Metaphors of Green
AMERICAN PASTORALISM
The Pastoral Idyll
“America was discovered before it was conceived (…) To become a reality America had to become a state of mind as much as a place, an entity whose identity and existence depended upon its meaning.” (Machor, 1987, 27)
To the early settlers America appeared as a green gaze of virgin land, both magnificent and terrifying. This frightening New World scared, but at the same it promised reconstruction of a renewed civilization. Such vastness, however, lacked of a meaningful context which made necessary the projection of a new yet familiar meaning. The religious motif of the "New Jerusalem" allowed the early settlers to establish a mythical vision of America where the lush landscape would remember reassuring biblical images. The latter, would have projected the early settlers toward a future in which the garden and the city would have been in perfect harmony. The poetic descriptions of newly discovered America strengthened the idea of the New World as the place of God, envisioned as the place where an urban-pastoral society would have lived.
The American urban-rural dichotomy is reflected in the mythical, ideal or metaphorical reality of “Pastoralism” and its later dialectic with the so-called “Modern Technical.” Both of these fictitious and constructed visions of the US splendor (that found, not surprisingly, the highest expression in painting), served to the gradual construction of identity of the American people, perennially divided between the idyll of boundless conquest of nature and the explosive force of technological advancement, or more generally, of the machine. In fact, Pastoralism is an ideological motif that tends towards an ideal dimension that exceeds the daily reality. As we have said, it represented a construct of fundamental importance to define not only the identity of the US, but also the true meaning of America. The formation of its national character in fact started in conjunction with the conversion process of the wilderness, perfectly expressed in landscape painting.
We can say that the origins of Pastoralism at large date back to the so-called "cultural primitivism," exemplifying the knowledge that derives from the contact with nature but also the moral and spiritual growth of the subject that lives in natural circumstances. However, the notion of American Pastoralism comes undoubtedly from the construction of the English countryside landscape. The nature, in this case highly domesticated, presented a totally idealized pastoral setting that masked in fact the dramatic reality of the city during the Industrial Revolution.
Furthermore, it’s worth mentioning that the actual concept of Pastoralism has two different connotations. First, Pastoralism can be "popular and sentimental," which means that the primitive and rural realities of the countryside contrast sharply with that of the city. Secondly, Pastoralism can be "imaginative and complex," i.e. it acts as an element of mediation between civilization and nature, the city and the countryside, nature and art. In line with this second definition, according to the historian Leo Marx, Pastoralism represents a form of “semi primitivism.” In fact, it mediates, it is halfway between nature and civilization (and, therefore, technological progress). In short, Pastoralism “is a third term between humanity and nature that is the identity between people and their natural world.” (Rowe, 1991, 221)
The defining process of American identity in landscape painting starts from the representation of the wild nature to the celebration of the purely industrial landscape, through the rural landscape and the agricultural one. If, however, on the one hand Pastoralism itself coincided with the rediscovery of individual freedom, on the other hand it became a reductive term for the representation of a society that became increasingly complex. This made necessary to define the "Urban Pastoralism" which included the idea of personal fulfillment (at the base of Pastoralism in general) but through corporate identity. It referred to “American corporate government within the pastoral concept associated with forms of Majoritarianism as a political belief of pastoralism.” (Rowe, 1991, 226)
With the advent of mass production, the US moved towards a “Modern Technical Orientation” of ubiquitous nature. The notion of Pastoralism was opposed to it as it is linked to the specificity of a place and to its peculiar characteristics since it represents a state of being in the world that transcends the immediate experience of civilization and nature. The meeting of these two realities gave birth to the so-called "Modern Pastoralism" which developed thanks to the suburban metropolitan development that took place in the US in mid-twentieth century and found its highest expression in the suburban single-family home. Modern Pastoralism, therefore, cannot be considered a utopia but rather an ideology, it is historic and historicist and it tends to the historicization of symbols, which is particularly clear in the suburban housing traditional styles. It thus defines the “symbolic functioning of the cultural artifacts of the middle landscape” (Rowe p. 240) in the form of romantic artifacts found in the house but also in tradition, meaning tradition of a past, pastoral splendor. Pastoralism then “provides a metaphorical context for contemporary metropolitan urban development,” (Rowe p. 238) indeed, it is nothing but a symbolic mask for the commodification that was clearly undercutting its true essence. The egalitarian ideals of the heroic past of America also masked the regressive social realities of the time, where segregation and economic elitism were dividing the country.
“Drawing on the promise of the open landscape and pastoral sensibilities and rhetoric, proponents of this perspective have linked city and countryside to describe or envision America as a healthy, harmonious urban-pastoral society combining the best of both worlds. In our own day this way of thinking has taken a number of forms. At its most simplistic it appears the renewed interest among the city dwellers intending gardens and cultivating tropical plants as well as in the frequent meetings of sensitivity groups where alienated urbanities seek to “get in touch with” their “natural” feelings.” (Machor, 1987, 5)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hunt, J. D., The Pastoral Landscape. Hannover, London: University Press of New England. 1992
Machor, J. L. Pastoral Cities, Urban Ideals and the Symbolic Landscape of America. Madison, London: The University of Wisconsin Press. 1987
Marx, L., The Machine In The Garden; Technology And The Pastoral Ideal In America. New York, Oxford University Press, 1964
Rowe, P. G., Making a Middle Landscape, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991
NARRATIVES OF GREEN AND POWER
Singapore: The city in the (Jungle) Garden
I.
Park design can be considered as part and parcel of a political program which aim is to manage social conflict by providing a pleasant environment and a space for the leisure of the population. Moreover, such political project is oftentimes accompanied by a rhetoric of national identity. French garden design (starting from the very example of Versailles) has been for a long time a true brand through which the power of the centralized State has been expressed. Similarly, the “City within the Garden” rhetoric characterizes today Singapore’s political narrative.
It worth pointing out that landscape, intended as a human cultural construct, is generally seen as a European historical formation (which emerged as a particular genre of painting in the 17th century) associated with Imperialism that can eventually be absorbed by all cultures (Mitschell, 2002, 5). This opens up a controversial point about Singapore’s colonial heritage and the fundamental role that nature plays in defining the true identity of the city-state. As we know, Singapore was a British colony and the interest in botany was brought in the island by the colonizers (see research on botanic gardens). Long story short, the imperialist control over tropical nature through botany was absorbed by Singaporeans up to their famous genetic mutations of orchids, that soon became the emblem of Singapore. It would be then interesting to see how the Singaporean, non-western concept of landscape differentiates with its counterpart (Note: this would be a further investigation towards post-colonial studies that will not be tackled in this research). We can compare it, for instance, with 17th century Netherlands, when it changed from colony to a maritime empire. The Dutch landscape was born as an anti-imperial and almost nationalistic cultural gesture that resulted in a hybridized type of landscape, midway between the imperial and the anticolonial (Mitschell, 2002, 16).
II.
What makes so easy to appropriate, for political purposes, the metaphor of the “garden” and the “city” is the fact that nature has always been open to interpretations, it has inspired both collective and individual narratives which were the outcome of a hidden necessity to make the unfamiliar, familiar (see paragraph. 1), to fit nature into a formal system. In fact, nature goes hand in hand with speech as landscape can be read as a text. In short, it is a language, a medium and it therefore has semantic values. According to W. J. T. Mitchell, it can be even considered as the “silent language of imperialism” as it tends to unify and naturalize the world (Mitschell, 2002,13-14).
The garden, seen as a very common metaphor of green, is associated to many tropes. The most common one is that of the garden as a return to the origins, the Eden, Paradise. This “restoration narrative” (See Potteiger and Purniton) evokes the nostalgia and restoration of a past condition, the return to childhood or the ordering of chaos, however, it is de facto generated by present anxieties connected to the contemporary conditions of living. Restoration narratives, despite their apparent ingenuity, bring out important questions such as: whose nature should be restored? and what natures is restored?
Landscape narratives can be divided in two categories, first “narrative topos,” meaning a “conventionalized setting linked with particular events, which is evoked repeatedly in a culture’s narrative” (See Potteiger and Purniton) that is often associated to a nostalgic past of harmony with nature. The Pastoral topos, that has been analyzed in the first paragraph, is a clear example. Second, “genres narratives” are those focused on “[p]laces shaped by culturally defined narrative forms or ‘genres’” (See Potteiger and Purniton) such as foundational myths. These two types of narratives are fundamental for the process of identity formation of a specific social group or country. In general, one story becomes predominant if it represents the identity of the group in power, eventually becoming the mainstream narrative imposed over minorities, it thus legitimizes manifestations of power characterizing political speeches that reinforce national pride.
We can thus say that the metaphor of green favors ideological distortions as it “naturalizes” a constructed social reality by a seemingly innocent form of idealism. The way the narrative is used, the selection of a narrative, everything shapes the broader landscape of culture. In fact, landscape is “a medium found in all cultures” (Mitschel, 2002, 5) and a repository of collective forms and memories. Cultural values are attributed to landscape either when it has not been touched and therefore is found in its natural condition, or when it is modified and ordered through physical transformations (being landscape gardening or architecture). Such important value of landscape has been widely recognized so landscape can be preserved or listed exactly as a monument.
“Nature areas are not only important as repositories of the country’s natural heritage. They also have a place in establishing community life.” (Speech by Minister Lee Boon Yang at the Official Inauguration of Singapore at Venice Biennale, 2004)
III.
The greening of Singapore as a political project for the definition of a strong national identity has focused on the ordering principle of the garden and the scientific knowledge of plants as opposed to the wilderness of the tropical forest and the chaotic nature of the city, compared to a jungle. Greenery has been systematically used as a tool for distraction and entertainment for the people in moments in which politics was facing relevant social issues (...).
This very well planned system of green areas with clear hierarchies not only recalls Haussmann’s project, but we can speculate that it suggests an even darker form of bio-politics: it seems as if the garden has swallowed up the city and each citizen is assigned to a well defined green spot. This somehow reduces the inhabitants to armless elements (flowers, I would say) that are carefully disposed over the big garden-island. In fact, the same political narrative suggests that the city itself is grown as garden. Again, by naturalizing a complex condition, problems are simplified, citizens are controlled, the identity narrative is reinforced, entertainment is provided and economic profit is fostered. The “brandization” of nature in Singapore through the implementation of iconic projects such as Marina Bay Gardens promotes tourism, and an economic gain is secured through the beautification of the city.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Potteiger, M. and Purniton, J., Landscape Narratives, Design Practices for telling stories. NY: John Wiley & Sons, inc. 1998
Mitschell, W. J. T, Landscape and Power, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002
Bernard, T. P., Nature’s Colony: Empire, Nation and Environment in the Singapore Botanic Gardens, Singapore: NUS Press, 2016
Barrell, J., The Dark Side of Landscape, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1980
Pugh, S., Reading Landscape: Country, City, Capital, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990
Bermingham, A., Landscape and Ideology: The English Rustic Tradition, 1740-1860, Berkley: University of California Press, 1986
Prest J., The Garden of Eden: The Botanic Garden and the Re-Creation of Paradise. London: Yale University Press, 1982.
Wing Yam, T. Orchids of the Singapore Botanic Gardens. Singapore: Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1995
THE ITALIAN (DOMESTIC) GARDEN
Towards a “Quartiere Giardino”
“A characteristic of the garden and its space is to always represent a transition element from various other aspects of the construction of the (Italian) territory. Although reflecting urban culture, the garden is a transition between architecture and nature, between city and countryside; a transition between the house, the countryside and the wild nature - parts related to each other by gradual passages.” (Carnemolla, 1989, 42)
The Italian landscape cannot but be analyzed from the domestic scale, meaning that the Italian garden design developed along with that of private villas (the union of the garden and the house), in fact the one cannot exist without the other – recalling the hortus conclusus of Roman origins. The unitary conception and the continuous dialogue between the villa (or “casa di villa” as defined by Alberti, therefore “casa,” a home) and the garden, shaped the form of the latter which tended to mimic architecture (see Carnemolla, 1989). Curiously enough, the discipline of garden design is called in Italian “architettura dei giardini,” meaning “architecture of gardens.” The Renaissance garden, by placing the man in the center of both the architectural and garden composition, was indeed designed by the architect who sought symmetry and harmony. As a mediating element between the human body, architecture, nature and the city, the garden of Italian villas is an urban microcosm in which the man expressed his domination over nature. Indeed, the villa contained all the elements that characterized the Italian territory: pleasure and vegetable garden, countryside, building, hill, forest and so on. It is worth pointing out that “territory” here stands for the result of a concrete process of transformation of nature into an artificial cultural construct which is de facto the Italian cultural landscape par excellence (encompassing both built and natural environment in its familiar and domesticated forms).
The Italian garden has historically united both venustats and utilitas, as vegetable gardens were oftentimes part and parcel of the villas’ amenities since the Ancient Romans, as seen in the domus’ gardens. This connects back to the garden as a unifying element between different territorial scales. In fact, “if we consider the garden as as the highest formal expression of agriculture, it unequivocally belongs to the process of urban expansion, as both a complement to the urban ‘palazzo’ in the case of the villa - expression of a singular form of expansion of the city in the countryside - and as part of the the same process of formation and growth of the city, in the relationship between built spaces and free spaces, whether or not these are arranged as gardens.” (Carnemolla, 1989, 100)
The interaction between the singular residential building (the palazzo), and the garden is therefore rooted in Italian tradition, and this explains why the “Garden City” movement has been embraced by neo-industrial and paternalistic Italian authorities for the implementation of new neighborhoods in the outskirts of major Italian cities during the 20th century. These few, sporadic examples of “quartieri giardino” (garden neighborhoods) or “borgate giardino,” are considered successful as they were in line with the national tradition of city making, rooted in principles of community and mediation between the town and the countryside. Many different typologies of Garden City developed in Italy, depending on the architectural tendencies of the time.
“(I ‘quartieri giardino’ sono) un aggruppamento irregolare di casette e villini, di alberi, di terrazze, di vie. / (‘Quartieri giardino’ are) an uneven grouping of small houses and villini, of trees, terraces, streets.” (Rossi, 1991, 34)
The Quartiere Garbatella in Rome (1920-22), for instance, is an early example of “borgata giardino” composed of 190 dwellings distributed over two-storey “villini,” each of them with its own private garden or vegetable garden. The quartiere’s villini by architect G. Giovannoni (and others) were faithful to a picturesque, vernacular vocabulary which was called “barocchetto” that underlined its nostalgic tone (Rossi, p. 29). The Città Giardino Aniene, still in Rome (1920s) and planned by the same architect, was on the contrary conceived as a true, autonomous Garden City. Five hundred villini, still in barocchetto style, were built for 3000 dwellings with private gardens, while Piazza Sempione concentrated all services necessary to the community. Sport facilities should have been implemented along a large park that would have served the entire community (which has been partially built). The garden city has been soon incorporated into the expanding fabric of Rome, turning into a neighborhood that fostered the northern expansion of the city. In conclusion, Italian’s quartieri giardino represent a succesful example of mediation between the city, the cultural values embedded into the Italian landscape and the tradition of garden design.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carnemolla, A., Il Giardino Analogo, Considerazioni sull’architettura dei giardini. Rome: Officina Edizioni. 1989
Rossi, P. O., Roma: Giuda all’Architettura Moderna 1909-1991, Rome: Editori Laterza, 1991
Tagliaventi, G., Città Giardino: Cento Anni di Teorie, Modelli, Esperienze, Rome: Gangemi Ediore, 1995
Howard, E., Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1965
