Re: Getty landscape

Hi folks,

I'm not going to offer my opinions here, too complicated, but just a few
things I think might clarify. Forgive me if you already know all of this.

The central garden that goes down the hill is by the internationally
renowned artist Robert Irwin who is  based in Southern California. He became
known for his "light and space" approach to wall and sculptural pieces in
the 60's and 70's, and went on to include installation and environmental
works in the 80's and 90's. I remember one on the campus of UCSD, where I
got my undergraduate degree. There was a retrospective of his work at MOCA
here in LA in the late 90's, with a catalog for anyone who's interested, and
at that point he was just starting to use the bouganvilla forms. I remember
them at the entrance to the exhibition. All of his works have had an
emphasis on perception of space (an obsession with artists since the
Impressionists at least), so a turn to gardens in this way makes sense. The
earlier works were of a more minimalist nature.


The other gardens are by another landscape architect firm-or firms I think
the cactus one is seperate too--sorrry for being less clear here I haven't
had my coffee yet!

So the difference in approach is because of a difference in designers.

The Getty Board decided before the building was done that they wanted to
have an artists do the central garden. There are probably many reasons for
this. One I would guess is the limitation they have on being able to
incorporate contemporary art into the collections (Getty himself was
decidedly anti-avante-garde)-- so this was a way of embedding the work of an
important contemporary artist into the site.

The architect Richard Meier was not pleased with that. There is a film out
(available on video) called a "Concert of Wills" that documents the making
of the Getty. It's by Albert Maysles, the great documentarian, and worth
seeing. They could have titled it "Clash of the Titans"

There have also been many articles, one in the New Yorker, another (with a
pro and con which I felt were both wrong) in Garden Design. I think these
were both in 99 when it opened.

I won't get into my opinion here because I have so many, not all positive or
negative either way (I can defend and critique at the same time, which is
much easier to do on-site rather than in an e-mail.)

I do think you may all find it interesting to look at some of the writing as
well as the film. There has been quite a bit of well documented controversy.

Best, 
Laura

 
on 10/13/02 8:16 AM, Bracey Tiede at tiede@pacbell.net wrote:

> Interesting feedback.
> 
> Bad plants:  1
> Good plants:  0
> What plants:  1
> 
> I loved the cactus symmetry although as it grows, it's getting alien looking.
> I
> liked the sky hedge at the bottom of the tram but not the one up top.  The
> bottom hedge had the solid backdrop of the hill to define it.  The creek path
> is
> very tight and narrow and too fast - I felt 'pushed' down the hill.  The whole
> garden gave me the impression of speed and jumble and no time to sit and
> enjoy.
> Except the cactus.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bracey
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheryl Renshaw [c*@wr-architect.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: Medit-Plants
> Subject: Re: Getty landscape
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> snip
> 
> In general, I was far more aware of the architecture and hardscape at the
> Getty than the plants. I LOVED, absolutely LOVED the buildings, the
> fountains, the zigzag path down to the bowl garden. But I found I completely
> ignored the plants. I get the feeling that the landscape design was done by
> someone who doesn't know plants well enough to predict how they'd react to
> the environment in which he put them.
> 
> There was one set of plants I liked (we didn't get close enough to the
> cactus garden to really admire it). One of the courtyards had a collection
> of containers with Pelargonium sidoides, two cultivars of Helichrysum
> petiolare, and several other plants that combined very well. But nearly
> everything at that site would have had close to the same impact *without*
> the plants.
> 
> Cheryl
> 
> ------
> Cheryl Renshaw
> Santa Clara, CA (Silicon Valley)
> design@wr-architect.com
> 
> ps. the symposium at Strybing and the MGS meeting were GREAT! I hope to see
> some of you in a couple of years for the next symposium, and maybe one of
> these days I'll get to another MGS annual meeting.
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index