I came across this post about geopolitical space and architectural theory, and its ideas are shedding some light for me on the relationship produced by encountering landscape. Yes, of course I am thinking about Capi and her mix of will and willingness, and my evermore uncertain position on what she is doing.
The idea of the political architect (introduced to me in the post linked above) is very exciting to me, and it can be brought to bear on perceptions of place–built or otherwise determined. Consider that places are produced regardless of their material attributes. At the risk of introducing a superheroic graphic, or maybe with cinematic pleasure, consider that a concept, a world, a nation, a wilderness, a city, a building, a development, a house, a room, a mirror, an eye looking into an eye, a thought, a quality cultivated within, are all kinds of places. Outlined, determined, negotiable, changing, shadowy, upset, left, found, sought, mistaken, beloved, defended, regarded, transgressed, encountered–all places. How place is seen and what it is assumed to be, what significance it holds for the person engaging in relationship with it, are produced actualities. For the “producer” to recognise the politics, the political potential of determining place, is an act of fundamental responsibility for the re/production of views (assumptions, expectations, desires, fears). Such an act shifts the relationship between self and other from one governed by hierarchy to one foregrounding mutuality, reciprocity, and the implicit realisation that any production of place is palimpsestic, unfixed, unstable.
I believe that such an act is indicative of the heart of anarchy: it is about responsibility. Shift the starting point of relationship from defense to generosity, and take it upon yourself to do what is in front of you.