Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Picturisque as pejorative

The Picturisque as pejorative Abstract The Picturesque arraigned Whether capitalised as an aesthetic category or movement, or used as a throwaway adjective,1 the Picturesque has become the whipping-boy of landscape theory. In everyday speech, though much diluted, it remains a term of approbation, but in critical and academic writing it is most often used in a pejorative sense.2 What is it about the Picturesque that theorists have found so objectionable, and why does it retain popular appeal despite the abuse heaped upon it? To what extent are its critics justified? Are there aspects of Picturesque theory that des erve to be re-examined, rescued or redeemed? In this article I put mys elf in the role of defence lawyer, summoned to the cells to see what kind of arguments can be assembled to defend a theory that many would seem happy to lock away forever. I will consider four principal allegations: that the Picturesque is dysfunctional, it is tyrannical, it is socially unjust and it is anti-ecological. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes Taylor & Francis

The Picturisque as pejorative

Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/the-picturisque-as-pejorative-QpR0Y6xig0

References (2)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1943-2186
eISSN
1460-1176
DOI
10.1080/14601176.2006.10435468
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The Picturesque arraigned Whether capitalised as an aesthetic category or movement, or used as a throwaway adjective,1 the Picturesque has become the whipping-boy of landscape theory. In everyday speech, though much diluted, it remains a term of approbation, but in critical and academic writing it is most often used in a pejorative sense.2 What is it about the Picturesque that theorists have found so objectionable, and why does it retain popular appeal despite the abuse heaped upon it? To what extent are its critics justified? Are there aspects of Picturesque theory that des erve to be re-examined, rescued or redeemed? In this article I put mys elf in the role of defence lawyer, summoned to the cells to see what kind of arguments can be assembled to defend a theory that many would seem happy to lock away forever. I will consider four principal allegations: that the Picturesque is dysfunctional, it is tyrannical, it is socially unjust and it is anti-ecological.

Journal

Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.