PARK AND CEME-TE-RY 
418 
gardener who follows the way of nature loses sight 
of fitness as a foundation for the geometric garden 
to rest on. The landscape gardener has nowadays so 
much appropriate material to choose from that he can 
easily harmonize any style of building with the nat- 
ural surroundings. If he falls back on the geometric 
style, if he depends entirely on straight lines, perfect 
circles, geometric curves, classic fountains, statuary, 
architecturally planned terraces or parapets, he makes 
certainly a harmonious picture with the Grecian style 
of architecture, and he may call himself an artist. But 
has he served architecture a good turn by doing so’ 
He only shows the limitations of the geometric prin- 
ciple in architecture and its clash with organic nature. 
Can the beautifully flowing lines of nature be har- 
monized with the exact geometric lines of architect- 
ure? Let the geometric lines extend from the build- 
ings to the walks and drives to show their necessity 
and purpose. The purpose will bring geometric and 
flowing lines together. The smoothly kept lawn with 
its appropriate artificial look — pleasing very strongly 
like classic architecture the sense of feeling — will har- 
monize with shrubs and trees having the expression of 
the beautiful in well balanced outlines, harmonious 
masses of color in flowers and foliage, but further 
away from the building only harmony in color of fo- 
liage. If a gardener here shows his knowledge of bot- 
any in choosing such natural materials for his picture 
as are appropriate for this purpose, does he not display 
a higher standard of gardening — and really raise land- 
scape gardening to the condition of fine art — than a 
designer who requires artificial means to predominate 
everywhere to maintain his picture of folly within its 
close set limits? The beauty of infinity in a created 
landscape lies in the slow changing of its natural 
features through the seasons. To put living organic 
objects in a limited form does not help the purpose 
of all fine art, which is to arouse and stimulate the 
noble, high purpose aimed at by man ; it rather 
arouses curiosity and wonder as to what is done with 
the plants to fashion such productions, than to afford 
satisfaction by a harmonious unity of design. It drives 
the observer after more variety, and though this is 
artificial, it is very limited. It does not satisfy and 
refresh like beautiful, ever-changing natural objects. 
Formal gardening will certainly please thoughtless ob- 
servers among the partly educated masses of the peo- 
ple. Geometric lines are so easily taken in ; the parts 
in some way mostly balance. If they see the picture 
from one side, it is hardly worth while to see it from 
the other, for the main features are practically the 
same from all sides. Landscape gardeners who may 
not admire the formal style, except in very limited 
areas, know how to adapt the natural style even on a 
small piece of ground, to create a number of pleasing 
pictures. The geometric style in a park of any size 
is more ridiculous than the too natural style in a city 
square or school ground. Objects which need formal 
treatment have no place in a recreative park for the 
people of a city ; they should be located on a boulevard. 
It seems to me that Mr. Pentecost is romancing when 
he says that the formal style is capable of a far supe- 
rior artistic expression, — he should use the word arti- 
ficial. Nature offers harmony with architecture in any 
situation ; it only depends on the man to grasp it. We 
have had and have partly yet, two fine examples of 
what landscape gardening should be and what it 
should not be, here in California, in and near our 
metropolis. Golden Gate Park is one of the finest ex- 
amples of the possibilities of the moderated or 
Downing’s style of landscape gardening. The su- 
perintendent, Mr. J. McLaren, is an artist, who dis- 
plays his many resources in such an expressive way 
that only a genius can accomplish. Everywhere we 
meet harmony, although formal and natural garden- 
ing are often side by side, or glide into each other. 
But the natural style shows its greater adaptability 
here in its more expressive and consequently more 
artistic pictures, even if the view in the formal section 
is fully as large in actual extent. 
Sutro Heights, near Golden Gate Park, presents an 
example of formal gardening, where plenty of money 
backs it. The failure started in with the design of 
the building, a bard-to-define Grecian style of wooden 
structure standing on the very edge of an extremely 
picturesque rocky sea shore. The present style of 
this building is better, although still of wood. The 
Sutro residence grounds at the back of it is an ex- 
ample of geometric gardening on a large scale. It 
pleases the mass of visitors. They do not see the 
ugly contrast of the formal lawns, geometric flower- 
beds, of color, carpet beds, classic statuary of plaster 
of Paris, vexing globes, with the half-hearted attempt 
at natural gardening to effect a compromise with the 
surrounding picturesque scenery. If this had been 
tried half a mile to the south, where there is a low 
smooth sandy beach, it would have been a fairly good 
example of formal gardening and would have made 
a pleasing contrast with the adjoining grand natural 
scenery of Golden Gate Park. 
Geometric gardening cannot produce anything but 
the easily pleasing beautiful itself. It has no quality 
to lift it to a fine art. It cannot give the beholder feel- 
ings of grandeur, sublimity and infinity. The formal 
style is better left to the flower garden alone, hedged 
in by itself, created for tbe purpose of delighting the 
owner with harmonious colors, and furnishing cut 
flowers for the house. Mr. Pentecost should examine 
the photograph of the formal garden of Mr. H. W. 
Poor, in the same number of the Architectural Record. 
That settles formal gardening as a fine art. 
VV. VoRTRiEDE, Stockton, Cal. 
i 
