Hampton Court Revisited: A Re-evaluation of the Consumer
The Hampton Court maze survives as a relic of the Wilderness Gardens created by William III’s royal gardeners in the 1690s. Its status in relation to the Palace is a peripheral one, its current survival based on the assumption that it functions as an idiosyncratic quirk in contrast to the organised sedentary of the main gardens. However, in one important sense the maze, or more exactly the idea of the maze, signifies at a cultural level; and this is manifested through the way in which the deceptions, reversals and trickery of the maze apply to the ways in which knowledge is consumed within the Palace itself.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Oughton, E. et al., Hampton Court Palace (London: The Department of the Environment, 1988) p. 26.Google Scholar
- 2.Chettle, C. H. and J. Charlton, Hampton Court Palace (Edinburgh: HMSO, 1982) p. 30.Google Scholar
- 3.Williams, R., Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) p. 166.Google Scholar
- 4.Dews, P., Logics of Disintegration: post-structuralist thought and the claims of critical theory (London: Verso, 1987) p. 161. Please note that Dews is here less expressing an opinion than passing comment on M. Foucault’s concept of the subject via a critique of power and discourse.Google Scholar
- 8.Clarke, J., quoted in D. Hebdige, Subculture: the Meaning of Style (London: Methuen, 1986) p. 104.Google Scholar
- 10.Althusser, L., For Marx, translated B. Brewster (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969) pp. 87–128.Google Scholar