THE USE OF GARDENS 



the strength of this practical knowledge to solve the more subtle 

 problems of decorative arrangement. That they should have failed 

 is not surprising, for an understanding of horticulture, though in 

 itself of unquestionable value, is not sufficient to fit any man to 

 pose as an authority on artistic questions : it is not even the chief 

 essential in the designer's equipment. The instinct for decoration, 

 the appreciation of nature's charm, the perception of the way in 

 which nature and art can be brought into alliance, all rank, higher 

 than the merely practical acquaintance with plants and trees ; and 

 yet without this acquaintance there is a risk that the designer may 

 at times go astray in the pursuit of impossibilities. 

 But the purely practical men — like " Capability " Brown, for 

 instance — made the mistake of imagining that the founding or 

 garden design upon nature could be reduced to rule. They for- 

 malised what ideas they had, and worked always along the same 

 set lines, substituting a dry convention for intelligent adaptation 

 of nature's variety. In theory they were exponents of a strictly 

 naturalistic creed and they professed to have a mission to restore 

 Nature to the position of authority from which she had been, as 

 they considered, ousted by the designers of the formal gardens ; 

 but actually they narrowed their own methods until they lost all 

 capacity for receiving new impressions and sank into a formality 

 far duller than that which they sought to destroy. 

 This misconception of the value of nature study accounts for the 

 inefficiency of much of the work that has been done on professedly 

 naturalistic lines, and it accounts, too, for the frequent absence in 

 garden designing of that note of freshness, that touch of inspiration, 

 which is needed to add distinction to the designer's performance. 

 The adoption of a convention implies on his part either a want of 

 imagination and power of observation, or a readiness to evade 

 artistic responsibility. It shows that he does not realise how 

 persistently he must strive to replenish his stock of ideas, and 

 that he does not appreciate the necessity of constant reference to 

 nature to save him from repeating himself in a purposeless fashion. 

 Men of Brown's type do not see, or care to see, that their 

 designs, whether formal or naturalistic, cease to be of any real 

 importance directly they lose the flavour of nature, and that a 

 garden is deprived of the greater part of its charm if it is wanting 

 in definite individuality and shows itself to be simply the product 

 of a formula. 



However, it cannot be denied that to excuse the right degree of 

 individuality is one of the most perplexing problems the garden 



v 



