Question 1.

If an enclosed garden has "the character of an interior" how is it possible that it can also serve as a "spatial laboratory" for landscape design?

I think this question might touch on the existential thoughts of immensity versus the minuscule and the garden as a "paradox" in it of itself. Aben and de Witt talk about the idea of a microcosm and mentions "the whole and its parts analogous". I can understand the idea of the garden as a small representation of the larger lay of the land, especially when the garden seeks to complement the larger landscape around it and condensing the nature of that landscape into a small, walled area. I dont know what the character of an interior might be referring to, other than something with walls but I really don't classify many gardens as having character of an interior. I do like the term "spatial laboratory" and I like exploring the idea that a garden can be both literally something small and enclosed but at the same time allude to the vast space that may surround it. As complicated and confusing as the paradox can become I like to think about the reciprocity of the theory.

Gunston Hall Virginia, Plantation home of George Mason. This garden is one of my earliest memories of being outdoors in a garden space. This particular garden is made of boxwood and is maintained to the specifications of the original design during Mason's time at the plantation. The garden itself sits on a vast tract of land and although the garden feels rather large when you are navigating your way through its hard not to feel the immensity of the surrounding landscape. The smell of boxwood always reminds me of Virginia :)

Question 2.

Are there theories from the readings so far that have informed your project work in studio? If not, have there been other inspirations? If the latter, what were they?

I think the reading and the discussion about the ten different ways people look at landscape has influenced the way I am now approaching looking at landscape and evaluating it. I was surprised to learn that my approach is more from a problem solving point of view but I don't necessarily fall neatly into that category. I dont think I have done enough work in the studio yet for the theories that we have read to really translate to what I am currently working on. I think the session we had in sight planning on environmental psychology was very informative and has helped a great deal when planning and designing for the moonlit garden. I can also look at design and know with more clarity if it is pleasing to me and why.

Thought this was interesting!

courtesy of dailymail.co.uk

The stones are dolerite from the Preseli Mountains in Pembrokeshire.

Question 1,

In "Personal Dreams and Pagan Rituals", Robert L. Thayer, Jr. draws parallels between camping and the garden. Is this comparison apt? How is a garden like and unlike a campsite?

I do believe that this comparison is apt. I was able to envision what he was talking about very easily when I was reading his piece even though I've never personally looked at or built a garden to resemble a campsite. I have done a lot of camping and for people who find peace in an outdoor activity like that it would make sense to try to replicate that in a garden setting and have access to it anytime you like. It seemed to me that the most essential part of the camping experience to Thayer was the fire gazing and he was easily able to translate his feelings for camping to his personal garden space. His garden was about feeling and you could probably make a garden anything you want or compare it to anything you want, its how you feel and what inspires you that matters most. I think generally a garden is like a campsite in the fact that they are natural spaces that people seek out to enjoy nature, talk and visit with friends, maybe the opposite of that and find solitude and there is a strong connection to the earth. Thayer even says at the end of his piece that "Perhaps a garden is best considered as a precise point of connection between a human and the earth-a psychic umbilical to the earths spirit. I know mine is just that for me."


Question 2:

Mario Frascari's "technographies", quoted in James Corners "Eidetic Operations", separates images of the landscape into artifact, instrumental image, and symbolic image. D.W. Meinig makes further distinctions- a total of ten. Are these two frameworks at odds, or do they inform and support one another?

I think both authors were seeking to break down the idea of landscape into neater and easier ideas to help to understand why there is no clarity of definition about the landscape. It seems the approach of compartmentalizing into categories is a way to find clarity about the subject and understanding about why we do things a certain way in the profession (i.e. the act of representation as in Corners piece) or how we approach the profession emotionally (problem, historically etc..) in our own minds. Both pieces touch on the personal approach to landscape and how each individuals impressions and own ideas may skew or alter the reality of the landscape. I'm not sure I've completely digested everything that the James Corner piece has to offer so I am just throwing ideas out there of my interpretation of what I read. I do think the two pieces inform each other. Corner is talking about the "eidetic images" and that they "contain a broad range of ideas that lie at the core of human creativity. Consequently how one "images" the world literally conditions how reality is both conceptualized and shaped." Both authors are at times saying similar things and that is hard to separate the person and the personal interpretation of the landscape from what the actual reality is and that we may never know because every human will not be free from imparting their own past, present and future ideas and experiences on a space.

Question 1:

How would you define the difference between landscape architecture and garden design?

I liked the way John Dixon Hunt uses the analogy of the novel and the poem in the excerpt reading from "First Principles or Rudiments" Greater Perfections: The Practice of Garden Theory. Hunt says "Gardens focus the art of place-making or landscape architecture in the way that poetry can the art of writing." He goes on to say "...all these make poetry among the most concentrated and demanding of literary expressions;" To me, this is a very clear way to define the difference between landscape architecture and garden design. I can see how garden design might be part of the larger practice of landscape architecture. When I think of the garden design I think of specification. Garden Design is a more specific discipline with clear intentions as the name of the practice implies. That statement might warrant discussing the definitions of the words garden and landscape where landscape, in my opinion,is a more ambiguous word. When I think of the practice of landscape architecture I think of a larger picture and space in which to work which may include elements of design or it may not. Garden design to me, is a more focused, design specific practice and rarely takes in landscape as a whole.

Question 2:

What is the single most important function of a garden?

I think this can only be answered subjectively because the definition, judging by last class, of a garden is varied and we may all have different opinions on what a garden actually is. I personally think there are many functions but to me, the most important function would be a combination of aesthetics and providing habitat. I know that gardens are designed around different principles but most provide an element that is pleasing to the eye as well as on some level a bit of habitat for outdoor creatures, even if that is not the intention.