I've been to a couple of gardens by Mirei Shigemori. They were, for the most part, wretched. Tofukuji is probably the best, and it's only so-so.

Archer55, (bill?)
why were they, 'for the most part, wretched.'?

I have not decided whether i have a like or dislike for them, only that they are creative solutions showing one mans opinion of past gardens of the stagnated (his opinion) Edo period onwards, with an offering of future possibilities.
They make me think, what yet, is still unclear. Perhaps other opinions would help clarify this.
edzard

Hey Edzard,

As you know, Christian Tschumi gave a presentation on the evolution of the Japanese garden, focusing on the works of Shigemori at the JG Symposium last year. It was one of the most talked about presentations of the entire event. Unfortunately i only caught the tail end of it, but i was intrigued by the impression that Shigemori's gardens left on those who were in attendance. People really seemed to be moved by Mr. Tschumi's presentation. Ive ordered the book this morning to see for myself.

Though i must admit that after researching Shigemori's gardens on the internet, i am left with the feeling of a cold rigidness and a lack of organic connection with his work. It seems almost alien in some respects. I wouldnt use the common notion of tranquil or peaceful to describe the gardens i have seen. Though i do like his use of mitate.

I have read some descriptions explaining how a particular garden relates to the surrounding environment, but im left with the impression that they are superimposed on them instead. Can you see where Shigemori has listened to the site to determine the garden's design? I suppose the garden at the Kishiwada castle is representative of the walls surrounding the castle, and when viewed from above it actually looks like a military plan of attack, but i think he has steered a garden away from being a garden and in the direction of being a piece of art.

-christian

Kishiwada Castle, 1953 - Hachijin no Niwa

Tofuku-ji Honbou,Ryougin-an

Here is a link that might be useful: JGarden summary of Tschumi's presentation

I've been to some Shigemori gardens, too, and "wretched" is a good description. Matsuo Taisho was just about the worst garden I've ever seen. A graveyard-like mosquito-ridden Hell-on-Earth.

I ordered Christian Tschumi's book right after the symposium (had to wait a while for it to come out). I think Shigemori's gardens are fascinating. Also wonderful and audacious. Reminds me of Picasso. The only unfortunate thing is how he effectively eliminated the option of restoring or excavating old gardens on sites where he built, but I suppose in a place like Japan where everything is so developed it's practically inevitable.

Think what courage he must have had to create his gardens in a society so tethered to tradition.

Many of his gardens seem like sculpture reincarnated as a garden. Is it a garden dreaming of being a sculpture, or a sculpture dreaming of being a garden?

Lee

I also was present at Christian's talk and I just received the book as well. When I think of Shigemori-san, words like "modern" and "urban" and "enclosed" seem to pop into my head. I agree with our Christian as well, "inorganic" is another word that pops into my head at times.

The one exception is Joko no Niwa at Matsuo Taisha (my favorite) which is the only work that I have seen of his in which I enjoy his use of shakkei. Knowing its history, I get "chicken skin" just looking at it in 2D. A wonderful homage to the God Of Fermentation.

I am awaiting with much anticipation of Christian's translation of "Nihon Teien-shi Zukan". He intimated at such during his talk. I am willing to bet 75% of those gardens don't exist anymore. If it ever gets published, it will be in the 4 figure range and worth every penny.

Michael

What an interesting surprise that a review of Christian Tschumi's book is in the latest issue of the Journal of Japanese Gardening. And when we had just so recently been discussing it here!

Sadly, Doug and Tamao utterly trash the book, even going so far as to say "...Tschumi exposes his own Japanese garden knowledge to be little more than that of an advanced tourist."

This is just one more instance where they have gone too far. Christian Tschumi is a respected scholar with a PhD from Harvard (his dissertation was on Shigemori) and degrees from his native Switzerland as well as a Japanese university. I sat next to him at the International Symposium. He is not only a legitimate scholar, he is modest and self-effacing.

It would be reasonable to say one does not care for Shigemori's work, it would be reasonable to say one does not care for Tschumi's book. To call him an advanced tourist is simply outrageous.

It is by this type of underserved trashing (plus untenable stances on religion and Chinese influence) that JOJG has managed to alienate and offend the vast majority of legitimate experts in the Japanese gardening community. Those true experts who remain willing to participate in the publication are the exceptionally thick-skinned.

It is truly unfortunate, because much of the technical information in the magazine is useful to English speakers, and there is no other good alternative. Doug and Tamao seem determined to drive themselves out of business rather than having the humility to make a contribution to the Japanese gardening world minus their opinions.

Lee

I haven't seen the JOJG review yet, but I thought the Tschumi book was horrible. To me, Shigemori's gardens are just downright ugly and artificial. If Tschumi is such a respectible fellow, why would he hitch his wagon to that ugly cart? Anyway, it's JOJG's job to inform their readers, and more often than not I agree with their take on things. I'll look forward to reading the review when my issue arrives in the mail.

KnR, how do you know that JoJG's opinions are the 'best information', or why do you 'feel informed'?
- when about 99% of the rest of the Japanese garden world apparently disagrees with those opinions ?

-- why is it that people who do not like Shigemori's gardens, can not describe why they don't like it... ?
I find this a very unique quality about Shigemori's gardens, that they induce this response. I can only surmise that the gardens are being very successful, because of this obviously strong response pattern.
Dislike is very usable in Japanese gardens that are required to answer urban design problems.

I'm always very happy with the opinions that I read in JOJG. To me, they are a voice of reason, while the rest of the fruit loops are out there in their "Zen garden" loony land.

By the way, how in the world could "dislike" be considered a positive reaction in the mind of a normal person? I imagine going up to my neighbor and saying, "Wow, I really dislike your garden!" Does that sound like a compliment to anyone other than Edzard?

Surely it is clear that Edzard is highlighting that a powerful response whether positive or negative says more about a designers work than a 'shrug of the shoulders, this garden does not make me feel anything response. The shallowest of artists would look for compliments, those that have feeling for thier work would thrive on response ??

Surely it is also clear that when the title of a certain journal crops up (with increasing regularity?) that the same relatively newly registered forum users keep using phrases such as "its JOJG's job to inform readers" "I am always happy with the opinions I read in JOJG"
Just an observation.

Yup. Same observation. Still waiting for the first post that actually contributes something without using an acronym. Perhaps a stockholder???

Michael

1. I didn't bring up JOJG, Lee did. And, by the way, did I mention that I like and respect that publication?
2. Despite what you hint at, new members are welcome to participate in this forum, and I'll participate in it whenever I please.
3. When I do participate, I'll say MY opinions, and it doesn't matter to me whether anyone agrees or not.
4. Any garden designer who strives to generate "dislike" is simply a dope. (that's my opinion, by the way). I'd suspect that most garden owners in Japan would agree, but you never know.

The discussion in this thread seems to assume that the JOJG disapproves of Shigemori's gardens.

If that assumption is based on the article in the JOJG issue #30, (Nov/Dec 2002), I think it should be pointed out that the article (headed "Give the Edo Period Some Credit") is not about Shigemori's gardens. It is about Shigemori's assessment of the Edo period - with which the JOJG disagrees, along with the reasons why it disagrees.

Herb

You know, Chris is correct. This is a public forum. His opinion counts. For all we know, he can be a well informed, educated, contributor with an open mind versus the uneducated JOJG hugging armchair critic we make him out to be.

Let's hear him out. Let's give the noob a chance.

Michael

What qualifies any poster to sit in judgment and label people who appreciate the JOJG as ill-informed, uneducated and closed-minded?

It is to be expected that the JOJG will not reflect all opinions, but offensive labelling of that sort is not consistent with being well informed, educated and having an open mind either.

I am new to the web and have read with great interest this thread. Everyone has legitimate opinions regarding the work of Shigemori-san. But I think it is important that one remembers that with all works of art, whether it be oils, clay, or stone and plants that it will invoke a different response in each individual who views it. Yes the traditional ways and principles are important but we must be able to view with an open mind.

Hey Herb;

I said let him post, you miss that part???

Nice history on Shigemori-san and the JOJG. A CONTRIBUTION to this topic.

We should meet sometime in Port Angeles. I look forward to it.

Michael

Michael -

No, I didn't miss that part - but read as a whole, your post carries the message - "Let this person prove to us real experts that he isn't an ignoramus." - which is hardly the sort of thing that encourages people to join in.

I shan't know whether I'll want to say anything more about Shigemori or about Christian Tschumi's book until I get the latest JOJG issue. All I recall about the book at the momenmt is that in a bookstore some time ago, I picked up both it and the similarly-titled "Modern Japanese Garden" by Shunmyo Masuno & elected to spend my week's pocket money on the latter.

Agreed - if not in Port Angeles, then in Victoria.

Herb

I think JOJG is very valuable as an educational resource. There's nothing like it here in Japan. Niwa magazine is probably the next closest thing, but Niwa magazine is usually just a bunch of photos. It doesn't even come close to JOJG in terms of actual information and educational value.

I thought JOJG's review of the Shigemori book was precise and accurate. They didn't completely pan the book, by the way. Their main criticism was directed at Tschumi's "love fest" (their words, not mine) for the guy.

Herb,..
and then there was May/June 2004, Edo-era at Center Stage, wherein Kuck's observation that the Edo was 'in decline and stagnation'... followed by this quote, "She (Kuck) was merely parroting misinformation dished up by another famous myth merchant, Mirei Shigemori."

Odd, this statement, since everyone of note concurrs, inclusive of the Research Centre for Japanese Garden Art, that the Edo was in decline due to the woodblock DIY garden series, which allowed many merchants, etc. to become gardeners allowing the order of the objectives to be lost/misunderstood. (Nitschke, Kuitert, etal)

This is the same as what is happening today, people could have the real Japanese garden with less effort than seeking only to 'have Japanese influenced gardens' while misunderstanding 'formal' for the Japanese garden, instead of asking what the 'best solution' would be. And they would save money, effort, etc... need for modernization.....?? or is the merchant money making appeal just too good to pass up??? -- hmmm, saru butts come to mind...

Simultaneously, the posts (kui) on page 26, the formal pattern is listed as 'boring' under the BAD side of the examples... just another misinformation, yet is a good example of different peoples marketed understanding and illustrating why the 'modernization' of the Japanese garden should be undertaken....
--and this contrary information is found in Katsuo Saito's book.... where the BAD, 'boring' example is termed 'formal'
--I guess if ever there is a tie breaker that understands history and good design, it is the JoJG, with all that excellent well researched opinion, that never admits it has found new information.

--back to you Herb,...
.......... edzard

Edzard,

There seems to (to me) be some confusion of thought about this topic.

For a start I suggest we dig into two questions -

first, are Shigemori, Kuck et al to be understood as condemning the entire Edo period outright as the lowest point in Japanese gardening, or
second, are they, on the other hand to be read as saying that towards the end of the Edo period, and since, attempts to construct gardens in the Edo period style have failed to come up to the best Edo standards?

You seem have a low opinion of DIY gardening as illustrated by way of woodblocks - though I should have thought they equated to today's books & Internet sites about Japanese gardening. Are you saying that these things are all worthless, and that it is impossible for ordinary people to make a 'real' (or 'satisfying' or 'good') Japanese garden that they will enjoy unless they employ experts? If so, how are we to recognise who is an expert?

When I got to your reference to 'saru butts' I was especially mystified. What or whom does it apply to? from a short check on the Internet, I have to ask - are you saying something rather obscene?

In the matter of the Good v. Bad Kui illustration on page 26 of issue 39 of the JOJG, it's true that Roth has one opinion and that you have another - i.e. you have different tastes - but how does that make Roth's expression of his own taste 'misinformation'?

Herb

lololololololololo...
oh Herb,...
"you tie me up with elastic words..."
-you express yourself as such a dramatic extreme-ist that is almost becoming acronymic. I fear for you.

May I suggest that you get around to reading Nitschke and Kuitert. As such, the Edo period allowed merchants and others to become instant (Japanese) gardeners, the very thing that JoJG is afraid of.. the expert that became one by reading a few books (in this case woodblocks).
All the while extolling the virtues of a period in history where cookie cutter gardens were introduced. I doubt very much that the Edo was the lowest period in Japanese gardening, however that is hardly the issue.
The issue is more about 'when did gardens start to lose that which made them?' That would be the Edo period.

And would be with the advent of the cookie-cutters, in this case wood-block printers that got their hands on the secret family trade book and published it in Martha Stewarts venues. Unfortunately they missed the instructions...
There are still a number of gardens from the Edo period that are stellar in location and accomplishment.

lolol,.. the 'expert', has nothing to do with what I wrote,
-- and I happily enable many people to accomplish their DIY projects, and hopefully not as an expert, -- I would say a fair bit on this Board, and mostly in a professional capacity, from enabling them to take over their own building experiences to eventually taking ownership of their pruning and the development of their gardens... (th ereference for mentioning this is the post looking for 'influenced' garden and trying to encourage them if they read this)
--I strongly encourage owners to 'take their garden back' after or should someone else have planted (syn -despoiled) their ground.
The Japanese garden for a very large part is based on the 'earth quieting' combined with 'ownership' signage, --every stone, every tree is that very same 'taking ownership' of a piece of property... shime, shimenawa, all are borders. Enclosure is taking ownership.
--and this has nothing to do with 'experts' that many seem so wrapped up in, in my opinion.

Not obscene at all Herb,.. saru butts, which if Lee's posts are read, I'm referring to the kettle calling the pot black, in as gentle a manner as one can. By not doing it, just referring to it. As much as acronymic refers to Michaels post.

As for the 'mis-information' please don't link me in there, Katsuo Saito is the one Roth is disagreeing with, which refers back to the posts of Saito rolling over because of Makita's taste. However, I do see by logic that Saito observed wisely that a straight line is very formal.
would you not agree?? Unless perchance formality is 'bad'...
ah yes, pictures of standing on formality, --... formal bad, very bad... not good in Edo period..., very bad.
.. :))))))),
thanks Herb..
a chuckle before bedtime... always appreciated
edzard
(... you weren't really serious with those questions were you??)

I agree with Edzard that JOJG provides excellent, well-researched opinion.

I can't quite see the problem, however, with that kui article. JOJG said that "zig-zag" is good, while "straight in a row" is bad. They also said that "up and down rhythm" is good, while "flat and level" is bad. Makes sense to me.

It sounds like Edzard dislikes the term "boring" and would like to use the term "formal" instead. OK, that sounds fine. What's the big deal? Mirei Shigemori has a lot of "formal" arrangements in his gardens. In my mind, that's a polite way of saying that his gardens look like crap.

Edzard -

Of course my questions were serious. We're obviously back in the situation of a duck trying to discuss something with a chicken - neither understands what the other's saying. My words may be elastic (to you) but I just can't see in what way. Conversely, (to me) much of your post is not just elastic, but convoluted to the point of being impenetrable.

I feel diffident in saying this, because I may have misunderstood you, but is one of your essential points that each gardener should strive to make his garden both unique to himself and suitable to the garden's location? If it is, then I concur.

What do I think about 'formality'? I'm neither for nor against it - it depends on the place and circumstances. Sometimes it's appropriate & looks good - and sometimes it doesn't.

You say that the Edo period was one when gardens started to "lose that which made them". Do you mean that in the Edo period, more than in any other, the Japanese embarked on a great deal of alteration of existing gardens to make them fit in with Edo-Period ideas of what gardens should look like? Or do you also mean that the Edo Period led to an unsound approach to gardening in general & to what you call cookie-cutter gardening?

I don't, either, understand what you're getting at when you write - "...as such, the Edo period allowed merchants and others to become instant (Japanese) gardeners, the very thing that JoJG is afraid of..." I'm not at all clear whether you're saying that the Edo period was a Good Thing, or that Japanese Merchants started to make inferior gardens or whether your point is that the JOJG is being inconsistent in some way.

I'm doing my best to understand you, but maybe some other poster can explain to you what I mean and explain to me what you mean.

Herb

"Some other poster" steps up to the plate.
In his original post edzard expressed an interest in a book that he thought opened up possibilities that might challenge the "traditional, one way only approach". He said that he was surprised that the Journal of Japanese Gardening disaproved of the subject of the book. After this there were some unsubstantiated remarks about certain gardens being "wretched".
edzard attempts to bring the discussion into an arena of reason, (ie. if it is wretched what makes it so?) and by so doing establishes the discussion as one that is of interest to students of the subject that excludes no-one.
edzard brings in further interesting topics (wood blocks, Edo period) that can be of no interest to a DIY enthusiast.
Enter Herb with "There seems to (to me) be some confusion of thought about this topic." Which adds nothing except Herbs confusion.
Herb then tries to turn his confusion into a generally accepted state that is designed to put edzard down.
Who is right?
Change of personae: As a member of this forum I would like to explore this fascinating subject, wood blocks and all, without the constant niggling of a journal with its own agenda and its supporters so that we can have a collabaration. Is this so difficult?

Inky,

If you will read my post more attentively, then you will see that far from 'adding nothing', I am explaining exactly what I am confused about and that I have posed questions designed to clear it up.

Your assertion about my motive is entirely mistaken. Perhaps you would explain what your motive is. Does my asking of questions give you some sort of problem?

Herb

My motive is clearly explained in my final paragraph, I have no other.

Shrug.

Ink, I've stayed away from this one as I've stayed away from this topic when it comes up in the past. I guess because it's a no brainer. Rarely is there a need to build a traditional authentic Japanese garden. I just find it odd when westerners study Japanese gardens and then start building deer chasers etc. into gardens.

Frankly it is pathitic. The Japanese garden should indeed be studied but not xeroxed. Rather the knowledge (and this goes for Japanese as well) should be understood and then used as a tool in designing current gardens meeting current needs working around steel, concrete,composits while using the best equipment available.

But then who cares if a guy in Irland builds a traditional Japanese garden thats quite poor at best. It's private and we don't have to look at it or use it, so I guess that dosen't matter much.

Of course understand the needs of current society,. Of course work with the curent reality. In Tokyo the main point of any new garden should be to congure up feelings of a deep mountain area. Rock, water, plant, space.

There's way too much effort and thought going the wrong way in the West. Get over it, don't have to make it look like Historic Kyoto. Use the approach and process of Japanese garden building and then build for what is needed. We'll all be better off as this becomes mainstream.

JOGJ has great info ie. dimensions for building a gate, use the math, but don't fixate on making it "Japanese"

Gerald

thank you Gerald...
Inky has the big picture accurately described...
for the short term response for your questions Herb, which are appreciated...

--"one of your essential points that each gardener should strive to make his garden both unique to himself and suitable to the garden's location? If it is, then I concur."

Herb, turn this around where the client is second, never first, site is first, then you have what the Edo Period lost, and what the wood block print cost the garden, since the woodblock induced people to 'want that one', rather than finding the garden solution for the site, intertwined with the client, as expressed by the gardener.

this is also ironic and for me humourous as the JoJG does exactly what it fears everyone else may be doing,... not researching well enough to be expert, reading only their histories, while dissing the persons that will be 'da-n good' in later years. They handle the education of people childishly. (but thats another story, not related to Shigemori except by these circumstances)

formality... the more finish, bling, shiny stuff on a house the more formal the garden has to be, or at some point it looks messy and undervalued to the site.
--back to what gardens lost in the Edo period...

I would highly recommend that Wybe Kuiterts book Scenes Themes and ??? in the Japanese Garden be read, perhaps someone may know the ISBN for Gregory John.
must run.
edzard

I think "Themes in the History of Japanese Garden Art" by Wybe Kuitert (ISBN 0-8248-2312-5) is the best English-language treatment of Japanese garden history available. It's a bit hard to work through, but that's partly due to the meatiness of the material. I found it worked perfectly well to read its chapters out of order, following any thread I was particularly interested in. The index and bibliography (both J & E) are excellent and Wybe gives a very extensive glossary including kanji/kana. I would recommend this book to anyone who is serious about studying and understanding Japanese gardens. His scholarship is impeccable and he always has the humility to identify his opinions as "merely my opinion."

On the topic of garden design good/bad/ugly: During one of Wybe's presentations at the Kyoto Univ. of Art and Design seminar I attended a couple of years ago, he showed slides of the 1910 English "Garden of Peace" which was made for the Japan-British Exhibition. Although it was designed and built by reputable Japanese, he described the tug-of-war which had occurred between Japanese garden historians and Japanese garden designers, both (groups) of whom thought they should be in charge of the design. The result included a 10-meter high painted cardboard backdrop to establish shakkei (borrowed scenery).

Another comment Wybe makes (from my notes --- not direct quotes from Wybe): "By the late Edo period very stiff and fossilized gardens were made in Japan. True creativity happened earlier. There were mass-produced books on stiff gardens. Real creative designers were hidden. This is reflected in the gardens in Josiah Conder's book, which was owned by the baroness who commissioned the Hague Clingendael Garden (c. 1915)" (which has some strange design features described by Wybe).

Lee

Edzard -

Yes, I follow what you're saying - that the site is the most important factor, rather than the result somebody wants - though you've given the process three components - site, client and gardener, which presupposes that a professional is involved and is far from always the case.

At the same time, I can't help thinking that putting the site first pre-supposes that the site is big enough to have some character of its own. I should have thought that when, as in the case of most domestic back yards, the site is small and characterless (and quite likely flat too) the equation becomes, rather, one where - apart from having the respect the site's orientation - the gardener has to influence the site, rather than the other way round - in other words he has to deal with the site in a way that gives it character?

I'm also uneasy with the idea that woodblocks (presumably like modern books about making Japanese gardens) necessarily induce the frame of mind that says - "I want that one" - i.e. the cookie cutter response. Is it not the case that they can also convey a more general - and worthwhile - aesthetic understanding?

Herb

Thank you Lee...
if I may repeat the quote...

"By the late Edo period very stiff and fossilized gardens were made in Japan. True creativity happened earlier. There were mass-produced books on stiff gardens. Real creative designers were hidden. This is reflected in the gardens in Josiah Conder's book, which was owned by the baroness who commissioned the Hague Clingendael Garden (c. 1915)", Kuitert

If we consider this research on the behalf of Kuitert, Shigemori also spent several years traveling throughout Japan, with the summation that the japanese garden had stagnated.

His gardens appear to reflect a desire to reinstill the effectiveness of the site, reflecting the opposite of what was lost, using stone thematically in very powerful arrangements that seem designed to inspire awe. Depending on the development of the personality of the person viewing, I have also heard they are intimidating in the sheer strength of the setting. (noting quietly that those feeling dislike for the settings, are responding to their lack of 'the ability to self-express' ownership to the site, a very western response - comparative to 'simple acceptance' of the site,...(what is the Japanese Garden, Ito in an interview, if i remember correctly))

This is a return to a previous garden 'thought process' that had been lost and is no longer understood. In understanding the thought behind the compositions, (perhaps) the strength is over amplified for some tastes, yet, in doing so conveys that the current timidity in building gardens may be overcome.
In overcoming these inner obstacles he has successfully carried the themology by using the space, the related origin of the space, (by example) responding to the underlying strength and depth that the Shinto belief carries throughout the Japanese culture.
The depth into the culture is monumental, therefore, should not the stonework be monumental? Would not descending gods seek monumental places to reside in? --possibly, ...therefore should not the residence of gods be 'of greater stature' than that of human residences, much as westerners gold leaf churches in overabundant wealth? Should we not respect gods? and not try to make their places our own?
And to discourage us from overtaking those places deemed sacred, should we not feel uncomfortable? responding with awe and 'smallness'?

as one person, without tools, can we overcome a mountain? or should we be in awe of the mountain and nature? And, what type of setting would accomplish these emotions to be brought to the fore in the viewer?
--Shigemori's garden (s) accomplish this with ease, and yet, he encourages us to be as gods, as we have the power to make decisions to erect monumental edifices of beauty (this mirrors the tradition of building pagodas).

The woodblock print effectively ended this creative phase in the Japanese garden development, as best described in the quote by Kuitert, as fossilized.
At the same time 're-invented' the garden type that focused on being made into a painting, from a painting, which is also curiously reflected in Shigemori's use of 'art', making the garden 'as art sculpture'.
(by using flowing modern materials in traditional forms that 'speak/relate' to masses of people, which is also a basis of Shunmyo Masuno's work, btw.)
(sidebar: that the more modern we try to be, the more traditional we use materials in to ways communicate successful artistic imaging. The conundrum being:
To be modern we need tradition;
in being traditional, we are adoptive of modernity.....)
..my observations .

allow me to take this one step further.
We also do not like these gardens because they are not useable to us in our home environs (back to Ito's comment), which indicates that instead of wishing to build a unique garden for our site, we feel the information (garden) is useless as we can not template the pieces into our spaces and still self-express within them.

This indicates that the Shigemori garden is very very successful, as it can not be removed from its site, whereas the gardens of today can be moved from place to place, home to home, piece by piece, as we currently are doing via the woodblock templates.
summation: the successful garden cannot be moved or duplicated in another site.
-This would indicate that our unique expressions are needed in gardens today, rather than 'one of these, or one of those, because I like them'.
(and again, whether or not I 'like' the garden is not the question. Yet considering the garden is successful in conveying what was intended, is important.

edzard
another aside, this attempt to give the garden back to us, hardly makes Shigemori a myth-merchant, by a Journal that is providing woodblock templates. Back to the kettle calling the pot black.

Edzard,

You mention the Clingendael Garden. You don't make it clear whether you're citing the garden as one of the stiff and fossilised sort, or as one made by one of the hidden, real creative designers, but there are some photographs of it at this URL -

http://www.botanikfoto.com/en/netherlands2.php

Or clicking here may be quicker

Herb, I took too long in composing the previous...
-I, personally do not think a 'professional' is needed to find the 'heart nature' of the site. I think it just takes thought, observation and 'site analysis', a normal tenet of LA or gardening.

The smallness -size of the site is the part of the challenge and joy of a successful garden. Most people don't want, or are not equiped to think of a solution for a site.

Historically a site was chosen for the garden 'thought' or concept.
Given we are now boxed into what we purchased, then yes, the gardener needs to find a solution for 'correcting' the site. However, the correcting does not begin with the garden catalogue, it still begins with the site analysis, the nature around the site, or area (Slawson) or by history (depending on garden immersion) or by taste, or by budget, reusing what is available, country taste, etc.

(ie: for a garden space submerged in vertical buildings, formal or 'bad' lines are used more predominantly to lead into curvaceous nature, reflecting the nature of the site, however in a commercial site, the straighter formal lines may be used to energize the viewer rather than soothe, or direct the viewer as 'wayfinding' (urban design))

In the smallest of spaces, the simplest of arrangements is used, yet, for interest note how often a lantern that has 'downturning eaves' on the umbrella is used.
This simple device of directing the eyes downward is the pivotal point of the garden that then makes the site unique to itself.
If one did not like this lantern (device), then a different device for keeping the thought in the garden frame would need to be found.
Or, if not the above then a 'way out' is found as a solution of the garden, perhaps by using only 'sky' directly vertically as shakkei, as exampled by Shunmyos example of using the tsukubai reflection to show 'bamboo forest'.
Small or large, has little to do with the issue, the devices used, how used are the important parts, based on, what the parameters of the site are.

whether or not people wish to 'think that far' is at question, as Shigemori's gardens illustrate.

Your uneasiness about the two sided use of the woodblock is apt. Perhaps the Sears catalogue in pioneer days was too successful as a marketing tool..... We see, we order, it arrives already guaranteed.
However, as we often respond (here) to trying to assist, the users of the 'want this one' are standing at the entranceway of garden building, either lazy as Mike often said, or unthinking as of yet, of what the options truly are. These 'ordering' tendencies should be realigned to encourage better garden expression, changing ie: the wish for an influenced garden, when a real garden is easier and more cost effective, however, uses more thought.

we here, taking the higher road, as you often have, by working over visual designs, have no choice but to creatively use images already made, yet, if/when you had endless time, you often adjust/redesign a 'piece' to reflect the site better, or 'more in keeping' with the garden. This happens both in building requirements, methods, materials, etc., from what I've seen of your work.

iow's, to you, because you think, and work at learning more, books create aesthetic benefit, yet the unthinking, the preferring not to think people, (not unkindly meant) or those just adopting the ideas, use them as a Sears catalogue. With help, as yours, as is the purpose of this Forum, to share opinions, they will think, rather than use potato blocks.
(in a perfect world and with diligence in adhering to believing in 'better gardens' as Shigemori did - whether we liked them or not, they induce a 'better' thought of 'what could be if')

edzard

Herb, the quote is Wybe's, not mine. I have not been there, and the photo's do not show enough to sense the context, without which I would probably be erroneous in deeming it one or the other.
e

Herb, I was the one who brought up the Clingendael Garden, in the context of Wybe Kuitert's comments about it.

Some of his other comments might be of interest and in connection with ideas we've been discussing here. The following are comments based on my notes of Wybe's talk.

The Clingendael (which means "Valley Between the Dunes") Garden (c. 1915) was commissioned by a baroness who was influenced in her views of what a Japanese garden is by 1) Josiah Conder's book (which features the cookie-cutter garden approach Edzard has been talking about) and 2) Ella and Florence Du Cane, who were travelling artists and authors and friends of the baroness. The Du Canes wrote and illustrated a book called "The Flowers and Gardens of Japan" in 1908. They liked flowers and so emphasized flowers in their paintings of Japanese gardens, thus helping to create an incorrect impression in Europe that Japanese gardens have a lot of flowers in them. The Clingendael garden features tiger lilies and carpets of spring flowers because of this influence.

At this time the Japanese were eager to develop exports to the West to correct their trade imbalance (due to their large-scale importation of all things Western), so all sorts of "Japanesey" things came onto the market. Wybe says that at that time you could actually buy a whole Japanese garden building with a thatched roof, etc., by mail order.

One of the design errors Wybe mentions is that at Clingendael you come into direct confrontation with the main building as you enter the garden, and the whole view is exposed all at once. This is counter to the indirect approach (stemming originally from Shinto ideas) and gradual revealing of the garden which would be more standard in Japan and which would increase the sense of transition from secular to sacred (or from worldly to intimate, if you like).

As an interesting aside, Wybe was investigating the possible influence of this garden on Vita Sackfield-West and the development of the cottage garden style --- apparently her friend Violet Keppel visited Clingendael and wrote about it to Sackfield-West.

Lee

Edzard - It seems that the duck & chicken are respectively learning to interpret the other's chirps & quacks a bit better - at any rate I think we're a lot more ad idem than before.

Lee - Moving on to what Wybe Kuitert meant, I see that I overlooked your saying that you weren't quoting directly from Wybe, but from your own notes - so can you resolve the ambiguity for us? Wybe Kuitert is obviously a very significant commentator & I think it would be interesting to pin it down & then view the pictures of the Clingendael Garden again - even though the pictures do not in themselves, as Edzard says, show the context.

Just to take 2 of the pictures, #401143 looks (to me) to be somewhat modern, while #401155 looks (again to me) to have somewhat of an air of Katsura about it.

Herb

Lee - Thanks for the further observations - your post beat mine by 2 minutes. It sounds as though Wybe thinks the garden doesn't exactly epitomise the stiff & fossilised, but that on the other hand, neither does it epitomise the really creative. Or to look at it from another viewpoint, the garden's designer not only used a cookie cutter, but used it on some ingredients that didn't really suit that shape of cookie......

Herb

I think we are in danger of imposing our own interpretations, based on recent thinking, on another time and another place. For example, isn't it only recently that garden design has become seperate from garden making? Nowadays we have people who specialise in one area but has it always been so? Site: Owner: Designer: Builder. At some time these were all the same person (stretching it with "site").
Lee: you touch on the falsety of originality with your Sackville -West aside and this may have more relevance than you intended to this thread.

Yes, thank you --- I did mean SackVILLE-West (whoops!).

My phone line is failing tonight but will post this briefly (if possible) ---

You can read much more about Wybe's ideas on this in his 2003 article in the Journal of the Garden History Society entitled "Japonaiserie in London and The Hague: A History of the Japanese Gardens at Shepherd's Bush (1910) and Clingendael (c. 1915)". Will check to see if it's available online somewhere?

More later --- afraid of being disconnected any moment...

Lee

Boy have I been missing a lively post! It does sound like Edzard and Herb have worked out the fowl language issue ; > My comments seem a day late, but here goes:

As for the need for "traditional" Japanese gardens, I need them! And I believe many more do and would appreciate them. There are many thresholds that separate the traditional - from the modern - from the downright different-for-the-sake-of-difference. I prefer not to cross more than the first few. Just in case someone misses my subtleties, my appreciation of modern influences on Japanese gardening has yet to develop ; )

This is where a professional can make a difference. With an understanding of the principals, purposes, and possibilities of Japanese garden design and construction, copying an existing garden is not necessary. When I refer to a professional, I am not speaking of expertism, authoritism, or fame, but of a person who has made a profession of studying, practicing, and understanding Japanese gardens and gardening (hopefully for more than a couple of years!). With these gifts, a designer can evaluate the garden site possibilities, conceive of the spirit or direction (and yes, magic), and execute the construction without literally trying to recreate some successful garden from history or fame. Additionally, most often these days, there is nothing left of the original site and one most look outside the immediate area for an understanding. This is something that may not be considered by the DIY (without this forum).

I believ I avoid the monkey's butt as I am no expert, and much enjoy the kettle.

All this said, I believe the "woodblock print" inspired gardens have use, and are enjoyed by many. Do not mistake moderate budget for laziness. Sometimes the orthodontist can afford the great garden, but the parents cant! And I certainly do not agree that a successful garden cannot be moved or duplicated in another site. Garden designs and garden elements, like most cultural influences have moved great distances to find the right slot to grow and spread. By a close example, the azumaya at Katsura Rikyu.

I was taught early garden purposes sometimes included the mad desire of early royalty to have the immortality of the Gods. Failing this, they wanted to lure the Gods into their garden by recreating attractive habitats for them (thatÂs a subject for another post), in hopes of the GodÂs favors. Along the way, add the Shinto belief that God is in everything, and they may dwell in particular in "special" garden elements, then the garden is the Home of the Gods. If this is the case, then it would be good practice to take really good care of the garden, eh? It also shows reasoning for beliefs that certain gardens exist apart from the realities of the rest of the world. I think I will stop before those experts who know such things have nothing to do with Japanese gardening have a heart attack.

These are my opinions. No names have been changed to protect anyoneÂ

Have to disagree Herb, every space is unique. The smallest I've done in my area was one metre by 2.5 metres. It took several weeks.

Further, no I don't believe the homeowner can do it without a proffesional consult at the least. That's been shown here over and over again. I'm sure like you Ezard, I visit many sites, do a basic consult and then let the homowner run on their own, usually with results that could not have been invisioned on their own.

It's just not like fixing up a 53 pickup chevy. Intrerpiting space and seeing how it should be arranged based on where and who, how use, sunlight, noise, pollution, slope etc. etc. etc. etc just is not possible to be guessed at.

I love photography, all I have to do is point and shoot, shoot and shoot, wonder why I can't get big bucks for my photos???

Gerald

Gerald,

It's impossible to say you're wrong, because every site is of course unique in the very strictest sense of the word. Nonetheless, considering the number of back yards that exist, I can't help reasoning that uniqueness must also, for a great many purposes, be a matter of degree rather than of kind.

Similarly when you say you don't believe the homeowner can do it without at least a professional consult, my reasoning tells me that while that has to be true for the great majority of homeowners, it can't be true for 100% of them. There's no doubt at all that our garden would never get on any list of gardens worth seeing, & that it would be a lot better if we'd consulted a competent professional - and so would many other amateur gardeners' efforts.

But there's another factor - the satisfaction that comes from having created your own garden without seeking help from anybody. (Or at least the delusion of not having sought help - because it has to be admitted that even joining in this forum or reading books on the topic amounts to seeking help). As Shakespeare had Touchstone say, (with reference to his bride, Audrey, I think) -

"a poor virgin, sir, an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own; a poor
humour of mine, sir, to take that that no man else will:"

Herb

Going back to Edzard's observation about "site first, client second," I agree with this completely. Only the site can provide the inspiration necessary for a really good garden.

If you put the client first, your first question would probably be "what kind of garden would best suit this person's taste?" thus leading you into a position of CHOOSING from among various styles (cookie cutters?) and then trying to make them fit the site (rather than operating directly from a state of creative inspiration). I think you can make a halfway decent garden with that approach, but not a really good garden.

Of course the situation does arise where the site suggests something the client doesn't want or even dislikes. Then it's time to get a second round of inspiration from the site and a new proposal. If this fails again, it's time for the client to hire a different designer (in my opinion). Some people are not meant to work together.

On the subject of needing a professional to design your Japanese or Japanese-inspired garden, I think it's a shame to discourage anyone from fooling around creatively with what's in their yard. I teach quite a few gardening workshops, and I think most amateur gardeners feel timid about their efforts and need encouragement, not judgment. I think it's great for people to create things that please them in their environment. Being creative is therapeutic. Some of us are going to make lopsided ashtrays and some will make pottery that has to be notched on the foot (as master Japanese potters do to their most perfect pieces). But if you feel too intimidated even to try, you'll never know what you can do.

Lee

In the ideal situation, the client and the site doesn't compete with each others. We could also say that it's the task of the garden designers to bring the two together. "What will the nature?" and "what will the owner?". But I can imagine some situations wherein the client wants something illogical, ugly (in the designer's eye) or even techniquelly impossible to create on the site. This is definitely the time when the designer has to educate the client with new information. If the client refuses to learn, than will a good designer stops the order.