Positioning aesthetic landscape as economy
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Barrett, T.L., Farina, A. & Barrett, G.W. Landscape Ecol (2009) 24: 299. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9326-z
- 240 Downloads
Flexibility is required in modern times to comprehend vast and fluctuating levelscapes of information. The ability to observe, simulate, and assimilate situations and circumstances from different points of reference and view is paramount for survival. This ability as preamble to consequence in landscape is valid, and provides an impetus for expanding landscape ecology from its traditional realm of definitive terrafirma to an assimilation of terraform (i.e. the process that alters an environment capable of supporting life forms). The traditional human-nature duplexity, regarding landscape ecology, is simulated with real and virtual fields in a noöspheric configuration. The involvement of culture (i.e. by consensus of value) and history (i.e. by sequencing relevancy) is a contributing determinant of “real” (landscaper) and “virtual” (landscapev) fields of existence and extinction. Within this noöspheric network unique observations of landscape ecology are possible (e.g. eco-field). Suggested in the noöspheric network, aesthetics is an efficiency relevant to life-support systems exemplified by value that precludes aestheticism (i.e. typically limited to a dichotomy of beautiful and ugly). Aesthetics viewed as a transcending process through levels of ecological organization and as a transcending property of transcending processes becomes understood as economy (energetic efficiency) capable of supporting nonmarket and market units of valuation. The consequence of these units of valuation articulates as subjects or objects of criticism within an aesthetic set point model, which measures individual or societal tolerance.