Like many park enthusiasts, I enjoy the concept of wilderness. When I am out in the bush I can forget about the worries of my day-to-day life. What I also conveniently forget is the fact that not everyone enjoys getting out as much as I do, and in fact my love of the wilderness is but one of many interpretations of a human-created landscape.
In their articles (see below) Rebecca Conard and David Glassberg discuss the concept of landscapes and how they can be interpreted by public historians. Like the idea of wilderness, landscapes are defined by human interpretations. For example, if I am standing on a cliff looking out over a vast expanse of wilderness in a park, I choose to interpret the flora, fauna, rocks, etc. below me as aesthetically pleasing, unspoiled, perhaps even primeval, forest. A biologist standing beside me might see the ecosystems, while a someone interested in resource extraction would focus on the amount lumber or the minerals underground. These three interpretations of the landscape are impacted by the fact that it has been designated a park. I am free to enjoy it recreationally, the biologist would most likely not face many barriers to conducting research, and the third individual would not be permitted to extract resources due to legislation. Let us assume that this park has received a “Wilderness” designation. Some of the values that I find in the park, along with my fellow wilderness enthusiasts, have been validated in the creation of the park. These values, however, could only truly be attached to the park once the designation was given. There is nothing unspoiled about this landscape which has been undergoing changes for countless years. It was certainly never empty of people. Excluding park staff and users, the land may have been inhabited by aboriginal people in the past. Perhaps aboriginal people continue to use the land. It is multiple interpretations such as my cliff-top observation and human constructs such as the hypothetical park that Conard and Glassberg highlight.
In the opening sections of her article, Conard raises the issue of a town, Irvine, California, which was a community constructed to represent a certain ideal. This relates back to my hypothetical park that is created in that in order to preserve an ideal: the artificial construct of wilderness. Just as in Irvine where unsightly gas stations and convenience stores exist in abnormally low numbers, people do not exist, nor have they ever, in the “unspoiled wilderness.” This seems strange when you consider the fact that humans are part of nature, yet we seek to remove ourselves from it, in order to place ourselves back in it, this time as observers instead of active participants.
If a landscape is not viewed in its historical context, it also risks becoming idealized. The land, or rather land use, evolves and it is the public historian’s job to ensure this is done properly. What does the public historian accomplish by doing this? The community he or she serves gains a greater understanding of their own landscape and their place in it. When a landscape is no longer frozen in the present or an idealistic version of the past, the community can assert more control of it in the future.
Please see:
Conard, Rebecca. “Spading Common Ground.” In Public History and the Environment edited by Martin V. Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino. Florida: Krieger, 2004.
Glassberg, David. “Interpreting Landscapes.” In Public History and the Environment edited by Martin V. Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino. Florida: Krieger, 2004.
In their articles (see below) Rebecca Conard and David Glassberg discuss the concept of landscapes and how they can be interpreted by public historians. Like the idea of wilderness, landscapes are defined by human interpretations. For example, if I am standing on a cliff looking out over a vast expanse of wilderness in a park, I choose to interpret the flora, fauna, rocks, etc. below me as aesthetically pleasing, unspoiled, perhaps even primeval, forest. A biologist standing beside me might see the ecosystems, while a someone interested in resource extraction would focus on the amount lumber or the minerals underground. These three interpretations of the landscape are impacted by the fact that it has been designated a park. I am free to enjoy it recreationally, the biologist would most likely not face many barriers to conducting research, and the third individual would not be permitted to extract resources due to legislation. Let us assume that this park has received a “Wilderness” designation. Some of the values that I find in the park, along with my fellow wilderness enthusiasts, have been validated in the creation of the park. These values, however, could only truly be attached to the park once the designation was given. There is nothing unspoiled about this landscape which has been undergoing changes for countless years. It was certainly never empty of people. Excluding park staff and users, the land may have been inhabited by aboriginal people in the past. Perhaps aboriginal people continue to use the land. It is multiple interpretations such as my cliff-top observation and human constructs such as the hypothetical park that Conard and Glassberg highlight.
In the opening sections of her article, Conard raises the issue of a town, Irvine, California, which was a community constructed to represent a certain ideal. This relates back to my hypothetical park that is created in that in order to preserve an ideal: the artificial construct of wilderness. Just as in Irvine where unsightly gas stations and convenience stores exist in abnormally low numbers, people do not exist, nor have they ever, in the “unspoiled wilderness.” This seems strange when you consider the fact that humans are part of nature, yet we seek to remove ourselves from it, in order to place ourselves back in it, this time as observers instead of active participants.
If a landscape is not viewed in its historical context, it also risks becoming idealized. The land, or rather land use, evolves and it is the public historian’s job to ensure this is done properly. What does the public historian accomplish by doing this? The community he or she serves gains a greater understanding of their own landscape and their place in it. When a landscape is no longer frozen in the present or an idealistic version of the past, the community can assert more control of it in the future.
Please see:
Conard, Rebecca. “Spading Common Ground.” In Public History and the Environment edited by Martin V. Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino. Florida: Krieger, 2004.
Glassberg, David. “Interpreting Landscapes.” In Public History and the Environment edited by Martin V. Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino. Florida: Krieger, 2004.
