The wall/ ruin: meaning and memory in landscape

Abstract

The view of physical space as functional is in conflict with a view of space that is determined imaginatively by memory and metaphor. This paper examines the contemporary conception of space (that is, space conceived purely as a scientific phenomenon) and demonstrates its inadequacies and limitations. The conception of space as functional is a remnant of our positivistic heritage which seems to leave no room for any deeper meaning. Accordingly, the concepts of meaning, truth, and legitimation (that is, empirical explanation or the generating of laws) are closely related to one another and to the procedures governing scientific activity. Thus, science becomes the model for meaning, truth and legitimation in all areas, including design and art. This is one side of the false dichotomy I reject. To me, it is a reductionistic and impoverished conception of meaning, truth and legitimation-one that simply begs the question against other conceptions. The result of this perspective ('scientism') has been an impoverishment of our culture, particularly in the area of landscape design. The other side of this dichotomy is equally unsatisfying. The postmodernist, following Derrida, rejects this reductionistic conception of meaning, but in doing so undermines their own position. For Derrida, words 'have multiple meanings ... they thus possess potential excess meanings ... Language always means more than it may be taken to mean in anyone context' (Lye 1993, p.91). His emphasis on meaning as determined only in relation to other words, and his attempt to eliminate metaphysical notions like representation and absolute meaning, creates an illusion of instability which can lead to a paralysing ambiguity (Stephens 1994). The totality of meaning becomes inaccessible. One can never have more than an inadequate and approximate grasp of meaning. In Derrida's scheme, meaning is nothing more than textual relationships with no connection or grounding outside of the text itself. 'Everything is text, and all text is indefinitely ambiguous' (1989, p.148). In this paper I will try to show that neither of the alternatives need be accepted, that there can be a conception of meaning that is neither verificationist (scientistic), nor empty (purely textual). This provides us with room to give levels of meaning to the world and to understand behaviour in a way which is neither scientific nor merely textual. I argue that for space to be intrinsically and authentically meaningful, design must be conceived imaginatively. This imaginative conception will involve and appeal to a metaphorical visual vocabulary which provides a non-literal, but authentic experience of time and space. As a result, an artifact may become an object of authentic aesthetic appreciation. I will illustrate this rather abstract conception with a variety of concrete examples, drawn primarily from landscape architecture using the wall and the ruin as an archetypal form of design language. This example offers a variety of interpretations and meanings, but ones which are necessarily underpinned by the notions (or criteria) of truth and falsity. I will consider the implications for design from the perspective of both the designer and the participant. I believe this account opens up levels of meaning, truth and legitimation which help us to understand the true significance and value of design and, in particular, landscape design.