This article was downloaded by:[Swets Content Distribution]

On: 9 March 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 768307933]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713437121
Living with and looking at landscape
David Lowenthal a
a
University College London, UK

Online Publication Date: 01 October 2007

To cite this Article: Lowenthal, David (2007) 'Living with and looking at landscape',
Landscape Research, 32:5, 635 - 656
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/01426390701552761
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552761

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
 Landscape Research,
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

Vol. 32, No. 5, 635 656, October 2007

Living with and Looking at Landscape

DAVID LOWENTHAL
University College London, UK

ABSTRACT Landscape is experienced in countless ways by all human beings, both individually
and as members of communities, nations and humanity as a whole. Concern for rural locales as
the loci of social, economic and domestic existence has, in recent centuries, often been seen in
accord, but more usually in conict, with attachment to the scenic qualities of landscape couched
in aesthetic terms. Celebrated in art and in history, landscapes connote stability and security, but
living with them is regarded as a virtue, looking at them condemned as shallow scenic
appreciation. The stress between these two sets of values is exacerbated by the decline of rural
economies throughout the developed world, the abandonment of agricultural landscapes and the
loss of traditional countryside ties. Shifting landscape attachments reect the timing, extent and
current pace of rural depopulation. Whether despite or owing to their increasing remoteness from
everyday life, landscapes are heavily freighted with moral and symbolic worth as ecological
paradigms and as rightful common inheritances, while spurned as scenically frivolous.

KEY WORDS: Landscape aesthetics, rural attachments, agricultural decline, scenery, tourism

Landscape is everyones fundamental heritage. It is all embracing and unavoidable.

It inspires and shapes much of what we learn and do. Landscape is where we all
make our homes, do our work, live our lives, dream our dreams. Yet for each of us it
means something dierent, formed by unique collective and individual experiences.
Here I discuss changing Western apprehension of landscape, in the rst place as loci
of settlement and occupation, subsequently as scenes of spectacle. The taming of
nature, the experience of travel and the development of landscape painting
habituated early-modern Europeans to look at the real world as a series of static,
contrived views. The Claude glass accustomed viewers to consider scenery an object
of detached contemplationto be appreciated like a painted picture. The practice of
judging landscape aesthetically derives from this doubly pictorial inheritance.
Landscapes are formed by landscape tastes, I declared, too sweepingly, 42 years
ago (Lowenthal & Prince, 1965, p. 196). Aesthetic concerns were then all the rage in
England, where the Countryside Act of 1949 had designated dozens of protected
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Taylor, 2007), and in the US where President
Johnson had just pressed Congress to safeguard The Natural Beauty of Our
Country (Tilden, 1977, p. 106). But scenic beauty is now out of vogue, along with

Correspondence Address: David Lowenthal, Pearson Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.
Email: d.lowenthal@ucl.ac.uk. David Lowenthal is Emeritus Professor of Geography, University College
London.

ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/07/050635-22 2007 Landscape Research Group Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/01426390701552761
 636 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

the detached contemplation thought to engender its appreciation. Scenic charms are
derided as supercial, frivolous, even soulless; to dwell on decor is to scant integral
landscape values, notably ecological tness, residential sustainability, community
health and historical authenticity. A leading cultural landscape text refers to
aesthetic objectives only to note the disastrous eects of applying them at Cades
Cove National Park (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p. 128). Not one essay in a recent set
on landscape form, process and function discusses appearance or aesthetics, let alone
taste or beauty (Crews-Meyer & Young, 2006). Even to mention how a landscape
looks would seem to distract attention from the serious issue of how it functions.
Here I show how ongoing rural change rst fuels and then invalidates this anti-
aesthetic stance.

Landscapes Portmanteau Diversities

How landscapes are valued varies with locale and epoch in ways poorly understood.
We have little notion even about what ties might be common to all, which specic to
given times, places or peoples. Over past centuries, philosophers and planners
commonly framed landscape preferences on aesthetic criteria alone, their stance
ideally if not solely scenic. They invoked universal principles to show how and why
some scenes look superior to others. Classical, medieval and Renaissance tenets
assumed that regularity, harmony, smoothness and symmetry were inherently
pleasing. The supposed roundness of the primordial globe, the proportions of the
human body, the symbolic perfection of geometric gures like the Golden
Section were enduring exemplars of beauty in nature as well as artat least until
the advent of Romantic adoration of shaggy, inchoate and fragmented sublimity.
Hogarths famed serpentine line of beauty applied by extension to natural features
like river meanders. Broad-crowned trees (Gordon Orians), prospect-and-refuge (Jay
Appleton), and ease of legibility (Stephen and Rachel Kaplan) have been advanced as
preferences made universal by human evolution since prehistory (Tveit et al., 2006).
Awareness of landscape involves active participation, however motionless the
beholder. Wind and weather, light and shadow, clouds and sky, seasonal foliage, the
disposition of birds, animals and people make each glimpse a new scene, even when
seen repeatedly from the same spot. Moreover, landscapes change as we move
through them: each step, each turn of the head, engages new vistas. So much depends
on our physical interaction that no static scenic consensus can adequately reect it.1
That beauty is in the eye of the beholder (Hungerford, 1878)the Victorian
aphorism reects David Humes subjectivist philosophyforecloses any hope of
concurrence. Potentially inherent tastes pale in the light of time- and culture-bound
predispositions. What might seem innate to all is swamped by what is learned and
recalled at specic times and places.
That landscape attachments vary with locale and language is obvious; how and
why they dier is more a matter of folk wisdom than of scholarly ndings. What
landscape traits are admired or deplored, what symbols they embody, how novelty
and familiarity, promised enhancement or threatened loss aect our encounters with
them, has received little comparative scrutiny. Knowledge of [beauty] is the
knowledge about the Earth which is most worth having, declared Sir Francis
Younghusband (1920, pp. 4, 7). He urged geographers to compare the beauty of one
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 637
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

region with the beauty of another so that we may realize the beauty of each with a
greater intensity and clearness. That project remains unrealized, perhaps unrealiz-
able.

Cultural Dierences
Linguistics alone throws up daunting impediments. Landscape, landschaft, land-
schap, landscab, territoire, territorio, paysage, paesaggio imply dierent emphases on
site and scene, occupance and observation (Scazzosi, 2004, pp. 338, 349). Syntactical
phraseology reveals embedded cultural distinctions. A sign in the Swiss village of
Chateau dOex says in English Please do not pick the owers. In German: It is
forbidden to pick the owers. In French: Those who love the mountains, leave them
their owers. These phrases prescribe divergent approaches toward the same aim
English courteous behaviour, German minatory prohibition, French aesthetic
fondness.
Cultural tradition shapes other dierences. Fondness for slow accretion in old
England, to give one example, may be said to contrast with creative urgency in new
America, and with abrupt disjunction between pre- and post-Islamic features in
Egypt. Cultural cleavage fragments the Egyptian scene, disjoining ancient from
modern. Here stand pharaonic temples and concrete apartment houses, [but]
nothing links them (Fedden, 1945, pp. 8 9). The pharaonic past has small appeal to
Muslims, except to be touted to tourists; Egypts pagan residues aront Islamic faith.
Nilotic antiquity is a rejected cultural heritage, left to the enjoyment (and often the
theft) of aliens (Geuze, 2007).
The English landscape, in contrast, is quintessentially lauded as a legibly enduring,
ever-accreting palimpsest, the closest thing we will ever experience to a time
machine (Oliver, 2007, p. 8). The historian W. G. Hoskins (1963, p. 228), scanning
from the standpoint of a Saxon boundary bank, could tell:

which of these farms is recorded in Domesday Book, and which came in the
great 13th century colonisation; to see the Georgian stucco house of some
impoverished squire whose ancestors settled on that hillside in the time of King
John and took their name from it; to know that behind one there lies an ancient
estate of St Bonifaces long-vanished abbey, and that in front stretches the
demesne farm of Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings; to be aware . . . that one is
part of an immense unbroken stream that has owed over this scene for more
than a thousand years.

These ancestral traces merge in Englands famed lowland tapestry, vaunted as the
multi-generational creation of its people and requiring their continuing protection
and improvement. But to understand and appreciate this palimpsest requires
historically informed observation. As Julian Barness (1998, p. 60) ctional theme-
park entrepreneur puts it,

The point of the countryside is not to go through it but to be in it . . . I stood on a

hill . . . and looked down on an undulating eld past a copse towards a river
and . . . a pheasant stirred beneath my feet. . . . A person passing through would
 638 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

no doubt have assumed that Dame Nature was going about her eternal
business. I knew better. . . . The hill was an Iron Age burial mound, the
undulating eld a vestige of Saxon agriculture, the copse was a copse only
because a thousand other trees had been cut down, the river was a canal and the
pheasant had been hand-reared by a gamekeeper.

The English landscape was extolled as a product of sustained and orderly eort by
explicit contrast with untamed America, in terms that married aesthetic with social
and political propriety, in the wake of the American Revolution and in the midst of
the French. On lawns . . . smoothed by healthful industry, Anna Seward deplored
the picturesque Jacobinism of taste that would have nature as well as man indulged
in that uncurbed and wild luxuriance, which must soon render our landscape-island
rank, weedy, damp, and unwholesome as the incultivate savannas of America.2 Two
centuries later the same sentiment persists. If you could get through the bogs and
jungles and the thickets [that covered] this country one million years ago, declared a
recent Tory environment minister, you would say, What a dreadful place. The
valleys were mosquito-ridden swamps; the mountains were covered in hideous oak
thickets and there were just a few shacks, where miserable people attempted to live.
Now this is a country full of beautiful landscape . . . , all built by man, and we are
constantly enhancing it.3
Pioneer American settlers likewise accounted the wilderness a dangerous and
unsightly impediment. The contrary taste, rapturous adoration of divine nature
unsullied by human impress, emerged later, as wilderness dwindled and noxious
cities spread. Two examples must suce here. Americas most popular historian,
George Bancroft ([1837] 1842 1874, 2, pp. 271 272), compared the Hudson River
valley previous to European settlement with the scene of his own day. When Henry
Hudson rst saw it in 1607,

vegetable life and death were mingled hideously together. The horrors of
corruption frowned on the fruitless fertility of uncultivated nature. Reptiles
sported in the stagnant pools, or crawled unharmed over piles of mouldering trees;
masses of decaying vegetation fed the exhalations with the seeds of pestilence.

But now, in 1837, exulted Bancroft,

The earth glows with the colors of civilization; the banks of the streams are
enamelled with the richest grasses; woodlands and cultivated elds are
harmoniously blended . . . The thorn has given way to the rosebush; the
cultivated vine clambers over rocks where the brood of serpents used to nestle;
while industry smiles at the changes she has wrought, and inhales the bland air
which now has health on its wings. And man is still in harmony with nature,
which he has subdued, cultivated, and adorned.

In Bancrofts eyes, deforestation, the railroad, mineral extraction, and commerce

spelled aesthetic progress and spiritual regeneration.
Seventy years later John Fox drew the reverse conclusion in his bestseller Trail of
the Lonesome Pine. By then Bancrofts symbols of triumphant conquest had become
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 639
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

emblems of horrendous desecration. The loggers axe and the hewn stump no longer
meant the advance of civilization; they now denoted the rape of innocent nature
(Cikovsky, 1971; Cox et al., 1985, pp. 144 147). Wrecked by soulless loggers,
Cumberland Gaps once crystal-clear stream was laden with sawdust and black as
soot. The novels protagonist, a mining engineer turned nature lover, vows to
restore Lonesome Cove: Ill tear down those mining shacks, . . . stock the river with
bass again. And Ill plant young poplars to cover the sight of every bit of uptorn
earth along the mountain there. Ill bury every bottle and tin can in the Cove. Ill
take away every sign of civilization . . . and leave old Mother Nature to cover up the
scars (Fox, 1908, pp. 201 202). Landscape beauty and spiritual regeneration
required eradicating the marks of industry and restoring wild nature.
These visual preferences are saturated with moral judgements about untouched
and inhabited landscapes. A dierent Old World slant emerges in John Ruskins
double evocation of the Swiss Jura: as he saw it in Switzerland, and as he imagined it
in America. His Seven Lamps of Architecture ([1848] 1961, pp. 167 69) limns a
delectable pastoral forest, blessed with all the solemnity [yet] none of the savageness
of the Alps, where clear green streams wind along their well-known beds; and under
the dark quietness of the undisturbed pines, there spring up, year by year, such
company of joyful owers as I know not the like of among all the blessings of the
earth. The scene seemed to Ruskin dependent on nothing beyond its own secluded
and serious beauty. But then he paused, imagining it not in Switzerland, but rather
a scene in some aboriginal forest of the New Continent:

The writer well remembers the sudden blankness and chill [thus] cast upon
it . . . The owers in an instant lost their light, the river its music; the hills became
oppressively desolate; a heaviness in the boughs of the darkened forest showed
how much of their former power had been dependent upon a life which was not
theirs . . . Those ever springing owers and ever owing streams had been dyed
by the deep colors of human endurance, valor, and virtue; and the crests of the
sable hills . . . received a deeper worship

from the ramparts of the Castle of Grandson, that massive structural memory of
Swiss medieval valour, at their border.
In short, landscape achieves beauty only when enlivened by hoary human history.
It followed that the charm of romantic association[of] ruins and traditions, the
remains of architecture, the traces of battleelds, the precursorship of eventful
historycan be felt only by the European. The instinct to which it appeals can
hardly be felt in America (Ruskin, [1873] 1886, p. 292). American travellers home
from visits to Europe concurred with Ruskin, bemoaning their raw, unnished land.
The absence of a pictured, illuminated Past, judged the historian John Lothrop
Motley (1849), left America with a naked and impoverished appearance. All new
and bare, felt William Cullen Bryant, it had merely the beauty of a face without an
expression [because] it wants the associations of tradition which are the soul and
interest of scenery.4 In short, the nature and presence (or absence) of cultural
context determined reactions to landscape. Changing preferences for scenes
variously enhanced by or largely devoid of human impress continue to embroil
landscape devotees the world over.
 640 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

Landscapes Daunting Scope

That collective landscape attitudes remain little more than anecdotally known
reects the huge range of the subject and the paucity of generalists. Most landscape
studies stem from specic perspectives, those of farmers or foresters, hikers or
painters, developers or conservationists, seldom from all these purviews taken
together. Intense concern with one of myriad competing and often exclusive
interestsecological, economic, political, aesthetic, residential, touristicmilitates
against any unied vision. Despite landscapes centrality to our existence,
comprehensive insight is lacking.
It is because landscape is everyones concern that it is almost no ones prime
concern. Those for whom it is their primary professional focus are few and infernally
occupied; most landscape architects are too busy reshaping scenes to bother
theorizing about them. And to shape them well, they need to command an awesome
sweep of expertise: art, architecture, engineering, botany, psychology, history and
literature, for a start.
Ruskins ([1873] 1886, 3, pp. 283 284) homily on how those of various special
bents look at trees applies no less to entire landscapes. His imagined engineer

is struck by the manner in which the [trees] roots hold the ground, and sets
himself to examine their bres, little more conscious of the beauty of the tree
than if he were a rope-maker untwisting the strands of a cable. Struck by certain
groupings of their colours, [the artist] note[s them] mechanically for future use,
with as little feeling as a cook setting down the constituents of a newly
discovered dish. [To the nostalgic traveller] the sight of the trees calls up some
happy association, and presently he forgets them, and pursues the memories
they summoned; [the poet-fantasist] impressed by the wild coiling of the boughs
and roots, changes them in his fancy into dragons and monsters.

But comprehensive awareness of the trees requires all these perceptions and trains of
thought to be combined. The power of fully perceiving any natural object depends
on grouping and fastening all our fancies about it as a centre.5 And to Ruskins
several perspectives should be added those of resident and visitor, developer and
naturalist, ecologist and conservationist, and nowadays tour guide and advertising
copywriter.6

The Growing Cult of Landscape

If landscape professionals shy away from landscape discourse, others are
increasingly obsessed by it. Todays successors to 18th-century pundits who prated
of the Sublime and the Picturesque are not landscape gardeners or city planners; they
are cultural theorists and social scientists, historians and anthropologists, who seize
on landscape as a trendy catch-all term, not least because the word suggests a
down-to-earth reality absent from their appropriations of it. Like signier,
landscape is an academic open sesame, a rallying cry among the cognoscenti, an
avant-garde denotation in ction and music, food and folklore. It so serves because
the word itself has come to imply what is nowadays held to be dear and goodthe
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 641
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

local, the particular, the authentic, the natural. As natural (not contrived),
landscape reects what is trusted. As the locus of everyday life, landscape oers
readily visible linkages. As typical and commonplace, landscape expresses popular
will at every scale from neighbourhood to nation.

Views of Landscape Traditionally Disparaged

Landscape beauty was until recently very much a minority taste. Up to the early 19th
century nature was widely derogated, seen as fearsome and horrid in the wild,
visually commonplace in domesticated arenas. Earlier devotees of Virgilian pastoral
had been poets and painters and their elite patrons, seldom rural denizens, who
supposedly lived in but did not consciously look at their surroundings. Only the best
of men were permitted to perambulate the Arcadian settings of Palladian country
houses. The actual shepherds . . . had no natural place in these . . . enclosed
landscape scenes (Olwig, 2002, p. 121). In deploring the contrived beautication
of land from which peasants were evicted by Englands Enclosure Acts, pre-empting
arable elds and villages for manorial parks and gardens, Oliver Goldsmiths The
Deserted Village (1770) idealized a homespun prospect that was bucolic instead of
scenic:

Sweet smiling village, loveliest of the lawn

Thy sports are ed and all thy charms withdrawn . . .
The land adorned for pleasure all
In barren splendour feebly waits the fall . . .
. . . where scattered hamlets rose,
Unwieldy wealth and cumbrous pomp repose.
Thus fares the land, by luxury betrayed,
In natures simplest charms at rst arrayed.

By turning elds and meadows into landscape, landlords sacriced living com-
munities to gardenesque greed. Innocent virtue and rustic simplicity were expunged
by ruthless and immoral power, to satisfy an inhumane perverted aesthetic.
Beyond the landscape gardeners aesthetic, landscape painting was long held the
lowest of the arts. Devotees of the picturesque and the sublime repudiated workaday
rural scenes as vulgar, urging artists to stick to picturesque ruins. But even the nest
landscape in and of itself was inferior to delineations of humans and their creations
(Hewison, 1976; Payne, 1993). Nature, thought incoherent because unintentional,
lacked ideal forms toward which painters might strive. Hence landscape depiction
could not be morally uplifting. No landscape is a whole, or even a complete part of
an organic whole, explained a 19th-century authority:

Every landscape is merely the fragmentary contingent resultant of unrelated

forces successive in time, discordant in action, and tending to no common aim.
. . . Landscape painting, then, is but the portraiture of inanimate nature, and as a
moral teacher it can but repeat her lessons. . . . This falls short of the dignity of
historical painting, [just as] unconscious Nature is beneath the rank of divinely
endowed man. (Marsh, 1860, pp. 52 53)
 642 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

The cognoscenti scorned popular admiration of wild scenery. A Harvard

philosopher termed natures overrated beauties tarnished by rank, unchaste
profusion [and] unintelligible selection and composition (Prall, 1929, p. 66). His
reproach echoed Oscar Wildes revulsion against nature as not only uncomfort-
ablehard and lumpy and damp, and full of dreadful black insectsbut unsightly.
The more we study Art, the less we care for Nature. What Art really reveals to us is
Natures lack of design, her curious crudities, her extraordinary monotony, her
absolutely unnished condition.7
Proper landscape appreciation was the privileged domain of the cultivated; the
optic was that of the outsider (Samuel, 1998, pp. 143 146). The average layman,
Kenneth Clark (1956, p. 18) summed up elite British assumptions about humble
rural denizens, would simply have said that nature was not enjoyable. The elds
meant nothing but hard work. Agricultural depression from the 1880s through the
1940s had left landscapes attractive only to devotees of decay; neither elds nor
farming seemed picturesque; rural cottages were slums, surrounded by dilapidated
barns, dark and dirty cowsheds, muck and mire. Farm labourers were quite
unmoved by the beauty around them, whether on the land or in the village. What
do you think about when you are sitting on your tractor, all day? a [Second World
War] land-girl asked an expert tractor-driver. I looks at the bloody earth, he
replied, and I says, blast it! (Orwin, 1945, pp. 8, 88, 105 106).
Had there been anything to admire, ordinary folk were deemed incapable of scenic
appreciation, owing to their innate defects or to their degrading milieux. Rude or
vulgar people are indierent to their natural surroundings, held George Santayana
(1896, p. 133). The beautiful daily aspects of their environment escape them
altogether. An English traveller concluded that mass aesthetic spirit has been
broken on the wheel of circumstance. . . . Bound to live among the architectural
vomit of a soulless age, [they] are compelled to regard their surroundings with
unseeing eyes.8
Those unable to see became threats to the now nationally treasured survival of the
very scenery Goldsmith had assailed as the pompous reserve of an elite few. Securing
Brockhampton estate in Herefordshire for the National Trust in the 1940s, James
Lees-Milne mourned that this small seat in the heart of our secluded country is now
deprived of its last squire. A whole social system has broken down. What will replace
it beyond government by the masses, uncultivated, rancorous, savage, philistine,
enemies of all things beautiful.9 Englands noble parklands, endangered by the hoi
polloi, were for countryside columnist William Beach Thomas integral to the
landscape as to civilisation.10

Modern Acclamation
Yet it was precisely these enemies of all things beautiful who were now landscapes
most avid admirers. By the mid-20th century, thought Clark (1956, p. 142), almost
every Englishman [presumably excepting his average layman], if asked what he
meant by beauty, would begin to describe a landscapeperhaps a lake and
mountain, perhaps a cottage garden, perhaps a wood with bluebells and silver
birches . . . ; but, at all events, a landscape. Half a century before, scenic
representations of every kind had become far and away the most popular artistic
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 643
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

adornments in American homes (Zalesch, 1996, p. 92). Increasingly, scenic glories

became emblems of patriotic virtue on everything from postage stamps to license
plates to table mats.
In continental Europe, landscapes were rst popularized as objects of collective
visual aection towards the end of the 18th century. Along with other aspects of folk
culturearchitecture, folklore, languagenational landscape attachments reson-
ated with populist feeling. They spelled rural liberation and peasant emancipation, a
release from ancient provincial and parochial bondage. Two centuries on, landscapes
remain compelling icons of national identity. Countries still commonly depict
themselves in landscape terms, hallowing what they fancy uniquely theirs. In
Denmark the entire landscape is historicized as a metaphor for the nation and its
history (Stig Srensen, 1996). English national consciousness, writes Adam
Nicolson (1992, p. 27), is not the consciousness of a ag, of a language or even
really a race, but of a landscape. Every national anthem praises special natural
splendours, unique scenic beauties.11
Today not merely exceptional but representative landscapes become collective
legacies. Spectacular features, gardens and parks have long been cherished. But
recent decades have vastly extended the patrimonial mainstream. Consider the
estates of the National Trust for England and Wales. Forty years back, the Trusts
great houses and grounds alone were prized; few gave a thought to the look of the
arable land ruthlessly milked to feed these showpieces. Today, Trust members, up
ten-fold, esteem estate arable lands as treasures of no less worth. UNESCO has
increasingly designated Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value not for features that
are unique but for qualities that are felt characteristic. Landscape is everywhere, in
an English conservators reading of the European Landscape Convention, and an
ordinary area of landscape is as much party of our heritage as any palace or
church (Fairclough, 2007).
From idealizing nations, landscapes nowadays turn to idealizing nature.
Landscapes current salience stems, in substantial measure, from nostalgia for
bygone wild or rural virtues, in an urbanized world smudged by the sameness of
global enterprise and communications. It stands for what seems traditional,
natural, innate. Attachment grows with tending it. Deracinated denizens of
anonymous, ephemeral places mourn what once seemed durably distinctive. Some
seek links with ancestral locales or childhood milieus. Others cherish or contrive
scenery and social fabric that made rural locales our place rather than just any
place. Its our land, insisted John Steinbecks tenant farmers. We measured it and
broke it up. We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. . . . Thats what
makes it oursbeing born on it, working it, dying on it (1939, p. 37). Today what
makes it ours is less and less being born on it and working it, let alone dying on
it. It is the absence of work that attracts the new resident, the very fact of being
distanced from the soil, of becoming unearthly, . . . freed from the imperatives of
nature (Mabey, 2005, p. 13). As a mid-century New York writer put it, many of
us love the country precisely because we are not really part of it.12 Landscape is
increasingly valued as a foreign country.
Yet rural areas simultaneously feature in Green ideals for quite other traits:
diversity, complexity, fragile yet unbroken chains of being, humility about what
cannot be known or controlled, frugality and parsimony in stewardship. Unlike our
 644 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

forebears throughout most of history, we now see nature as a common legacy

needing collaborative care. Fears of global warming, species loss, ecocide routinely
relayed by the media magnify landscape awareness and attachment.
Nature worship, classical pastoralism, Romantic and post-industrial urban
misgivings are not new. But their convergence in the modern cult of rurality reects
two recent developments: heightened concern for a balance that equates nature with
virtue, and distress at the growing gulf between traditional rural pursuits and
residual rural landscapes. Landscape and rural life now seem ominously disjoined.
Rural habitation dwindles; crops need ever less human input. Cultivated lands feel
divorced from social realityless visibly distinctive where tillage is intensive, less
economically viable elsewhere. Time-honoured rustic and pastoral practices collapse.
Bereft of social context, landscape becomes vacant, vacuous, void of experienced
meaningjust scenery.
Rural scenes were once the time-honoured domain of farmers and herders,
resident guardians of landscape health. Technology has progressively weakened that
linkage; its virtual severance is now widely apparent. Most of us are city dwellers;
ever less landscape is under traditional rural care. Farmers are still pre-eminent
stewards, but ecologically sanctied rural landscape now needs all our care. It is also
the right place to live. Rural scenes promise a spacious plenitude and companionable
seclusion denied in cities.
Such notions are not new, of course; Arcadian yearning dates back to ancient
Rome. What is new is the widespread urge to reify the myth. Before, landscape
longings were largely vicarious, indulged briey now and then, on holiday, in
weekend retreats or in retirement. Fleeting episodic visits are still the norm. But more
and more townies think the countryside theirs by right. Three out of four Britons
claim to opt for rural life (Bennett, 1993; Ellman, 1993; Halfacree, 2006).
Remoteness no longer impedes such prospects. Car and phone, personal computer
and fax put country dwelling within urban reach.
A century or two back, rural life was routinely reviled as villainous idiocy. It was
one thing to love landscape; quite another to accept the folk who lived there, let
alone to share that life. Later, the dim-witted peasant became the rural salt of the
earth, a fount of native wisdom and virtue. Both gures are now passe: farmers
today are neither demons nor angels. Many are not even rural, but town dwellers
who just work in the country. And as the rural landscape is stripped of its social
carapace, any townsman may equally make his mark there.
An English countryside connoisseur a century ago complained that the radiant
beauty of still unsullied expanses of corn land and wind-swept moor and heather and
quiet down standing white and clean was for most urbanites no more than a toy
and a plaything for whose vanishing traditions and enthusiasms they care not at all
(Masterman, 1909, pp. 204 208). Now many urbanites care more intensely than
many locals. They are often damned for knowing nothing of the rural milieus they
craveprizing the scenery while spurning the slurry. But the few old-time denizens
left may know little more. No longer need the rural incomer feel shame because he
milks no cow, sows no seed, reaps no corn. Often no one else does either, or only
remote and rootless hirelings. Of the rural economy little may be left but chopping
wood and picking apples. The countryside becomes solely a place for living, not for
making a living.
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 645
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

The farmer-cum-ecologist vision dies hard; those still on the land are still apt to be
so adulated. But awareness of intensive exploitationhedges uprooted, mass use of
commercial fertilizer, vast tracts converted to prairies and conifer foresterodes this
image. The demigod farmer faithful to conserved tradition gets deposed; stewardship
passes from born countryman to anxious urbanite. Many of UNESCOs newly
designated cultural landscapes of universal value are precious conjunctions of
nature and culture too fragile to survive without international protection (Rossler,
2006, p. 348).

Depopulating Countrysides: European Comparisons

Up to a century ago, the mass of mankind almost everywhere lived by agriculture. In
Europe, at least, time has reversed this. And rural exodus forfeits intimacy with land
as the seat of livelihood and everyday life. No longer the fount of home and family,
metier or livelihood, rural scenes become loci of vacation and avocation. European
landscapes are progressively emptied of traditional habitants. But as these emptying
landscapes suer scenic and social transformationpollution, ecological degrada-
tion, agricultural intensicationthey elicit pleas for protection by national and
international agencies. Laments of rural decay, dating back two centuries or more in
parts of northern Europe, peaked during the post-war decades in much of the west
and centre, and are heard more and more today in southern and eastern countries.

Where Rural Life Is Long Gone

Rural folkways are remote memories in lands long urban and industrial. Britain is
the main exemplar; but relatively few today in the Netherlands, Belgium or Germany
have had rst-hand farm experience. By 1960 the rural labour force in Britain and
the Low Countries was less than one-tenth the total in employment; since then it has
more than halved again. Elderly city folk hark back not to rural but to urban and
industrial roots. Not farms but factories and urban streets frame personal recall.
Industrial archaeology, urban heritage centres and tenement museums in Britain,
France, Scandinavia engage those whose sense of past purpose came from mill, mine
and shipyard, not meadow, eld and pasture.
Of eld and pasture urban children know virtually nothing. The British
government aimed to send every school child on a farm visit in 2007, to counter
shocking ignorance of where food comes from: fewer than one in twenty 8-to-15-
year-olds know that beefburgers are from cows; many think cows lay eggs (The
Times, 2007b). Landscape legacies shore up national identity and sustain tourism.
But those legacies are shorn of traditional obligations and rewards, link less and less
with everyday experience and embody few long-term memories. Countryside values
have become mainly ecological and recreational, catering for concerns with birds and
wildlife, hiking and rambling, often more at odds with than supportive of farming.
The Glastonbury rock festival (born 1970) needs ever more land; more is ever
available. The farmers love it. Its not worth growing anything these days, is it? You
get a better return from parked cars for three days than rapeseed oil.13
Rapeseed is less endearing than rabbits, though, and lambs are more sexy still.
Earlier distaste for farm holidays as mucky and smelly gives way to an embrace of
 646 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

agritourism for its natural balance and simplicity, notably in the presence of
livestock (Chesshire, 2007, p. 28). Many pastoral landscapes survive largely through
tourism. In 20 years time all Lakeland farmers will have given up farming, forecast
a local in 1991. Theyll be called eld wardens. Theyll build up dry stone walls, then
knock them down again to amuse the tourists . . . Sheep will become pets, never sold
or killed.14
Cattle instead of sheep have been Dutch rural icons since van Ruysdaels 17th-
century paintings: a dappled hide against a green landscape is more a logo of the
Netherlands than the tulip. Half the farms in the Netherlands remain sustainable
largely as bovine scenery; seeing cows grazing charms latter-day Marie-Antoinettes.
Hence to keep our landscape beautiful and colorful, Dutch authorities exhort
farmers, keep the cows in sight (Metz, 2002, pp. 186 188). (The American cows on
eastern Long Island pastures, frozen in rumination at the old farm fence where
actual cows once grazed, are plastic [Clines, 2007].) Nostalgia for domestic animals
reects yearning for rural scenes endowed with active lifelandscapes vitalized by
moving creatures. Horses, long gone as part of the workaday round, let alone as
denizens of the Elysian elds (Olwig, 2002, p. 107), become pets emblematic of
healthy outdoor life (Metz, 2002, pp. 188 189).
But it is above all the lack of people that makes the current countryside feel
moribund; essay after essay in Grantas 2005 Country Life issue (subtitled
Dispatches from whats left of it) notes the eerie absence of human beings. To be
sure, emptiness for many is the scenic ideal; beauty spots were by denition
uninhabited, recalled Raphael Samuel (1998, p. 143) of his war-time childhood, and
ideally places where there was not a soul to be seen. Coee-table and cinematic
English landscapes are still depopulated. Photographed England now looks as if a
neutron bomb has hit it: no damage to buildings or landscapes but people have been
utterly removed (Nicolson, 1992, p. 28). In the lush timeless landscape of the typical
Merchant-Ivory lm, hills, trees and sheep are eternal, the human presence
ephemeral and intrusive (Cardwell, 2002, p. 141).
If the countryside is going to provide anything other than rural theme parks for
the urban middle classes and wide expanses of chemical monoculture, writes rural
activist Simon Fairlie (Halfacree, 2006, p. 329), then more people are needed to live
and work there. The more probable rural future is theme-park contrivance.
Anticipating his retirement 30 years on, Britains Nature Conservancy Councils
director-general envisaged an outing in 2020 to Center Parc,

a wonderful, enormous dome, under which private enterprise conserves rare and
representative re-created countrysides and stunning holographs of romantic
landscapes now lost. On the way back, I visit the small thatched mock Tudor
cottage . . . with blown up photographs of some striking buildings the National
Trust used to run before they were either inundated or made way for the
wonderful motorway. I sail over to a splendidly landscaped golf course for the
senior Japanese businessmen whose microchip factories stretch to the horizon.
(Hornsby, 1989)

With that stage-set now just a decade o we need only replace Japanese with
Chinese entrepreneurs, and Center Parc with Julian Barness Isle of Wight theme
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 647
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

parkstraw-chewing yokels, men in smocks with scythes winnowing cha (Barnes,

1998, pp. 107 108).

Where Rural Life Is a Recent Memory

Century-long decline presaged the precipitous abandonment of much of rural
Europe after the Second World War. Ireland, France, Denmark, Finland, Greece,
Iberia, Italys Mezzogiorno, Switzerland lost most of their farm workers in just a few
decades, dropping from half to less than a quarter of the labour force. Intensive
agriculture remains an economic mainstay, but few workersin many lands less
than one in 20are still farm-based.
Whether exodus to the city is remote or recent, however, many keep rural ties.
And rural scenes join personal with collective heritage. Recurrent visits, long
vacations, childhood memories, and myths of national identity sacralize countrysides
sustained by huge subsidies. Those who left the land grew ever more sentimental
about the world they had lost, writes Declan Kiberd (1995, p. 495) about rural
Irelands exodus to Dublin. As a consequence, government subventions have made
rural areas previously abandoned to terminal decline auent enough to enjoy a more
sophisticated urban lifestyle than many Dubliners can aord.
In France, farmers are extolled as ecological and social paragons and cosseted as
an endangered breed whose survival is essential to national culinary identity. Rural
subventions aim at saving Frances soul via its stomach, in what is termed
gastronomial sovereignty (Gordon & Boisgrollier, 2005). Yet every decade
distances the Parisian incomer further from Breton and Norman, Auvergnat and
Provencal roots; the compote and calvados cease coming, the uncles retire, the farm
is sold. Travel ads urging visitors to See France while it is still there hype fears of
imminent rural extinction.
The French countryside visitors see may soon resemble the post-exodus scene
foreseen by a famed Breton folklorist:

After the peasants abandoned the countryside, all fell into ruins. But the new
masters began living there. The richest acquired entire farms and villages. But
no one was around to keep up their estates or to serve them. They themselves
were forced to cut their own lawns, prune their own trees, care for their animals,
and ght against wild vegetation. And of course they began to love the land.
They took pride in picking, harvesting, and eating what they themselves had
grown. They rediscovered the taste of fruit and even bread.15 Their country
homes became their only homes, protected from the common people now
locked up in the cities . . . So the former bourgeoisie became professional
peasants, while [urbanized] descendants of the former peasants consoled
themselves with electronic toys. (Helias, 1978, pp. 335 336)

Where Dwindling Rural Life Persists

Farm dominance, increasingly rare in western Europe, is now challenged in eastern
Europe as well. Ukraine, Byelorussia, Bulgaria and Poland still look largely rural,
 648 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

and labourers remain on arable land; but many folk, though not yet most, are
industrial or urban. The two-thirds of Romanias economy that is urban and
industrial ourishes; the rural remainder is languishing, its demise sped by European
Union membership as of 2007. Not even Albania or Kosovo are any longer
overwhelmingly rural. Free enterprise since 1991 combined with EU incentives leave
once Sovietized lands bereft of youth, who are no longer compelled to labour locally
and now seize chances to emigrate west (Brunwasser, 2006).
Rapidly changing economic priorities run counter to EU environmental directives,
notably Natura 2000, which mandates the protection of natural habitat and
biodiversity by setting aside substantial areas against development. Bulgaria has
some of Europes most untouched natureindeed, initial set-aside proposals
included 40% of Bulgarias territory, almost three times the European average.
But EU pleas to respect nature conservations long-term benets are ercely resisted
by Bulgarians eager to shed impoverished isolation for the immediate prots of
package tourism (Brunwasser, 2007).
Agricultural attitudes persist, to be sure. Rural dwellers take proprietary pride in
landscape as hearth and livelihood. More than their west European counterparts,
farmers and herders often remain intolerant of holiday-makers, folklife tourists, and
eco-cultists. Yet they can hardly resist their lures. In villages like Romanias Matau,
bulldozers are churning up the meadows to create a ski run and holiday resort, while
wealthy outsiders buy up land for holiday villas. In Matau, nonetheless, a western
visitor pens a contrasting scene of Paradise Lost with a moral avour reminiscent of
Goldsmiths Deserted Village:

I have discovered Heaven . . . a peasant village high in the hills of Romania, the
newest and poorest member of the European Union . . . Its homes of carved
wood and patterned plaster are topped by hay lofts, encircled by orchards,
enclosed by picket fences. They have views across a deep valley to the forests
and snowy peaks of the Carpathian mountains . . . the winter air is scented by
woodsmoke and dung. The silence is broken only by cowbells, the bleating of
sheep and, at dawn, cocks crowing. . . . The big-handed, leather-faced, pungent-
smelling subsistence farmers of Matau still live much as their ancestors have for
generations. They keep a few cows, pigs and chickens in their yards. . . . They cut
grass with scythes and make haystacks . . . [At church on] the Saturday of the
Dead, when the villagers remember departed family, [they] crossed themselves
as one, knelt as one and sang in sweet harmony. They were at peace with the
past, with themselves and with nature. For how much longer? (Fletcher, 2007)

That the departed family now includes not just the dead but almost every villager
under 30 gives the answer to how much longer.

Permanence and Evanescence

We need to sense landscape as abiding; our essential well-being depends on nding
our surroundings more durable than ourselves. Our mental equilibrium is due rst
and foremost to the fact that the physical objects with which we are in daily contact
change little or not at all, so providing us with an image of permanence and
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 649
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

stability.16 Over the past century, planned obsolescence has made most man-made
things less durable than us mortals. But rural nature, we like to suppose, remains
dependably constant. The countryside reassures us that not everything is
supercial and transitory, concludes the English rural sociologist Howard Newby
(1990); that some things remain stable, permanent and enduring. Rurality sanctions
the status quo. Invoking rural roots, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin (1926, p. 101)
termed himself not the man in the street even, but a man in a eld-path, a
much simpler person steeped in tradition and impervious to new ideas. More
changeless still seem rural animals. People comethey stay for a while, they
ourish, they buildand they go. It is their way, says Badger in Kenneth
Grahames The Wind in the Willows ([1908] 2005, p. 48). But we remain. . . . We are
an enduring lot. It is a truth as well as a truism that nouveaux-riches, whose
industrial energy spearheads rural change, now ock to live in the countryside
because they like it as it is, with its traditions and seclusion, its hedge-laying and its
bluebell woods (The Times, 2007a).
Yet it is readily apparent that landscapes are in continual ux (Rackham, 1991).
We know full well that they are malleable, altered for better or worse by each
generation. Each successive tenancy transforms what is tilled or left fallow with new
crops, fertilizers, machinery, pests and pesticides. We shape landscapes to suit
ourselves and to leave our own mark on them; we describe and depict them in
idealizing images; and we reshape them after those images, as with Arcadian parks
modelled on Claude and Poussin, gardens after Capability Brown and Humphrey
Repton, Constable-like suburbs in Surrey, or American Civil War battleelds
restored to resemble photographs artfully composed by Matthew Brady. Most such
changes are lauded not as alterations but as reversions to how things once were, were
meant to have been, ought to have been.

Scenery and Morality

Reactions to landscape change dier with their pace and recency, as shown for rural
Europe, as well as with culture and Zeitgeist. Some praise what are felt to be
improvements; others reprove deterioration. Some wax nostalgic over a seemlier
past, others anticipate a fairer future. Wild, pastoral, agricultural and gardenesque
scenes each have their advocates and detractors. Common to almost all observers,
however, is the inseparability of social and civic values from scenic ones. Every
morally desirable landscape is accorded visual harmonies; every scene felt decient in
virtue is depicted as ugly or disgusting. And what is viewed as good or bad is almost
always contrasted with some former, some future, or some foreign condition. Thus a
son of Vermont . . . whose eye has been trained to appreciate the charms of rural
beauty, wrote a 19th-century native, found little to please in the slovenly
husbandry, the rickety dwellings and the wasteful economy of the Southern planter.
And at home he was distressed by the deforestation and erosion that within a
single generation had converted smiling meadows into broad wastes of shingle and
gravel and pebbles, deserts in summer, and seas in autumn and winter, while the
denuded hillsides became barren and unsightly blots . . . yielding no crop but a
harvest of noxious weeds (Marsh, 1848, pp. 20 21). Every descriptive term is
judgemental.
 650 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

Buildings evoke similar conjunctions of aesthetics and morality. Architects and

architectural historians from Pugin to Pevsner have equated beauty with higher
ethical and social imperatives (Watkin, 1977). Disparaging Renaissance neoclassi-
cism, Ruskin ([1853] 1886, 3, pp. 34 35) claimed he detested not so much the form
of this architecture [as] the moral nature of which it is corrupt. We continue to
moralize. The buildings we admire, concludes Alain de Botton (2007, pp. 99,
157 159), extol values we think worthwhile, their materials, shapes and colours
suggesting such legendarily positive qualities as friendliness, kindness, subtlety,
strength and intelligence. We are especially drawn to qualities felt generally lacking
today. Those in the rule-bound and materially abundant, punctilious and routine
developed world hanker after the natural and unfussy, the rough and authentic, a
taste embodied in the so-called para-aesthetic chaotic richness of faulty, irregular
and disordered landscapes (Gallent & Andersson, 2007, p. 18).17
Judgements about landscapes are especially charged with moral conviction, for at
least two reasons. The making and unmaking of landscapes, unlike buildings, is seen
to transcend human contrivance, partaking of nature as well as artice. And we
accord virtue to those who live in landscape as opposed to those who merely look at
it. At least since Goldsmiths Deserted Village, poets and critics have commonly
dismissed the visitors viewpoint as shallow and supercial while extolling that of the
native, steeped in landscapes social and economic fabric, as deep and meaningful.
The former is devoid of context; the latter apprehends its true worth.
The anti-aesthetic view pervaded newly settled America. Immediate necessity
made a mockery of mere contemplation. To wrest a living from the soil, to secure
frontiers against hostile forces, seemed to demand full attention. Appreciation of the
landscape itself, apart from its practical uses, was disdained as pointless and eete, I
wrote 40 years ago. Mark Twains Life on the Mississippi (1875) stressed the
irrelevance of scenery to real life: Twains tourist enjoyed the view of the river only
because he was an outsider and didnt understand it.

Perception of scenery is open only to those who play no real part in the
landscape. Those who know it and work in it have to concentrate on
the humdrum realities; the choice is between the mawkish sentiments of the
passengers and the bleak matter-of-factness of the pilot (Marx, 1964, p. 364).
Asked to be pilot or passenger, what red-blooded American would hesitate? We
are all pilots, happy only when steering some ship. . . . We disdain the mere
onlooker and dismiss his opinion of the landscape. What right has a passive
spectator to impose his judgment . . . We do not prettify the rugged face of
workaday America in order to enjoy its looks. In short, the landscape is worthy
of its hire. (Lowenthal, 1968, p. 72)

That a landscapes rightful critics are its earth-bound occupiers, not its visitors, is
an insight famously attributed to William James ([1899] 1958, pp. 150 152). James
contrasted his own reaction to that of inhabitants of a newly cleared and planted
North Carolina cove:

The impression on my mind was one of unmitigated squalor. The settler

had . . . cut down the more manageable trees, and left their charred stumps
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 651
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

standing . . . and had set up a tall zigzag rail fence around the scene of his havoc.
The forest had been destroyed; and what had improved it out of existence was
hideous, a sort of ulcer, without a single element of articial grace to make up
for the loss of Natures beauty.

But when a settler remarked that we aint happy here, unless we are getting one of
these coves under cultivation, James realized that he had missed the scenes whole
inward signicance . . . To me the clearings spoke of naught but denudation . . . But,
when they looked on the hideous stumps, what they thought of was personal victory.
The chips, the girdled trees, and the vile split rails spoke of honest sweat, persistent
toil and nal reward. What was for James a mere ugly picture on the retina, was to
them a symbol redolent with moral memories. Scenic beauty was not just disjoined
from, but incompatible with, inherent landscape virtue.
Similar incongruities suuse writings on lived-in landscapes. At a slum in
Sunderland, Scotland, a 1970s planner saw a collection of shabby, mean and dreary
houses, derelict back lanes, shoddy-fronted shops and broken pavements, the whole
unsightly mess mercifully ill-lit. But the resident saw

the best butchers shop in town; George McKeiths wet-sh shop and Pearys
fried-sh shop . . . Maws hot pies and peas prepared on the premises; the Willow
Pond public house, in which her favourite nephew organizes the darts and
dominoes team; . . . the spacious cottage in which she was born and brought
up . . . (but which has some damp patches which make it classiable as a slum
dwelling); the short road to the cemetery where she cares for the graves of her
mother, father and brother.18

This is not scenery but a social scene. Likewise, the writer Helen Hooven Santmyer
(1962, p. 307) wrote of her childhood Ohio town as shabby, worn, and
unpicturesque. . . . In winter, with grey skies, soot-streaked pavements, and lumps
of black snow in the gutters, one could hardly help remarking how ugly the town
was, and how drab and dull. Yet, she added, that scene, so unconsciously accepted,
had its values for us:

the unfastidious heart makes up its magpie hoard, heedless of the protesting
intelligence. Valentines in a drugstore window, the smell of roasting coee,
sawdust on the butchers oor . . . these are as good to have known and
remembered, associated as they are with friendliness between man and man,
between man and child, as fair streets and singing towers and classic arcades.
(Santmyer, 1962, p. 50)

Such attachments persist past physical occupance. The Vermont farmer who sold
his farm to a summer resident was appalled on a visit back home to nd that the new
owner had torn down his barn. What did you do that for? he inquired,
incredulous. Well, the barn spoiled the view. View? View? Why, there was nothing
behind that barn but some mountains.
Native old-timers are not alone in championing social utility against scenery. They
are seconded by ecological purists, modernist architects, and self-appointed stewards
 652 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

of antiquity. Some for whom environmental abuse is of overriding concern contend

that aesthetic and ecological values are irreconcilable. Others, aghast at the decay of
rural community, charge that picturesque planning is inimical to local democracy
and . . . even serve[s] the interests of virulent nationalisms (Thompson, 2006, p. 184).
Censuring the degradation of Stonehenge, archaeologists persuaded its custo-
dians, English Heritage and the National Trust, to rescue Britains premier ancient
site from physical erosion and visual pollution, by restricting access to those
prepared to appreciate Salisbury Plain prehistory. To reunite this symbolic site with
the landscape that gave birth to it and allow the stones to be approached in the way
they would have been 5,000 years ago, highways skirting Stonehenge were to be
undergrounded (National Trust Magazine, 2002). That millions entranced by
Stonehenge as they drove past would thus be deprived of those views played no part
in the collapse of this scheme, which foundered on the excessive cost of tunnelling
(The Times, 2005; Johnston, 2006).
Archaeologists value site context above all, dismissing beauty as a frivolous
concern of little inherent worth. At sites of antiquity they, the professionals, are the
rightful stewardly occupiers; tourists are meddlesome nuisances to be kept at arms
length and out of harms way. The cancerous growth of tourism, with ever more
millions overwhelming ever-less sustainable scenes, helps justify such charges. The
tourist gaze, deprecated by analysts from Dean MacCannell (1976) to John Urry
(1990), has come to stand for what is inauthentic, articial, indiscriminate and
corrosive of true value.
Deeply distressed by early 20th-century American subordination of all other land
values to monetary prot, and acquiescence in the resultant tawdry landscapes all
around them as normal, inescapable, even tting, a young law professor depicted an
alternative world where occupance, utility and beauty were inseparable. Islandia,
published two decades after Austin Tappan Wrights untimely death, became a cult
classic anticipating rural gurus ranging from Aldo Leopold to Louis Bromeld, Scott
Nearing and Carl Sandburg. Visiting an Islandian farm, Wrights American
protagonist is stunned by

the beauty of the place, a suave serene beauty in the massing of simple elements,
a grove, a house, a eld. Nowhere in the whole farm was there a place without
charm . . . They asked where I had been, and . . . suggested other places to which I
must be taken. But we crossed that eld, I said. Yes, on the west side, but
you ought to go to the other side and look back. [Discussing whether to cut
down some birch trees,] what interested them was the eect upon a certain view,
rather than the value of the wood. . . . They looked upon their whole farm as a
great living canvas, whose picture changed from moment to moment and hour
to hour, and to which they as artists made only little changes from time to time;
for the larger picture was painted mostly by nature and by generations . . . before
them. . . . No farmer merely farms but is an artist in landscape architecture
as well.

In planting they considered not only where things grew best, but how the eld will
look when they rst come up through the earth, and when they are full grown, and
when they are dead and when they are stubble. . . . The art . . . was neither agriculture
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 653
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

nor architecture but a combination of both . . . (Wright, 1942, pp. 297 298).
The Islandian ethos is realized in the agricultural art of Laura Parker and on David
Mas Masumotos central California farm: my elds have become a crazy quilt of
cover crops, a wild blend of patterns, some intended, some a product of natures
whims. The dierent plants grow to dierent heights and in dierent patterns,
creating a living applique. . . . I weave the texture of life into my farm.19 The farmer
cum artist atly contradicts Theophile Gautiers maxim that nothing is truly
beautiful unless it cannot be used for anything; everything that is useful is ugly
because it is the expression of some need, and those of men are ignoble and
disgusting.20
Few would dier with J. B. Jacksons dictum that We should never tinker with the
landscape without thinking of those who live in the midst of it. But what if those
who live in it, today as in Wrights day, ruined lovely views by unsightly structures.
It never occurred to anyone that an ordinary view was worth saving when put into
competition with a commercial interest (Wright, 1942). Like so many moralists,
Jackson asserts that what the spectator wants or does not want is of small
account . . . We are not spectators; the human landscape is not a work of art. It is the
temporary product of much sweat and hardship and earnest thought (Jackson,
1963 1964). Yet the accelerating demise of traditional rural life, the growth of
tourism and of part-time or permanent rural retreats nowadays make us all
spectators. At home as well as on holiday, en route as well as at rest, we savour
landscapes seen, felt, imagined and yearned for. Old distinctions between native and
outsider, between the purely pictorial gaze of the passer-by and contextual depth of
the long-time denizen, become ever less relevant. We are all now travelling viewers,
the commuter, the temporary inhabitant of a trailer court, the migrant farm laborer
and the man on a ve months luxury cruise, as Jackson (1962) elsewhere allowed.
We are all of us tourists. . . . Indeed it is one of the very few traits which we recognize
ourselves as having in common.
British landowners scorn rural policy being dictated from the car window.21 Yet
it is from the car window, moving along in the automobile (Dixon Hunt, 2004,
pp. 173 190) that millions enjoy the landscape, validating Emersons (1836, p. 597)
adage that one need only to get into a coach and traverse his own town, to turn the
street into a puppet-show, [for] the least change in our point of view gives the whole
world a pictorial air. Emerson privileged the stranger over the sojourner in nature.
Beds of owers send up a most grateful scent to the passenger who hastens by them,
but let him pitch his tent among them and he will nd himself grown insensible to
their fragrance.22 The gaze of the long-distance traveller, like that of hiker and
painter, weekender and day-outing pensioner, replaces the peasant grind of millennia
past. The Beholder in whose eye beauty lies is Everyman.

Notes
1 I expand on this in Lowenthal (1978).
2 To J. Johnson, 20 September 1794, in Seward (1811, 4, pp. 10 11).
3 Nicholas Ridley, in The Future of the Public Heritage, Cubitt Trust Panel conference, 15 October
1986 (London: Royal Society of Arts, 1987), p. 92. This section is elaborated in Lowenthal (2000).
4 On poetry in its relation to our age and country, Prose 1:24, quoted in Bryant (1970, p. 875).
5 I have renamed Ruskins idealist a fantasist.
 654 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

6 Advertisers are currently denounced for their illusionary pseudo-images of landscape (TOPIA
[International Organization for the Protection of Landscapes in Advertising]).
7 The decay of lying [1889], in Wilde (1954, pp. 57, 67, 79).
8 G. C. Hines, Cathedral pilgrimages, in Williams-Ellis (1938, pp. 160 161).
9 Lees-Milne (1983, diary entry 16 June 1947, p. 172).
10 William Beach Thomas, The English Landscape (1938), quoted in Chase (1989, p. 138).
11 This is elaborated in Lowenthal (1994) and Olwig (2002, pp. 165 167).
12 Lewis Gannett and Ruth Gannett, Cream Hill: Discourses of a Week-End Countryman (1949), quoted
in Simo (2005, p. 23).
13 Simon Riser, quoted in Toop (1993, p. 37).
14 Quoted in Davies (1991).
15 Twenty years after Helias, the French did rediscover good bread (Kaplan, 2006).
16 My notes give the sociologist August Comte as the source of this quotation, which I cannot nd.
17 Para-aesthetic taste echoes Japanese wabi: traditional love of the imperfect, fragmented, transient,
blemished and deformed exemplied today in the scenes and structures of Tadao Ando.
18 Norman Dennis, quoted in Taylor (1973, p. 226).
19 Parkers Landscape: The Farmer as Artist was exhibited at the Jewett Gallery of the San Francisco
Public Library in 2001; Masumoto describes his landscaping in Epitaph for a Peach (1996); she is cited
and he is quoted in Cohn (2004, pp. 73, 70).
20 Gautier, Mademoiselle de Maupin (1835), quoted in Atwood (2002, p. 59).
21 John Hopkinson, director, British Field Sports Society, quoted in Young (1990).
22 Emerson, Journals, 2: 232, quoted in Porte (1964, p. 471).

References
Alanen, A. R. & Melnick, R. Z. (2000) Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America (Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press).
Atwood, M. (2002) Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Baldwin, S. (1926) The classics, in his On England, pp. 99 118 (London: Philip Allan).
Bancroft, G. ([1837] 1842 1874) History of the United States from the Discovery of the American
Continent, 10th edn. (Boston, MA: C. C. Little and James Brown).
Barnes, J. (1998) England, England (London: Jonathan Cape).
Bennett, G. (1993) Folklore studies and the rural myth, Rural History, 4, pp. 1 15.
Botton, A. de (2007) The Architecture of Happiness: The Secret Art of Furnishing Your Life (London:
Penguin).
Brunwasser, M. (2006) In shrinking Bulgaria, where are the people? International Herald Tribune, 11
October, p. 2.
Brunwasser, M. (2007) Saving nature or saving the economy? EU sparks environmental battle in Bulgaria,
International Herald Tribune, 24 January, pp. 15 16.
Bryant II, W. C. (1970) Poetry and painting: a love aair of long ago, American Quarterly, 22,
pp. 859 882.
Cardwell, S. (2002) Adaptation Revisited: Television and the Classic Novel (Manchester: Manchester
University Press).
Chase, M. (1989) This is no claptrap: this is our heritage. In C. Shaw & M. Chase (Eds) The Imagined Past:
History and Nostalgia, pp. 128 146 (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Chesshire, T. (2007) Down on the farm, The Times (London), 20 January.
Cikovsky, N. (1971) The Ravages of the Axe: the meaning of the tree stump in nineteenth-century
American art, Art Bulletin, 61, pp. 611 626.
Clark, K. (1956) Landscape into Art (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Clines, F. X. (2007) Getting away to it all, New York Times, 2 June, p. A24.
Cohn, T. (2004) How far are you from the farm: a mile or a generation? The agricultural art of Laura
Parker, Places, 16(3), pp. 70 73.
Cox, T. R., et al. (1985) This Well-Wooded Land: Americans and Their Forests from Colonial Times to the
Present (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press).
Crews-Meyer, K. A. & Young, K. R. (Eds) (2006) Landscape form, process, and function: coalescing
geographic frontiers, Professional Geographer, 58, pp. 367 447.
 Living with and Looking at Landscape 655
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

Davies, H. (1991) After the banknote, wheres the book? Independent on Sunday (London), 29 September, p. 23.
Dixon Hunt, J. (2004) The Afterlife of Gardens (London: Reaktion).
Ellman, R. (1993) Theres an Ambridge in all our hearts, The Times (London), 10 March.
Emerson, R. W. (1836) Nature, in: J. Conron (Ed.) The American Landscape: A Critical Anthology of
Prose and Poetry, pp. 579 608 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973).
Fairclough, G. (2007) Made in England: landscape, culture and identity, Conservation Bulletin no. 54
(spring; special issue on Rural Landscapes), pp. 8 9.
Fedden, R. (1945) Introduction, in his Personal Landscape: An Anthology of Exile (London: Editions Poetry).
Fletcher, M. (2007) A village that time forgot, The Times (London), 21 February, T2, pp. 4 5.
Fox, J., Jr (1908) Trail of the Lonesome Pine (New York: Grosset & Dunlap).
Gallent, N. & Andersson, J. (2007) Representing Englands rural urban fringe, Landscape Research, 32,
pp. 1 21.
Geuze, A. (2007) The Pyramids at Giza Museum Gardens and the Nile cultural landscape, paper at
Spatial Recall: The Place of Memory in Architecture and Landscape, College of Environmental Design
symposium, University of California, Berkeley, 10 March.
Gordon, P. H. & Boisgrollier, N. de (2007) Why the French love their farmers, International Herald
Tribune, 1 December, p. 8.
Grahame, K. ([1908] 2005) The Wind in the Willows (London: Penguin).
Granta (2005) Country Life, no. 90 (summer).
Halfacree, K. (2006) From dropping out to leading on? British counter-culture back-to-the-land in a
changing rurality, Progress in Human Geography, 30, pp. 309 336.
Helias, P.-J. (1978) The Horse of Pride: Life in a Breton Village (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Hewison, R. (1976) John Ruskin: The Argument of the Eye (London: Thames and Hudson).
Hornsby, T. (1989) A stake in the country, in Future Countryside Programme, Royal Society of Arts,
London, 29 September.
Hoskins, W. G. (1963) Provincial England: Essays in Social and Economic History (London: Macmillan).
Hungerford, M. W. (1878) Molly Bawn (London: Smith, Elder).
Jackson, J. B. (1962) Traveling man, Landscape, 11(3), p. 1.
Jackson, J. B. (1963 1964) Notes and comments, Landscape, 13(2), pp. 1 3.
James, W. ([1899] 1958) On a certain blindness in human beings, in his Talks to Teachers on Psychology:
and to Students on Some of Lifes Ideals, pp. 149 169 (New York: W. W. Norton).
Johnston, P. (2006) Leave our glimpse of Stonehenge alone, The Daily Telegraph, 24 July.
Kaplan, S. L. (2006) Good Bread Is Back: A Contemporary History of French Bread, the Way It Is Made,
and the People Who Make It (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Kiberd, D. (1995) Inventing Ireland: The Literature of the Modern Nation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
Lees-Milne, J. (1983) Caves of Ice (London: Chatto & Windus).
Lowenthal, D. (1968) The American scene, Geographical Review, 58, pp. 61 88.
Lowenthal, D. (1978) Finding valued landscapes, Progress in Human Geography, 2, pp. 373 418.
Lowenthal, D. (1994) European and English landscapes as national symbols, in: D. Hooson (Ed.)
Geography and National Identity, pp. 15 38 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Lowenthal, D. (2000) Old World eyes, New World scenes: embellishing divergence, in: Humanizing
Landscapes: Geography, Culture & the Magoon Collection, pp. 1 20 (Poughkeepsie, NY: Frances
Lehman Loeb Art Center, Vassar College).
Lowenthal, D. & Prince, H. C. (1965) English landscape tastes. Geographical Review, 55, pp. 196 222.
Mabey, R. (2005) Nature Cure (London: Chatto & Windus).
MacCannell, D. (1976) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: Schocken).
Marsh, G. P. (1848) Address Delivered before the Agricultural Society of Rutland County, Sept. 20, 1847
(Rutland: VT).
Marsh, G. P. (1860) The study of nature, Christian Examiner, 68, pp. 33 62.
Marx, L. (1964) The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America (New York:
Oxford University Press).
Masterman, C. F. G. (1909) The Condition of England (London: Methuen).
Metz, T. (2002) Fun! Leisure and Landscape (Rotterdam: NAI Publications).
Motley, J. L. (1849) Polity of the Puritans, North American Review, 69, pp. 493 494.
National Trust Magazine (2002) Heart of stone, no. 97 (autumn), pp. 46 47.
 656 D. Lowenthal
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 07:26 9 March 2008

Newby, H. (1990) Revitalizing the countryside: the opportunities and pitfalls of counter-urban trends,
Royal Society of Arts Journal, 138, pp. 630 636.
Nicolson, A. (1992) Panoramas of England (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson).
Oliver, T. (2007) CPRE calls for deeds not words, Conservation Bulletin, no. 54 (spring; special issue on
Rural Landscapes), pp. 6 8.
Olwig, K. R. (2002) Nature and the Body Politic: From Britains Renaissance to Americas New World
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).
Orwin, C. S. (1945) Problems of the Countryside (Cambridge: The University Press).
Payne, C. (1993) Toil and Plenty: Images of the Agricultural Landscape in England, 1780 1890
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Porte, J. (1964) Nature as symbol: Emersons noble doubt, New England Quarterly, 37, pp. 453 476.
Prall, D. W. (1929) Aesthetic Judgment (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell).
Rackham, O. (1991) Landscape and the conservation of meaning, Royal Society of Arts Journal, 139,
pp. 903 915.
Rossler, M. (2006) World heritage cultural landscapes: a UNESCO agship programme 1992 2006,
Landscape Research, 31, pp. 333 353.
Ruskin, J. ([1848] 1961) The Seven Lamps of Architecture (New York: Noonday Press).
Ruskin, J. ([1853] 1886) The Stones of Venice (New York: Wiley).
Ruskin, J. ([1873] 1886) Modern Painters, 4 vols, 3rd edn (New York: Wiley).
Santayana, G. (1896) The Sense of Beauty, Being the Outline of Aesthetic Theory (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons).
Samuel, R. (1998) Island Stories: Unravelling Britain (London: Verso).
Santmyer, H. H. (1962) Ohio Town (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).
Scazzosi, L. (2004) Reading and assessing the landscape as cultural and historical heritage, Landscape
Research, 29, pp. 335 355.
Seward, A. (1811) Letters of Anna Seward, Written between the Years 1784 and 1807, 6 vols, 3rd edn
(Edinburgh).
Simo, M. J. (2005) Literature of Place: Dwelling on the Land before Earth Day 1970 (Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press).
Steinbeck, J. (1939) The Grapes of Wrath (London: Heinemann).
Stig Srensen, M. L. (1996) The fall of a nation, the birth of a subject: the national use of archaeology in
nineteenth-century Denmark, in: M. Daz-Andreu & T. Champion (Eds) Nationalism and Archaeology
in Europe, pp. 24 47 (London: UCL Press).
Taylor, M. (2007) AONBs: managing landscapes of complex value, Conservation Bulletin, no. 54 (spring;
special issue on Rural Landscapes), pp. 33 35.
Taylor, N. (1973) The Village in the City (London: Temple Smith).
Thompson, I. (2006) Review of K. R. Olwig, Nature and the Body Politic [q.v.], Landscape Research, 31,
pp. 183 184.
Tilden, F. (1977) Interpreting Our Heritage, 3rd edn (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).
The Times (London) (2005) Awe sum, 25 July.
The Times (London) (2007a) Green and pleasant prices, 24 February, p. 20.
The Times (2007b) Farming mysteries, 28 February.
Toop, D. (1993) Going down to Eaviss farm, The Times (London), 25 June.
Tveit, M., Ode, A. & Fry, G. (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character,
Landscape Research, 31, pp. 229 255.
Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage).
Watkin, D. (1977) Morality and Architecture: The Development of a Theme in Architectural History and
Theory from the Gothic Revival to the Modern Movement (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Wilde, O. (1954) De Profundis and Other Writings (London: Penguin).
Williams-Ellis, C. (Ed.) (1938) Britain and the Beast (London: J. M. Dent).
Wright, A. T. (1942) Islandia (New York: Farrar & Rinehart).
Young, J. (1990) Green policies may harm wildlife, The Times, 18 August, p. 7.
Younghusband, F. (1920) Natural beauty and geographical science, Geographical Journal, 56, pp. 1 13.
Zalesch, S. E. (1996) What the four million bought: cheap oil paintings of the 1880s, American Quarterly,
48, pp. 77 109.