Re: CULT-species, gardens, artificiality

Greetings,

Ross, responding to those who proposed that we consider growing native
species endemic to our areas and other irises, especially beardless ones,
which are more nearly suited to the conditions we can offer without heroic
measures, replied:  

<< Perhaps it's human arrogance, but I like my  gardens - and they are all
"artificial" in the sense you describe." >>

I agree that there is a lot to be said for selecting plants suitable for the
site as she is found. The horticulturalists call this the "right plant, right
place" approach and it works fine if you have the right place for the plant
you are interested in. I also believe wholeheartedly in integrating natives,
species irises and hybrid types other than bearded irises into our gardens.
There is some wonderful stuff out there. But the tradition of making pleasure
gardens and assembling plant collections- associated, but not invariably the
same thing- is a very long one, and people have always sought to push the
limits or remake their conditions to suit the plants that interest them. For
some, indeed, that is the sport of it all. I do not think this is
definitionally puerile or unenlightened. Nor do I think that gardens in which
natives are assembled and deployed in plausible configurations in unamended
soil are any less artificial- or arrrogant- than a formal parterre, although
they certainly look different. Making any garden is an act of artifice, a
word whose roots involve art, and skill. There are many, many fine
traditions. The most important things, in my opinion, are to minimize
chemical use, and enjoy what you are growing, and the process of growing it.

Rock on.

Anner Whitehead, Richmond, VA
Henry Hall, henryanner@aol.com
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index