Can aestheticizing political narratives through landscape design be an ethical, future-oriented practice?
- Rayva Nelson
- Feb 11
- 3 min read
Previous part here.
Aesthetic politicization is often thought of in relation to literary works like those of Walter Benjamin, who discussed how ideologies, like fascism, use aesthetic means to detach themselves from reality and promote their version of 'utopic' ideals. Desmond Manderson notes that this aesthetic politicization, or "aestheticizing politics", should not be confused with the idea of politicizing art. According to Manderson, ‘Aestheticizing politics’ turns visual representation into something a-temporal and utopian; ‘politicizing art’ on the contrary, involves returning the image to the temporal and spatial specificities of its origin, with a vengeance. In political theory or action, the the meaning behind vengeance holds a different, more intense, meaning. It's important to decide which of these notions, either aestheticizing politics or politicizing art, landscape architects, who want to focus on relations between a landscape's history (ex. location) or the symbolism or meaning behind a space's design, will value. While the idea of aestheticizing politics is often attributed to the rise in totalitarian or fascist regimes, it's important to remember that what states and individuals employ are neutral tools that take meaning depending on their implementation.
Not only is it reasonable, but it should be common practice for landscapes to represent the intersection of history's past and future directions. The landscapes that architects design have the potential to erase or ground historical and political complexities and reinforce communal and ecological responsibility and value. There are nuanced arguments to be made from both sides. Such as that aesthetic politicization is too detached or that politicizing landscapes could serve positive goals like ecological restoration or collective memory at the risk of employing a method that is detached from the actual history and culture of the landscape. In other words, aesthetic politicization always risks being a performative spectacle. Spectacles can serve a purpose but without proper decontextualization resistance, they can also be harmful.
Imagine that someone has designed a beautiful green space. It's a timeless creation that intends to bring its local community together and represent issues in sustainability while being a pillar for future design ideals. However, if this design does not also address the land's history of displacement for industrial use (as an example), it has failed to address or engage with the deeper social and political problems responsible for the sustainability issue. Thus creating a spectacle that has only aestheticized environmentalism and sustainability.
On the other hand, the approach of politicizing art could unintentionally promote exclusionary narratives or leave some communities feeling alienated. Consider the differences between landscapes that encourage interpretation versus ones that dictate meaning. How are these spaces experienced respectively? Which ones successfully foster engagement and reflection? A landscape's history will be intertwined with the histories of various communities. These histories and social relations between communities may be fraught with tension. There may be multiple disenfranchised communities whose history is connected to one landscape or a power imbalance between communities, both historically and presently. If a landscape design memorializes one community, or one point in history, it risks overshadowing others. While this isn't to say that all designs must be all-encompassing, it is important to consider both the history and future direction of the space.
Landscapes are never neutral—they carry histories, ideologies, and future possibilities within them. Whether through aestheticizing politics or politicizing art, design choices influence how we engage with the past and envision the future. While aesthetic spectacles can inspire, they risk being detached; and while political narratives can ground a space in history, they risk exclusion. The challenge for landscape architects is to navigate these tensions and ensure that their designs do more than just look meaningful. They must engage with the complexities of history and community in ways that are reflective and forward-thinking.
So, can aestheticizing political narratives through landscape design be an ethical, future-oriented practice? The answer may lie not in choosing one approach over the other, but in reinterpreting their roles to create landscapes that embrace both memory and possibility.
Commentary inspired in part by Here and Now: From “Aestheticizing Politics” to “Politicizing Art” (2018).
Comments