Recently I asked the following question in the Facebook group: Dutch Dreams – every thinkingardeners’ favourite Facebook group. It received a staggering and rather overwhelming response.
So much so that I have attempted to make it more comprehensible and add it on here. It makes an enormous post, so I have divided it into topics, which I will publish separately in a sudden rush of posts. (Please note – NP is abbreviated New Perennial. And yes, I know it isn’t new anymore, but then neither is the New Forest).
I hope I will manage not to leave anyone who contributed out unnecessarily (I have edited some of it to try to keep it all as relevant as possible). You can have a second go at commenting obviously, on here. Some people, as ever, will no doubt comment on …. yep… Facebook.
I hope, given how vital social media is going to be for us all, keeping us in social contact, that we hear less moaning and cynicism about it now. Keep well everyone, if you can, and let’s all keep in touch.
Photos of Trentham, as example of New Perennial planting, with thanks to Charles Hawes.
Anne Wareham, editor
THE QUESTION
Now, forgive me if I just seem stupid – I’m not a garden designer and some things just seem obscure to me. But I find myself wondering if one of the things which distinguishes the New Perennial gardens from – err – others, is a lack of structures? When I put up a picture of the Veddw here I felt as if it was not quite right in this group because of the hedges and formalities. And we Veddw makers were left totally cold and disappointed at Hermannshof garden, and I’ve never managed to quite put my finger on why some people love it and we did not. Is it about structures?? Example of our dedication to form plus wild below.
Comments addressing Structure directly.
Evelyn Kurhajetz I like your observation and your question doesn’t seem stupid to me. I’ll let the pros weigh in and will enjoy reading what they say. From what I observe it seems like design is growing less structured and more organic. That’s good for us amateurs because then we feel more successful when we step back to review our work. In my mind and heart, it’s all good. Let’s all keep gardening.
Tony Spencer The New Perennial movement started with more overt structures, like abstracted hedges and topiary (aligned with the Mien Ruys concept of “wild planting in a strong design.”). But as it’s progressed and evolved, the structural elements are provided by either architectural context or the use of structural plants themselves within the greater planting. IMO, structure is essential but it can also be veiled by degrees to create the illusion of wildness.
Anne Wareham Thanks Tony. What do you attribute this progression to? And might, she says hopefully, strong design return??
Tony Spencer to Anne Wareham It’s setting the design balance between freedom and control – and that balance can be exceedingly fine
Anne Wareham to Tony Spencer Hm. Those are abstractions. You believe people are designing out of abstractions? Interesting. Aesthetics immaterial or just secondary?
Tony Spencer to Anne Wareham I’d say that the abstractions drive the aesthetics. So IMO, very much vital.
Debbie Hearn I suppose we do need some abstractions or principles in garden design, otherwise we risk missing the essential energy at work in any particular garden space. This comment is informed by having seen one too many garden designs of with way too much paving (for my taste), on Instagram.
Anne Wareham to Debbie Hearn I was just wondering whether enthusiasm for NP was informed by exposure to something like that. (I’m possibly not following same people on Instagram though, so don’t know.) So if it’s about such ideas, is that why it hasn’t caught on to my knowledge in the majority of UK National Garden Scheme type gardens? (See Noel Kingsbury) Or is it about the size of most UK gardens? Or maybe that ‘natural’ in the UK is a little absurd?
Allan Becker The structure of a naturalistic perennial garden lies in the repetition of a matrix-like pattern.
Anne Wareham Could you define matrix? And, given my example – see pic – we are ending up thinking of quite different kinds of structure, aren’t we?
Allan Becker Landscape architect Thomas Rainer drew attention to this concept when analysing the structure and designs of Piet Oudolf. I apologize for not supplying the link to this topic as I am travelling with no access to my references. Thomas offers an alternative meaning for structure specifically as it applies to the layout of plants.
Anne Wareham to Allan Becker Right. Then Thomas would be the person to illuminate what structures fit the NP model. Apology accepted – thanks for drawing attention to his thoughts. (See Thomas Rainer)
Tony Spencer to Anne Wareham The matrix is used as a unifying element – but it doesn’t provide the structure. It’s the medium through which the structural planting emerges.
Orchard Metamorphose I think, the question is quite fundamental, but is there an answer?
The human brain is genetically designed to analyse chaotic surroundings and detect and memorise patterns – and changings in them – for survival back in ancient times.
There are studies about why and how rhythm, order evoke a sense of well-being in so much people.
To me, some order, structure is important for every human being to feel at ease, but the degree of conspicuousness they have to have to evoke that feeling can be extremely variable.
Anne Wareham Yes, exactly. But it’s clear that the traditional type of structure (see my initial pic) doesn’t fit. People are looking for different structures in New Perennial and that bears some examination in itself perhaps?
Orchard Metamorphose to Anne Wareham Yes, definitely. Maybe there is a shifting of perception (and acceptance, need?) of order, structure. (maybe I’m a dinosaur liking traditional English yew bordering to contain my meadow ? ) That is what I meant by “the degree of conspicuousness of order and structure can be extremely variable”
Anne Wareham to Orchard Metamorphose Maybe there’s a different world, half in, half out, influenced by but not part of NP, which we are part of?
Grünes Blut to Anne Wareham. For: “Maybe there’s a different world, half in, half out, influenced by but not part of, which we are part of?” that made me curious, because a world inbetween sounds thrilling, but I still don`t really get it.
Anne Wareham Grünes Blut I think most people on here are dedicated New Perennial garden makers. There’s even quite an evangelical feel about it. But some of us, while engaged and admiring are also going our own way. Not attempting for eg Tony Spencer’s artlessness or trying to look ‘natural’. But I imagine garden historians might look back at our works and see the clear influences.
Detlev Brinkschulte Anne Wareham “evangelical feel“ ?
Martin Owen Lots of structure at Scampston. I know it is quite an early example (2004). Does it count as NP?
Tony Spencer Most definitely.
Orchard Metamorphose I just happened to have had discussions about quite similar issues lately, one with a fervent conservationist, only focussed on having indigenous plants in her garden and most importantly, those plants shall all be wild bee and butterfly-feeding plants, leaves even above flowers, everything else is “useless“.
If one wants to be so purist, no offence.
But there are a lot of people looking for something they can “do for bees“ in the last years, looking to help wildlife in their gardens, and a lot of those people are more average or merely poor gardeners.
My point in those discussions was, that those gardeners will be overburdened with maximum ecological requests and a garden that does look like derelict land.
I think, they should get provided structures by the designer or plantsman/woman, which make their “natural“ garden still appear as a garden – for them and their neighbours.
For me, those structures can be hedges, clipped ones as well as ones of free growing indigenous bushes – if one takes at least one variety for a defined strip of hedge (I planted a free growing hedge of Cornus sanguinea along several sides of my orchard, a double row of Cornus alba Sibirica‘…), pathways of hardware, walls…..
I think, a bit of structure may be important to the “average“ gardener, to prevent frustration and turning to “stonecovered gardens“ which are unfortunately proliferating those last years, something neither aesthetically nor ecologically wanted!
For me, my clipped yew hedges inside and the strips of free growing, but quite uniform looking bloodtwig dogwood hedges at the outsides of my garden ARE important to frame the wilderness of the wildflower meadow and the old trees, to give the eyes something to rest and something to see, that chaos has not yet taken over completely ?
Anne Wareham Yes. I love a frame.
Now. Are New Perennial gardens (if they are gardens and not simply plantings..?) – are they predominantly about ecology, wildlife, bees and the rest? This doesn’t seem right to me but I’m happy to be corrected.
And – where IS the ‘average’ gardener in all of this? Are we designers, garden makers or artists?
Orchard Metamorphose to Anne Wareham To me New Perennial is not predominantly about ecology – but a certain migration of ecological ideas and requirements into this “design school“ has taken place over the last 20 years
Tony Spencer to Anne Wareham In the NP approach, aesthetics are informed by ecology, but I wouldn’t say they’re ruled by them either, as in a more purely nativist approach to plantings. More and more though, it’s about designing purposeful gardens that also provide ecological function both on a purely practical level (siphoning off storm water drainage) and then to help nurture biodiversity.
Very good discussion BTW…
Orchard Metamorphose to Anne Wareham In that specific discussion, my focus was on that average …“garden owner“…. that wanted, until a few years ago, only a lawn, a hedge around his place, a shed, a trampoline for the children – maybe quite none of the categories you mentioned ?
Nowadays, a lot of such garden owners want to do something ecologically valuable and shouldn’t be left alone with pure ecological doctrine without aesthetic counter balance – in my opinion.
Nigel Dunnett I think it’s essential that there is some form of ‘order’ in naturalistic planting – something that makes it easily understood at a glance, rather than a more chaotic jumble. ‘Order’ can take the form of more formal structures and containment, or a repetition of structural and architectural plants. Or it can be a very coherent colour scheme for example. But without this sense of order then I think it does become something that’s very difficult to understand unless by ‘people in the know’.
Debbie Hearn Like an esoteric, modern music composition that hardly anyone can bear to listen to! ?
Anne Wareham Aren’t these the perennial (!) aspects of all good garden design? Or especially naturalistic planting? Interesting that we so often call it planting, which is usually only part of a garden design? It does seem that in naturalistic planting designers think of structure coming from characteristically structural plants, rather than building or from sculpture?
Nigel Dunnett I think one big difference in answer to this question is that ‘NP’ planting often eliminates the idea of a traditional border or planting bed that is looked at and enjoyed from a lawn or area of paving. Instead it is much more about being surrounded by the planting, with paths going through it. So that is perhaps why there is so much emphasis on planting rather than garden design as a whole – so much of the experience of the garden is through the planting rather than architectural structure
Tony Spencer to Nigel Dunnett Absolutely. ‘Designed landscapes’ (a term I believe you use) is a more apt descriptor than ‘plantings’. Even that though doesn’t quite capture the experiential aspects that the design seeks to ultimately create.
End of Part One. More to follow in next post.
And it would be sweet if you could comment on here rather than, or as well as, Facebook. For the non Facebook readers…. Xxxx
It’s true that you won’t find many topiary columns in New Perennial gardens. It’s also true that 3D geometrical shapes are just one form of ‘structure’ among many. Oudolf used them himself at the start of his career when his designs were heavily influenced by Mein Ruys.
A wider definition of ‘structure’ is ‘the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.’ You only have to look at Oudolf’s design drawings for his New Perennial gardens to see that they are highly structured – I believe that his designs for Hauser and Wirth were showcased in the gallery itself when the garden first opened. When you stand in an NP garden it a bit like being in an animated 3D impressionist painting. It obviously has form but color, texture, movement and light increase the sophistication manyfold.
It also seems unreasonable to compare Hermannshoff to Hauser and Wirth orTrentham which are both gardens designed solely for public enjoyment. Hermannshoff OTOH serves many purposes – it’s a show garden with 150,000 visitors per annum but it also organizes trials and education and is a showcase for the habitat-based approach to perennial plant developed by Hansen and Muessel and simplified by Sieber. In this regard it’s ground zero for the NP movement but is far more didactic in its approach than Oudolf or Stuart-Smith. I enjoyed it very much.
You can see the Cassian Schmidt discuss all this on YouTube including some innovative approaches to maintenance.
Winter Lecture Series, Cassian Schmidt : The New Perennial Movement at Hermannshof Gardens
Thank you,Pete. (Be good to hear what you enjoyed about Hermannshof? That kind of feedback would be illuminating)
So, one major point that nobody has talked about (as far as I can see) is the actual context or setting for New Perennial plantings – and structure at different scales. Here in the US, a large number of the “New Perennial” plantings are occuring in urban environments – within a pretty set architectural structure. Think, especially of the High Line and Lurie Garden. In both of these, the herbaceous plantings are set within a highly ordered and architectural frame. The naturalistic planting is in pretty stark contrast to the geometry and hard surfaces of their surroundings. Similar cases in the UK would be the Barbican plantings and the regionally themed panels at Queen Elizabeth Park (the Olympic 2012 Grounds). I can see there definitely being an upper limit where all the gauzy planting just dissolves into senseless mush. For me, it feels heavily context dependent – and very much framed by one’s expectations for the experience. Maybe the degree that structure is evident is a good qualifier for distinguishing between a “garden” and the larger “landscape”?
Interesting. It may be possible to see from the pictures in the post that the Hauser and Wirth – planting/landscape? has open views out to what I think is a sports pitch and unremarkable countryside. I don’t think there is an attempt to deal with the surroundings, they appear to have been ignored. That would seem strange in a garden. It IS strange.
I think that is a great point. The tapestry feel of an NP planting does work beautifully in contrast to the city scape at Lurie and the High Line. And the very stark contrast of the urban with its color/texture in relation to the color/texture of the plantings. The visitors also animate the space. It is public space. The unusual use locations not normally used as gardens also plays a part: garage roof, old rail line. All of this makes the context quite different from an NP planting in a pastoral setting or one that is part of a private garden.
As a plant lover, an owner of a small nursery, a visual artist, and an advocate for native plants (as well as many other kinds of plants) and a teacher for what you might call the average ‘Josephine’ or ‘Joe’ – beginners worried about the Monarchs as well as experienced gardeners who drool over specialties, this conversation is inspiring on different fronts. On one front, I want people to just simply grow MORE and however I can encourage them to do that, I will. We need MORE. More larval food, more bird food, more herbal, perennial edibility, more beauty, sensuality, ecological services. I want to encourage that first. Within that I want to discuss aesthetics and function with my customers and also figure these into my own gardening. As a visual artist how could I not? I think about structure like this: First there is a seed: structure. Then there is the seedling: structure. Then there is a single plant growing into maturity: it has structure. Then comes the group of a single variety. Then how do the groups intermingle, and so on. The challenge with New Perennial as a concept is that it is just about perennials. Therefore it can have structure in and of itself, but it is much more like a shaggy side shoot of carpet bedding. Perennials, and “new perennial” planting style, when considered as the understory in a four dimensional design: length, width, height, time, can have a fantastic amount of structure and the structure comes from thinking ground cover, herbaceous layer, understory, overstory and using these layers creatively. And that is before you add a path, wall, sculpture, or building. This is not only aesthetically beautiful but ecologically sound and can be scaled to fit the smallest garden or budget. It is also a way to help fit the NP concept (and a native-plant centered ethos, which I realize is slightly different) into existing garden settings without ripping them out or adding yards of drip irrigation or amending the soil, actions that are often financially and/or emotionally untenable for most of my customers.
I am currently reading “Planting; A new Perspective” by Piet Oudoulf and Noel Kingsbury and so I am really enjoying reading this debate.
For me I really enjoy NP as it fits my own requirements (naturalistic, semi-native, low maintenance, structure in winter etc), but the thing I don’t have is lots of space which seems a necessity!
Still I’ll try my best. One observation though of the discussion is that it reminds of the arguments one hears in debating modern art vs “classic” art.
Fascinating stuff, keep it up!
Interesting discussion…when one considers the “average gardener” ,an explanation of the need for structure is evident. Many of us have it in the form of boundary,house and (usually very necessary) shed,whether we like it or not. Many “average” gardens are quite small and often without a landscape that one would wish to borrow,so even NP fans have to work within the framework that they have. Therefore the earlier iterations of NP are more realistic to realise.
Is it me, or is the ‘new perennial’ style just a kind of over-sized, scruffy carpet bedding?
I do not like the Hauser and Wirth garden. There – I’ve said it.
Piet Oudolf planting – good. large field of waving perennials and grasses, much to look at most of the year….even if the contractors cocked up the soil.
Structures – horrid. I can here Messrs H & W thinking….let’s have a blobby building make of fibreglass panels and a square cannon sticking out of it…because we can and we need a focal point. Let’s have big chunks of sandstone – because we can and there’s a quarry nearby.
Let’s have incomprehensible, expensive and sometimes awful sculpture near the gallery – because we can, and we know Art! (the fibreglass green tipped willy with the mono-bollock seat reminded me of a Grade C Art A level project, last September)
Let’s fence off stretches of soggy hoggin path in winter with rusty pig-tail posts and frayed bits of string, and scrawled chalk boards advising the blobby building is closed, because we just can’t be arsed to think of anything beautiful for this purpose.
I have photos of the above delights to share and I shall send them to Anne.
4 or 6 big multi stemmed Acer griseum or Prunus serrula would have done for structure instead…or Catalpa…or oaks…not green willies or square cannons.
well, ist was a ? for “evangelical feel“ … not a ? …
I actually have this: Detlev Brinkschulte Anne Wareham „evangelical feel“ ? Shall I change it for that then?
No question mark at all but a symbol which translates as one!