Frances to William with thanks... If the gardened or farmed or even merely fenced landscape is included as an "architectural" artifact, to the exclusion or independence of say any other built edifices thereon or nearby, then this allowance might extend what is often held to be "architecture" beyond what a global theory possibly could tolerate; but this inclusion of landscape as "architecture" still remains somewhat hazy for me, leaving aside the artistic twist. The selected or cultivated landscape by itself of course would always likely remain as a tectonic artifact, if not an "architectonic" artifact, with some aesthetic qualities like say beauty, and perhaps could even be deemed as a lofty aesthetic work of fine art in its own right, if warranted by some artistic "earthwork" standard.
You wrote... Don't neglect the landscape as architectural artifact.
