Dickinson Nepal Mosaic

In his essay “The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene,” D.W. Meinig suggests that a landscape can be viewed as “ideology,” shaped by the cultural values of the people who interact with it. Underlying every scene is a set of human ideas about their relationship to the landscape.Through this lens, this construction scene strongly reflects a philosophy of progress, and especially progress as mastery of our world. The road is a tool for mobility, which allows society to expand in space and allows people to command that space with as little effort as possible. We want everything interconnected, available at our convenience. The road signs further evoke this sense of control: they are evidence that this road is part of a carefully mapped network, broken down into numbered units. They reflect a Fordian notion of mechanization and uniformity, which also shows itself in every man made item in the scene. The vehicles, the workmen’s clothes, the construction tools all come from batches of identical items, pumped out by a mechanized production scheme.

The construction work, meanwhile, demonstrates how laborious and imperfect our efforts are to maintain and achieve control. In this case, materials must be forced into place with heavy machinery to perform the purposes set for them. We keep at this task with stubborn persistence. Human use and natural elements wear away at our controlled structures, and the fight to hold degradation at bay can itself be disruptive. As this repair job progresses, a gaping hole in the ground fragments the sidewalk; the construction equipment blocks half the road. The traffic cones and crossing guards represent an attempt to gloss over this disruption of order.

While the process of development and mechanization is clear in the central and obtrusive construction scene, it has also solidified itself in the surroundings. The brick walls of the HUB are the product of yet another construction project, another battle for order and control. The stones are cut to fit perfectly together, in a pattern designed to fit human ideas of what is functional and attractive. The building provides a space where humans can have thorough control over their surroundings, where every surface can be straightened and leveled and even the lighting and temperature are mechanized. Meanwhile, the surrounding greenery provides an example of human control over other forms of life. Each tree, shrub and patch of grass is positioned and cultivated with the human eye and human convenience in mind.

This concern with aesthetics is linked with another aspect of progress: progression of social status. Everything surrounding the road is part of an institution of higher learning, whose reputation rests on its appearance as well as its academic quality. Its students work toward degrees as symbols of intelligence, discipline and expertise. Their education is intended as a pathway to respected careers and financial success. Through their education, the ideology of progress is passed on- but it can also be questioned and altered. With the evolution of ideas, the landscape continues to evolve.

Rumor has it, the Anita Tuvin Schlechter Auditorium (ATS) is named for a trustee who agreed to fund the building if she could design it herself. Schlechter was not an architect. One performance artist grumbled that she wished she had a sledge hammer to break down the ridiculous dividing walls between the upper and lower seating areas. Aesthetically, the auditorium reeks of the 1970s. As a supervisor to many Clarke Forum events in ATS, I often see this landscape as a problem. I will share my observations of a particularly crowded lecture to shed light on some functional and aesthetic problems in the landscape.

To look beyond symptoms in the problem lens, D.W. Meinig asks the viewer to use “greater awareness of what is happening and why”. He divides design problems (ATS is a failure of design) into function and aesthetic. As a human landscape, the problem arises from how both of these systems amplify behavior.

The lobby to ATS is vast – visitors may mill about in confusion as they look for the obscure theater entrances. This is also where the landscape problem begins. Groups arrive in waves. Students pour in as late as possible. The first visitors approach from the right staircase, relative to entering. They quickly fill up the raised seats to their immediate left and bottom right but mostly neglect the spaces past these first sections. The sharp left turn at the top of the stairs disorients visitors and amplifies a couple feedback loops which, in turn, amplify clogging behavior.

Professors in the first couple rows of the floor level and far-left seating areas require students to sign-in for class. Students waiting to sign-in talk with friends. Groups continue to enter the space from behind them. Stalled and blocked, the new groups fill up the seats to their immediate left even faster. The seating area stairs in ATS are functionally dangerous, mismatched. Flow slows and a crowd backs up on the entry stairs. To avoid danger, project managers orient crowd flow to an alternative stairwell. A similar problem emerges, and the flow alternates again.

Relationships define social spaces. As groups and couples fill the seats, small pockets remain unoccupied. Rather than scramble over human terrain, leaving friends behind, visitors sit against the back wall, along the aisles, or stand. The question and answer section of the event redefines the power relationship of the landscape. Through hostile past experiences, the facilitators must view the potential problem in this landscape. The traditional lenses absorbing the speaker’s answers for knowledge creation are secondary to the nonverbal communication between facilitators and screening of audience members. The platform for airtime is in relatively short supply so its moderation is very important.

The aesthetics and function of ATS amplify behavior which clogs flow. This landscape through the lens of a problem demonstrates the amplifying effects of design on behavior. Other useful lenses could be history, aesthetic, system, or artifact. From the role of a supervisor, this horribly designed landscape is a problem.

Being that the topic of climate change has been increasingly debated over the past years, it is important to know whether the information you are reading is from a credible source or not. Nowadays, two people can easily get into an argument about whether climate change is real or not, and that even includes respected politicians. However, if you have looked at credible sources, you will have plenty of evidence to back up your arguments. To find out if a source is valid or not, you can ask yourself the following questions:

1. Who is the author and does he/ she have enough experience in this field?
2. When was this written? (Sometimes sources can be very outdated, and you would want the most accurate source)
3. Where did the author get his / her information from? (They could have done independent research or you can look at the citations that they provided)

For example, to find out more information about a source that is often used, I evaluated NASA’s Global Climate Change (Vital Signs of the Planet) website, which provides articles, facts, solutions, etc., regarding climate change. NASA, which stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was established in 1958 with the vision to “reach for new heights and reveal the unknown for the benefit of humankind.” NASA brings together astronauts, engineers, scientists, technicians, and so on, with valuable credentials and expertise in their fields. The Global Climate Change website was specifically designed to provide information for the public about climate change. A lot of the information used by scientists comes from space satellites, information provided by scientists, and photographic evidence, and various space missions. Some of the information that space observations are able to provide include “…solar activity, sea level rise, the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans, the state of the ozone layer, air pollution, and changes in sea ice and land ice” (NASA).

Earth science became more of a priority when congress began to cut NASA’s funding in the 1970s. They then decided that they wanted NASA working on research that would contribute to national needs. In the 1980s “recognition that climate could change on human timescales made climate processes much more interesting research topics. It also spurred political interest” so the government began to provide the necessary funding. NASA’s climate change committee has provided valuable information for the past decades. In addition, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, which submits reports on the latest climate findings to world leaders in order to influence the policies that are made, uses information provided by NASA.
Since the people working for NASA have done substantial research and have provided a lot of evidence based on models, satellites, and space missions, you can say that their website is a very credible source.

Citation

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. (2017). Global Climate Change: History. [online] Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/history/ [Accessed 25 Sep. 2017].