Re: Re. Evolution of a Gardener

I'm not sure what you mean by saying irrigation creates a garden design dead end.  Especially if you see the Robert Irwin gardens at the Getty as Art with a capital A (and I agree with you, those extravagant gardens are art).  Which is it? You can't have it both ways

What I mean is that when you don't ahve to work within the constraints imposed by your local environment the garden can be designed as an act of denial of everything around it. Hence my ref. to the Robert Irwin garden. It has no relevenace to the surrounding LA hills; it has no relevance to the people who visit it - no points of attachment or reference to what goes on outside. It is a totally isolated fantastical  fabulation. Maybe that's how the Trustees wnated it up their on the fortified hillside so far above the hoi-polloi, common-place and hurly burly below. Maybe that's how the Art Establishment sees itself in the US - elite, exclusive, self-indulgent, affected with an unattainable knowledge and an impenetrable mystique? Its an alienating experience.

I much prefer Simon Rodia's work at WATT'S TOWERS, His 'garden' is accessible yet still a fantasy; it is 'democratic' through its direcxt association with its neighbourhood; it is industrial, inventive, simple. There's no conception in it of zillions of dollars hanging on the walls, guarded, secreted, understood and known to but a few aesthetes and diletantes - instead it is open, free, fun, enjoyable at many levels of understanding from that of children and locals to those who travel around the globe to see and experience it. 

Irwin had everything money could buy with no restraint, and in my view produced a meaningless dud - put him alongside Damien Hirst and Martha Schwarz (sp??) two more conceptual artists who claim to stretch the boundaries of Art (for large sum sof money) but what do they say to us? You can't go here. This is not for you to understand. This is not about participation, engagement. learning, enrichment, enjoyment. In other words, despite being able to command azaleas floating in a lake and orange cattley orchids growing alongside purple dahlias and yellow cactus he may have achieved 'Art' but its a dead end kind of art. Having water freely available and cheap indulges gardeners in much the same way. Instead of striving to work with our real landscape and enviroment we strive to achieve meaningless artificialities such as the perpetual flower garden, acres of green grass and an impossible mix of tropical, sub-Tropical, Temperate, Riparian, dessert and alpine plants.

enough ranting I think, cheerio

 

trevor n.

 

On Mon 11/01/10 3:14 PM , Ben Wiswall benwiswall@pacbell.net sent:

Hi Trevor,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.  I'll try and answer it as best I can: I do love a dialogue, it does wonders to sharpen and clarify thoughts!

Yes, I agree humanity changes the environment in drastic and irreversible ways, mostly unintentionally.
But not all our activities are equally destructive. There is clear-cutting old-growth virgin timber, and there's managed forestry.  There is sport hunting with licenses and set seasons, and there's poaching.  In other words, I think civilization can be done right, and it can be done wrong.

In the interest of doing civilization right, I'd like to garden right.  This means not damaging areas outside the garden gate by activities I perform inside the garden gate.  The biggest impact my gardening has revolves around water, siphoning it away from somewhere else, and then dumping it somewhere downstream.

As for native plants, it is an ambiguous term, but for purposes of wildlife value I'd say native is within 100km or so.  I've also heard the Pacific Flyway of migratory birds as a good area for defining California "native".  (Which means I could plant anything from a Guadalupe Island Palm to a Redwood in my Los Angeles garden and be "native": a little broad for me).

I think the need to preserve native life is more acute in California than many places.  Civilization is so new here: I am the first person to actually cultivate the ground my garden is on.  Before the housing development I live in was built in 2004, it was a cattle ranch for maybe 180 years or so, and before that it was hunting grounds for the Chumash peoples.  Being the first gardener here is a big responsibility!

And one I feel I have failed.  I used to think smugly that my garden of Olives and Cistus was so much more appropriate than my neighbors' Queen Palms and Begonias, but from the point of view of the local fauna it's all equally alien, and all equally inedible.
This is why I want to plant some (mostly local) native plants: I like to see the Quail and Roadrunners and Bushtits, the Alligator Lizards, the Rabbits and Raccoons and even the Coyotes we've elbowed out of their homes.  I hope that by my gardening choices we can coexist.

As for using elaborate irrigation systems to provide water carried long distances via aqueducts and canals, I don't think there's anything wrong with it conceptually: we are a clever species, and it's a clever thing to do.  It's only a problem when it starts seriously damaging whole ecosystems (like the Sacramento Delta) due to thoughtlessness, waste and inefficiency.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying irrigation creates a garden design dead end.  Especially if you see the Robert Irwin gardens at the Getty as Art with a capital A (and I agree with you, those extravagant gardens are art).  Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Thanks for the input Trevor.  Do you really not irrigate at all?  Does your garden look like a garden?  Without irrigation, my garden would look so austere, and be so low maintenance, I'd have to find another hobby to love.

Yours, Ben A-W
Simi Valley, CA
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index