Â
I certainly think that it’s time some questions were raised and discussed - with a certain rigour which has been sadly lacking, and you seem to be ahead of us there.
Â
I confess I haven’t yet found your clarification on your website - I got sidetracked by too many interesting things, including Louisa’s plans. So - para 7 - do please amplify your comment about context: I feel as if I’m grasping your meaning through gauze, in particular - how does this work? I know nothing about architecture though, or example would maybe do it.
Â
Leap to overall thought - it is a shame that you are not doing this design yourself, given your close link to the site and care for it - and all the thought that you have now put into the design issues. Then it could come from the heart; a dimension generally lacking because of the distances between designer, client and site. (see below) However …
Â
You say you have come down for the plantsman/gardeners. Well, maybe not. We all have to work within the limitations and demands of a particular site and plants are not entirely what you are left with. Nor does your designer have to offer yet another zoo for plants. Plantsmen do not only fail in scale after all. (tell me about it.) There is clearly still fantastic scope, hopefully for someone who is not obsessed with their material but who can see and imagine a wider picture. But they can’t landscape, change levels, add much form, can they? Not even a little, with all that structure there already.
Â
Which takes us to the ‘theatrical performance’ analogy - and what is fascinating and pertinent is that you have left out the play.
Â
Need I say more? I do want to hear your explanation and I do think the ‘play’ is at the heart of this issue. After all, replanting the sunken garden at Hestercombe would be a slightly sterile, decorative task. Question - did Christopher Lloyd overcome a similar handicap out of his sheer involvement and the history of his own association with his site? Or was he decorating? I believe he recognised the problem and his limitations, though I’m not sure many other people do/did - and this is close to your tensions, isn’t it?
Â
Ok, to your definition - I read it and think, yes, of course, all those influences and, of course, a process, theatre is good (if you include the play.) And then I think where does a single vision, unencumbered, fit into this? I am once again (as fantasy designer) overwhelmed, as I was at your website. Overstimulated, unable to focus - where is the play? Can you have a brilliant play written by committee? I notice too that you ask of your designer/gardener that they include - what was it? mystery and some other things? Do they need any more constraints???
Â
In fact, the whole thing revolves around fascinating questions of constraint (inflicting the paths? what budget? whose garden?) and integrity (whose garden? whose vision? does it matter if you have a dozen inputs or is it better the more limited these are? is the analogy a play, with playwright,(!) producer, costume designer, audience &so? or is a better analogy and garden produced by the model of a novel? with only novelist, editor, cover designer - and reader who can shape nothing? How do you create a coherent whole in a garden, without the designer/gardener totally at the helm, to further mix metaphors?
Â
And then I end up asking - does the garden matter at all? or just the debate? And in what proportions? If it fails (? ok - what that??) and the result is a mess or disappointment to you, is it still a success for the discussion it provoked? or was the bruising by an unfriendly and loud garden world too much?
Â
I’m so glad that you have spread your wings beyond the garden world for your judges. You made me aware that I am the only designer/gardener amongst the thinkingardens group (though Stephen would contend that maybe) - and perhaps that is our strength. Add Tim Richardson as our external guru and you have another one. But we need to know of many more to spread our wings, with as little to do with gardening as possible - maybe you’ll be able to help us there?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 4:33 pm and is filed under Correspondence. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.