Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Illustrations -- Foreword -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction: Nature, Country, and Landscape -- 1. The Political Landscape as Polity and Place -- 2. Country and Landscape -- 3. "Masquing" the Body Politic of Britain -- 4. Landscaping the Body Politic of the British State -- 5. Landscaping Britain's Country and Nature -- 6. Gendering the Nation's Natural Landscape -- 7. Landscaping Racial and National Progress -- 8. The "Country" of the United States contra the "Landscape" of America's New World -- Conclusion: Landscape, Place, and the Body Politic -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index.

The geographical subdiscipline of chorography, as described by Ptolemy and as interpreted in the Renaissance, played an important philosophical and practical role in the development of landscape as a form of spatial representation. This applies both to representation in the form of pictures, as in landscape painting, and to representation through the medium of perspectival theater scenery. These pictorial and scenic forms represented a reconfiguration of Platonic binaries between celestial and terrestrial nature and between mind (intellect) and body (sense). This reconfiguration generated a characteristically 'modern' dichotomy between society and its natural surroundings as well as the qualitative and the quantitative. The root of chorography is choros (also spelled chora), which basically means 'place'. Present-day philosophical explorations of the meaning of choros suggest that the Plato-inspired Renaissance artists were essentially seeking to represent that which for Plato was actually unrepresentable. This interpretation is born out by an examination of the classical Greco-Roman chorography, as well as the expression of choros through the medium of classical Greek theater. This nonrepresentational notion of choros and chorography, as interpreted in present-day philosophy, has important implications for the contemporary concern with nonrepresentational geographies, landscape, and performance.

International audience ; The question of representation in the definition of landscape is arguably at the nexus of important theoretical issues in the social sciences and humanities, and is in evident need of clarification. A key but largely overlooked concept in the debate on landscape and representation is the concept of alienation and, by extension, the concepts of commodification and reification. This paper will first examine the relation between landscape representation and alienation in terms of its substantive historical meaning, the transferral of ownership of rights in the land=property and the loss of rights which effectively makes one an alien, or foreigner, in the land. It will then examine this relationship in terms of the philosophical concern with alienation and objectification, particularly as explicated by the literary scholar and philosopher Georg Lukaacs.

The question of representation in the definition of landscape is arguably at the nexus of important theoretical issues in the social sciences and humanities, and is in evident need of clarification. A key but largely overlooked concept in the debate on landscape and representation is the concept of alienation and, by extension, the concepts of commodification and reification. This paper will first examine the relation between landscape representation and alienation in terms of its substantive historical meaning, the transferral of ownership of rights in the land=property and the loss of rights which effectively makes one an alien, or foreigner, in the land. It will then examine this relationship in terms of the philosophical concern with alienation and objectification, particularly as explicated by the literary scholar and philosopher Georg Lukaacs.