July 4, 1912. 



The Florists^ Review 



9 



ANOTHER WREATH 

 &. &. FOR CRITICISM 



MORE CBITICISMS. 



Another Design Submitted. 



Perhaps it is hardly necessary to tell 

 even the most unobservant subscriber 

 that The Eeview has recently published 

 a series of pictures of designs, with 

 criticisms of the designs by several ex- 

 perts in that line of work. Meanwhile 

 the readers have also had an oppor- 

 tunity to criticise — an opportunity to 

 criticise the critics as well as the de- 

 signs, for they who publicly offer criti- 

 cisms, as the writers in The Eeview 

 have done, are thus at the same time 

 offering themselves as objects of criti- 

 cism. At any rate, the writers are well 

 aware that they must submit to criti- 

 cism, whether or not they cheer- 

 fully and voluntarily offer themselves 

 as victims. And the readers, no doubt, 

 have fully availed themselves of their 

 rightful privilege and have criticised 

 freely and unreservedly, aiming fig- 

 urative blows or bouquets at all con- 

 cerned. Thus there has been consid- 

 erable stirring up of thoughts on the 

 subject and something has been accom- 

 plished in the work of education. 



A picture of one more design — a 

 wreath of magnolias, roses, peas, etc. — 

 is herewith submitted to the considera- 

 tion of the whole body of critics. 



Too Great Variety of Flowers. 



With the introduction of the mag- 

 nolia foliage into this wreath, one is 

 led to expect a rich, massive piece, but 

 there is a failure to carry out the dig- 

 nity first displayed. This is shown, in 

 the first place, by too great a variety of 

 flowers. Simplicity is the key to dig- 

 nified arrangement. Roses and peas, 

 with own foliage, and the asparagus 

 grouped for high lights, would have 

 sustained the character which the in- 

 troduction of the piece suggests. 



If the intention was to make a solid 

 piece, the wrong flowers were chosen. 

 Roses never make a smooth surface, 

 no matter how solidly set. These roses, 

 like all others if similarly placed, re- 

 mind one of hooded nuns pushed to 

 the front against their wills, and the 

 hyacinths look like disappointed debu- 

 tantes. 



Mr. Florist, you have packed your 

 roses. This design is capable of free 

 arrangement. You might have used 

 about half the quantity of flowers, with 

 plenty of stem and own foliage. The 

 roses, at least, should have been grouped 

 with reference to one another and not 

 to the camera, and the other flowers 

 with reference to the roses. Each de- 

 sign, to be a gem, should have some one 

 ^ower predominate, and the others should 

 be used to develop, to soften or other- 

 wise modify its effect. For example, 

 a scattered group of roses, with a light 

 spray of hyacinths at one side, might 

 occupy the prominent place in the 

 wreath, while the sweet peas might be 

 used to outline the edge inside the 

 frame. 



What asparagus is used is so short 

 and so scattered as to be of little use. 



Returning to the preceding hint about 

 a spray for a design like this, I am 

 referring to one which is pliable and 

 slender enough so that, when made sepa- 

 rately and laid on the piece, it can be 

 adjusted to the shape of the design and 

 secured in place with a few fern pins. 



A solid piece, which appears from the 

 illustration to be intended, does not 

 call for a tie and it should be ruled 

 out of order. If an occasion demands, 

 a tie for this size of piece should be 

 of wider ribbon, with longer loops or a 

 larger bunch of short ones. 



Gertrude Blair. 



Wanton Waste of Material. 



It is hardly conceivable that anyone 

 could turn out a mass of material such 

 as is here pictured and consider it in 

 anyway a pleasing arrangement. I have 



group of sweet peas, next a meaning- 

 less mixture, now roses and hyacinths, 

 and, lastly, roses. 



In this single round design we find 

 five distinct groupings and therefor* 

 their opposing functions number the 

 same. These groups have not been con- 

 nected or harmonized except in one in- 

 stance, at the point where a mass of 

 badly arranged ribbon has been planted 

 — I say planted, for it is evident that 

 the constructor was almost as anxious 

 to bury his ribbon as to see how many 

 flowers could be crammed into a given 

 space. Even the magnolias have the 

 appearance of compulsory use, for they 

 are compressed until they extend in 

 greater width than any of the other 

 material, and this without apparent 

 reason. 



It is absolutely impossible to say one 

 word in favor of this meaningless 

 wreath form, for the original circle of 



Another Wreath for Criticism. 



sought for one redeeming feature and 

 have utterly failed to locate a single 

 excuse for such wanton waste as is 

 here shown. Too many kinds of mate- 

 rial should not be used. 



Let us travel with our eye around the 

 body of the form. We see a brave start 

 made with magnolia leaves, then a 



the frame is not even retained. The 

 only possible point that can be favor- 

 ably considered is where the sweet peas 

 are located, but they are so overbal- 

 anced by all else that they appear 

 ridiculous. Improvement without entire 

 reconstruction is out of the question. 

 Fred C. W. Brown. 



