One thing is Land Art and another is Landscape Architecture, they should be different, but the first is practised by artists and the second by architects. Usually artists who work on the land do not think that their works should last forever, but rather be temporary; instead the interventions of landscape architects are unfortunately destined to last as long as possible. Two of them in particular, K. Wilkie and C. Jenks (both blessed by the British cultural establishment) going for the wink (won't mind all the others). Wilkie speaks about a "continuous conversation between form and life" and insists on the concept of elegance and above all respect. Where is the respect I really cannot understand, when it is clear that any landscape intervention of this kind is always prevaricating if not brutal any are the cultural justifications. Does nature show itself taking such forms? No, these interventions are always artificial. Even the closely-lawn grass that lines the (artificial) geometric forms created is not true. The attentive visitors will not cause a beaten path on the grass? Perhaps the children could not walk on the grass and roll on slopes. Will the birds allowed to transfer their evacuations? Any wild plant or weed will thoroughly be eliminated. What good is all this? To stir up the various "ooh!" or "aah" of enthusiastic visitors? It is that world is full of scoundrels.