Last August, we visited Les Jardins de Métis which, every summer, host an international garden festival. The competing gardens are conceptual gardens. These are not traditional gardens but rather conceptual installations. Opinions are very divided about these gardens. Some people love them, but I think a majority of gardeners, fail to see them as gardens or are puzzled by them. Not long ago, I read a post by Chloris about Whether the Garden is an Art Form, and of course conceptual gardens were mentioned. I thought I would look up what these gardens are meant to be. All the pictures were taken in Métis, in Québec, last summer.
Conceptual gardens are created around a single idea or concept that can be based on a plant, a colour, a shape or anything really. The idea or the message is more important than the plants. In fact, many conceptual gardens do not include any plants at all.
These gardens are meant to challenge our received ideas of what gardens are. The point is not to create a natural refuge, as is the case with many traditional gardens. Neither is there any requirement to work with nature. The very important aspect of a conceptual garden is that it is supposed to have a discernible meaning (by opposition to being a bunch of plants grown together).
Conceptual gardens are conceptual art installations, that can be seen to have some connection with gardening. In my experience, the connection with gardening is very tenuous as can be seen in these examples. They are meant as works of art, rather than what we traditionally think of as gardens. In fact, I read that a very famous creator of such gardens has a traditional garden at home. I don't think most of these installations are meant to or can be "used" as gardens.
I find these gardens mostly intriguing and very difficult to relate to, especially as gardens. I see them as art installations set in nature, but I don't see why we should call them gardens. I expect calling them gardens is what challenges our received ideas.
What do you think?
Conceptual gardens are created around a single idea or concept that can be based on a plant, a colour, a shape or anything really. The idea or the message is more important than the plants. In fact, many conceptual gardens do not include any plants at all.
These gardens are meant to challenge our received ideas of what gardens are. The point is not to create a natural refuge, as is the case with many traditional gardens. Neither is there any requirement to work with nature. The very important aspect of a conceptual garden is that it is supposed to have a discernible meaning (by opposition to being a bunch of plants grown together).
Conceptual gardens are conceptual art installations, that can be seen to have some connection with gardening. In my experience, the connection with gardening is very tenuous as can be seen in these examples. They are meant as works of art, rather than what we traditionally think of as gardens. In fact, I read that a very famous creator of such gardens has a traditional garden at home. I don't think most of these installations are meant to or can be "used" as gardens.
I find these gardens mostly intriguing and very difficult to relate to, especially as gardens. I see them as art installations set in nature, but I don't see why we should call them gardens. I expect calling them gardens is what challenges our received ideas.
What do you think?
Thank you for the mention. What an interesting post. I think if we look upon them as gardens we start to have problems with them. Another interesting topic for discussion is 'what are gardens for?' These conceptual gardens don't fit in with any of our preconceived ideas of what a garden is for. There is plenty of food for thought here. Great!
ReplyDelete"What are gardens for" is indeed an interesting topic. I bet one would get quite a variety of answers. You should do a post of it!
DeleteFor me a garden is about plants and other living things and inanimate objects are just there as additions rather than in the star role.
ReplyDeleteI consider them exhibitions, perhaps mounted in some greenery.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this topic also. I think conceptual gardens mostly fail. To me, the conceptual elements often seem pretentious--celebrating the designer's supposed perspicacity. Oftentimes the conceptual elements don't seem to be appropriate to placement in the garden in that they neither enhance the appearance of the setting nor derive meaning from having been placed there. Conceptual garden elements that work (I think) are those--like sculptural works by Richard Serra, works by Maya Lin, or polished stainless elements like Cloudgate--which engage with the landscape in an unusual or meaningful way and which play with the viewers' perceptions of size, space, perspective, time, material, history, etc. That's just my two cents, though.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your visit. Obviously, it is a topic you have given serious consideration. I also find that many conceptual gardens seem to be parachuted in place regardless of the surroundings. I looked at Cloudgate, which I did not know, and liked it a lot. It seems to act as a focal point for the urban landscape all around it. The scale, connecting humans and buildings, seems just perfect.
DeleteI think I worded my comment sloppily because I didn't really mean that Cloudgate is conceptual so much as the effect that it has (confusing or distorting the relationships of the viewer and the environment) could be used to really great effect in a garden setting and would (I think) make an interesting conceptual garden element.
DeleteI've not seen Cloudgate in person, but I love what I've seen in photos. You are so right about the scale.
I recently found your blog and read the "About" page--an AMAZING accomplishment! Astounding!
I have a difficult relationship with conceptual gardens and think if you approach them as you would a proper garden it won't work. If you're interested in this type of thing you really need to dig into the idea behind it. Can we consider them to be art? Well, certainly not all of them but some are well conceived and built. If I have the choice of visiting a conceptual or a "proper" garden, I know where to go. What are gardens for? Worth a post, I'd say ;)
ReplyDeleteThere may be some linguistic difficulty here. British people, for example, will use the word "garden" to mean "backyard", even if it's completely paved over. And no one demands soil and seeds for a kindergarten, a "garden of children".
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, these art installations are really thought-provoking! The churches facing away from each other so that each church's light shines only for itself and its congregation (single species of plant); the scientific cube that defines a portion of forest; the set of doorways (hoops?) one must traverse to enjoy an outdoor walk; the "bay window"; the musty halls of outdated knowledge; the woods empty of small plants except those that the human hand has chosen to place there in antiseptic, shiny metal containers; the evergreens swallowed in fake pink plastic; the xeriscaping juxtaposed around swimming-pool blue boards. There's a great dialogue in this exhibition focussing on what a garden / humanity should be by demonstrating what it isn't.
Gosh, I'm opinionated this morning.
Obviously you would be the person to visit these installations with! You are very good at interpreting them.
DeleteI don't really think of the conceptual gardens as "gardens" but as installation art. I saw a few of the installations you illustrate here a few years ago and quite enjoyed the interesting ideas. I do think that many gardens, maybe not all, qualify as works of art. A lot of thought can go into designing shapes, using space and colour.
ReplyDeleteI think the conceptual gardens are not comfortable to live or to work there. If one wants to show the garden made around one idea and making money it's understandable. But a small garden where you walk, rest, enjoy flowers has to be cozy, quiet and comfy.
ReplyDeleteI find them not really gardens, but art. It is rarely art I would want to see daily, but it is creativity unleashed. They command a landscape to sweep away the essence of garden, but are interesting none-the-less.
ReplyDeleteI do think they are more art than gardens. They are fine in their own right - just very different from what I am looking for when I look for a garden.
ReplyDeleteIn general they fail entirely in gardens (there may be an exception here or there). Why would you even want to challenge our received ideas of what gardens are? Without received ideas of what things are, language has no meaning. I could put a rock on the table and say, "Look at my apple pie!" If you objected that it was a rock and not an apple pie, I could say "Ah, I am challenging your received idea of what an apple pie is."
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I just don't connect with them as gardens, as art in the landscape, yes. I've mentioned before that we came over to Canada a few years ago and the Metis garden was one of the places we went to, primarily to see all the wonderful meconopsis!
ReplyDeleteNear me, the Royal Botanical Gardens Hamilton, Ontario, has had the occasional conceptual art installations. One time their criteria was to use only materials found in nature. That certainly made it easier for me to appreciate the works as art in the garden. Most of the time there is such a harsh juxtaposition which for me does nothing.
ReplyDelete