I find this discussion fascinating because I've become quite comfortable "translating" the British garden world into the world I know here in America. The conversation ranges from the application of the New Perennials style to small gardens (and whether that can even work ... Dan Pearson makes a case for it), how availability of plants has changed (the selection of shrubs is much more limited and they are harder to find; perennials are far more available), to Cleve West's interest in the so-called Sheffield School of gardening (scientifically selected seed mixes for randomized planting), and Dan Pearson's clear description of the benefits of layered planting (an imitation of natural layering of plants ... starting with trees and shrubs, down to the understory of sun loving and shade tolerant perennials).
We have little offering this richness of subject matter and intellectual stimulation available on our side of the Atlantic. Perhaps, because our country is so large and diverse, it's just not possible for such ideas to make it into the American media, which isn't friendly to garden-related subjects, except in "life style" or "how to" formats. Listen and see what you think.
It strikes me that much of these ideas towards more naturalistic planting approaches, sound more like what I hear from people doing ecological restoration of wildlands. The trend feeling like a preservation of wild space which is a historic reversal of what gardens have been.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads up. This sounds like a good one.
ReplyDeleteSusan, it's not anything like that. I listed things that interested me in the talks, and that was not what I intended to communicate, so please listen to it and make your own judgment. This is definitely about garden design, not about ecological restoration of wild areas.
ReplyDeleteCraig, hope you find it of interest.
ReplyDeleteI'll listen to this one of the coming weekends.
ReplyDeleteTalking about GI, did you see the feature on the Nicole de Vesian garden in the latest issue?
It's good. I've listened several times, but I have a 2.5 hour drive twice a week and plenty of time for listening. My copy of GI hasn't arrived. I seem to get it about a month after everyone else in the world, but I'll look out for that garden.
ReplyDeleteJames, the similarity may have not stood out to you, but it certainly did to me. But when they start talking about randomized plantings, and a move away from the Arts & Crafts approach to design, whether it's intended or not, it sounds awfully familiar to ecological restoration work. And frankly, ecological restoration and gardening aren't all that different, really. The whole panel even references going out and observing native plant communities and trying to replicate them in a cultivated setting. As Dan Pearson talks of his project in Japan where the elimination of a dominant plant community to release the indigenous soil bank is exactly what is done in many wild land restoration projects. I'm not saying that gardening should be nothing but restoring things to their "wild" state—if such a thing exists in many places anymore—but that the worlds are seeing much more crossover. Gardening has been seen as removing wilderness from our immediate surroundings, now it appears that the trend is more towards emulating it.
ReplyDeleteSusan, I certainly agree with much of what you say. The move toward more naturalistic planting certainly reflects a desire to "imitate nature" in some sense. But humans have been talking about imitating nature for centuries, and producing vastly different kinds of gardens. I think I may define "ecological restoration" differently from you. As I hear the discussion on the podcast, there are many lessons to be taken from nature, especially today we are paying a lot of attention to how plants exist with each other in communities, how they respond appropriately to the places in which they grow, etc. I also agree with you that increasing population and urbanism have made us look longingly toward a nature we are losing to development. But I see ecological restoration as very specific restoration of a particular area using only plants that grow, or recently grew, in that area. Only a very narrow selection of plants, and those would be local natives only, would be acceptable in such a planting. I see naturalistic planting as much broader in the sense that any plants appropriate to the environment, from anywhere in the world, might be used so long as they are appropriate to that place, aesthetically and ecologically speaking. If we contrast an ecological restoration of a wetland in western New Jersey with a naturalistic planting designed by Piet Oudolf, I think we will see two vastly different results. So we may agree. I'm not sure.
ReplyDeleteWow...that was a nice way to start my day! I have to admit, I was especially struck by the last portion...how very different the attitude towards gardening seems to be (compared to Americans). It's amazing to think of gardening as a sort of country-wide interest. I think you're right about America...unless it's about outdoor entertaining or "decorating", most Americans don't really care about gardening as something worthy in itself.I must admit, I was glad to hear most of them agree that the whole vertical gardening phenomena was most likely a short-lived fad. Having a smaller garden, but being extremely interested in the whole "new perennial" and "naturalistic" styles, I appreciated their comments on it's suitability in a smaller space.I was also quite glad at least one of the speakers pointed out the relative silliness of people bemoaning their recent "awful" winters...mentioning how many climates are MUCH harsher than England...there is a similar mentality here in Portland. Whenever I hear someone talk about how our past 3 or 4 winters have been just awful and harsch, I think, "Really...you are a bit too sheltered!" Anyway...very interesting podcast...I wish GI did more...it's always a good listen on the bus :-)
ReplyDeleteYes, most Americans can't imagine how devoted the British are to gardening and what a prominent place it holds in their culture. I can't see their BBC TV programs, but there are quite a few, and all the major newspapers have gardening columns, among them a regular column by Dan Pearson in The Guardian. I have also thought the New Perennials or naturalistic style couldn't successfully be adapted to small gardens. Dan Pearson gave a very good explanation of how it can be done successfully, if the plants are small and selected carefully. He says using a "layered" approach is key, with an over story of small trees and shrubs, and an understory of perennials. And vines for the walls, of course. He does make the point that you really have to pare your plant selection back to a very few, and plant things appropriate to the shade and root competition from the trees and shrubs. There's a very good example of that on the High Line, which I recently did a post on (I think my previous post), where a season-long planting is made up of only two small trees/shrubs and two low perennials. GI used to post podcasts regularly but they've cut back. I think this is the first in about two years.
ReplyDeleteFrom the snippets of the lecture you mention here i almost yawn as i have practiced the Pearson approach for over a few decades, including the root/shade equation etc. I don't wait for the tree/shrub root impact but put in place the right selection of 'lesser' plants well before this takes place. A comprehensive knowledge of the plant material used is of course essential but sadly few garden makers can be bothered to research plants at this level of understanding. Dry 'rooty' shade can be just as exciting as 'standard' growing conditions. Ultimately I believe that any style 'type' plant selection/collection (Brits can chuck in a label as they are want to do) that can perform without too much gardener intervention is by its very nature 'Naturalistic' with or without the increasingly boring over stylized 'Oudolfian' interpretations.
ReplyDeleteYou're certainly right. A comprehensive knowledge of plant material is a prerequisite, but the vast majority of Americans are only only interested in their lawns, decks, and barbecues. Knowledge doesn't come easily here, and the garden establishment (nurseries, etc.) do little to help. Of course, there are serious gardeners who learn these things on their own, but in comparison to the to the plant buying population, they are indeed a small number.
ReplyDeleteJames..a good set of eyes and just a few decent plant reference books (note NOT 'style' books) is all that anyone needs to increase and understand. In this day and age of instant everything gardens don't stand a chance!
ReplyDeleteJust how much do we have to intellectualize gardens?
ReplyDeleteThe 'new' order English raising the bar types are merely a replacement for the 'old' school 'plantsman' types..my word they like to have position and sacrilege in da Shires!
ReplyDeleteAbout using your eyes and good reference books, agreed. Tools are there, but as you say, in this culture of instant everything, few want, or even know, to use those tools. I suppose you can intellectualize gardens in many ways. My use of the word wasn't with that meaning, but referred to intellectual stimulation of people seriously talking about gardens, in contrast to what we have in most of America, which is gardens as lifestyle. (Thomas Church without the plants or the aesthetic sensibility.)
ReplyDeleteGardens have always been about lifestyle and always will be. The socially privileged throughout history have by and large created gardens as artifice. The gardens we have are the products of our time just as older style gardens are for those times. Lately I have been involved in designing gardens in a nearby Provincial City and its environs and I must say most of the gardens I see are but products of make-over 'lifestyle' TV ! Most of the 20th Century gardens were products of print media...Nothing really changes.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point ... about all gardens being about life style. Though I think the contemporary meaning of that term may translate in many different ways in other times, other cultures.
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing the podcast to my attention, James. For me, it was exciting to hear two authors that I have a lot of time for, Tim Richardson & Noel Kingsbury, together with three of our 'top' designers, in conversation. A lot of interesting topics covered, and repeated listening should be rewarding. I guess being in the UK means it's more relevant to me; your other correspondents seem a bit underwhelmed. The debate about naturalism is an ongoing one. I suppose it can grade into ecological restoration, but is in no way synonymous with it. And naturalistic can be interpreted in a small-scale way more appropriate to the average garden, as your High Line observations show. Anyway, I must break off and get back to a spot of sacrilege, and er... positioning was it?...in da Shires.
ReplyDeleteAndy,
ReplyDeleteI've listened to that podcast at least three times. I see your reference to Billy Martin's comment. If you don't know it, you should check out his garden Wigandia in Australia. He's not partial to the British Garden establishment, as you noticed.
ha ha!
ReplyDeleteLooks like Wigandia is an impressive garden created by a real character. In any discussion of a British garden 'establishment' the name of my employer would feature prominently, although of course my views are my own etc., and I've never been a great fan of the 'establishment' in whatever field. That's given me an idea for a blog post of my own...
ReplyDelete