the picturesque aesthetics of contemporary landscape

n the opening thapler of tiie modern landscape architeciitral chussic. F.arthscaf}e,]ohu Ormsbee Sinionds advises readei s llial industrial sites, once passe<l o\ei by developers, may be resliaped and reclaimed to create a "whole tiew landscape" for recreation (Simonds 1978, SI). His recommt'ndatit)n is accompanied hy bcforc-and-alter sketches that depict an indnsu ia! site wilh a quarried \alley and piocessing plant, and his sohiiion: tlie same site redesigned with .sinuous lakes, trees, and a motel (Figure I). In 197K. Simonds was correct in identif\ing former industrial sites as fiitiiri- park sites. What he did not anticipate at that time was the work of ftiturc landscape arcliitects wlio would fi ame the relics of industrial life as emotive feattires in their designs and landscape representations. The denouement oi these relics does not criticize the gravity of iiulustry's cousequeuces on bioph\sical systems. On the contrary, keeping a refrigerator tower as part of the park s design entices people to spectiiate on the deleterious confidence of infrastructure landscapes or the loss
Framed Again: The Picturesque Aesthetics of Contemporary Landscapes
Susan Herrington Susan Ilcriin^ton is Assotiiik- Professor in the School of Archilcdurc- and Landscape Archilfcture at the University t)f British CoUttribia. She specializes in the theory oi design landscapes. inchidin<f landscapes designed lor children. She is a licensed landscape architect in the United States. She holds a BLA (1986) trom the State L'niversity of New Vork C.oilc^e of Envitoninental Science and ForesU y and an MIA (1991) from Harvard University C.radnate School of Design, and regtilarly constilts in the United Slates and Canada.
I
of industiial jinxhiction toconsumeisociety. Such rcilettions foreground recent landscape representations as well. Tlie leworking of engineering diagrams in the collage of a river landscape and the aerial view of a logging raft that is cropped to obsttuT its immediate recognition heightens the myster\' of these landscapes, while simultaneotisly lamenting om- futile attempts to control their processes (Figure 2). These pr()jects are captivatiug because they create the possibility for appreciating landscapes that are not conventionally pretty. Tliey do this by ctiltivating a sensibility towards tbe industrial landst ape that engages people's imaginations, emotions, and memories. By doing so, such contemporary landscape representations partic ipate in Picturest]tie aesthetics. The objectis e of this article is to explore the ba.sic properties of Piclmesquc aesthetics—tlie primat\ gi\'eu to the role of the imaginati\e spectator, the recycling of Objects deemed luisightly without pictnresque aesthetics, and the nse of views tinfamiliai- to a Iwentieth-centnry, service-oriented ciiltme—and how
Abstract: Fnnn pwvornlivi' coUagi's lhal splici' actialpiiolojrmplis, maps, and nudes, In jxnh (h'.sign.s lhal pla) upon Ihe assonattvc imagny inmkcd l>y in flu.stria I arlifacls, recent worhs oJ land.scapt' aithtlnture sutrgest thai a itew appierialion for landscape is emerging. Some scholars profess that these works break jrom the tradition of Picturesque becau.se they do not look like Pteturesque landscapes, nor do they participate in the ideology of the Pictttresque that alteiitpis tn naturalizepoxoer. This arlicle a.s.sert.s, howin'er., that aenal phdliii^raphs iij ant trolled a^icultural burns, or parks that feat me abandoned refrigerator towers, still tread upon the familiar territory of the Picturesque. While the forma! and ideological a.sf)ects of recently acclaimed design work.\ are discnnihly different from PietiiresquestyU' landscapes, the fileasures we take from them remain indebted to Picturesque ae.sthetics. This is an important recognition because ignoring the f)hilosof>hic(tl contribution of the Picturesque may limit discourse on laudscafn' to a di.scussion of styles or its instrumentality in poioer relations, leavingout speculation on the rich and varied types of experiences that landscaf)e offers. Historically, the subject ofPicture.sqne ae.sthetics was landscape. Surely, if Picturesque aesthetics are at work iu ouraf)jireci<itiou of coiUemf)oriiry laridstaf/es, then it is landscafic architecture's territory to reclaim.