Forwarded message:
From: Self <SAMSON/LYAAZ>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Bucolics etc
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:32:29
To take up chris's cue, I think the point is being missed: reduction
of the land to rural sociology, a pleasant view of trees across
ploughed fields (or is it, or should it be, a road with trees in it?),
the urban- real of concealed poverty etc. These, so taken, are the
contaminations, contaminations being what is there, but in less than
the space available.
What of the question of open space, a good in
itself, what of the question of eco-community, ie sharing a space
with other perspectives, other subjectivities than the supervisory
human? If the countryside is the village, then no reason at all why
all villages shouldn't be joined up, and subtract the intervening
spaces:
that's contamination here, though the word has other uses and other
thorns in it too less available to my own indignation.
"Our singing for keels overtuned the strings of the woods
Only a landscape can be certain what _are_ the accidents of nature
The shape of a landscape is made with the non-human, materials not
composed for a logic of occupation alone: which is to say, history
speaks more fluently where it only irregularly fills the landscape."
Peter
Peter Larkin
Philosophy & Literature Librarian
University of Warwick Library
Coventry CV4 7AL UK
Tel: 01203 528151 Fax: 01203 524211
Email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|