True and False Originality in Garden Design-By wilhelm Miller, 



HOW ONE WORD COVERS TWO .IDEAS, ONE OF WHICH LEADS TO RIDICULOUS GARDENS, WHILE THE 

 OTHER WILL ENABLE ANYONE TO PLAN A BEAUTIFUL GARDEN IF HE WILL ONLY BELIEVE AND FOLLOW 



Sew 

 York 



TT IS commonly said that imagination 



-*- is the most precious quality in design 

 of any kind, but I believe that there is a 

 more fundamental consideration, and I am 

 confident that most of us have a wrong 

 conception of what imagination really is. 

 The popular notion is that design is wholly 

 a matter of taste; that there are no principles, 

 laws or rules; that a successful garden 

 cannot be planned in cold blood. It must 

 be the result of sudden inspiration — of 

 divine fire. 



The thing these people are talking about 

 is only fancy — a wild horse that leads us 

 into all sorts of ridiculous situations. True 

 imagination is a much soberer animal. The 

 only leap it ever takes is when it sees some 

 practical way of accomplishing a purpose 

 that grows right out of the necessities of the 

 case. The only true originality is that 

 which makes a painstaking study of fitness. 



A humdrum view of a lofty subject this 

 may seem at first. Later, a sickening con- 

 sciousness steals over one that the spec- 

 tacular and irresponsible kind of imagin- 

 ation is a false god. Finally, the respect for 

 the real thing so possesses one's whole being 

 that such simple words as these of Charles 

 Eliot become surcharged with an almost 

 religious fervor: "Art out of doors must 

 be founded in rationality, purpose, fitness." 



As soon as one realizes what this means 

 the desire to make a garden becomes a 

 passion, and under those circumstances I 

 do not see how anyone can make a poor one. 

 Even if you do not agree with me, so far, 

 you will, I am sure, concede that the eighteen 

 pictures which accompany this article repre- 



sent beautiful gardens; that they show 

 originality in a high degree; and that they 

 are remarkably varied. Yet they all illus- 

 trate the one idea of fitness. There is not 

 one flight of fancy in the lot. I confess that 

 when I first saw some of these gardens it 

 seemed as if "a heaven-born inspiration had 

 pierced the clouds and brought back a radiant 

 gift the like of which no mortal eyes had 

 seen as yet," but, in several cases, at least, 

 I happen to know that the designers kept 

 pretty close to earth. 



It is precisely because the only true origin- 

 ality is that which labors diligently under the 

 laws of fitness, that I have selected examples 

 which have been fully described in the public 

 prints, so that anyone who likes to study the 

 details of their working out may do so. 

 And I shall try to point out mercilessly, but 

 I hope with justice, just what false originality 

 would do, and has done, in each case. 



Let us start with the case that gives the 

 most trouble of all — the formal garden. I 

 used to think that formal gardening was 

 wrong in itself. I would never read Blom- 

 field and Thomas's unholy book, and when 

 William Robinson in " The English Flower 

 Garden" fulminated against these impious 

 authors, I swelled with admiration at his 

 noble wrath. Later I met a real architect 

 who told me that the authors of "The 

 Formal Garden in England" were custodians 

 of one of the most precious truths that have 

 come down to us through the ages. For 

 a while I was greatly troubled, but now that 

 I have had a peep behind the stage and 

 seen the thunder machine do its worst I am 

 no longer appalled. 



The truth is that there is no important dif- 

 ference between the two schools at all. It all 

 simmers down to a question of fitness, and 

 both sides, in their calmer moods, admit 

 that formal gardening is appropriate for 

 the immediate environment of a great house 

 while landscape gardening is appropriate 

 for the rest of the grounds. The only things 

 they quarrel about are names — not realities. 

 For example, the architects want Art to 

 rush down upon Nature and teach it its 

 place — hence geometrical beds; the land- 

 scape men want Nature to rush up to the 

 house and lay its imprint upon the work of 

 man — hence shrubbery about the house and 

 vines. In either case, you get the real thing 

 that is desirable, viz., the transition between 

 architecture and Nature. 



Again, there is an everlasting rumpus 

 about what to call the men who do these 

 things. But there again, why fuss? Of 

 course, you can't tell what a man is by what 

 he calls himself, but a "landscape engineer" 

 probably knows more about grading; a 

 "landscape architect" about formal gardens; 

 a "landscape gardener" about plants; and 

 the "landscape designer" may be the broad 

 man who can do all three kinds of work 

 well. 



Nevertheless, this controversy between the 

 "two schools" will rage throughout coming 

 centuries and each generation of onlookers 

 will naturally suppose that vital truths 

 of the universe are at stake. Book will be 

 hurled against book, cries of "foul play" 

 will hurtle through the air and the dead will 

 lie in heaps. But it is all stage play. The 

 actors have to make a living. A professional 



2. Appropriate lo an estate where a transition is 

 needed from art to nature (house to landscape) 



1. Appropriate to a steep hillside near a large house 

 False originality creates terraces in flat surroundings 



THREE FORMAL GARDENS THAT HAVE SOME EXCUSE FOR. BEING 



334 



3. Appropriate to a great estate if near the house but 

 wholly shut in by trees 



