Reducing the landscape to an idealized modality of nature or built heritage is to forget that its history is inherently linked to the progressive taming of the most inhospitable confines: forest, mountains, seas and deserts haven’t always been considered as landscapes. Are not the real territories to explore today notably the ones that we don’t see simply because of our immersion in them: these impure and extensive lands of the urban?
At a time when we don’t exactly know how to deal with the speed and the power of the various phenomena transforming the planet, the concept of landscape can be a strategic tool to colonize the mutations that are taking place. In-between mental and material constructs, the landscape idiom liberates a zone of indecisiveness that allows us to think about the potentials of a multi-layered reality. Beyond the green and decorative picturesque to which it is too often confined, the landscape is above all a vehicle for the apprehension and the transformation of the territory. If the mediation of the landscape can be transfixed by reductive values which are legitimised by tautologies of harmony and control, its underlying mechanisms, however, remain entirely plastic. Everything can be landscape. More than ever, the stake is to hold together differences. The landscape, as a shared and open project, may be the vehicle for theses hybrid consistencies.
Lévesque, L. (2000). Landscape. In Davis,C., Allan, K., Baker, L. Lexicon 20th Century A.D., Public, no 20, vol. 1 and 2 (20) Toronto.