Should they be used interchangeably? These terms I’m grappling with to express what connection could be with, is with. I don’t think so but right now this is how I perceive them:
Land is alive, it has expression and character; it responds and can be injured; it is impossible to separate from its wider ecosystem; it is an ecosystem and it excludes energy at frequencies I need to explore further.
Landscape refers to a manifestation of land influenced by forces—human, astrological, elemental, time even—it is possible to isolate a landscape for study. Will I break up Eskdale watershed into landscapes in order to better understand individual connections? Draw them up using distinctions/features participants give. Do we listen to land differently from one landscape to the next?
So, there is only one land. Which brings up the question of where the term land is distinct from ‘nature’. What is included in land? The life it supports? Or is it just the earth itself? If so, the river Esk and the tarns are separate and I need to explore where connection to them differs, if it does. Yet, individuals will express connections to landscape. How do I prompt them to consider their connection to land, do I mean connection to nature here?
Am I exploring connection to land or landscape? Landscape can’t have a voice but land does.
Leave a Reply