Trimming Grass and Weeds Around
Old New England Property
(Antique) Granite Landscape Fixtures
Part Seventeen
"On Page Nineteen"
Mr.
and Mrs. Cardinal come, chirping and flitting, to my (bird) feeding station in
the very gray dawn of each morning.
The chickadees follow me ‘down’ into the forest and... flit and dee in
the sun upon the upper branches of the old spruce and hemlock while I, far
below, carry-off their ‘standing dead’ brethren. The mother phoebe has pushed her fat baby out of her moss
walled homestead in the rafter corner above my ‘piling (fire) wood’ shed. Her young Fatso is ensconced in a choke
cherry bush and will not move.
She;
the gray fox, strips the ground below the (bird) feeding station of the half
handful of raw peanuts that some fool tosses there... everyday. “She wouldn’t come if you didn’t do
that.” I’ve heard said. Her mate,
the male, curls puppy dog style past the (bird) feeding station by the zucchini
plants. He never hunts for
peanuts. Their kit has been told
to ‘stay’ under the shed. Mother’s
glance causes the small nose at the crack of ‘under the shed’ to vanish. When mother ‘does not’ anymore, the
little nose returns to my view.
Exhausting the half handful of peanuts Mrs. Fox trots off... up... and
over... the old stone wall between the farm yard and the forest. Her kit scurries to be behind her and
is off... up and over too. Mr. Fox
then follows... inclusive of the pause to look back... before he, too, is off,
up and over... the old stone wall.
Is there anything in all of this, I’ve wondered... for decades... that
Thoreau... missed?
What
if... when the foxes are ‘off... up... and over’ the... old stone wall...
Thoreau missed THAT; the off... up and over... the old stone wall. This colonial era wall WAS there and
WAS old when Thoreau was a “there” too... “then”.
Well...
obviously... the foxes ‘see it’; do not ‘miss it’; the old stone wall is not
missed by THEM.
And
what about the (good or bad aesthetic) TASTE of the old stone wall. Is the old stone wall ‘in good taste’
to Thoreau...? Or is it bad
taste...? Or is it of no taste at
all; a... he ‘missed’ a ‘that’ about ‘it’?
What
was (is) good taste for Thoreau? I
find his excavation and study of the burnt rocks in his bean patch at Walden
Pond to be... superior good taste in... ‘old New England property... (antique)
granite... field stone... landscape fixtures’. Further... I find... Thoreau and Emerson’s practice of
walking from their home(s) in Concord ‘into’ Harvard to attend or give a
lecture even better astute... sound... good... taste. Too...: It is a
‘good judgment’ of one following one’s own traveler’s eye. This traveler’s eye develops the ‘good
taste’ it (that eye) sees. This
eye makes ever more choices... of choices... of ‘taste’.
But...
it is a long walk... today...; there and back; Concord and Cambridge... in one
day... with the lecturing too. OH
I JUST CANNOT get anyone to even DRIVE that way... in and back out. And it is the BEST way in and out of
the village (Boston) TOO. Slip in
over Harvard bridge after all that “Concord - Lexington - Arlington”
“business”. Maybe if one is “GOOD”
one will “GET” (have to stop at) every stop light on this old route so be...
directly... benefited with the... task... of ‘looking around’. It is well understood that both Thoreau
and Emerson had the... good taste... to look around.
I
first affirmed Thoreau’s bad taste when I was brought to notice a ‘pile’ of
‘plaster’ dumped behind the hut at Walden pond. The excavated plaster dump was used to further define that
‘this’ ‘was’ “THE SITE” of the... hut at Walden Pond. As was the ‘pile’ of ‘rusted nails’ too... found dumped back
there (behind the hut). Too. Dumping ‘behind’ has always been ‘in
bad taste’. If of good taste, one
does NOT dump anything ‘behind’ anything... especially as a chosen aesthetic
(?) effort to ‘get rid of it’.
This dumping at the hut at Walden Pond... is... in... “almost”...
“inexplicable” ...bad taste... inclusive of this dumping truly coming back to a
‘haunt Thoreau’; a shadow cast. If
one is enticed by a trail of the aesthetic eye of ‘finding out’ Thoreau’s bad
taste, the story of the archaeological romp at Walden Pond... is a fine
start. It takes Thoreau’s hut of
the mind’s eye and... turns it upside down and dumps it... behind the site of
the hut... for all to read... when one reads that story with THAT (‘bad taste’)
critical eye.*
And
then ... I expressed my continuing quandary of ‘does Harvard have good taste
too” (Part Sixteen near the end).
And that was after I’d tossed (Part Sixteen again) “the diorama book” (I
call the book that from now on) into the examination of “Trimming Grass and Weeds
Around Old New England (Antique) Granite Landscape Fixtures”. I said I’d be coming back to the book.
On
the same page as the first quote I used then... page nineteen... in the text
below the PHOTOGRAPH of the old New England forest with a babbling brook AND
...old stone wall... ON this page nineteen... I skip the next sentence and then
I continue quoting:
“How
should we manage forests that are increasingly owned by more people in smaller
units? Should we continue to
import wood from other parts of the country and world, some of which are being
devastated by poor logging practices, while enjoying the growing forest around
us as a largely aesthetic and recreational resource, or should we obtain more
wood from our home forests. These
conservation issues and management questions emerge from the history of our
land (old New England property)”*A.
Ok...
so before I highlight this ‘utterance of’... as a statement of ‘taste’... I
must add some bibliographic clarity to the diorama book. The first edition of THIS BOOK was
titled “THE HARVARD FOREST MODELS and was published by Harvard in Cambridge in
1936. It was reprinted,
unchanged... several (?) times. I
have (and am using for this vignette chapter (blog post) a 1941 printing. The original 1936 edition is reproduced
in full on the Harvard Forest / Petersham web site.
It
is very useful to notice that... the text... and the very poor photographic
illustrations of the dioramas... in the early editions/printings of the diorama
book are exactly identical to the new 2000 (most recent) edition except that
the photographs of the dioramas are newly done and are far, far, far superior
to those in the earlier edition.
ONE OTHER CHANGE and ... only one other change... is the inclusion by
unannounced placement at about the ‘one third of the way through’ is the ‘this’
...page nineteen... lone photograph illustration (taken by David R. Foster)
noticed above. The quoted text and
the following pages of commentary text, too, are here added... addressing
‘modern forest landscape... summary... ecological lessons... conservation
issues... habitat... erosion... Then on to... fire... and ...quasi... current
woodland management... so as to weave BACK into the original text.
And
thereafter (from fire onward) the text and diorama illustrations return to the
original edition diorama book’s text and illustration format (with this textual
return body being a considerable amount of the whole book) as a:
Commercial resource management illustrated how-to history...
of the history... OF cash cropping “TREES” on old New England property.
I
remind here that I earlier gave my stated disclaimer on I noticing “TREES” that
said... I would not be treating “TREES” in this vignette (series of blog posts)
for I am... ‘trimming grass and weeds around’ “granite” landscape fixtures (Part Six at the end). “Trees” are
another ‘landscape fixture’.
Wading
back to ‘taste’ and ‘the diorama book’ and GOOD-BAD TASTE “do they?” (Harvard
have). I... feel... the review of
both editions supports that MOST ALL (three fourth) of the dioramas and their
supporting text opt for commercial forest management of ‘old New England
property’ FOREST landscape fixtures and otherwise bulldoze (in fact) through,
right over, all around and ...into oblivion... the other ...old New England
property (antique) landscape fixtures including homesteads, homes, barns,
sheds, out buildings, wells, springs, mills... old field stone piles and ...old
stone walls. Et al.
This
is
“Bad
taste” I say.
And
that is supported by the historical sequence (history of history) presented by
the actual dioramas and their support text... AND is actually pinpointed in the
2000 edition with the word choice query of “aesthetic” or “obtain more wood”
found on page nineteen. The
diorama book’s choice of choices of this query is... ‘obtain more wood’ and
(further) loose the original old New England property (antique) landscape
fixtures. Those... too... found in their neglected states upon the property...
are to be treated as minor impediments to obtain-more-wood directives in
addition to being... not noticed... not treated... not cared of and...
I
say
This
is bad taste treatment... of ... the aesthetic... of... old New England...
And
THIS...
aesthetic is...
VERY
ACCURATELY SHOWN... by the dioramas (and supporting text)... in the first FIVE
dioramas. Old New England property
and its (antique granite too) landscape fixtures ARE shown with their ‘history
of the history’...TOO.
So
let’s us NOW delightedly look at those five dioramas for they are the beautiful
representation of the “WHY” of old New England property (antique) granite
landscape fixtures. We find them,
here in the dioramas... well trimmed ‘of grass and weeds around’.
*A Foster,
David R. and O’Keefe, John F.: NEW
ENGLAND FOREST THROUGH TIME.
INSIGHTS FROM THE HARVARD FOREST DIORAMAS. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 2000., pg. 19
* Donald W.
Linebaugh; THE MAN WHO FOUND THOREAU.
ROLAND W. ROBBINS AND THE RISE OF HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN AMERICA,
Univ. of New Hampshire Press, Durham, NH, 2005, pgs. 27-57.
No comments:
Post a Comment