Do you have a list of those "rules" I can look at?

Sometimes we follow the rules in unorthodox ways so that we don't recognize that we follow the rules. That was the case with me. The more rules that I heard, the more that I thought I broke. The more I understood them and the more I understood what I was doing, the more I realize that I actually follow "the rules" in a more complicated way.

I used to think that I operated on "feeling". As time went by I realized that it was very diliberate reasoning that I had not yet recognized as reasoning. I learned this by trying to explain to others what I was doing without hiding behind the artist shroud.

If you consistently get good results, it is because you understand your media. The "rules" are a list of things that work together as a dynamic. It is very easy to go against some parts of that list, but I would contend that you (or I) use other things on the list to overcome "going againt the rules". Is that really breaking the rules? I'd say it is having command of the rules.

What an interesting twist on the subject. I think you are right :)

Rules or concepts? See how different the connotations are? Rules are for people who are not going to bother to think about it. Concepts are for people like you, working it over in your mind, deeper thinking. You aren't breaking the rules so much as developing the concepts.

When they teach design "rule" or concepts (I don't remember what they actually do call them - harmony, balance, unity,..) in school it is interesting to see how difficult it is to get students to drop their own notions of what these are. They go way back to the most simple and isolated understanding of each before they move forward. They teach each isolated from the others to build an understanding of each.

Then they teach concepts that help build these elements, such as repetition, symetry,.... None of these supporting tools are necessary, but they are the simplest, fastest, and most direct (and powerful) ways to conquer those design principals. These often get confused with being design principals of their own while they are actually tools. Like with all tools, you can use different tools to make a repair.

Then you get the features of the media (mostly plants) such as color, texture, form, ... They show how you can use each of these to achieve those design elements - harmony, unity,... These can work to support the tools you use to achieve those design elements (rules, concepts), or they may need to be overcome because they work against it (ie, yellow foliage as you are trying to use repetition of dark green to achieve unity).

The not so obvious thing is that you can achieve harmony, unity, balance, .... in an infinite amount of ways. You can get unity through repetion, but you can get it without repetion as well. But the fact is that it will not look like a nice composition unless there is unity. You can leave people or yourself not seeing what makes the unity, but it has to be there.

"And it's all right now
yeah, I learned my lesson well
You see, you can't please everyone
so you gotta please yourself.

- Rick Nelson

If following certain "rules" makes your gardening experience more enjoyable, by all means conform to them. If bending or breaking others leads to a more pleasurable outcome, go for it.

: D So.....if it feels good, do it?

Concepts or features, such as balance, unity, repetition, color theory, are a little different than rules IMO. Once you understand a concept you can use it in many different ways; it actually works for you. The more you understand and explore concepts the more creative and free you become (as Laag said).

Then there are codes and laws - you really don't have an option about them (although I think we all know landscapers who break them all the time ). Codes are designed to protect you and the environment. I actually have a problem with some of the environmental acts in my state, but that doesn't mean I am going to jeopardize my business to express my dissatisfaction with them.

By rules I am thinking more of the guidelines that come out of exploring some of the concepts and features. For example, you study color theory and you learn about warm and cool colors on the color wheel; then you get to the rule "chose a warm or cool palette and stick with it". Or one rule they mentioned in the blogs I read is a good example "paths should be wide enough for two people to walk comfortably side by side". When I think about rules or guidelines like that all I think of are the exceptions.

Another example, plant spacing. I am always planting tightly, pushing the envelope of spacing, for the most part because I want a reasonably immediate impact for my clients. Seems like the more I do this the happier people are. Certainly i could be criticized for doing this, but its just one of those rules that I feel stifles the end result. (BTW, I do maintain most of the landscapes I install, so its not like I am doing a bad planting job and running away from it. For the most part it works out well, and looks full)

Speaking of bending and breaking - if it's something like whether you should saw off a large tree branch while sitting on it, that may seem like a rule.

But only because it's not pleasurable to plunge downwards and hit the ground from a great height. Likewise with planting a white oak 6 feet from your house, putting down a brick path without weedblock underneath or any other act that leads to untoward consequences. You will not enjoy the outcome.

Then again, if you have atypical color preferences, so what? (unless you're in the habit of inviting the garden club over for tea and critiques).

You've made me dig out the book that made me understand (with the help of a certain Professor Snyder) these things. It is a paper back with a spriral wound binder that I paid $9.65 for in 1982. It is "Planting Design: A Manual of Theory and Practice" by William R. Nelson. I have not opened it in quite some time, but it is a really good book on theory rather than a "Hooray for me, everyone should do what I do" book. I think you can find it on Amazon or somewhere else.

It might be hard for some people to want to go back, clear their heads, and start at the beginning, but if you are not insecure this is a great thing to do and a great way to learn what it is that makes what you do successful or to learn to be successful if you are not there yet.

Nelson calls these "The Principles of Art". These are what makes a composition successful. He writes that it is about "harmonious relations". I don't think that is arguable. I would contend that if it looks good as a composition it must somehow be a harmonious relationship. I believe that is what Nelson is meaning as well.

His Principles are "repetition, variety, balance, emphasis, sequence, and scale". He goes further to write that these are not "rigid, inflexible laws" and that your goal as a comoser is to combine these so that the observer focuses on the whole composition rather than individual parts.

If you understand the rules to be something similar to what Nelson's explanation it is quite different than understanding them to be a list of fail safe conventions.

We have all read posts by people who just read through part of a book explaning repetion and they come to believe that they must repeat the same color with every plant selection or it will be a mess. I imagine that some of this is due to not understanding that the book is breaking things down to learn one principle at a time. But, I could also imagine that some books are written by people who teach and practice this as a fail safe method.

There used to be a guy in Florida on HGTV that would do the exact same thing in his planting schemes week after week. I would not say that they looked bad, but it was taking some of these principles very literally. I thought the results were very predictable and rather boring, although they were not bad. I think that is what a lot of usthink about as "following the rules". I'd call it following convention.

You can follow the rules in infinite ways that do not follow convention.

Catkim asks if it feels good, just do it. Perhaps if it defies ALL principles it won't feel so good (why does Tiger woods come to mind?). If you somehow compose something out of the box that looks great, it would be a good study to try to find how it actually does achieve it.

Nelson also talks about how some perceive this to be a "mysterious activity" and a "unique talent possessed by only a few". Then he goes on to say that this is quickly dispelled once you study the six principles. That is something that I did not remember from way back when I studied the book, but it is something that I could not agree with more.

Yep. That's what the rules are, when it comes to garden design.

Sometimes breaking the rules is just having a different priority in which one principle is subordinated to another--okay, that's not a new idea, but I mean taking it to an extreme for some personal priority, or personal goal. That doesn't mean that the rule "was meant to be broken" in achieving a pleasing design, but that you have actually decided--overtly or not, as laag noted--that the composition that could be achieved by those rules or principles is not as important to you as why or for what end you've done what you've done instead and so then design, as a concept, is not as important. sometimes this is quite intentional, but I don't think it necessarily means a person actually "likes" one non-design better than a good design, but that they don't care to be bothered by these comparisons.

There used to be a guy in Florida on HGTV that would do the exact same thing in his planting schemes week after week.

Gary and his "aztec grass"! I remember him.

One issue is for people new to landscaping who read articles like breaking the rules, but they don't fully understand the concept behind that rule of thumb. The advice to break the rule, then becomes the new rule replacement for them.

For example the big bashing of the foundation plantings, which is an expression of the rules or learned landscape design wisdom, but they don't have anything to replace it with in design or in concept. The "problem" being mitigated is their dislike with a rule or rule expression being overused, but not addressing anything else beyond.

At that point unless there is an understanding of the basics, then the average Joe is lost.

Well, a house either has an ugly exposed foundation or it does not.

Rhodie, I think understand what you're saying. Any discipline has a body of wisdom associated with it. In science we call these laws or rules. Laws are inviolate, unless you are discovering a new field of science or a new law. On the other hand rules are observations that would be laws but are not universally applicable, but serve as a observed fact that is of limited application depending on the system.

In design thre are no laws, but there is a body of collective wisdom about what works for our culture and timeperiod.