person 1. how do you define it then?
person 2. well it is what we agree it is and also how you personally feel about it.
person 1. what is it good for though?
person 2. it has a whole range of benefits to society, economic and social but also on a personal level it has spiritual and psychological effects.
person 1. but in terms of priorities we’d be better off giving public money to nurses and teachers wouldn’t we?
person 2. well you could argue that but it has proven positive impacts on health and well-being which will save money in these areas in the long term.
person 1. yeah but its elitist though isn’t it?
person 2. no, because its there for everyone if you engage with it in what ever way you choose.
person 1. still it all seems very airy and vague though.
person 2. but imagine a world without it!
I’ve had this sort of dialogue in two fields of interest now one is in reference to Arts and culture, the other in reference to wild land.
What I’ve come to realise (and especially after being at the recent wild landscapes conference) is that those involved in the heart of the debate about wild land and wild places would be well served to pay attention to the types of critical and philosophical discourse that take place across the arts to support arguments for it’s place at the core of society.