Must Landscapes Mean?: Approaches to Significance in Recent Landscape Architecture

Abstract

Abstract A renewed concern for meaning in landscape architecture—and the ways by which meaning can be achieved—resurfaced during the early 1980s after an absence in professional publications of almost half a century. This essay examines the sources of significance in landscape design and the possibilities—and limits—of designing meaning into landscape architecture. Six approaches currently employed are discussed: the Neoarchaic, the Genius of the Place, the Zeitgeist, the Vernacular Landscape, the Didactic and the Theme Garden. Meaning, it is argued, results less from the effects of a particular design than from the collective associations accrued over time. Questioning the absence of a more active pursuit for personal pleasure in the landscape, the author suggests that pleasure could help link individual experience with a broader cultural grounding for creating significance.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 52 citations exist upstream.