An Index: Using Memory as a Measure of Landscape by Joel Setzer

An Index: Using Memory as a Measure of Landscape Joel Setzer

Spring 2014 M.Arch

Chair: Co-Chair:

Professor Mark Mcglothlin Charlie Hailey

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Alyssa, Thank you for the daily love, support and understanding. You make me strong like bull. I love you. To Mom, Thank you for always pushing and encouraging me to prevail â&#x20AC;&#x201C; even when did not appreciate it. To Dad and Miles, Thank you for supporting my decisions and being a fan of anything I do. To Travis, Thank you for the adventures â&#x20AC;&#x201C; more to come. To Professors McGlothin and Hailey Thank you for letting me struggle, and teaching me how to respond.

ABSTRACT

003

LANDSCAPE

005

MEASURE

011

MEMORY

017

EXPLORATIONS

023

CONCLUSIONS

055 Battle of Antietam

024

Battle of Shiloh

034

Battle of the Wilderness

044

027

029

031

033

037

039

041

043

047

049

051

053

ABSTRACT

The very moment a landscape is inhabited, measurement takes place; the inhabitant begins to incrementally layer information as a method of understanding the surroundings. This act applies to architecture in the most basic and fundamental ways, and documentation of it is often the basis of an architectural response. Most commonly, documentation of the landscape consists of recording physical elements - ones that a design response must take into account while ignoring the possibility of a response to something more: experiences, materiality, time, movement, memory, etc. During the Civil War, the American Landscape was measured and documented for the use of war. The results of the measurements often decided the outcome of battles. Trenches were dug, signal towers were built and the use of batteries altered the appearance of the landscape even to this day. These constructed devices provided a physical indication of the conclusions drawn from the measurements that were taken. While much of the evidence of the Civil War is no longer present within the landscape, documentation details the ways that landscape was measured and navigated. Through the application of my research, I have created an index of the American landscape as measured through events of the Civil War. The index will rely on measurements, marks and indications left behind in both physical and documented form. Through the utilization of the index, the memory that lies within the landscape will be revealed. Conclusions pertaining to patterns, sequences, and compositions inherent within the landscape will be formed. The purpose of the index will be to interpret the role memory plays in landscape and set a framework for design solutions as they pertain to architecture.

LANDSCAPE

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The older I grow and the longer I look at landscapes and seek to understand them, the more convinced I am that their beauty is not simply an aspect but their very essence and that that beauty derives from the human presence.â&#x20AC;? -J.B. Jackson

THE THREE LANDSCAPES When speaking of landscapes in a general sense, the narrative is often told from the perspective of an individual. To expand, it is often man’s relationship to a landscape that defiffiifines it – usually through scale, size, proportion or movement through it. This relationship, in one way or another, has been documented throughout history, providing us with snapshots that describe landscapes in terms of inhabitation. The use of the land, the way it has been viewed, and the perception of distance have evolved the defiffiifinition of landscape throughout history. J.B. Jackson has described the chronology of this as three “distinct landscapes.” Landscape one, the medieval landscape, where people dwelled in “vibrating, miraculous natural history held together by tribal affinities and superstition.” Landscape two was the neoclassical landscape, the landscape of “reason.” Landscape three was the “loose, inquisitive landscape of the modern world.” The fiffiifirst landscape, people lived close to nature. The second in direct contradiction to it, and the third we live on the surface of it sustained by our machines.

LANDSCAPE

Landscape one - close to nature

Landscape two - in contradiction to nature

Landscape three - on the surface, sustained by our machines

THE THIRD LANDSCAPE In Paul Shepheard’s The Cultivated Wilderness, he expands on the concept of the three landscpaes set forth by J.B. Jackson. He cites the discovery of Anarctica as the beginning of the “third landscape”. It wasn’t until this point that men had the means – or the machines – to sustain them on their journey to discover Antarctica and survive when they get there. Shepheard writes, “The discovery of Antarctica at the end of the eighteenth century coincided with a new kind of science. Science was no longer to be the study of God’s creation— thefi ffiifish and the fowl— but a study of invisible forces and inhumanly huge time spans: geophysics and evolution.” The discovery of Antarctica marked a time in history when it ffifiirst became possible to realize the world as a whole. The moment man had conquered the coldest, darkest places of the world marked the moment man began to perceive time as a new landscape. Man now lives on the surface of the earth sustained by machines, and use them as tools to distort time and distance. Previously uninhabitable land has been made inhabitable and exploited, such as the polders in Amsterdam, or even the state of Florida which did not see mass population until the invention of the air conditioner and car. Before this time, man was contained within the landscape, and their life’s work was to survive in harmony within it. Discovery was about studying the soil that lied directly beneath their feet and understanding it. Most importantly, culture was directly tied to the landscape. The landscape dictated the construction of a society’s homes, their diets, clothing, etc. The landscape formed the people and their culture, whereas now the culture has the ability to transform the landscape, for better or for worse. HAARLEMMERMEER, NETHERLANDS Haarlemmermeer is a municipality in the Netherlands. It is a polder that consists of land reclaimed from a lake in the 19th century. The name Haarlemmermeer means Haarlem’s Lake, still referring to the body of water from which the region was reclaimed. In order to create the polder, a canal was dug around the lake, fiffiifittingly called Ringvaart (Ring Canal), to carry the water drainage and boat and ship traffiffiific which had previously gone across the lake. This canal was 61 kilometers (38 mi) long, and 2.40 meters (7.9 ft) deep, and the excavated earth was used to build a dike from 30 to 50 meters (98 to 164 ft) wide around the lake.

LANDSCAPE

MEASURE

“A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable.” -LOUIS KAHN

Images by James Corner from “Taking Measures Across the American Landscape”

MEASURE

Measure is often thought of in terms of certainty or specificity. The most widely used or general understanding of measurement is that it is a conclusion drawn from using an instrument or device marked in standard units. In this sense, measure is classiffiified as a set of units that identify a mathematical structure to a certain reality. However, the idea of measure emerges in societal ethics in terms of “good” or “bad,” “right” or “wrong” – themes that are ironically “immeasurable” (as commonly used) due to the impossibility of standardized units of measure that apply to ethics or morals. For ancient societies, measure and proportion revealed the harmonious order of the natural world, therefor confiffiifirming the existence of divine power acting upon the earth in a time that J.B. Jackson would refer to as the fiffiifirst landscape. In Taking Measures Across America, James Corner proposes, “the determinations that are enabled by measure are themselves slippery and ffiifictional, often veiling (or even denying) the fact of life – in it’s inffiifinate richness, diversity and freedom – is predicated upon certain degrees of error, chance, and indetermination.” It must be kept in mind that measurement is a product of man pressed upon reality. Its validity lies in its accuracy and logic, not reality. As man has evolved, the defiffiifinition and scope of what is called measure has expanded to the point to where nothing can be created without it, and the existence of natural things cannot be separated from it. This is the case with the landscape.

ECOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT Research revealed disparities on the defiffiifinition of landscape were common, and usually tied to the measurement of it. For example, ecological landscapes are deffiifined as an area of land containing a mosaic of habitat patches, often within which a particular “focal” or “target” habitat patch is embedded. Because habitat patches can only be deffiifined relative to a particular organism’s perception and scaling of the environment landscape size would differ among organisms. However, landscapes generally occupy some spatial scale intermediate between an organism’s normal home range and its regional distribution. In other words, because each organism scales the environment differently, there is no absolute size for a landscape; from an organism-centered perspective, the size of a landscape varies depending on what constitutes a mosaic of habitat or resource patches meaningful to that particular organism. There are emerging views that the urban lanscape should be measured in a similar way - with an understanding of urbanism in which the ecological forces and flffllows that support urbanism are considered as part of the city as opposed to external to it. This train of thought measures the city in terms of ecology - the same metrics that are used in the measurement of landscape.

Ecological forces acting on Boston Image by Allison Dailey, Harvard GSD

MEASURE PATTERN MEASUREMENT Real landscapes (at any scale) contain complex spatial patterns in the distribution of resources that vary over time; quantifying these patterns and their dynamics is the concern of landscape pattern analysis. Spatial point patterns represent collections of entities where the geographic locations of the entities are of primary interest, rather than any quantitative or qualitative attribute of the entity itself. A familiar example is a map of all trees in a forest stand, wherein the data consists of a list of trees referenced by their geographic locations. Typically, the points would be labeled by species, and perhaps further specified by their sizes (a marked point pattern). The goal of point pattern analysis with such data is to determine whether the points are more or less clustered than expected by chance and/or to fiffiifind the spatial scale(s) at which the points tend to be more or less clustered than expected by chance. Linear network patterns represent collections of linear landscape elements that intersect to form a network. A familiar example is a map of streams in a watershed, wherein the data consists of nodes and linkages (corridors that connect nodes); the intervening area is considered the matrix and is typically ignored. Surface patterns represent quantitative measurements that vary continuously across the landscape; there are no explicit boundaries (i.e., patches are not delineated). Here, the data can be conceptualized as representing a three-dimensional surface, where the measured value at each geographic location is represented by the height of the surface. Categorical map patterns represent data in which the system property of interest is represented as a mosaic of discrete patches. From an ecological perspective, patches represent relatively discrete areas of relatively homogeneous environmental conditions at a particular scale. The patch boundaries are distinguished by abrupt discontinuities (boundaries) in environmental character states from their surroundings of magnitudes that are relevant to the ecological phenomenon under consideration.

MEMORY

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Modern memory is archival, it relies entirely on the materiality of the trace, the immediacy of recurring, the visibility of image.â&#x20AC;?

--PIERRE NORA

BUILT FORM Aldo Rossi presented some of the most successful theories of the role memory plays in architecture. Rossi closely associated time with architecture and urbanism. He viewed the construction process as being inseparable in value to time. This invaluable relationship has grown exponentially along with the growth of technology. The progression of technology has expedited the construction process greatly, changing the relationship of time and construction in many cities. Not only do the buildings go up faster, entire infrastructures are constructed in the matter of years rather decades in some places. Recently, the effects of constructing cities in this way have been seen. The Kangbashi district began as a public-works project in Ordos, a wealthy coal-mining town in Inner Mongolia. The area is ffiifilled with offiffiifice towers, administrative centers, government buildings, museums, theaters and sports fiffiifields—not to mention acre on acre of subdivisions overflflffllowing with middle-class duplexes and bungalows. The only problem: the district was originally designed to house, support and entertain 1 million people, yet hardly anyone lives there. The manufacturing of cities such as these lack appeal for certain reasons that Rossi highlights, and they have to do with time, space and memory. According to Rossi, there are “specific and disparate qualities within parts of a city due to its sociological, formal, and spatial characteristics that are formed by time and space.” These parts of the city are integral to the success of it. Rossi revealed that the city must be studied and valued as something constructed over time. He argued the importance of urban artifacts that serve as monuments, anchoring the structure of the city. These artifacts he describes as forms created directly out of the necessity of the citizens of the city, and as the needs of the city changes or grows, so does the form. This phenomenon gives the constructs the characteristics of a work of art rather that a utilitarian object. Rossi defiffiifines the urban artifact as a work of art intimately related to a specific place, event and form in the city. The importance of these artifacts radiates. Buildings and infrastructure in their immediate vicinity respond to their presence, which in turn demands a response to the buildings beyond them – an urban fabric is created. As these elements that have been created out of necessity age, their form adapts to the needs of the modern city to better respond. The persistence changes the urban artifacts into monuments, which take part in the process of a city’s development. This process is inseparable with time, thus the failure of cities like Ordos. It is within this process that the memories of the people of the city imbed themselves in to the actual built form. In Antropologia de La Memoria, Joel Candau states that, “Individual memories interact within a societal framework provided by societal memory.” This concept ties memory directly to culture and re-affiffiifirms the theories of Rossi; the memory of one affects another and so on.

MEMORY

It also demonstrates architecture as a form of memory and as the most constant symbol of the culture or society. Cities are a manifestation of this concept. As the city, and the form of the buildings within the city adapt, traces of the original construct remain. Rossi maintains that the value of the city and the urban artifact are “estimable not by their functions but by their permanent forms, since the form of the city is closely bound up with time of the city, while the functions are changeable and can be lost over time.” It is the presence of that form, serving as an artifact or piece of art that exhibits the memories of the past and present citizens of the city. French historian Pierre Nora also ties memory to the presence of an object, stating “Modern memory is archival – it relies entirely on the materiality of the trace, the immediacy of recurring, the visibility of image.” Though all three of these theories indicate societal memory - in the modern world - is provoked through physical means, the presence of urban artifacts or monuments may impact the purpose or meaning of a place beyond the life of the construct. Even in the erasure of the artifact, its participation in the process of a city’s development is permanent due to the collective and public nature of urban elements. For Rossi, in order to understand a part of a city properly one must study the dynamic relationship between the concepts of area and primary elements as nuclei of aggregation. He uses the term “primary element” to describe places where “fiffiifixed activities” are housed. He points to the amphitheater in Nimes, which changed into a fortress then became a small city. Though the speciffiific function of the place had changed multiple times, the place remains to be deffiifined as a place for gathering. This suggests that even in the erasure of the element the area would remain as a place of gathering due to it’s physical location, psychological perception, and linguistic nature. In other words, it is likely that the city’s need for the function of the object will remain, and to relocate the object would disrupt the artful construction of the city that has been formed by time. Some buildings are made to be remembered. They are objects within the landscape that embody the values of the culture in which they lay. They are a constructed symbol of memory – an instant monument. That is not to say that all other buildings that are built to respond to the needs of the city are understood as disposable. Many times constructs adapt through time, and prove to serve as urban artifacts that have meaning thrust upon them. These are the constructs that have become a symbol of the culture through time. An example of this would be vernacular housing, their value is found within the notion that they represent the response of the community to landscape that surrounds them. Vernacular housing is a symbol that distills the needs of a community. It is design by necessity and the memory of the origins of the culture.

MEMORY OF WAR In Remembering War: The Great War Between Memory and History in the 20th Century, author J.M. Winter describes the generation of the early twentieth century “the ffiifirst (though not the last) ‘generation of memory’.” He points to the effflluence of print media and photographs as means by which people remembered. He also attached the term memory to refer more to the person whom experienced it. For the ffiifirst time, photographs, the publication of soldier’s war letters, poetry, war novels, and plays acted as a lens that the general public could look through in remembrance of war for the entirety of their lives. These documents also provoked a collective remembrance understood as activities shared by collectives, groups of people in the public domain. In this way, Winter begins to deffiifine the difference between memory and remembrance. Remembrance he outlines as an action shared by many, while memory has a more personal or individual connotation. The delineation between memory and remembrance suggests that the act of remembrance is a spectacle of memories. It is when the memory of many collide that this spectacle occurs. In his book, J.M. Winter also describes “Theaters of Memory”, a notion that ties the act of remembrance to a specified place and sometimes time. Film, television, museums, and war crimes trials are sites where groups and individuals can negotiate the distance between history and memory in their representations of war. In these spaces, those who were not there see the past in terms of public representations of the memories of those who came before rather than in terms of their own personal memories. They are, once again “memories working within the societal framework of memory,” and in this way memory is unstable, plastic, synthetic, and repeatedly reshaped. Within these theaters, conversation is sparked and representations of the memories of multiple generations collide. The work of psychologist Daniel Schacter reinforces the notion that “the act of recalling the past is a dynamic, shifting process dependent on notions of the future as much as images of the past.” He describes memory as a series of impulses that have been recollected in the form of collage. He insists that memory is not a replication of the past, but rather a product by which “we recreate or reconstruct our experiences rather than retrieve copies of them. Sometimes in the process of recollection we add feelings, beliefs, or even knowledge we obtained after the experience. In other words, we bias our memories of the past by attributing them to emotions or knowledge that we acquired after the event.”

MEMORY

Within this lies the distinction between memory and history. History must operate within the boundaries of possibilities; historians have access to records that help build a framework of recorded history. Memories tend to be more susceptible to societal inflflffllfluence. Even still, history is the recording of memories, and technology has changed the ways in which individual memories are broadcast upon society - see Edward Snowden. Pierre Nora states that modern memory relies on the â&#x20AC;&#x153;visibility of the image.â&#x20AC;? The viral nature technology of can push any image to the forefront, therefor making a page for itself in history. Until these recent developments in technology, it was physical constructs that housed images that defined history. Even in the case of books, the images were housed in physical location such as libraries schools or houses. This placed a sense of permanence on each image that was collected as opposed to a slideshow of images that are available over the internet. This phenomenon has changed memory into an ever-changing event.

EXPLORATIONS

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Living in a capital in Europe but still surrounded by mountains and ocean, my relationship to music was strongest walking to school and back. I would sing to myself and very quickly started mapping out my melodies to landscapes - at the time I just thought it was very matter of fact, a common thing to do.â&#x20AC;? -BJORK

BATTLE OF ANTIETAM Sharpsburg, MD September 17, 1862 Casualties: 23,100 After pursuing Confederate General Robert E. Lee into Maryland, Union Army Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan launched attacks against Lee’s army, in defensive positions behind Antietam Creek. Attacks and counterattacks swept across Miller’s cornffiifield and ffiifighting swirled around the Dunker Church. Union assaults against the Sunken Road eventually pierced the Confederate center, but the Federal advantage was not followed up. In the afternoon, Union Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside’s corps entered the action, capturing a stone bridge over Antietam Creek and advancing against the Confederate right. McClellan had halted Lee’s invasion of Maryland, but Lee was able to withdraw his army back to Virginia without interference from the cautious McClellan. Although the battle was tactically inconclusive, the Confederate troops had withdrawn first from the battleffiifield, making it, in military terms, a Union victory.

SIGNALS_LINE OF SIGHT

One of the keys advantages to the Union army during the Battle of Antietam was their ability to communicate. Though the Confederates had the advantage of being established in trenches, the landscape that the Union occupied was beneffiificial to communication through the use of signals, common during the war. The location of Elk Ridge mountion to the east allowed General McClellan and his men to communicate over long distances using telescopes and flffllflags without constructing towers. Using these locations, McClellan located and exploited a weakness in the Southâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defenses.

OCCUPATION OF MEMORY_ARTIFACT AND ARTIFICE

Physical representations of the memories of the Battle of Antietam are located throughout the battleffiifields on which it took place. Many of the objects display themselves as artifacts, existing untouched for over 150 years. In actuality the preservation of this battleffiifield suffered in the early 1900â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, requiring many documented landmarks to be rebuilt in memory of the artifact that had since been erased. Rather than placing a monument or marker to indicate the loss of the artifact a replica was built, embedding artiffiifice into the landscape.

DAMAGE AND ADVANCE_RANGE AND ERASURE

The Confederates located their defenses along creeks and cornffiifields in order to increase the diffiffiifiiculty of approach for the enemy. The Union commonly used their batteries in order to combat the advantage that the rebels had taken in the landscape. Using the batteries, the Union soldiers would erase obstacles in the landscape or a portion of the defenses line and advance through it. The average range of a cannon was 1500 feet.

MONUMENTS_PATH AND ARRIVAL

One of the deadliest clashes of the war took place battling through the stalks of Miller’s cornfififfiield. Throughout the cornfififfiield, monuments are now scattered with connecting paths. Similarly, notion of path and arrival exist as a memory in this location. McClellan’s forces had surged for over two miles before arriving to the confederate’s fiffiinal line of defense. The cornffiifields remained as the last obstacle. After plowing through the corn and ammunition, the Union broke the Confederate line.

BATTLE OF SHILOH Southwestern Tennessee April 6-7, 1862 Casualties: 23,741 The Battle of Shiloh, also known as the Battle of Pittsburg Landing, was a major battle in the Western Theater of the American Civil War. A Union army under Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant had moved via the Tennessee River deep into Tennessee and was encamped principally at Pittsburg Landing on the west bank of the river. Confederate forces launched a surprise attack on Grant there. The Confederates achieved considerable success on the fiffiirst day, but were ultimately defeated on the second day. On the fiffiirst day of the battle, the Confederates struck with the intention of driving the Union defenders away from the river and into the swamps of Owl Creek to the west. The Confederate battle lines became confused during the fiffiierce fiffiighting, and Grant’s men instead fell back to the northeast, in the direction of Pittsburg Landing. A position on a slightly sunken road, later nicknamed the “Hornet’s Nest.”

FIELDS_PROJECTION, MOVEMENT, AND ZONES

On the ffiifirst day of the Battle of Shiloh, Grantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s men underwent a surprise attack by the rebel forces and suffered considerable losses, but the foresight of General Grant combined the falling sun bought his army time to repostion in order to withstand an attack the next morning before reinforcements could arrive. Rather than being driven into the nearby swamp, Grant utilized clearings and fiffiields in order to gain a tactical andvantage in the landscape.

THE SWAMPS_LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES

On 6 a.m. on April 6, the Confederates attacked Grantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s men with no warning. Their intention was to drive the Union soldiers who had their backs to the Tennessee River into a series of swamps to the north. The lack of organization in the attack allowed the Union soldiers to escape to the northeast to dry land and openings in the brush. While the swamps would have proven detrimental to Grantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s men, the positions in the open dry land helped them win the battle the following day.

THRESHOLD_TIME AND LOCATION

By the evening of April 6, 1962 the union soldeirs had reached their most vulnerbale position of the battle. The vision of Gen. Grant led them to openings just a short distance away that gave them an advantage in the landscape. This new postion, later lableled the “Hornet’s Nest,” changed the face of the battle and devastated the confederate army.

BLOODY POND_COLLECTION

In the heart of the Hornetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Nest laid a pond later to be known as Bloody Pond. Two days after the battles, a passer-by claims the the pond was stained red with the blood of the soldiers that fought in the battle. While many historians believe this to be a false claim or a myth, the pond still serves as a natural monument as a place of the war as well as an indication of the bloody and disaterous nature of the battle.

BATTLE OF THE WILDERNESS Spottslyvania County, VA May 5-7, 1864 Casualties: 29,800 The fi rst battle of Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1864 Virginia Overland Campaign against Gen. Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Both armies suffered heavy casualties, a harbinger of a bloody war of attrition by Grant against Leeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s army and, eventually, the Confederate capital, Richmond, Virginia. The battle was tactically inconclusive, as Grant disengaged and continued his offensive. In the scond day of war, much of the wilderness burnt to the ground, killing many of the helpless wounded soldiers that otherwise may have lived.

HERE COMES WALMART_VICINITY

Although the Battle of the Wilderness is not one of the most well-known battles of the Civil War, it is one of the most gruesome. Perhaps so gruesome that the people who witnessed it did their best to forget it or deny that such a thing could happen. The lack of documentation and artifacts from this battle have threaten the land on which the battle took place. There is a proposal for a Walmart to be built less that a mile from the main clash - an ironic monument to the United States Civil War.

HOSPITALS_TEMPORAL OCCUPATION

Hospitals played a critical role in the Battle of the Wilderness as the number of wounded neared 30,000. Since this was not a permanent position for the Union army, temporary hospitals were set up in the days of the war. Many times the hospitals would occupy existing houses or other structures, but they could also exist in temporary structures. During the battles, dense wilderness had to be cleared in some areas in order for transportation to the hospitals.

FLANK ATTACK_CONTAINMENT

On the morning of May 6, the Confederate army conducted a flffllank attack on the northern end of the Union troops that almost devastated them. This attack was carried out by occupying two roads parallel to each other and cutting off an entire segment of the union line. This maneuver would not have been possible if it were not for the dense thick underbrush of the wilderness. During this attack one-third of the Union forces were injured or killed.

MAKESHIFT GRAVES_RELOCATION

For two years following the Battle of the Wilderness bodies layed in the charred wood untouched. In June 1865, in response to clamorous complaints about the dead left unburied on the battlefififfiifields around Fredericksburg, the Federal government dispatched the 1st U.S. Veteran Volunteers to undertake reburial of the bodies. The 1st Volunteers reached Fredericksburg late on the afternoon of June 10 and pitched its tents on the south side of the Rappahannock River. The “bone collectors” compiles the remains into two large holes and buried them. Decades later, the remains were dug up and moved to the National Cemetary just east in Fredericksburg.

CONCLUSIONS

The research presented seeks to consider architecture as a process rather that a product. Because of this, it exists in many ways – it is not exclusive to buildings. Through this process, value and meaning are discovered and the approach to their implementation is defined. When architecture is considered this way, it becomes clear why every building is not referred to as architecture; its value has not been defined, or its meaning has been trivialized. In the same vein the term architecture is used to describe products in other fields, usually in reference to organization or structure – qualities inseparable with the process by which they were made. The explorations seek to present ways that memory may be used to enable the process of creation within a landscape. The events that took place in the battlefields during the Civil War shaped the environment we live in today – both physically and socially – yet the impact of those effects are not visible within the landscape themselves. In order to establish memory as a significant element within the studied landscapes, the exercises avoid the third dimension in a conventional sense and instead apply time as a third dimension. Each exploration employs memory as a device that enables the definition of a landscape as an architectural language. It is within this process that the architecture lays.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Candau, Joël, and Paula Mahler. Antropología De La Memoria. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, 2002. Print. Carroll, Andrew. War Letters: Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars. New York: Scribner, 2001. Print. Corner, James, and Alex S. MacLean. Taking Measures across the American Landscape. New Haven: Yale UP, 1996. Print. “An Interview With Charles Waldheim: Landscape Urbanism Now.” Scenario Journal. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://scenariojournal.com/article/megstuder-interview-waldheim/>. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. The Necessity for Ruins: And Other Topics. Amherst,: U of Massachusetts, 1980. Print. Rossi, Aldo, and Peter Eisenman. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1982. Print. Shepheard, Paul. The Cultivated Wilderness, Or, What Is Landscape? Chicago, IL: Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, 1997. Print. “Urban Storyteller.” Urban Storyteller. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://urbanstoryteller.blogspot.com/>. “The Wilderness - Dark, Close Wood.” Orientation Marker. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://www.stonesentinels.com/Wilderness/Dark_Close_Wood.php>. Winter, J. M. Remembering War: The Great War between Memory and History in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print. Worpole, Ken. “The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War.” Mortality 13.1 (2008): 84-85. Print. “IaleUK.” Welcome. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://iale.org.uk/>.