Land: what used to be a natural surface has become the tool of power for western civilization. Land is divided into imaginary boundaries and arbitrary lines that denote states, territories, domains. In Hong Kong land is so valuable that the government can lease it for astronomic fees. Very few citizens own their land and large corporations cheat, bribe or fight for access to it.
In western society land ownership is an inalienable right. Previously it was a right reserved for nobility. The feudal system ensured that property would stay within the confines of their exclusive society. A man without land had no voice; he could not vote or partake in government. In modern society these rules have been lifted but property still remains a contested, political issue.
There is no place on earth that is not subject to politicization. We carve out nature into our own landscapes and gardens. The parks of Europe can be traced back to the revolutions that seized royal hunting grounds and gave them to the people. Israelis plant olive groves and parks in the harsh desert because their viability fulfills a prophesy that the land belongs to them. The large tracts of American wilderness remain so because of government intervention, because they are living symbols that shape our national identity.
When we go to museums and galleries SB has a preference to landscape and wildlife paintings. Early in our relationship I took him to see an exhibit in the Johnson Museum of the Hudson River School. Along with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, the Hudson River School provided illustration of an emerging American identity based on individualism and ties to nature. Interestingly the depiction of nature and transcendental philosophy was less natural and more political that most of us realize.
The idealized portrayals of the American West projected the themes of discovery, exploration and settlement. Veni, vidi, vici and et cetera. When gazing upon the bucolic scenes one cannot be faulted for not noticing other events taking place on the canvas. When we compare the earlier paintings of wide, open spaces to the later ones featuring more enclosed lands we can easily overlook the subtle message of the times. As the great country was nearing the Civil War our paintings began favoring a protected wilderness. It was time to protect the land and keep its inhabitants together under one system.
In the 21st century our direct relationship with land has changed but we are still reliant upon it. We rely on the invisible boundaries of the motherland for identity. Until we come up with something better we still rely on land to provide nutrition. And we still need to live somewhere which is why SB and I are paying a ridiculous amount of money for a tiny place that we call home. Maybe we aren't so removed from the feudal system after all.
In western society land ownership is an inalienable right. Previously it was a right reserved for nobility. The feudal system ensured that property would stay within the confines of their exclusive society. A man without land had no voice; he could not vote or partake in government. In modern society these rules have been lifted but property still remains a contested, political issue.
There is no place on earth that is not subject to politicization. We carve out nature into our own landscapes and gardens. The parks of Europe can be traced back to the revolutions that seized royal hunting grounds and gave them to the people. Israelis plant olive groves and parks in the harsh desert because their viability fulfills a prophesy that the land belongs to them. The large tracts of American wilderness remain so because of government intervention, because they are living symbols that shape our national identity.
When we go to museums and galleries SB has a preference to landscape and wildlife paintings. Early in our relationship I took him to see an exhibit in the Johnson Museum of the Hudson River School. Along with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, the Hudson River School provided illustration of an emerging American identity based on individualism and ties to nature. Interestingly the depiction of nature and transcendental philosophy was less natural and more political that most of us realize.
The idealized portrayals of the American West projected the themes of discovery, exploration and settlement. Veni, vidi, vici and et cetera. When gazing upon the bucolic scenes one cannot be faulted for not noticing other events taking place on the canvas. When we compare the earlier paintings of wide, open spaces to the later ones featuring more enclosed lands we can easily overlook the subtle message of the times. As the great country was nearing the Civil War our paintings began favoring a protected wilderness. It was time to protect the land and keep its inhabitants together under one system.
In the 21st century our direct relationship with land has changed but we are still reliant upon it. We rely on the invisible boundaries of the motherland for identity. Until we come up with something better we still rely on land to provide nutrition. And we still need to live somewhere which is why SB and I are paying a ridiculous amount of money for a tiny place that we call home. Maybe we aren't so removed from the feudal system after all.
Comments