Response to "The Beholding Eye"

This reading discusses the various ways in which people can view a landscape. While reading this piece, I kept Glen Canyon in mind, and the conversations our group has had with the visitors of the park. Much of the conversations we have had with these people have much to do with this reading, especially how humans have affected the canyon over time through their own physical and social actions.
     Landscape as Nature: This part reminded me of the current restoration efforts going on in Glen Canyon. We discussed these efforts with a woman we met in the canyon, and she told us "they are trying to make it look like it did in 1776". The idea that nature should be kept to its natural state sounds endearing, but when considered under this comment, it is comical. First of all, what is "natural" anymore? The landscape has changed so much (especially since 1776), and is in a constant state of change. Birds fly in and drop seeds, animals use the land for what they need and move on. The fact is that you cannot travel back in time to change the past, so it is best to just let the landscape be. The people who are trying to restore the area may think that humans are separate from nature, but really we are very much a part of it.
     Landscape as Artifact: When I first visited Glen Canyon and Islais Creek, I believe I held this point of view. Everywhere I looked I saw evidence of human control; the man made bridges, the man holes, and even graffiti marks on the rocks all caught my eye. Even the restoration signs telling people not to enter the area conveyed a blatant message to me. Humans have always tried to conquer nature, instead of living harmoniously with it. What is left to see of Islais Creek is clear, sad evidence of this.
     Landscape as Wealth: When talking to Glen Canyon dog-walkers about the restoration process, some of them had made comments about how they hoped that the restoration would boost the worth of their houses.
     Landscape as Ideology: The other day I was thinking about how humans love to be surrounded by beautiful things, and how this has affected our environment. The California coastline used to be made of sand dunes with very few plants and trees we would consider beautiful today. It makes me wonder why certain things embody this beauty ideal, while others don't. And how has our idea of what it means to be beautiful come to be? A rose is considered to be beautiful, while tumbleweed is not, and so let us rid our world of the tumbleweed even though it is natural, and the rose is not. This seems to have been the kind of reasoning that has led to "unnatural" plants and trees taking over what was once natural. "Beauty" is a human perception that has been forced upon the landscape as a means of control, and eerily reminds me of plastic surgery.