155 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
A SURVEY OF AMERICAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 
Read by Prof. F. A. Waugh, Amherst, Mass., 
before the Massachusetts Horticultural Society 
The art of landscape gardening is 
now well established in America. A 
considerable number of professional 
landscape gardeners serve a constant- 
ly widening circle of clients. Courses 
of instruction in landscape architec- 
ture are offered at several universi- 
ties. The laity begin to understand 
what landscape architecture means, 
and from the body of past ignorance 
there begin to emerge the forms of 
public ideals. A new and higher 
standard of public taste is being 
raised. 
At this point it becomes important 
that we should take a survey of the 
situation. We should consider what 
progress has been made. We should 
measure carefully what has been ac- 
complished. We should scrutinize 
present standards to see that they are 
just, and if they are we should try 
to make them operative in a larger 
field. We should examine critically 
all the work within our reach to know 
its merits and its weaknesses and if 
possible to catch its meaning. We 
should acquaint ourselves with the 
leading artists in this field and with 
their work in order that we may esti- 
mate and appreciate everything good. 
If possible we should discover and 
point out the tendencies of the times 
in landscape gardening. We want to 
know what is going on, and how, and 
why. It is worth while to ask the 
question whether in landscape archi- 
tecture we have achieved anything 
worthy of our time,, anything respond- 
ing to the spirit of the twentieth cen- 
tury, anything distinctive, representa- 
tive, national, American. 
For this is precisely the question I 
seek to raise. My subject is not 
“Landscape Architecture in America,” 
but “American Landscape Architec- 
ture.” The former subject is quite 
worth w'hile, but it leads straight to 
the latter. We ought to study what- 
ever landscape architecture there may 
be in the land, but finally we want to 
know what there is in it that is Amer- 
ican. 
The Field of Criticism. 
Were it possible to do it, we should 
^find it altogether wise and proper to 
begin our inquiry on the basis of 
what has been done in America. We 
would go over the finished works of 
landscape architecture to analyze, 
classify and criticise them one by one. 
However, the present moment does 
not supply the opportunity for a de- 
tailed and critical examination of ma- 
terials; but we must at least assume 
the critic’s point of view. It is a 
point of view which we have seldom 
(almost never) yet attained, but a 
point from which matters of large 
import may be seen. 
It will be quite worth our while 
to consider for a moment what rela- 
tion criticism bears to art — the critic 
to the artist. We do this of course 
with our own special art in mind, but 
we must take our instruction chiefly 
from what has been done in other 
fields. In the field of landscape archi- 
tecture criticism is almost unknown; 
and this fact presents unquestionably 
the greatest handicap under which the 
art labors. The landscape architects 
themselves appear to be not only 
blind to this defect, but they seem 
almost to present an organized oppo- 
sition to every improvement in this 
direction. 
Consider first of all the refinement 
to which criticism has been brought 
in the field of literature. The authen- 
ticated works of Shakespeare may be 
printed in a comfortable pocket vol- 
ume, but the books about Shakespeare 
and his works would fill all the Car- 
negie libraries between Hyannis, Mas- 
sachusetts., and Walla Walla, Wash. 
These treat every conceivable phase 
of the poet’s life and work viewed 
from every possible angle, from the 
Grecian structure of his plays to the 
rambles with Ann Hathaway on Sun- 
day afternoons along the shady field 
paths of Warwick. Homer has been 
dead some thousands of years. His 
nation is dead and the language in 
which he wrote is dead; but there 
meet daily in many class rooms thou- 
sands of boys and girls to discuss 
his qualities of style and to wonder 
what made Helen act so. A volume 
of criticism even greater in propor- 
tion to the apparent need washes 
hourly across the meadows of current 
literature. Mr. William Dean How- 
ells has written many books, but his 
critics have written five pages to his 
One. The newspapers are full of talk 
about Kipling, Barry, and Mr. Doo- 
ley; and if there is a dinner party 
anywhere in the land where novels,, 
plays and biographies are not dis- 
cussed the guests must be very stu- 
pid or very interesting, for they are 
very rare. 
Does all this flood of criticism serve 
any use? Does it fertilize the soil 
from which literature springs? Or, to 
change the figure, is it a mere para- 
sitic growth? A good deal of it does 
indeed represent a cheap parasitism, 
but proper criticism is nevertheless the 
very life of literature. Criticism is to 
literature what the cultivator, the 
pruning knife, and the spray pump are 
to the apple orchard. Apple trees 
will grow without care, but the wild 
pasture trees never bear fruit of any 
value. It is only when the trees are 
set in proper soil, in orderly rows, 
pruned, fertilized, and cleansed, and 
given continual expert care by the 
horticulturist that they bear full loads 
of perfect apples. 
No, a progressive literature with- 
out constant criticism is an impossi- 
bility. Most productive writers recog- 
nize this. They welcome intelligent 
criticism, even when it rests heavily 
on their own works. Some writers 
and all publishers industriously culti- 
vate criticism. 
In like manner the art of acting, 
painting, sculpture, and music enjoy 
the stimulus and direction of a well 
organized criticism. What would be 
the value of the annual picture salon 
without criticism? And the great 
music festivals are partly for present 
enjoyment, but partly too for the 
sake of future improvement. 
On every hand, in every art (except 
only landscape architecture) criticism 
is welcomed and the critic is recog- 
nized as filling a position of legiti- 
mate service. Not every critic is 
himself an artist. Probably the best 
dramatic critics are not actors, nor 
the best critics of pictures painters, 
but the field offers attractive employ- 
ment for high talents. 
I have recently organized and con- 
ducted a somewhat extensive corre- 
spondence with the landscape archi- 
tects of America. Naturally I have 
written most freely to my own ac- 
quaintances, but I have also written 
personal letters to many others. In 
this correspondence I have been as 
polite as my unhopeful expectations 
could teach me to be; and my direct 
questions have been as few and as 
mild as was consistent with getting 
any information at all. Some data 
and some valuable expressions of 
opinion have indeed been secured; but 
the big result of the whole investiga-r 
