Advertisement

Introduction

  • Emily Goetsch
  • Christos Kakalis
Chapter

Abstract

We often think of the landscape as something static or slowly changing, endowed with a sense of stability that is only disrupted in moments of crisis, such as natural or human disasters. Therefore, it is common for our understanding of the landscape, which is developed and expressed through both actual experience and representations, to refer to a static topography, leading us to find security in the stable spatial context generated also by the unchanging landscapes of our thoughts and memories. Furthermore, we often rely on maps and other visual references, which we assume present an accurate and still representation of the world around us. In this context, iconic geological features such as mountains are usually considered to be stable, unmovable elements, landmarks that are enhanced by their emblematic presence in the topography and their often rough materiality, which allow for a number of both cultural and historical axis mundi connotations to be attributed to them. This book challenges the assumed static qualities of mountains, offering humanities-based evaluations of the landscape. Questions related to performativity, hermeneutics and mobility theory are at the core of the discussions, offering new ways of considering the natural world and how society relates to it.

Bibliography

  1. Baker, V. G. (2010). Women’s pilgrimage as repertoiric performance: Creating gender and spiritual identity through ritual. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate College of Bowling Green, State University.Google Scholar
  2. Carlson, M. (1996). Performance: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Corner, J. (1998). The agency of mapping: Speculation, critique and invention. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings (pp. 213–252). London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  4. Crampton, J. (2003). The political mapping of cyberspace. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Della Dora, V. (2009). Travelling landscape-objects. Progress in Human Geography, 33(3), 334–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewsbury, J. D. (2000). Performativity and the event: Enacting a philosophy of difference. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorrian, M. (2005). Architecture’s cartographic turn. In F. Pousin (Ed.), Figures de la Ville et Construction des Savoirs: Architecture, Urbanisme, Geographie (pp. 61–72). Paris: CNRS Editions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franklin, A. (2014). Tourism studies. In P. Adey, D. Bissell, K. Hannam, P. Merriman, & M. Sheller (Eds.), Routledge handbook of mobilities (pp. 74–84). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method. London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  10. Harley, J. B. (1992). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica, 26, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howe, L. (2000). Risk, ritual and performance. The Journal of the Royal Anthropology Institute, 6(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jensen, O. (2014). Mobile semiotics. In P. Adey, D. Bissell, K. Hannam, P. Merriman, & M. Sheller (Eds.), Routledge handbook of mobilities (pp. 566–574). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Lebech, F. (2006). The concept of the subject in the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 14(2), 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCormack, D. (2005). Diagramming practice and performance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23, 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merriman, P., Revill, G., Cresswell, T., Lorimer, H., Mastless, D., Gillian, R., & Wylie, J. (2008). Landscape, mobility, practice. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merriman, P., et al. (2008). Landscape, mobility, practice. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pickles, J. (2004). A history of spaces: Mapping cartographic reason and the over-coded world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Schechner, R. (1985). Between theater and anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning, 38, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simmel, G. (2007). The philosophy of landscape (trans: Bleicher, J.). Theory, Culture and Society, 24(7 and 8), 20–29.Google Scholar
  21. Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (2006). Interpretation in architecture. Design as a way of thinking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial formations. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Goetsch
    • 1
  • Christos Kakalis
    • 2
  1. 1.History of Art DepartmentUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.School of ArchitectureNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations