and observed. They “sit in” for the European observer, reassuring ts that the Maori see things as we do, while maintaining their difference. "The Key figure in mediating this difference is the bare-breasted woman, the Renaissance Verus who plays the role of eye-catcher, a titillating bit of soft-core colonial pornography, an emibiem of wative “nature” opening herself for easy access to the imperial gaze while her husband's back is turned (the husband, by conteast, covers his nakedness, holding himsel€ in). ‘These figures of access are the only “invented” elements in the painting, the only features chat were not “drawn from life"; they are also its most conspicuously conventional and derivative feature, the clement that declares most explicitly the fantastic sameness of colonial representa tions of difference. This idyllic absorption of the strange into the familiar ‘comes to seem all the more fantastic when we come to it with the informa- tion that the painters wife and three children had been killed by a Maori raiding party just eight years before this painting was finished in the relative safery of Australia. ‘Gilfillan’ painting allows (understandably perhaps) for no resistance to conventions of European landscape, except perhaps for the slight indi. tation of compositional dissonance in the way the oval, canoc-shaped Citele of the Maori war council cuts off the serpentine access route. By Contrast, Augustus Eatle’s Distant View of the Bay of Islands, in spite of a title that seems to announce nothing more thas_another picturesque scene, dffers quite pointed, if subtle resistance to European conventions (see fig, 11.2), Francis Pound's commentary enumerates the specific conventions evoked by the painting: “Earle uses the traditional system of planes of Shadow alternating, with planes of light; and though the landscape itself has not allowed him the assistance of any convenient tree, he has managed to place an appropriate sepoussir [a picturesque side-screen] atthe right,” in the form of the carved figure.” The problem with this reading is not just that it immediately reduces the painting t0 a familiar code and 2 ‘onventional response (“the effect is of solemn splendor”). The real prob- Jem is that it doesn't push conventionalism far enough and draws back 10 an appeal to what nature—“the landscape itself” —allowed the painter to Go. But one of the key principles ofthe picturesque tradition was that it Slowed the painter to introduce a convenient tre (or to cut it down), in accordance with the demands of the convention. As William Gilpin puts je: “Though the painter has no right to add a magnificent castle, he may “hovel the carth sbout him as he pleases... he may pull up a paling or throw down a cortage.”*" Gilfllan’s introduction ofthe Titianesque Venus illustrates precisely this inventive license. If Earle were simply following picturesque conventions, the “landscape itself would have had nothing t0 say about the marter. And if the “ure Imperial Landscape 25 12 Ags Ear, Dito View ft Ba Dita Vw fh Bay of any New Zand 8: Nr 62S Cay Rr Na Rv Cota, Raa ny couhly carved figure” at the right (to use Earle’s words) is really to be seen as a stand-in for the picturesque side-screen or “lead-in” figure, it is a singularly awkward, ineffectual, and ironic one. It des not, lke the traditional repousoir, provide a dark refuge for the viewer to hide behind, nor does it provide a convenient stand-in for the beholder’s gaze within the composition. On the contrary, it is a hazard, an emblem of an alien von tha tars back into the space ofthe beholder, The function ofthe rein Maori culture isto stand guard over tabooed territor the sare, forbidden landscape om te terory sieved sl cere by the European traveler and his Maori companions.® The carved figure may, like the lopped tree trunks that so often appear in the foregrounds of early New Zealand landscapes, allude to the traces and vestiges of the picturesque side-sercen; the figure may “stand in the place of” the repous- ‘bu does so only to show that convention displaced by something ‘What is this “something else”? I is certainly not “the landscape itself” or nature but ater coment foe organizing an perceiving the Ind ‘scape, one that contends with and reshapes the convention that Earle carties as a picturesque travelex. That convention is the Maori experienceue soneid uo saiseauey aanojio> Sygnd sawed wyp 2p Apep 4 ast |: )AreutSeau euoniey axp 01 yeu st “pueyeoZ AON, UI Se pels] Ut ade ue] opin ano Aq ,Joeisy wOpOW Jo wo|qAUD Ue, Po|IeD Sem LO prc] ‘Ap BunjoojsaA0 591310) uewOY IHU ax Woy Dadsoud auLNjgns aOUpA “epesepy 3e pazayo sean adeaspury atp Jo ,luypeas, andkqesode 230u y _Wawonoidun emmnonte pue uonednso0 sod 30 spunoa ura oxp UO ‘pur] a4 on unTE> spers] Jo ADeUIN!BD} 94) 30 ‘siseq aioey ewtad e souanstiod sooeasor asotp jo anuosoad atp yeqp. (Z) pu WOO Uosep 9xp Deu, puE UTEA EP YPIeD o1 sauteIs] IUD!TE a1} Ay [otearoxo aaa wopestuo{ punoxe sop ayp OU ND $99eN19) TUDIUE OY orp (1) paunsse stax | ‘Alay Jay, ur Aatsiastu we[p-segl Ae adeospuey 0 souaajuon e we ‘Aptygnd dessa smip poxonqpp J 2um sy aq, “snoNtENpay auow axe jroned axp Jo stoISI9A SOI) “"WEYEGY Jo saquld 2x96 O4) Suour spewou jo dnos8 aoxpoure Ajaiou 23094 SOMPeIS| 24p Uoysh UNF ‘Sueaoa “ouessip oyp ut [aUe> © uo uopog e pure :punos32i0y ae ut (oS pl seo a1p Bunsosns) 2012 ured & spi a1>}duI0d , exorsed 1289p, jo puny e serd2p spuanboyy peasy Woy spre>iso, “aouRfo1A Jo suis ye asc19 pure adeaspury 2p 22ifpt 0 iopunig Jo 408 wos vo and on Funk wo%) spqnds atnjosa atp pure aston anbsosmid axp ypog auaA2xd .usdop WU, uawWoUr ¥ 30} poumeisns 9q,ueD armeU feUIBHO ‘Wa20uUT Jo UOIsNAT OU aeep auauareidstp pure “uorTeaesx> “rea Aq passers os st adesspury {Op} 24p Jo 2085 UL “ajgeploeun APommjosqe 99 01 22s PIoms ‘PLETE, Mahy {pio asenuo> tn ‘sunsajeq peas] ur asonbuos jeuadu Jo seu 21, odeospury pu aoeid Jo asuas umo sit ‘suoniqure reyodum uno su pey 1eyp 2pH] Jo WHO} ‘2aisuedxo ‘fen ang UoReZ149}09 305 pay aaissed e Adis 10U seaK a ‘2q1uo201 of aman UOEHY 1 YBnoUD asOP au0D9q pey ey “Burze 24 Op Su>XPo ajTyss OM 9kp Op awOS yy UT IOpIO feos feDK>AEIDT, Jo ssoureamieu axa “Bump 240 uo af>-01-24 298 MOKWY PU BAEYIET "WW saedsuen aumb st sanizid atp Jo fesour au0 asea] ry “Aageiow pur “aseojd “apn jo suours ajgeztuor1 20 ‘uondooied Jo sugey poures8uo .4doop Jo Quswow pouoisty € 40 ‘suosiad 10 aoe]d ered & Jo spuewop >xp staf aoqpo4s Sno ayo} 20u st aumMeU 19K -somMAMD OH UDDAIA PlOUSOIKP ap 2eds feu ‘Bungumsip ‘ppo ue UL sn sonea] rep soyUMODUD te Sto uoatio> om Uooauaq sDuTODUD axp Jo st SUpEDd Uy, ge (‘SuFIsap owes arexoqey2 21211 pu sBujaze> pow 91p tpog ‘ue stp potdoo pure pourwpe at ‘oman paotreape ‘xopduoo e se soe axp popredaa jpeswiy aj) << 31N1CU Jo 218s, © UT HOERY 20 BuTDe|d yo anous eatSojoopr SpuEIE|Q a1 Uo sasisut ovo ssajun uypeos stp ur same, 01 feadde ou st 23044] ‘zed reuradust sn Buuatuarop pure uoista ayayad oxp Bunun ‘odeospuey anu 24p 02 s0jo9 sm Sueur o190 YSU yp w aansly pores 2qp se ‘onpqed otf a2euRWop au0g jo amy Up Pure pos pure tAzeD jo ‘umoug-axtpo ystppou pure toad ay “ouKps 10]09 4p Aq por0rsz2pun st 22 adeospuey jeuedusy Aaxgenb wey, “uonisoduo> sty jo (samy pordynos atp se gpm se) Aanpen pamdmss 1p ur poy pamély Sumpowos se ‘Sdeospuey axp ur soussand vse a7 uoepy yp auosoido1 ue> 2x ang. “st IAL Ep 3kp UT 234 mM. ‘urey 2xp puotog st retp :loeyy 241 Jo py fensis tp wuosoido1—sounre> 2y—0u sop aye “apuoK pur ‘oae “Iea}—UONOUD Jo soxo|duN0> Ut srouasgo paridap 21p orexy exp saysis ,Sunsour, axe souDs Yiog ce BORPY 2up Jo apeds coger atp pire ‘weadommg 10 ‘wqzyud axp Jo snodsoud snbsoimid yp Sodeaspur] osu tr29519q proysautp podeys-20ue> 21p Uo popuodsns éqfewors SyBts >If uo sn Woy Aewe Sunes yo] 2p {uo sn premor dn Sustape “vors3901d 3e]M9319 20 [BAO Ue JO 1 994 HLL. Gunured atp some ysem awonPouoU Yep pure ws JO spueq FuneU oye Aq axnnadsiad atp jo Suuaney ayp Aq pouarysiny 51 Yoqfarseq e Ut sony jo ausunean atp jo miaostumus st you Soa sty, Zunued 94p {Jo apepins Mo|TeYS 947 sS03>e soy poe Ajfenbo 4o uoIss200xd v Budo “pau ‘moyoy padeys-s0tr> u22s919 ¥ sKojdop uonisoduso> 24p ‘>1n0s ssonoe sumuadios axp Jo aoejd 2p uy “3px se vomemy su SumeutuMs fyi us0IDs-apis onbsomaid a¢p Jo sn spurwios amy poxre> 2xp Kem ures Dip UpmUr an—a Jo WDUTFY ¥ YoU VoRUDAOD 21p1 Jo ape 30 2AnsDA ® §juo stan ang ‘Jayp Hoepy atp Jo yp 247 01 sn “ourerstp oma 24p smrodde aunusdios a1 jo Joputurax Aum ¥ “yfosi| UO ypeq pouum pure >a oud stp Ut yo Ind st punostspeq or punosBo10} woy su ounUIadiDs ox {yo vonusauo> anbsoumanid aup Sex aun st [qeioU soyy “BuLOTOD pue oR -tsoduo> s9qwos ‘ppo aip Eng suis jes1ydexBouo>1 yoydxo axp ut 10U “spaomoy Ssodoap suns suonupauo> adeospure] jo SurfBurauowy sty ‘se H5NSnUU E YMA zeae v apeydax OF 3|qe st 94 SE (2909 v EDI se ze sdetpiad pue) Atisea se mnoge 2.odsoud,, Jo uomenoidde ueadomng atp ut Buueys v 02 adeospur] oogel Jo asu>s LOeWY Woy uoNIsuEN 21, ayeuu 01 a4ge st 9 1e4p pue Aued stip ur Jouyp OEP ax sty TEED 358 “Bas swuoue8 ueadoang pure ‘omusod ayiiudn Saysnus stey “uozuoy pur spnop> Suuodo axp premor ino Sunyoo] ‘ze usoiso% ay ut Suto! 9q 01 suises “sasoaI0Us “sojasexr Ueadomy 2p JO Peoye asnl zo1arem WOR DULL “Teaxtp penudiod eyo prem or ApYYS GNP zeM sty BursteD ofS Sfacheni91 poooges axp ue>s 07 apts axp 01 Butuan ‘Sypeas 94 se Hurens>4y 9q (1 sura9s yay akp Uo so1e9q HOEY >, sandy poate a4p 01 AIO POLS soureqranans sti st 30N, aoejd tsaA0 apureTTanans daay o1 anaers tarp dou, 2321p suoeyY aif 01 arEOdus os st pue] axp 28 oo] ov asnf Tas Huyddows, ey UUM e Ie saLEIpUT ames LOEWY a4, “uorNeMs paresydis0> auour e sisaiins aimiid s9peg g,4YouUssuos pauiodus Ue s[pund st 51 ae Yoo] 01 anf Ins Burddors ‘pur} 2p o2 apmame euord stp ‘adeospur,, erp Sup ul uDye sur Ajsnouds st 24 nq ,“ode>spur] wured 20U pip oryy mp, req Aes or aNI09 s} punog “MOU | se I} OG “puR| AIOY E tuo Burze8 “iopoxen ueodoamg payey a1p se ys pure Do1> Apprsia se spurs ou ‘omy posze> oxp Aq pozjoquiss adesspuey Jo uoeruosoidas pure Neyo Lr’ 9g28 Wid. T. Mitchell 1.3 Jean Mohr, "sae! 19792" Reproduced from After she Lust Sky. Courtesy Jean Mohs, scenes.)Masada, the terraced hillsides, and the Arabian pastoral ae all, in their wavs, atempts to unify the landscape in the frame of both pictorial conventions and ological convitions: the pastoral expresses nostalgia for a Sef thats now the colonized Other che geongchilides offer the prospect of permanent legitimate settiement; the sublime vista from the Rortan uit ives medtation on collie selRanihlation as an alternative to surrender. The truth of the unified Holy Landscape is clearly division and conflict Jean Mohr’s photograph of an Isracli condominium in the West Bank simply makes this fact formally explicit and unavoidable (sce fig. 1.3). Like Augustus Earle, Mohr depicts the collision of two media of spatial organization in the landscape; this time architecture, not sculpture, mocks the cole of picturesque repouswir, or side-sereen. The picturesque valley in the distance is framed and dominated by the modern condominium, its windows sighting down on the Arab village. Like the eyes of the Maori carving, they keep the taboo territory under perpetudl surveillance. Unlike Earle’s composition, Mohr’s landscape offers no threshold for the encoun- ter of conventions, the interchange of gazes, only a stark confrontation between traditional organic topographical forms and a crystalline, “cubist” architecture; only the contrast between a passive, observed scene and the gaze that is Bxed upon it. The landscape is conspicuous for its lack of figures. The Arab village is too far away, and the foreground refuge too Imperial iandscape 29 uninviting to delay anyone but the photographer. No one is about to mistake Tstael for New Zealand. Native and pakeha are at war in the former, partly over the question of who is the native, who the alien, and it would take a massive effore of picturesque “screening” and selection of prospects to keep the signs of this war out of the landscape. Wordsworth might have called this “an ordinary sight”; certainly it isa daily and un avoidable prospect for the settlers who live in the condominium. Yet itis also, in Mohr’s stark composition, a scene of what Wordsworth would hhave called “visionary dreariness.” Emerson says that “landscape has no owner" except “the poet,” who can integrate its parts. But Mohr’s photograph shows the sort of sight— and site—that demands a poet capable of asking, “Who owns this land- scape?” The colonizing settlers who watch from their fortified dwellings? The inhabitants of the traditional dwellings in the valley, a space that must look just as deadly and threatening to the colonial gaze, as its watch- towers look to them? The photographer, who has chosen this image from all those available and presented it to us as a representative landscape of svcomested territory? The only adequate answers seem at frst glance radi- cally contradictory: no one “owns” this landscape in the sense of having clear, unquestionable title to it—contestation and struggle are inscribed indelibly on it. But everyone “owns” (or ought to own) this landscape in the sense chat everyone must acknowledge or “own up” to some responsibil ity for it, some complicity in it. This is not just a matter of geopolitics and the question of Israel as the site of big-power imperialist maneuvering; it is also a matter of a global poetics in which the Holy Land plays a histori cal and mythic role asthe imaginary landscape where Eastern and Western ccltures encounter one another in a struggle that refuses to confine itself to the Imaginary. \ realize that this analysis will sound hopelessly evasive, generalized, and equivocal to thase who insist on “owning” this landscape in the frst sense, while refusing to “own” any responsibility for its fractured, ago- nized appearance. But only an equivocal poet of cis sort will, T suspect, prove aclequate to Emerson's project of “integrating the parts ofthe land” scape” into a unity fit for habitation, much less contemplation. Equivocs- tion may also be the key to practical diplomacy and to the prospect of a ‘ritical/poetie answer £0 the question of Palestine. We have known since Raskin that the appreciation of landscape as an aesthetic object cannot be an occasion for complacency or untroubled contemplation; rather, it must be the focus of a historical, political, and (yes) aesthetic alertness to the violence and evil written on the land, projected there by the gazing eye. We have knows at least since Turncr—perhaps since Milton—that the violence of this evil eye is mextricably connected with imperialism andips adeospae yp jo a unmpow aotd © us popes Sy Apease 51 eH) Wossanp onouod ® Uo auauupuyps v “iomets AepAio9s Bate sLOMaMNOD 5) thy (ars Spauted nsuoysoudia ue wt passpuos 30q st adespuny ute Ft ponibe ag aydrar a “33) umsonop Jo sojdiaupd ape 10) stun iq pe 2q ue adeaspi] 40 spuny pur Sunured jo spury voomiag suonepue7 “ati "polgrs Jo awpuodpat dun ut ‘sue (3 “penakwo08 stuoyssida ston -serde> vue “reu) Buuted 0 nbuaypo pur sas yo suomunsig “9 PIS TE Sepa pouty “aossopuy “$e (worn pafeo) euteg >empeey. £2 TET Ley oxus sdeopprewry SyreI “7z “(wonders pag) Sammy epee}, We ‘SUILMy PUP UNE P9 22e7gy aga Jo smauas UL parraqod “(zZz1) Hus tepi pse worsouEsCT IOqUUEE) UTA 296 aatbodsiou (fey) ) remare pursiopun tou prp a:2u14D ay este ayn Aq poseaang saumNAes 1 ognuabsim, pur uppowaid st adeospe osourye 40 tuuasese tO ‘OT “PII “6T ‘OLY “Par “St Way ome ates 5 “LE ‘wayeudat on >umessan an pur adeaspur| Utadoung UoqI00 uaomog wone[as yp Ko ,2f8§ 40) aaMGER, ess> Sur pur dUsNYon st fess Sauepy UUY 25 tsyeuoneU pur adeospuej yang Jo UoNssMaND F AO "OT S9-SST “(got tumany) | “ou ‘zy Ausmbuy pore Sete SEW ‘wpa 2prno 2341 8 s9pun Auno\pny poe souefeaiqury Jo suo) spo ey AS, Sg norms ueAGU Pe RN UO St sytUofO> Jo Soe prey 24 JO 9p de sao 108 paou torrasosxdo1 pu amt cn un 24) 4 smoys ue “FOU Ypnog IKON ‘pu22ieuty) aus pouorsy ayaa © 03 Uoneandde sit Srensnyt “want em sp 61 wonanpaintsupjoxo ue sapivcid ouunjon sia uF ABS SUN Plarey “sony 2s [RBOs pur sontueumy 24p woYBNEN Siom sieoqDs mau RuReIoUSs mou st ‘ots ys joy sos enuowepiny xe sesodu pur aan uo sess aan 5qN8 Sy PE ($Z6T HOA MON) HEINE spreS plempy sUOyeDdO oneIToNP pur jruonenosaido jo 0s xojduos © se aseiadu ptm “st ep—ammao us, lw22u0> e 02 uonemuop fEAMod pue atuoUOr> ype U299U0% ‘aeuAd loly swsyeuadur jo anbatis ayy ur yiys sues ain 9) abun sp 30) tod Rumsey “yPs uouowouoyd ay se aes Se uw St usyeuodun uo aanMEDM BLL TZ “(£86T ‘uopuorT) suspoucsseny fo posady pun uiBhac) ays wo suotse{fng “srmonaur pouainay“wosm9puy wpouig 29s “Sader Buy Leaneueuod, 20 es 22aqun, 2 Yon! sip pur “ssinoDsipssqeuonea pur Teed! jo snsies Kp Jo xumo%ve poo8 e soy -puyfug Amauaopuooxyo put Cui) danao>- ido Ut wig) aus ap seadde wen wouewouD4d uZoyTunatuos sap. siden, prom 2xp ap 280 ans on eats NOP T (LL6T “HOR MON) Batra eH) Ne spur{ por ‘(C961 SHI MOHE) MAD ue Banas odermrary Jo gan a “ova uD 28 Sued adespuy SsouyD Jo sUNO>2” esand 404 “ET 28 "(S261 SHOR aN) stNyA 32004 Bue auney dort WYO{ po ‘OCs I—GCOT “Uspan adeno, afi 24 eI 348 fi onrg yf, 1 wopred yao 24p UL WsTEu9R Jo LOIS oes Hog Te edeospury elegy, ‘woo 3s ut soupy adeasp| _onsyemieu, pur adesspur(,juonuaauer, 20 rags, 40) snoFShan v>9ma9q ‘Bento sip yo suoneay dan op stomp in 7 es Uo st 30} pao pure aus pouten se pardop st amiey, ype “Sutin (evo) uDHs= 44 oF sII00> Us oinaeu yo sind ay soy apuan9091 shu owe we tpn dy PL. p50 sig unwed adespuey aun) Imp SHAMS Yorn ‘sey oF uomenuery puss Dip ur ,Sunumg adespury, sprue ayp 4g po4soS3ns sf somsue axtonnsin ay ‘ajlgxaunnu 28> Sytse ap 30298) 2 ue putas 9q Ue> VouauoUDy ‘waaay 20 URpour # 58 adesspur] JO UOROU ays soy) HSE IFN 99 “TT TPL “OL 1 UY eats adempuwy SEED Ut PPHOND *6 (g “pig) dove on sien 304 J aaprsuen 02 Sp! wEOdUA, Yee 224 Surpiiord suoneissadss adeospur] Jo suoiswawup yeeubored pur [eo] 218 Sununu, ul Pom sje Jo or Hp SAparmoWpE uMYEUENIDG -y “pn mu ory ienuog «cponind sea. adeospuny and, sy 219 ap Larau2o (poy sje axp jo aioudsoune Weodoang sp tre af ataos pagtun e aut (2k) Buoau09 anowpm “Ia%G0 pais! Jo 2iejguasse ur saute 8 poyooy ats SU 29009 HUN, BA 8 onan) pafeo ay we Sunurg adexpur], 9P|M NID “A “(eOGF ‘eq WONeDE "Voy uonsog “dbs ght poysiand 3[) 217 ere adeweary oe Booyy “9 (umuonpoy “Uopuor) tomore Layof poe wusunauog way p> pour apo Guy a ana Jo usduase) 2a, ae odeaspury JO 2 247 PE YIGWOS #3]86 20} BMUEN,, Sess> KUL 398 Ssupuuniae sypuquiop Jo anbuup & 404 “T2—Z0T “9961 “OBEND) anueseninr 2 fo sy 2 snphas any pr waa 0 parondos 8 S089 §4UGWOD “g (seer Sox saN) LON MOY as tH MUD pl” Raa nome plat 514 296 990 toe 2p pu ans sump ao Uoao> wt a ue “Uy ap “sat _opju ay 9 Yons eas amon Ut sHuMDS pap, SOSMOsI 2H “F (og6t “3HP9 “S2Y>H) 098-O8ZT ‘woes song gay 291 Kooy ww atopy “ween Wy 8 Aexonuoo sip Jo UoRssMAsP € 30} “OBE “(ORT DAE ON) aU 01 pouty can Baws Jo Seoy ponayea a4 "TER WHOL 25 (2R61 “SaneD 14, “vopUOT) tamowry fo sderynerT oq Mona Bayer “e (e861 “t28E}1 #9N) ape pun ouen aesgnary dana W woseg PRUE. 5a PELO}DOP ‘ung sty joguie afsai852, se adeospay yo Surpess aasqeusoussd a “(O66t ‘aowaupueyy) yng Vous po xdr—Gio— Karuna adomprarT Hupwoy OF 298 (oset “28puqueeD) sdeomnery ag Amy yeHCE aL THVE UO! “Y sa10N, oo SYpBoe voHsanb soIpOUR st 22%40d Kure sm son afpayssouny sty saya ‘pozt[eaTaeU pue payor st LAD stp Ypres q unypout 94p st jjosi adeaspue] 224A st MOU MOU da IeYA “CUstPEUONEL WHOM LM OF32 W.J.T. Mitchel 27. William Chambers’ discussion of Chinese landscape gardening, for exam ple, routinely refers to the garden as itself a representation; see his Dagns of Chine Buildings, Furniture, Dress, Machines, and Utensils (1787), in Genius of the Place, ed. Hunt and Wills 284-85. 28. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature (1836), in Nature, Addreses, and Lectures, ced. Robert E. Spiller and Alfeed R. Ferguson (Cambridge, Mass.. 1972), 39, 29. Raymond Williams, The Couns and she City (London, 1973), 120; Bar- rell, Dark Side, 30, For a good discussion ofthe speific role played by reflections in Romantic landscape representations, see James Heffernan, The Re-Creation of Landcape (Hanover, NHL, 1984), 31, Jay Appleton, The Experience of Landscape (London, 1975) 32. Derek Pearsall and Elizabeth Salter, Landscape and the Scans of the Medi- ‘val World (London, 1973), 139. Ct p. 163: “Whatever movement toward real: ism there is takes place in the borders, where the artist has greater freedom to ‘experiment and is less dominated by the stylized ritual of miniarure and intial.” Pearsall and Salter construct a kind of inverted version of the landscape history Thave been describing, The Middle Ages i presented as a period in which the properly natural landscape of the classical tradition is replaced by “conventional” representations of nature, only to be slowly regained as the Renaissance ap roaches Pmy3. See Mary Louise Pratt, “Scratches on the Face ofthe Country or, What Mr. Barrow Saw in the Land of the Bushmen,” in Race, Writing, and Diference, ‘ed. Henry Louis Gates (Chicago, 1986), 138-62. Pratt notes the tendency of ‘avel narratives in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to downplay “confron: tations with che natives” and to concentrate on “the considerably less exciting presentation of landscape” (141), interspersed with “portraits” of the natives. “This diseursive configuration, which centers landscape, separated people from place, and effices the speaking self (143) of the traveling observer, present ing the author “as a kind of collecive moving eye which cegisters” the “Sightlsites” (142) thar it encounters in a curious combination of mastery and passive receptivity. “The eye ‘commands’ what falls within its gaze; the mountains “show themselves’ or ‘present themselves; the country ‘opens up" before the Euro- ean newcomer, as does the unclothed indigenous bodyscape” (143) of the 34, Beth Helsinger’s analysis of Constable's evolution into a represensative “national” painter who presents scenes of an endangered “deep England” (*Con- stable: The Making of a Nationa Painter,” Critical Inquiry 15, no. 2 [Winter 1989}: 253-79) is instructive in this regard as an illustration of dhe drive £0 reinforce native domesticity in the face of international peessures—t0 keep En- gland English, The Chinese imperial park (and places like Kew Gardens in Lon: clon), in contrast, were designed to be microcesms of landseape features from all regions of the empire and to display or even to exter a kind of homeopathic power. The first emperor in the Civin Dynasty, for instance, fled his park with replicas ofthe palaces of feudal lords he had defeated, and Emperor Wu excavated 2 scale model of a major lake in the southern kingdom of Tien as a symbolic Imperial Landscape 33, anticipation ofits conquest. See Lothar Ledderose, “The Earthly Paradise: Reli- gious Elements in Chinese Landscape Art,” in Theories ofthe Arss in China, ed. Susan Bush and Christian Murck (Princeeca, NJ, 1981), 165-83, 38. Sce David Bunn’s essay on South African landscape in this volume, which argues that nineteenth-century representations of the landscape aze best under- stood in terms of “setier capitalism,” not in the framework of the picturesque ‘our. 36. A fuller account of North American adaptations of British imperial land- scape traditions would also have to reckon with the sense of its overwhelming and unmapped land mass (see Joe! Snyder’ essay in this volume for an account of the way photographers contionted this issue). The resistance of Native Americans, moreover, was not brushed aside quite so easily as that ofthe Australian aborigines and the Polynesians, and the “Indian Wars” became central to the melodrama ‘of westward expansion and landscape representation in the American national imaginary. The heavy component of landscape representation in the American Western movie would repay attention in terms of this imperil scenario. 37. Sabin, Islands of History (Chicago, 1985). 38. Smith, European Vion in the Sout Paste, 24 ed. (New Haven, 1984). Sce p. 69 for discussion of “how Tahiti became identified with classical landscape {anc} how New Zealand became identified... with romantic landscape.” 39. Sce Robert Hughes's extensive discussion ofthe double face of Australian landscape in The Fatal Shore (New York, 1987). Hughes notes the difficulty early landscape artists like Thomas Watling had in finding the piceuresque: “ ‘The land scape painter, wrote Watling, ‘may in vain seek hete for that beauty which arises from happy-opposed officapes’ (meaning che beauty of rontantic contrast, {la Salvator Rosa)” (93). And yer, at the same time, Flughes suggests that the frst British painters of Australian landscape had difficulty in seeing anything but the picturesque, arcadian stereotype (2-3) and that they were encouraged to ‘sransform the “harsh antipodes” into “an Arcadian image of Australia hardly distin iguishable from the Cotswolds or a picturesque park” (339). See also Tim Bony- lady, Images in Opposition: Australian Landscape Painting, 1801-1890 (Mel bourne, 1985); and Berard Smith's chapter “Colonial Interpretations of the ‘Australian Landscape, 1821~35," in Europea Vir. 40. Smith, Eurapean Vicon, I. 42. Ibid, 80. 42, John Ruskin, “The Novelty of Landscape,” in The Work: of Johm Ruskin, cd. E.T. Cook and Alexander Wediderbuen (London, 1904), 196, See Helsinger, Rossin and the Art of the Beholder (Cambridge, Mass.. 1982), 244-45, on Ruskin and Turmer’s pessimism about the way dhe “English death” figures in European andl biblical landscape, 43. Clark, Landscape into Art, 230, 44, For the beginnings of an argument along these lines, sce my essay “Ue Pictur Theor; Abstract Painting and the Repression of Language,” Critical In giry 15, no. 2 (Winter 1989): 348-71, 45, For a discussion of the ambivalent relation between modernism and land: scape painting, sce Charles Harrison's say in che present volume,se Jo suits atp 930/99 YoYPNO Ie {ao.WIAD ystao{-ssonsMMIOg 94p porr>o| [pepsin mea qooe( <-Aeave soy Aiur uetp sour wrayuny UE SERN, Ag pakamov-omt kp \pLo Pa]. apHomaudosey SIMPY pure TeIpae> ‘ip. pasodenxnt Ay8urpueas ‘2jdwexa 404 ‘jaepsimy wea uowores “Burpling, Aveurfeu suo UF pessN2s pouTqUIOD 40 sSWAUMUOU! aso pauLoystesd ‘up19 Sounouios pure puefpUloY sIotp ANOge Uotp PIAoU! fay Koy ‘SULA - o1 Fuys¥nus us axe sompras auszIM> ‘past AOtp y>tEP uy pur arp jo suondupsuen Sjaanoadiouiun pue Aqpottssun aio etn sfumured pareom Afoxes sisnie Youncy wep pareasuouiap Aqporadas axey ‘Sunured adeospuey yoincy yo stuopnas ayy “Sonjaswonp purioy Koxp upstpn uy pury a¢p ‘oquosuren Arryypney pure ‘298 Aquappns pynoo Aoxp pure ‘5049 sistie ypingy Aamuas«pussiusas wou uoq APaNr>H[09 pue sTUsppAs eq sofas ft se ‘s908 aaneszeu op os “wopeEHy tt OZOT punore pouoddey onewreap Sunpawos -"(2"z ‘By 298 $9791) uote pre sia, gata adersouncy sulyowy saint se uptis uoisia snstyeanaeu «pancy Aanaus>-\pudoiUpAas 49 cue (aus (2 ‘By 995 $F¢—STST) adeaspuery w 1 anual 4g SauTeg ME -vo{ se ypns ‘adeospur] pom Sreureun Znau2>-ypusongs ystuUo}y e Sun sodenxn{ Aq wuiod sip arensny Spuonboy Sunured adesspuey weadosn, ‘uraisors Jo SuOIsIEY, Kanauo9 tpudsAUDs9s axp UI PUETIOH Ut paBiou> 1p desu nsiearue poqecos ap ayy Laosty ue yo Soetduunlen © 5131 Sunureg edeospuey yoing Aumjueg-yjueaquanag pue Ayqu9p| adomg jo 80g warn, a UT sanrumumuog Sunsdurop SWVGY N3SNa¢ NNV OML pogasnt 99 ews soadeyp sp 30 Surpus ansumndo ayp rep adoy 2usos aus sni8 fB6 20512} “ion snp ve pods ssaundo [enooyoukn pur “aps yp wou eS euolsed Sayan yo Uoneunquuo> aya ang *(skep Rarvodo su ut seas apes 249) ZOU [pep qevonesSsnstp 02210 Ase we 200 sem adeospirey -fysiodg UOTE PUE Te. owes Aq 2861 30 22qUENON Ut eI] UF ASDA MEE w poUDIOD shoLnbernayadesspuey, popu 2o49%jU09 jgesOUSU!€ 30} vom sea Jaded Si sosuodss jesus asia 20) quae] WeIAEUOL PUE puMOg suEA| oF porgppLE {ur | spuepaz, MON “PUEPHNY “PURPA jo AUSISNUP 24 38 otunI20 SeOpE AE jo vonenpsad asly sun, ape pat day as1p 20) PaO 22e8HeyY pu IDEA rung] dqeadso ing “ngioxresy ae soneoqo> Aue ov rye we | “puelerZ AON “uunypssing ut saarwey AANyaMUD W wp Bunsia, AINqOWT SE ‘Banpisr erassy e Bounp uonivm aw sadeyy sup JO SYeIP 39 4, “09 18 Hogot Aenue{) 9 OU gt aBourenly ess yde8 vou 41 tog JO Sg HL, ess Ki 228 “GorsTos JT © 205 “ORL SoA MON) AMON. ML PU pny puempy Aa Avs syudesooyd s9MEsoaeIon ery uoguasomg 2GS sa] at 424 wt poonposds st ydesBoroyd sty, “6S =201 (6961) 92 sunsemowudry Sereson wyeurdiuy, “oppesoy O1Y “8S Sus}]u09 248 1 SEIS oust 28 Jo Sueur Aq parsruon Spay sta ‘Kursudins 108 wows SLL “Zs ‘EC “PU 905 “9S any Amp yo sauowogdir ois 4p cv poverfanurasom aaradmos pur Sued Aen 2xp postupe spepoaued ay pe Sruaurewo pur Bunae> voew Jo (gz) Samvadur pur ase aeaih, ap vo poms Br 3a 6O6T PINUDISLUD) Z2BT MRL, HAN MINA SMO AN iho ssauayy sy 395 SOE poRUURO ADXEIOQe|P ADB. soqpr>ys SHOAL Shea 4 pur “aoxdmas poppys 9m suoRyY ayp ap arte nb sem ary “Ss Soqun Hoey 2a ayn Suews poonposd sun 3p Loresesap 24p Jo aunoNDe ME 20) ‘OF T=BILT PHEMEZ aan WHINY 208 “FS sureunour Aruosiod Ao wtp >2(put eur sandy ean Jo speay up wo sodeqs pono ayp“adaospuy pond ey Keus woe aR Seup sptomgDouspins 2WOs st sD] “CL PUNT a Ho sev “PUNO “ES ogtie Hor 30 25ueSyRUaIs euORIPED ap LO ‘vonewnoje soy Ansan Aanqaaiue Jo pH swe ov uate wT °Zg “Ce “pig! Ww paxont) “TS “Ob awry 298 uo soma *pamog “OS Jo soft yfnong porepou axe Ing 24p Jo srseU ueadoung Aes 24 Yo syeue we 3) “(9g “sodeuUyy) mavey eID a4. MINOUY IEW 2S. “6 '8¢ “PIAL "8h 9g ‘91 “ee “TL CeR6t ‘PURPENY) puazwrz aay, 1 Besa adeospuny Kay mun 349 0 sauna “PUB SUE “LE (eget “sew ‘98prquseD) sere soso Jo se} Gag OF 1-09! PHORAZ HON MBA WH VOSLEH 2S “9h Hoyo LPM FERye hDLG) Territorial Photography ‘The establishment of a variety of photographic landscape practices in the period between the 1850s and the late 1870s occurred in parallel with, the elaboration of a set of ideas about the character of photography itself. The initial critical cesponse 10 photography, beginning with the an- rnouncement of its invention in 1839 and extending into the 1850s, was marked by a mind-numbing puzzlement about what photography was and how photographs stood in relation to the picture-making tradition. By the mid-1850s photographs came to be thought of as being, different in Kind from pictures made by all other means, owing almost exclusively to a fascination with the peculiar “mechanical” character of photographic genesis, This perceived difference had consequences—it was active in the shaping of photographic practice, which in turn provided further verf cation ofthe singulacity, or otherness, of photography. The evolving belief that photographs were different from other types of pictures guiced the technical changes in photographic practice that led, by the late 1850s, to the production of prints that could no fonger be mistaken for pictures ‘made in other media. Changes in the technical practice of plitagraphy resulted in phorographic prints that looked machine-made because oftheir high finish and endless detail, and that consequently were thought to be precise, accurate, and faithful to the objects of scenes they represented. It is obvious that the characterization of photographs as inherently ‘mechanical and technological in origin helped give definition to the belief in the ultimately spicitual or imaginative springs of handmade piceates. might scem at first glance that the motive for clistancngs established picto- rial practice from the daily production of photographers by, say, critics and painters was thelr perception of a thre incerests, but photogeaphiers werent compe(w9*19 384 99s) aanyn> jenorssd pouyos por peosg Afaanepa e yaar rey fy BNO 401p 9109820 sisi Aq poreanpo ued aS0Utr axp 304 219% OM ‘siaydexBor cod ysnig pie youiszy Ajreo otp Jo uormmpoad a4p ww asaredde Agervods> st uoneuossida1 Jo sSuueUt 2Xp puke UONs9|9s soMeUI Adalqns Jo ston anu peice “krewosn> ‘pomuoyut atp oe %eq |e} O1 Aouapu>} a, seaure> UO ured yp PON. aYw OIA se oH st—SossPo0d FuNy>ID snoues 241 ‘uiseisus ‘Kydesfoyay-—etpour yuud s>qpo 34p. uy pyoM Coy sioyetu suraaid Aq paseds 219% suonuaAuOD aso, "3148 axp JO SuoR paves Puonid 2p uodn quspuodep Afprajduwo> as0WE 21>%—s9egT Apea oxp yBnouyp SoHeT AED s4p WON} suDrsis aaneBIa aoded HN. Papo ops as01p—si9ydesBoroyd ade>spue] Jo uoNeIIUDS ys1y SHLL TP st suonouny 2s4p Jo spunox® ap co puswe puk suoNdUTY M24 UDBAIIg reuten>s%p 9a deep soubor ssnosip To ] sounaxd >4p Jo Simpueisiopun uy “Auyigonpan pure ssouoreredas tou y ‘194 Aaiods,, AA “O8RT pur ggg] wooing pousd up ut adeospur| arydei8oioyd on soyseoudde Jo Aanyivods ap a7iseydurs O1 em | ueuodun asoyy ¢ (WoMp pouorssm “(SE01'886r) my yo wren ARON BU, HY ESO KA 9 MT HOINOH AT'S arenes a son ou suomned oup ‘Aes “Fuypnjsun) souoqpne seoqed 4ue Jo sasss904T 24p Jo onsepsnes axp o1 Kem pore>y|dutooun 20 premMoRBIENS Lue UL aja}onpar st ayjenb ypns ssossod Aoup Fuumsse “Aufenb jeuorDid amp ey Stpramoy ‘3sodoid x0u1 op | “posts foup 2etp soouatpne ajgeyirads aup Jo sisoronut 10 spoou oup Busnes Jo sus A YoyssaNONS aI9m TORE TSDAUT aopun sooneid op aeyp “AfBurvoHsonbun ‘Sumsse (eys | “op Aoup Aes a4 yoo sodeaspury s1ydexBoroyd asoxp Ay J0 Sumpuesssopun aus 02 20109 (01 p20 81 9981 PLE SQORT ak JO Soondeid adeaspuy] wai UeDDUY fom punysq sioney Sunesnou! ap aqoxd o1 st Aess9 sump uD UTE Ap auyps pu porudnul aiom tyy ut pousd SI “OBST PUE ORT UEMIDq PouDd 2171 UI BOR adeaspiry or poUsisse suonoury 0 Aiatiea 3tf 02 ual’ tag sey Uonuione fem 3[ TeEp S| 2194 Jatppo pepads aq, sydexBoioyd o ajge>nddeu 29 01 ayfro%p Aysnolsond SnD) uy ‘sp Ys HAPS | XPaIsN}xD SOULE PEss>zppe UDDq seq ‘Sonpead onydestou04d jo souosty au9901 ut apo v tuguMUOAd os skeyd pipe ‘sdeospur] syydesSoioyd se yons aruo8 sup “usta ‘ton st a, “sayfis Sunsmoaud Jo sfiypucsae anissed se—soss9u>] Jemoumioiuy se jo syinoup 34 01 aun9 oor sydeiBoroyd soy], “woRDN oad adesspuey pur yemmauupse ‘pase ut open 2ydexBor0yd jo yamoxd at poruedusoose uonersodx2 pur Jo1j9q 2ousxpne Jo uontuyp xejruNS| YY “dopeney> saomys 24p Jo uones0%9 we “idiwws9 105 ‘9q 62 pudroxd rou Pinos pur auszedde 2tp pur eryzadns axp yo wear 24p 01 pom] 223m areniod anydeafionoyd ‘noi sup uC oNIS v JO auDUMA>xU 4p Jo Su pronase ssouyy, 0 sareaetutus paauted Jo woneamar us sana>1d & BurDq, oy poajor arensod auydesBoioyd ap <(epgT UL Aqysinos Funutoq) aperop e ueip auous apa eo ueds ayp J94¢) TeRaDe} a4p pur “punoguseD 2ip ‘pounSewun auf Jo aor aap seo SIs, “IpaUr JOxPO uw S>xEUE aimsid Aq poses 29 20u pjno> aeip-— IAW € “oNG—KeDs “UR 20} Aaance Jo ppy aanounsip & poysyigess> soummpid apeupuey jo aunayn 21p woy sydeso.oyd yo ani04gp awanbosuoo aup asne29q Kydes ory Jo ssouaiplo 2tp pooeiqui> siaydesowyA “ssid peaFoyoupar yo am 2tp pum JPSU poe ep pur ssep aypprus Kpueuttad sjasu seas eep AanTUL ‘Uio> & panos uoissajoud aup Yelp 2q 01 suId9s aso4 JoMSUE DHL, SOUTyDEU go semposd paguy Aqusiy axp ay ABurseo1our pue und speupuey 4H s59] pur ss9] Yoo! sud s1ydesBoIoyd axEUL or payiom Aaxp Sy pur ‘feoureypou se Aydesosoud Jo uonezuowerey> a1p 1da0>e 01 19809 08 aia Sappstisip sioydexZonoyd stp st uonson Fumunur a10ur 94 amyjno Tedd Fwoa8ng pur wepusue Sar pu Ssep appprus ueqan Suuoud ayp pur fessUDe ur uoReztfeHISNpUT ae pour wseds aanoyar e sem pyom ae ayp ur sqeuossjoxd Aq) Aude Boroyd on asuodsos ay wos AIpyy s10U 3s “IPow POUsgeAS 94p UT sephug wor 92162 P.H. Deamon, Evening. The Metropolitan Museum of Ar (52:524 7). Territorial Photography 179) To a great extent, che work of the early landscape photographers was personal work, or work intended for a rather small audience of dedicated amateurs and educated professionals, and it was devoted to structuring landscapes in familiar terms. There was no market for these photographie pictures, no way of bringing them to the attention of a large audience, since there was a8 of yet no mass production techniques of photographic printing or inespensive means of printing, photographs in ink for use in ‘The creation of a large and definable market for landscape photographs began in the mid-to-late 1850s by means of the incorporation of localized photographic businesses, in the form of combined phorographic and pub- lishing houses, that were dedicated to the production and sale of travel, architectural, and landscape prints and stercographic views to incoming tourists. Prints were initially sold at or close to points of geologic or Reographic interest, cither one at a time or in multiples arranged in the form of photographic albums. These photographic publishing houses first appeared in Europe in the 1850s and in the western United States by the early 1860s. In the United States, these houses extended their reach by selling each others’ work and by selling to print and stationery shops, so that by the early 1870s it was possible to visit, say, Denver and buy prints made in Yosemite Park by Carleton Watkins, landscapes made in Urah bby Charles Savage, photographs of the land adjacent to the tracks of the ‘Transcontinental Railroad by Andrew Joseph Russell, and s0 on. By the mid-1860s, two photographic supply houses (i.e., companies selling pho- tographic equipment and supplies to photographers) in New York State ‘began marketing landscape and stereographic views under license to local photographic publishing houses, through the mail, o a reasonably broad national audience. In a period of less then ten years, photographers thus managed to patch together a network of outlets for their own landscape work and came increasingly to guide their photographic production in terms of their most popular prints or in terms of the most popular prints sold by theie competitors. I am purposely framing the issue in commercial or business terms, ‘concentrating on the relationship of the producer to the consumer, be- ‘cause it exposes, rather than hides, some of the motives guiding photo- ‘graphic production in this period. I could adopt a more academic vocabu- lary and speak in the terms of rhetorical analysis (ie., of the relations between, artist, work of art, and audience), but I prefer, atleast for the time being, to suppress these in order to focus in a more homely manner fon the question of why these photogeaphs were made at all and how they came to look the way they did. Iam suggesting that they were produced to meet the demands of a growing middle-class andience, but saying thisJo so ayp ‘sue ouy yp wos poouersip 2q 01 aute> AytesBoroyd sy PO ne Np ee NE sod mae paw anaes wd Sau BeAW {Jo asne29q uonitoumaop Jo sosodind 305 pryast Ayureumad “wnpou ue. renan e se pozuonerey> mao seqndod cnn pax21w> pey Aydesoi0yd ‘soogt-pru yp dg -2insodxo Jo atm a4p 1 exo. 24f1 210329 poreadde 1 se pow ayn ange siey pesisdyd woyy nq voHeMBeUN posonoyun syd -eiSoroyd 2p wioyy 10 UoRENsnyT! Jo suonURAUOD WO4} OU poop U>>q any on “Afurproo3e ‘poonsiapum 219% sommae2} evo” sty pure “oqqysTs atp jo siadse yepgiodns ‘feuoeur aqp 02 sea] Te) ann pure wworedsuen spadsor ousos ul 219% sydeuSo.oyd :ansst yolew au uo poouBe s01r99uN aoyueR aIp SoUNOF] pue Apuep =xp aurjapneg ‘SuoNIsod pasoddo wos, BumBie soayp resus v pey spose JO YoRNpoad ayp 40} wiNNpoU ® se Aydeafonoyd yo anyea sanepar ax anoge uorurdo ut UOIINIp SH, acon ses 204 “1999 2p 29K SIouTEd suuinis saimueu st [wistueysous ydexso10yd ‘1] suysuns asou0y aup ang “99 01 posoddns ze doqp 1eys Jo Stremuod jryuey ypu aoiseul [eH -oduit uv aseojd or tou12,\ 298I0}{ 40 SO4E) HOEY 9UIOS 20} YBNOUD [Po sr ap, ‘potou ‘sey swe anoy Buna “SOUAOF] TPPUAL JDAN1O asks ueonbury 2p “Appsionuon Ae Pret SH st py apranus sep Jo ar -pidmas oip 01 syuetp So1padoaye a pordnao> 20 porueyddns 2aey uoos fs a1 ‘suomsury sa 0 2wos uy ae wuaw|ddns 01 pomoyre st AydesBoroyd J, ‘spe untp 947 .’smamo Jo sauauidopsop feuDreUr Apand, 249 ‘sprom sy ul—105 aise Busou3 v jo ouenodun Suse>aour 2ip pue danayn> semdod Jo sompounuos stp Jo SousSrowe stp Uo ypene Ue Ajfeor st AydesBor0yd ‘uo spene Samejapneg pina puouy 24} WT sutAIp 24p Jo Pwo: ays apraieyss pound, ped “a pages a4 se ,“Ansnpur, s1ydeRoioyd oxp ey Sunou ‘AyderForoyd uodn usoids sty pow aureppneg soeYD ,“6s8T {Jo uopes,, sy UT “eau Sienisdyd 9ep‘Tenioxeur atp “erayey atp Jo UE 3Up ( pateazja 10 pousisuod ‘ianse atp Jo aso.onuT atp: uodn Sumpusdap ‘seas Aydeaoioyd aps ‘eopt ay} pure “anqutioo ‘anne eur otp Jo weay yp Sunuosaudoa se posioouo> 210m size o1ydes 2a pue Bunureg “suu>1 feo -ojoauo ut ang wrpour uso 89g SoOUDINYLP ayp Jo Suu HOU A SUNSeD:DUN poqunsap seas uorezedos stip pure ‘sse annoidap soyao oup woo Sw fem -dantioa tr poresedas ag 01 ume AydexBoroyd ‘soggy ate|-o1-pruy tp Key ‘wstueqpouw poyjonuo> Arjetmsnput 40 ée>tRojouypar & Jo roApoxd ajqeoydas Afpuruyur axp 2M] “WOH paonpord-sseus © 2y] Yoo] 01 pasod sans sexe autad srydesSo.0yd feopt 2xp ‘spuom so1n0 uy “ou UoMDApoad © Wo poiNypeW UB9q PeY MJ Se Paxoo] TeIp arepins ayNsseIB ‘possojs Aqyfiy © yun aud € sem ‘Sre9K mop soyBouT 20} Poxrn>e yusem ang SOSRT-pRu 24p UT poreIMULIO] IsIy sem Y>tyN “Bud snydesBor0yd Jo opt ay, “sony vides Jo 298 UNI so4Res 01 PSISHASDI seA% 2009 214 pur ‘sso stansny ¥ 2sey 01 ated Aoup “soggr ate] axa Aq “epaus yuad TST AydesBoioud revone, J9{H0 Ur punoy 2804p 01 pouHopUOD reYp sony SAOLEA o1 PoUIeT 9B pe Podeyans anew uooq éjsnotnard pey siuad andeafloxoye seasoy Spotlaep orajduioo ses saund aaydexBor0ye go [pay ple Yoo austsasvesK49 a Sle -uonuppy ‘soured pauosaidas je Bitoxtp uoRe=INPp Jo uorst>oud ainjosqe tse Aq panejdas seas anbsaumoid ax yo soaronop 44 pozoaty Yur Os ysty Jo souosqe aanejau 2yp pur ssousansoS8ns a¢p y>tyas t sanaaid. paajossd {pa ‘pareronse xqysty 2oy aouaxgpoud stoup ur Appe9p> aumnb 99s 9q wea noge ayfinoag foyp aonavead ur aBueyp 24 Jo sumed} UO ‘sydestIooyd Ut uy o1 parsodxo pue padoy aoupapne sy pure Aap sonjea ax Jo susd4 Uy pur Atpesojouypor yiog AydesBordyd pounsoyseen sfeuorssajord sou 31P. pur ‘syuex poweonpo-so] toy 20> sioydeiBowyd ‘sonomoy ‘ASU -seanuy “sisydesBoroyd perounuo> pouunys oy “Cyenseg ysoqee|g Ape T Jo purgsny 2p ose pue ary Jo Awopesy yedoy 2p Jo 2uopisoud >1p ‘Syppseg SSpeYD ANS sem “eggT UL Porap ‘Aa!D0g anydeBaoU [ehoy 21p Jo auoprsoad asay 2¢p) sisque se pauren pey oym sioydesSouoyd pre ‘sisiue “usuussoutsng yssaoons pue porempo ‘u>tapUEE ‘sieDorstE Aq Poreurwop usaq pey sona.os ydedoioyd ‘su sup HUA, -dydesBoroyd Jo vonmuyap pur 2onoead oyp uy auiod Burusma v poxyeus sosgy-pru 341 SouoIpne Japeoxg Je} Jo uourdo Sumy AjuasaN9 2xp om se BuIVOA S808 945.98) UL Ing “ae jo soRD pure SIsmIE Jo JTEGDq Uo B4Ods ayese Trpdatod onstue ue yaua amypour Ese sump ou oyxeu pinos fs pure aoustiadxa smo sous 01 ssopupouon ey Ajgenazut ‘Sisisur apse se ‘Tom sodon anbsommo1d Jo asn Sunyew sydesoroyd ‘os st sup J “pfrom 42 Jo sous119d¥9 ano 01 ‘nu 9q JoUUED “wstuEYpoUE HeLUMYUT UE Jo Ionpoid axp ZuIDg ‘sydes¥0r -oyd aexp uondusmsse s,aypses| Uo smoTfo} 3 «,"dIRaeU Jo 2aUaLIadxD MO, sqre> 24S 324% 01 onan stat se TeYOSUT ATuO DW anoKsTe sey sumIaId & ‘SOgRT 242 ut AydesBonoyd pure we Uo ios e ‘oyESe yBDqeZIIg APET 01 Funpioooy ‘sioydeBo1oyd adeospur jo uonesous8 aay aun yo 320300 217 pouwspun Jjpiewhy weyyeamaeu Ut joqPq step asne3eq ai>y dn sup Bung 1 “poouotiad sem audos © woy noge jenuasso Sunpouios studsoadas “ayngisuas 224 20 sty s085audx0 ‘Soma>id aup Jo aayxeur axp sore>ydust “AOU apounsoe yar aumoid e ase2) at ‘omid v awIp joljaq axp st TeIUD ssop a sump 21p jo aug ‘seww> tonow rep je yBLe anbsomsid ay o2 or, -onap P‘espuo8 ut ‘pur “sui0g eamaeU jo Aourea wopures ‘wonssdEns pacts -eydus> yey) ou0 ‘wonoidep Jo soutrew susipermuew v yo soueasoyuT at resp o1 Suman Siqeqord pue ajqeun aiom fou, ‘uonotdap adesspun, Jo sodon 2p tau seyrure auinb Aexousd a19m pur sosse]> paBoyiaad otf oy sure sioyesZouo4d jo wonerous$ asxy aya eqn Sun0U Aq weg y pip damp dea oa 00} 01 sured Aaxp Ags anoge fe we YPN ADs AyDods 01 U1B9q 20U S>op 2ephus wor gg