John Kennedy to Niall Hobhouse
My name is John Kennedy. I am a landscape architect based in Scotland.
I’ve been following your project with interest and now feel compelled to write to you because although I applaud your worthy intentions I can’t help speaking out about some of stuff on the website.
FoA’s ‘on landscape’ text falls into the trap most students of landscape architecture fall foul of when trying to articulate their thoughts on landscape and that is to talk in terms of the “natural” and the “artificial” These terms are unhelpful unless you explicitly set out what the “natural” and the “artificial” are. Which is not as easy as you might think.
Further difficulties arise when these terms are discussed in an historical context; for example, in the 18 Cent poetry of Alexander Pope, his idea of “nature” more closely approximates to our modern notion of “common sense” than it does to the popular concept of “nature” as (morally) pure and uncorrupted by mankind (which has its origins in the romantic movement poets like Wordsworth) (As an aside, Pope’s concept of “Imitation” is much more sophisticated and intelligent that simply copying, for example in his translations of Homer.)
FoA’s invocation of Hogarth’s “Nature abhors a straight line” argument, is not really true; consider Newton’s First Law of Motion (one of the fundamental laws of nature)
A body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it. That is, an object with no net force acting upon it has a constant velocity.
The idea of the opposition of an artificial linear geometry and a “less determined” geometry of the picturesque, and that this has “structured the history of landscape” is a hypothesis that cannot really be substantiated and doesn’t really stand up to any serious scrutiny.
Finally the idea that “complexity” does not apply to “simple” geometric forms is plainly ridiculous. Even the most basic form, such as a circles, squares or parabola, can be expressed in complex mathematical terms, to the extent that throughout history the properties of regular geometric forms and patterns to be (visually) simple and (mathematically) complex have been seen as a window into the mysteries of the universe and therefore to hold sacred and mystical power.
To create visually satisfying compositions form “simple” geometry you need to apply a proportioning system using the golden section and fibonnacci series. These mathematical systems are the foundation of classical architecture and the modern movement in architecture too. These proportioning systems are also expressed in “natural” structures and systems, such as plants and animals, river systems etc.
Another mistake; confusing the idea of “the landscape” with “the land” the former being a cultural construct that exists in peoples minds, the latter being what exists in reality; this is a more helpful way of thinking about “natural” and “artificial” Of course there is a great deal of exchange between these two poles but at least one can start thinking about and debating ideas using these two concepts as terms of reference.
Anyway what you need to think about is the idea of “garden” rather than “landscape”
A garden is, to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the resources and interests of the patron, an expression of the designer’s or patrons idea of paradise, whether you think you are designing that or not is irrelevant: a garden is an opportunity to reconfigure the world how you think it should be; to reconcile “landscape” with “land,” a vision into reality.
On the following statement:
“As professionals, landscape designers often work in a vacuum of knowledge about plants and plant systems; in contrast, plantsmen find it hard to use their knowledge to inform a disciplined approach to overall design.”
I couldn’t disagree more; i think this is an unhelpful generalisation and actually quite rude to people who actually do have spatial design talent and a wealth of plant knowledge; these people do exist. However, even if there was some congenital barrier encoded into the entire human race that prevented the emergence of people with the range of skills sufficient to create convincing spatial designs using plants, there is a simple solution: its called team work. (example: Lutyens and Jekyll)
You’re trying to build a team; FoA are part of that team, but they’ve started by setting out a deeply flawed design philosophy, and imposing a “footpath layout” onto the site, both of which, notwithstanding the quality of the work, do not as far as I can seen engender a spirit of a genuine desire for collaboratve and collective endeavour but rather a master-servant relationship where the “gardener” colours in the green bits on the architect’s plans.
To put what you are proposing into context, it’s exactly the same as the way planting schemes in Tesco car parks are delivered; by a “design and build” landscape contractor who is brought in after the hard landscape works are completed.
I think you need more than a “Gardener” to execute this project; you need to build a team of people that are capable of delivering the depth and range of skills you need to deliver to your expectations. I think your project would really benefit from a good landscape architect, an ecologist, a philosopher/poet, and a visual artist with a background in sculpture.
I think what you’re doing is really exciting and wish you all the best with your project.
Hope this helps.