October 10. 1908 



HORTICULTURE 



479 



TENDENCIES IN MODERN LAND- 

 SCAPE-GARDENING. 



By City Landscape-Gardener Helcke, 



Frankfurt, A. M., Germany. 

 (Translated from Moller's, by G. Blelcken.) 



In landscape gardening we are living 

 in a time of lively evolution. Also in 

 other fields of art the agitation is 

 going on and it is especially in archi- 

 tecture that it is thought a new style, 

 apropriate to our own times, has been 

 found. But what we see is not a new 

 and unique style, as the gothic and 

 other historic styles of building were, 

 but rather as many modern architects, 

 just as many styles and schools exist. 



On the other hand, we find the mod- 

 ern artists all united in opinion as 

 soon as the question of the formation 

 of the garden arises; united especially 

 in a preference for strictly regular 

 forms of contour and planting and 

 united in condemnation of what has 

 in the course of time come to be 

 known as "naturalistic landscape-gar- 

 dening." 



Some of these formal gardens ap- 

 proach the more modern English gar- 

 dens which, in their turn, rest on the 

 revival of forms that nourished before 

 the adoption of the naturalistic garden 

 style; some derive their form from the 

 German "Empire-time" (Biejdermeier- 

 zeit), and others tie to the Italian re- 

 naissance or wherever any other regu- 

 lar garden motive is found. Even, sur- 

 prising at it may appear, Japan, the 

 land of bizarre irregularities in gar- 

 dening, seems to play its part in formal 

 styles; for, if we study the works on 

 Japanese landscape-gardening, we en- 

 counter very often forms in enclosures, 

 walls, etc., which do not impress us in 

 any way as foreign, because in the 

 modern artistic gardens we come upon 

 them repeatedly. 



Modern Garden Artists Unfamiliar 

 with Their Subject. 



As I stated before, it is particularly 

 interesting to notice that w ith all the 

 diversity of opinion which exists as to 

 what is called modern architectural 

 style, we find among the modern ar- 

 tists only unanimity of opinion as soon 

 as the field of modern gardening is dis- 

 cussed. I think this very good evi- 

 dence that they are far from under- 

 standing their subject; entering a field 

 in which they are as yet strangers, 

 they prefer those lines with which they 

 are familiar through their training as 

 architects— namely, straight lines — 

 therefore their preference for strict 

 regularity and rectangularity and the 

 rigid exclusion of anything approach- 

 ing naturalistic lines in landscape work. 



Although it is true that most of my 

 associates in the profession are not 

 backward in their disapproval of this 

 one-sided revival of old gardening 

 forms, nevertheless we must also take 

 every opportunity to call attention to 

 the regrettable conditions existing to- 

 day, and the barrenness of ideas which 

 has produced a mechanical process of 

 landscape working of the very worst 

 sort. 



We acknowledge that help here is 

 very necessary, and we cordially greet 

 theinterest of the artist in the garden 

 because we hope for substantial ad- 

 vancement from their co-operation. I 

 have warned, time and again, against 

 making the mistake of resenting all 

 criticism and advice from non-profes- 

 sional sources especially of artist 



critics. I know that in our own profes- 

 sional circles modern essays concern- 

 ing the art of landscape gardening and 

 related fields pass almost entirely un- 

 noticed. 



A Fallacious System. 



The principal argument of modern 

 artists against the naturalistic lands- 

 cape style is that it is a mistake to try 

 to imitate nature with all her contin- 

 gencies, inconsistencies and unim- 

 portant secondary features in a gar- 

 den. Therefore should we avoid all 

 naturalness in a garden, and show 

 rather through the form in the garden 

 that it is human work, which requires 

 that regular and rectangular lines 

 should prevail: only in such way would 

 a reasonable human being create. 

 These sentiments, repeatedly ex- 

 pressed in some form or another 

 by all artists of reform in land- 

 scape-gardening', contain as many 

 mistakes as they do words, and 

 not much cleverness is needed to prove 

 this. If man should cease to strive 

 after goals, which he never can wholly 

 reach, then would the outlook be bad 

 for progress. 



A Weak Fad. 



Really, I believe the use of exclu- 

 sively rectangular forms in the base 

 line of modern garden-artists to be 

 genuine wea.kness, and in fact a very 

 deplorable weakness. If we for once 

 prefer a regular laying out, there is no 

 good reason why we should not use, at 

 least, the lines of the circle (of course 

 1 do not think now of any special 

 curve, but simply any curve), yet even 

 those circular lines, forming a picture 

 of strictest regularity, are not in use. 

 Why, then, shall we not characterize 

 it as a mode or fad of these artists? 

 Corners are modern fashion, as not 

 long ago curved lines were modern 

 fashion. For a while they were em- 

 ployed with much enthusiasm, but 

 luckily failed. Today they are the 

 rectangular squares, which are passed 

 out to us by an Obrich, Schulze, Beh- 

 rens, Lauger, Billing and others; in a 

 few years perhaps some other thing is 

 to be "modern fashion." 



(These are the names of artists who have 

 exhibited the so-called "artists' gardens" 

 in the large horticultural exhibitions In 

 recent years in Germany. — Note of the 

 Translator). 



Misguiaing the Public. 



Such things interest first by their 

 novelty, but they actually mislead, es- 

 pecially when they are presented by 

 otherwise famous artists who might be 

 excused for an occasional extrava- 

 gance, although they rather should en- 

 deavor to avoid this because it is play- 

 ing with fire; their creations are ac- 

 cepted by the multitude as creations of 

 genius, they are everywhere imitated 

 and made popular, while that which 

 is intrinsic and lasting in the artists' 

 work is hardly recognized or under- 

 stood. 



Of all the indictments which are 

 brought against the artistic correctness 

 and truthfulness of naturalistic lands- 

 cape methods, this protest that it Is 

 really improper to imitate nature 

 seems to me the most noticeable. It 

 shows most plainly that they who 

 voice it have not earnestly taken up 

 the study of the subject which they 

 claim to protest against They judge 

 the principle only by the exaggerations 

 which they find and, because real pro- 



gress for all who are interested in 

 landscape-gardening is only possible 

 through clearness of purpose, it is of 

 the utmost importance to refute false 

 ideas concerning the relations of our 

 work to nature. We can reach a clear 

 understanding of this question only by 

 considering it in its relation to the en- 

 tire fields of art; because not alone in 

 the art of gardening has this style of 

 argument been made use of, but in all 

 other phases of art, at all times, this 

 same question has been discussed, 

 assailed and defended. 



SCALE OF POINTS FOR FLORAL 

 ARRANGEMENTS. 



Referring to the query from the sec- 

 retary of the Minnesota State Florists' 

 Association which appeared on page 

 411, issue of September 25, Mr. W. F. 

 Gude of Washington, D. C, who has 

 had an extended experience in the 

 way of public exhibitions, suggests the 

 following as a good scale of points for 

 use in judging floral design work: 



1 Style of design 10 points 



2 Selection of flowers used 15 



3 Blending of colors 25 || 



4 Arrangement 50 



100 

 At the big Kansas City shows 

 where decorative work was made a 

 leading feature the following scales of 

 points were in effect. 



Mantel Decorations. 



1 Quality and artistic arrange- 



ment of flowers 50 points 



2 General effect of whole 50 



100 " 

 Table Decorations. 



1 Flowers and their arrange- 



ment 50 points 



2 Non-interference of sight or u 



rouveaience 20 



:'. Arrangement of napery and u 



table ware 2 " 



4 General effect of whole 10 



100 " 



PLANT IMPORTS. 



Entered at New York, Sept. 30 to 

 0ct p,-From Holland: C. C. Abel & 

 Co 59 cs. bulbs; Wm. Elliott & Sons, 

 SO cs. do., 2 cs. plants; Fruit Auction 

 To 3 cs. plants; A. W. Fenton, Jr., 



1 cs bulbs: Henry & Lee, 7 cs. plants; 

 J V Hampton, Jr., & Co., 47 cs. bulbs, 



2 cs plants: A. F. Bang, 5 cs. flower 

 roots: McHutchison & Co., 2 cs. bulbs, 

 31 cs plants; Malt us & Ware, 40 cs. 

 bulbs, 39 cs. plants; J. O. McDonald, 1 

 cs bultis; Marius Mutillod, 17 cs. 

 plants; P. Ouwerkerk, 36 cs. trees; J. 

 M Thorburn & Co., 4 cs. plants; 

 Vaughan's Seed Store, 6 cs. plants; T. 

 D Crosbv Co., 71 bags garden seed; 

 a' Gips, 62 bags do. ; Sundry Forward- 

 ers, 50 cs. bulbs, 19 cs. plants, 7 cs. 



tl*6£S. 



From Marseilles: To order, SO cs. 

 plants, 20 cs. bulbs. 



Via Southampton: P. Henderson & 

 Co 8 cs. mushroom spawn; O. G. 

 Hempstead & Sons, 15 cs. plants; 

 Hussa & Co., 9 cs. plants. 



From Belgium: H. Bishoff & Co., 14 

 cs. plants; H. F. Darrow, 61 cs. do.; 

 Hussa & Co., 3 cs. do.; McHutchison & 

 Co 93 cs. do.; Maltus & Ware, 368 

 pes', do., etc.; Ch. F. Meyer, 131 cs. 

 plants; T. H. Petry & Co., 64 cs. do.; 

 J. Roehrs & Co., 40 cs. do.; August 

 Rolker & Sons, 55 cs. do., 12 tubs 

 laurel trees; Ralph M. Ward & Co., 

 56 cs. plants, 2 tubs laurel trees; E. 1. 

 Wilson, 7 cs. plants. 



