A landscape is a stretch of land that has been improved by rational planning, sculpting of the land, and the addition of shrubberies, lanes, paths, buildings and other aesthetic features designed for contemplation. It is the way by which the training of a prince in the art of poetry is transferred to the administration of his princedom. In the post-aristocratic world, it is a romantic view-scape, in which individual identity-selves look out independently over an expanse of nature (everything that is not the individual identity), which is contemplated as a sense of space and freedom. This sense of landscape is largely 19th century. With its roots in art practice, it is largely visual. One looks out, after all. In this respect, the houses below are extensions of individual human selves and are constructed like those selves and serve as comfortable seats for them. They are kind of like full body shoes.
At the origin of the history of the self (17th century England and 18th century Germany) the concept was cut free from the old aristocratic and religious world, which saw human identity as a function of the surrounding space. This sense of separation between humans and the earth remains an integral part of landscape today. In fact, it creates the idea of Nature. According to the game, the landscape below is called, surprisingly enough, Nature.This divide between humans and nature, and this severing of individual identity from the physical world, is one of the ways in which colonialism is aggressively furthered. It is also largely a construct of power and display. The uniformity of the houses below is countered by the degree to which their views are impeded by others, as well as the degree to which they impede the view of others — not other houses but other selves, looking for access to the natural world, denied them by the power displays of others.
As with all art forms, this live-in landscape model, this corporatization of landscape with 3,000 and 4,000 square foot pseudo-humans comes with an intricate set of rules. Simply living in nature would be outside of the art genre, and earns the term of “homeless”. “Homeless” people, those who do not participate in this hierarchal art-making, are not considered true citizens of the view state, as, of course, they are not. Many social problems follow from this forced removal of many citizens from actual citizenship. The task of setting this imbalance to rights is not to dispense with houses, of course, as in this climate shelter is mighty important, but a lessening of the negative environmental and social costs of this kind of art would be most welcome. Notice the row of loungers in the back yard below. Maybe it will even improve architecture. After all, why does the house below have a garage?