Mine is even smaller - and has no curves either. Like Campanula's it is confined within walls and is paved with straight edges.The plants provide the the curves. The bones are straight.

That LBJ garden where the wildflowers and perennials are in rectangular boxes looks ghastly to me. It's like they're in a prison! No drifts, no flow, just a mixed up jumble with absolutely no discernible thought behind it. Looks like it was put together by a committee of volunteers. In my opinion, the worst possible way to display prairie wildflowers and how to use them.

Mike

Campanula - your garden, beautiful though it is, looks like it is constrained in thed beds, with pots along the edges to soften the staight edges.

Floral uk - your garden is beautiful, but frankly the plants are doing what the curved edges would do... soften the lines. I know you can't do anything about the walls, but you have allowed everything else to look natural.

The two pictures, again, seem to make my point not argue against it.

Much of the strength of those designs comes from the way the garden changes with the seasons. It starts out as a very geometrical space in the winter, then over time morphs into herbaceous abundance, before going back to geometry.

An unfortunate fact is that here we are not really judging gardens, but *photographs* of gardens. So the true experience of wandering through a place, and enjoying its placeness isn't being shared. Most people, and me even more than most, find it difficult to photograph large areas and have it come across properly. The usual 'garden picture' is of two, maybe three individual plants, since that seems to be the size area that cameras work best with. It is a moment frozen in time, where those plants, in full bloom, will live forever. It has value, but it does pay to recollect the limitations of the art form.

I'll take gentle curves in the garden over straight lines any day. The eye sees the slightest imperfection in a strait line right away, whether it be an edge, or a row of plants. Straight lines require more maintenance to achieve that clean look because imperfections readily stand out. It's a constant battle for perfection. I'm not wired that tight and have other things to do in the garden that are much more enjoyable.

Here's some pictures from my garden.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/Garden%20Pics%20one/IMG_8723.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/2214714740036511179.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/012-3.jpg

Mike

Um, well this idea of curvy lines being more natural (better?) is, to my mind, redundant as I would be the first to state (and celebrate) the obvious fact that nothing in my garden is natural - it is 100% artifice down to the smallest plant and most artfully placed stone - all has been constructed. Nor do I see any virtue whatsoever in somehow pretending that curvature is inherently a better use of space since I prefer to hold true to an idea of vernacular, or garden language...and as mine is essentially modern, 1960s built, urban courtyard style, it seems feasible to continue using the same materials and following the essential (straight) shape of the nearest buildings and, on a wider scale, the larger setting. However, taste is always personal and I can see nothing to suggest that one way is any better than another way - nearly anything, done with brio and confidence, can look delightful. Yes, I have read the tedious Russell Page and his later adherents in the landscape school of gardening (with their vistas and views, formal by the house, wilder further away etc. and so forth and so on blah blah) but these days, we have moved beyond proscriptive gardening where we have been exposed to cultural influences from beyond our narrow personal outlooks as well as having the chance to grow a bigger pallet of plants (and styles) than was formerly available back in those days of ordering bare roots in autumn. Many of those familiar rules are there to be flouted, broken or re-interpreted and personally, although I have very clear opinions about what I like and dislike, I would never, in a million years, attempt to be judgmental about other choices - not least because they are looking through their eyes and not mine.

miketann, your garden is sublime....I must say that..... and the fall colour !... and typical of such gardens, it looks especially majestic snow covered.... thanks for sharing your garden here..

...as for straight or wavy.... personally, I care more what plants are in the garden rather than what shape it is.... and I like to see the rare and unusual, collector's items... it shows someone has gone to some trouble and takes a keen interest... I like that...

Great to see you on this forum, Mike. Do you offer tours of your garden?

Miketann - your gardens are absolutely beautiful. The use of form, movement and colour is undeniable. Great job!!

I think we can all agree that most gardens involve artifice and that nothing is absolutely natural. That really isn't the point. When an artist paints a naturalist landscape of a natural vista, and another artist paints an astract of the same vista, both are totally artificial representations of the same vista, but only one of them looks like a natural landscape. Neither, in my view, improves the original, but one of them approaches the natural vista more closely, catching the nuances of light, foliage colour, etc. The other may involve a bold use of colour and dramatic juxtaposition of geometric forms, etc. but it will never come as close to capturing what was captivating about the original scene as will the landscape. If you are drawn to vivid splashes of colour, artfully displayed on a canvas, you may choose the abstract, and may find it to your taste, but I do not believe that you would choose it if you were interested in displaying what a garden looks like.

I think we all react to the land that we reside on If it is small square city backyard with walls or if it hilly without close boundaries. So many of my "lines" are about functions of me going somewhere. The areas were decided by function. Remember that saying "Form follows Function". My whole yard is reactive to my personal trails. Sometimes I walk like water drains and sometimes I walk like a topographical line and sometimes I walk like a ruler, not often.

. There were large rain tanks that I dearly want to minimize. The pipes that were dug to feed the water from the two buildings to the tanks became the paths. They are a great way for getting to my lower floor also. so I guess my plumber was designing my yard. A lot of my paths follow his pipes (LOL).

There is a pump house where I had to walk to and was the only source of outdoor water for a long time. My Vegetable garden was put in there (a Fenced ).So a path that meandered from my shop skirts between trees ( can't walk straight and through the trees) and then a slow curve of a beeline because their was a brow of a slope to the pumphouse.. I walked like a topographical line (its easier). I have a straight line that is a 100'bridge that connects my shop with my second floor of my house. The bridge traverses a curved slope that falls away under it. It is straight I am building curved "outcroppings" under it , But part of me originally saw a built up promontory for a huge cauldron from a steel foundry shaped in a chevron. I need a level spot away from my trees raised up because I do not want the heat coming to the bridge. I was thinking of going all keltic by using the shadow line described by the power pole at noon on the equinox and the shadow line of this one tree at sunset on the solstice as the lines for the angle of the embankment. I still haven't decided. So I guess I am in the camp that anything works that works. I let my gut and my feet decide for me.

Wantonamara - Huh? I really need a picture to understand this!

My large garden is shaped by paths also. They came first without a plan. Things just fell into place after that. Yes, form does follow function.

I enjoyed your post, wantonamara.

Mike

Since you are persisting in making this redundant argument, Keswick Sniders, I will state once and for all that I vastly prefer my straight lines to gratuitous wiggly lines in grass any day of the week...and I am finding it just a trifle annoying that you have decided to set yourself as the arbiter of taste and style with a non-argument about straight vs curved, while telling us that we are ALL bound to agree with your (unimaginative and dull) proscriptions.

Thank you very much, Keswick and Catkin. :-)

The lines don't have to be between the lawn and the beds. A path meanders.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/2417502820036511179-1.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/My%20favorite%20pics/2207608530036511179.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/My%20favorite%20pics/2171847130036511179.jpg

Mike

Miketann, I totally agree.

Campanula - From my perspective, its the straight liners that won't let it go. I am not trying to be the arbiter of individual taste. No one is disputing your right to plant your garden or edge it anyway you like, or indeed to love what you have done, just as a person who fills every last inch of the interior of their homes with knick knacks or dolls or whatever, would obviously be smitten with their dolls and love what they have done. I just happen to believe that we live in a very beautiful natural world, that gives us an objective standard (that which brings most of us to gasp at the outlandish beauty of it) against which to measure a garden. Miketann's most recent pictures scream it. And the more straight lines, the more that is diminished. Rare, indeed, are gardens where the creator of the garden has kept the straight lines straight. Almost without exception, plants are allowed to spill across the straight lines, in most cases eradicating them. Those who don't allow the lines to be blurred are generally looking for a very geometric, or sterile, or modern look (which really is a very personal taste) where the gardens (if that, in fact, is what they still are) were intended to look that way, or the gardens look unnatural, like something constrained that wants to be free. Are there exceptions? Perhaps there are, but looking through hundreds of magazines and pictures even on this forum, they are few and very far between. One last time - I am not saying that there are not situations when we have to do what we have to do because of boundaries, line fences, cement sidewalks, road allowances, etc. But in any garden where there is the opportunity to have curves rather than straight lines in a garden, and one is not going for that very clipped, geometric look, it will look more pleasing aesthetically to the vast majority of people, if the lines are softened. You disagree - which you are entitled to do. But I believe that it is you that are being subjective and that the objective view lies on my side of this argument. And now I am going to bow of the discussion, because I believe that you are becoming personal, and I certainly did not set out to annoy you. I don't even know you.

I stand with Campanula here!

I see it as an either or situation , each to his own and not a hair puller or get your panties in a wad. Y'all take yourselves WAY too seriously. It does seems a tad competitive. But then again I really do not worry about the aesthetics of gardening since I have turned all the important decisions over to instinctive wandering. It is so much more serene in my head that way. Y'all are an entertaining bunch. I am a paint by numbers gal. I fill in the blanks with what seems a good way and with what is available and what the great guy above has not killed off.

Ah well, Mara, as you well know, we are more than just a tad obsessive here! But anyway, whilst it is fair to be quite unequivocal about the bloom cycles, disease propensity, size range and climatic or geographical suitability about plants...OR, be as judgmental, personal or subjective as you like regarding one's own creative (or otherwise) output, it is simply pointless and without merit to be critical of other people' s taste, style or choices. No matter how obvious it might seem to you, or how popular (ubiquitous) something might appear, it is just not helpful or polite to be dismissive of entire schools of thought. These design tropes are not some fixed law - they are merely representative of a current range of trends, fashions or even profound cultural imperatives. Garden design in the Arabic world has always followed strict geometrical principles - tiles and tesselations - interlocking and mathematically precise lines...while straight lines are anathema to the Japanese gardener...and who is to say what is right or wrong? Whilst you are perfectly entitled to bang the drum for your preferred horticultural vision, it is simply incorrect to make sweeping statements such as straight lines can only work in a large Versailles type garden. Says who?

Finally, one of the most efficient and well-used design themes is dependent on a mathematical ratio which occurs throughout the natural world - the Golden Ratio, Phi, 1.618 or Fibonacci series...a classical model of (straight line) proportions which embodies grace and elegance in both mathematical geometry and those sweeping eternal curves of the nautilus or sunflower seeds or petal array. Straight vs curved is just never a clear cut distinction and is only one of a range of variables (most of which have more profound significance than the shape of the border).

I wasn't being dismissive of anyone. I was commenting on the impasse that peoples passionate devotion to their ideals had arrived at. Sides were pronounced and people are being repetitive as you said. .

Arabs and Persians were masters at using straights to create sensuous curves.

I use all the design stuff when I design furniture for my clients. Composition is fought over in my house tooth and nail. I am really on a vacation when I get in the garden and then I let the outdoors take over. All the art classes (a couple of degrees) , I let slide cause it feels good to me. I just throw stuff at it.... Ummm that sounds like someones art. Oh dear. These are MY personal choices. I am not dismissing theories. The passion makes me smile. I am having a hard time with passion right now. It has been burnt out of me. It has been 100F or close to it for far to long without any rain. ( I work in un ACed space.) I am in the Cabin Fever time of year.

*I also have several tires in my yard, so I guess I am not an arbiter of taste. Oh dear. They are planted with silver pony foots and I want more to use like weird polkadots in a grid somewhere. Maybe a straight line delineating the raised rut in road to keep trespassers out..

If I might interject from a garden designer's point of view.........there is not a right or wrong approach or as wantonamara puts it, an either or situation. The layout of a garden design is so highly influenced by the specific site and size of the property and the owner's desires and intents that it is impractical and unrealistic to make any broad generalities. And many successfully designed gardens are able to integrate both curved and straight lines very effectively. It is entirely a matter of personal choice and how the layout achieves the look the owner intends.

Some properties do call out for one approach over the other. Smaller walled, rectangularly shaped gardens (like Camp's or floral's) lend themselves much more naturally to a geometric layout than the more flowing, organic approach a larger property that may be bounded by natural, undeveloped areas (like MIke's) is better suited for. If you note, I changed the terminology somewhat :-) "Straight" and "curved" are a little too restrictive when it comes to describing the layout of a garden, whereas "geometric" and "organic" cover a broader ground ('geometric' goes beyond just straight lines to include diagonals and circles, half circles and arcs - 'organic' does not mean wiggly but does indicate a softer, less hard-edged, more flowing and naturalistic layout, generally incorporating curves). And how the plants are arranged within these layouts can also blur the distinctions further.

IME, most gardens suburban gardens fall somewhere in the middle, often incorporating both straight/geometric elements as well as the organic. Smaller, urban properties tend more to the geometric while larger, rural properties lend themselves to a more organic approach so both size and setting will have an impact on the final plan.

Is one style better than another? No. It is a decision based on site appropriateness, should be influenced to some degree by the architecture of the buildings on the property and always, always by the owner's desires.

I was just working in my un Aced shop and I was thinking about one of the sayings that I say to my clients when I want to shove my artist beret firmly on my head. The hopi indians designed imperfection into a design to allow free movement of the soul in and out of the piece. Someone said that to me once. Maybe they made it up on the spot. I never reseached it because I like it so much and I would hate it to be miss info.

Exactly gardengal. I have both in my suburban garden. No room for meandering paths, curvy lines where there is room and straight lines to accommodate the athletes while I get my flowers.

LOL!! Ya gotta wonder how many ornamental gardens the Hopi Indians designed :-) Productive, food producing, edible gardens, yes......ornamental/flower gardens, maybe not so much. And I can't imagine ANY garden without imperfections - that is the nature of the beast. Nature does not strive for perfection. We as humans often have a hard time reconciling that.

LOL...What did Fibboncci know about gardening. He was a paper-pencil-numbers dude, probably one of those out to lunch steriotipcal mathematicians , you know, the not in there body types that proliferate these days . Maybe not, those renaissance guys were all about cross FERTILIZATION and they had many talents and advocations. but everyone uses his numbers in EVERY design field there is.. Kings loved to turn wood and some artist were mathematicians, inventors and more. Maybe he did know a trowel from a hoe.

Curved or straight. As stated in the opening post, I believe one design element is just as workable as the other & I was wrong about some ideas I had been holding. Its liberating to admit to being wrong and reexamine old ideas. Its as liberating as not having any defined borders at all, which I can relate to after ripping out the lawn & converting to a naturalized native landscape.

We might as well argue natural vs formal.

I have always loved the LBJ Display Garden and display gardens in general and have never seen them as prison-like. It would be fun to design and work with something like that in the right setting plus it might serve me well in my old age if (when) I become handicapped and find it harder to get around. I think something along those lines except with higher raised beds would make a wonderful community type garden at an assisted living center. Many very nice persons who regularly post here already deal with that issue.

I'm not interested in gathering converts or pound others into submission to adopt my way of thinking or win an argument but I thought Campanula's knowledge and ability to throw legitimate examples out to support her comments is impressive. She has obviously studied more than most people.

Arguing with a certain person posting here would be an exercise in crazy-making considering they thought it fit to analyze and argue about an autobiographical post of someone's journey into gardening, childhood memories & relationship with siblings. BTW, he's free to rewrite the story if he wants to along with his lurking buddy who also submitted a critique even though he didn't submit a story.

Seems like some people need to be right all the time or maybe they actually believe they are the singular stewards of poetic beauty, charm and grace. In truth, they seem more into being judgmental about any idea or personality that doesn't jive with their own way of thinking. They seem convinced they set a noble and exemplary example for others whom they perceive as less sensitive or less artistic to follow.

Personally I don't care for squiggly lines although looking at the area from, say the street, would probably look OK since the squiggles would be hidden. I kept quiet out of politeness in the other post but I no longer care much whether it sets well or not. I agreed 100% with woodyoak and her computer enhanced version of the garden showing it without the contrived squiggle lines.

Ah well, we don't need to have witch-hunts or snark - it is perfectly clear that passionate people have passionate feelings. I would be the first to say that my design abilities are negligible - I am of the mish-mash school of gardening and straight lines at least act to rein in the wilder chaos of an undisciplined mind...but hey, we all love to garden and surely that is the most important reason for being here on the boards - never mind piddling issues of this or that shape or colour - we find sustenance and joy in our doings so competition, judging or pontificating has no place here on GW....does it?

It really doesn't. I've spent the last few evenings reading through old posts after a very nice comment was made to me on the journey's thread. It brought a particular person to my attention at a time when that was needed. There are several very gentle souls who regularly post here but they almost fade into the background a lot of the time because they do not seek the spotlight, pontificate, brag, show off or assume a role of superiority. These are salt of the earth types and some of us would do well to follow their example. I was moved reading through some old posts, they flow like a river of enduring consistency and their focus seems based the things that really matter.

I would like to thank tex for posing this discussion in the first place :-) I have found it to be one of the more interesting and thought provoking discussions I've encountered on GW/Houzz in sometime. Far more stimulating than discussions on specific plants, how-to questions or even ID's, which become quite boring over time. You know when you've hit on an engaging topic of discussion when it starts to provoke strong opinions on both sides and even some dissension!!

These types of discussions with lots of back and forth used to be more commonplace on these forums but over the last couple of years, it seems like simple uninspiring plant questions rule the roost. And I am just as guilty of those as anyone else.....yet while I appreciate and enjoy these sorts of more philosophical discussions (and often contribute my $.02), I never think to initiate any myself.

I was away for the long weekend, and wanted to say thanks for the the nice comments above.

But...

"...because she has meandering curved space..."

For the record, I'm a he. lol

tj

Sorry about that. I truly don't know where I got the idea that you were female. Either way, the garden was lovely.

speaking of artifice

http://www.finegardening.com/gold-medal-garden

sorry I couldn't figure out how to copy the photos....

Gag me with a meat hook. I hope they have no drunken parties. It might end up in a law suit with those highly trip-able walls. I think that comes under the geometric and not organic category.

Mmm, well I confess, I have been down the double circle route myself at least once...and this is amateur gardening in a small seaside town - not a show garden sponsored to the tune of zillions/squillions of monies...but even so, I loathe log-roll edging anyway, and here it is absolutely pointless. To be fair, the whole 'show-garden concept is a waste of space, although they seem wildly popular...

whew, pardon me as i am no expert but that is disgusting LOL

just my amateur opinion...

i've seen plenty of gardens on here that blow that out of the water

Not my cup of tea either but I would point out that it is a very new garden and the plants have barely begun to do their work there. Once it has weathered, the pointless statue has been taken to the tip and the plants are spilling over the edges it could be a fairly pleasant place to sip a glass of something.

Gardens that win the Xtown in Bloom competitions do tend towards the primped and over done. It just seems to be the kind of thing the judges like.

I am not put off by the obvious DIY-ness and the small space. I like the beginnings of the design BUT the execution went to miss matching materials and and an over worked with needless doodads. A little less would have been more. I hope the garden works hard at minimizing the hardscapes faults. It always does.

Denver Botanical Gardens

Check out the square troughs used in the Alpine Garden at Denver Botanical. Another straight line deal similar to the demonstration garden in Texas. I like it. I ever get another garden, which is highly unlikely, I would be very tempted do the raised garden thing with gravel paths. Anyhow, since this topic came up, its a new thing I'm googling.

About the garden being discussed today, I'm trying to imagine we bought the house, inherited the hardscape + existing plants and it was here in Oklahoma. If it was me, I'd take out the purple stall type building ASAP and replant the whole thing in native grasses (surprise surprise) with a few non grass plants strategically placed for color and texture, but that fits my own taste. Any pots would be natural terra cotta or something similarly neutral. I'd replant the center circles in a short prairie grass like un-mowed blue grama or buffalo grass with some 6" to 8" natives for seasonal color sprinkled in, that would tone it down and give a much softer effect.

The contrast of the structure just might look really nice with the natural neutral of the grasses etc. Maybe a couple/three evergreen shrubs added to contrast against the light neutral colors of the dried grasses in winter. It would have a lot of movement here where its usually windy. I think I could live with it.

And......another idea bites the dust. I was spouting off just the other day here on GW some stuff about how alternating plants is not a good idea. Look at the bottom picture of the Blue Grama 'Blonde Ambition' alternated with gomphrena & petunias at the Denver Botanical Garden entrance. I'm eating my typed words.

Alternating plants

Here is what I have learned from reading all of the posts here. EVERYONE is right! There is no wrong way to garden. I can honestly say I enjoy viewing every single garden I see posted here. I see beauty in every single picture and am thrilled everyone is different.

Sherry

Gardening is both art and science. There is no wrong way to do art, and plenty of wrong ways to do science.

Ummmm...that depends. I would never go that far because its an insult to some people's professions.

There is amateur art, art for fun, art for therapy etc. but there is also serious art done on a professional level by serious people who have studied and paid dues by practicing diligently for years who work for discerning people who are often very demanding, meticulous and hard to please. Nothing is worse than seeing badly done art hanging as an eyesore with a thousand distracting mistakes in proportion, design, awful color combinations etc or a piece based on an original drawing that is full of flaws that should have been worked out in advance. Hanging it in your mothers living room, it might be OK but thats a different category.

I'd say the same thing applies with landscape designers who make a living doing that and who should be well up on design, plants, color etc.

Home gardeners, well, thats another matter.

Whenever plants are in a straight line, my eye goes to the crooked one, or the one with an errant branch, maybe the small one. What if one dies?!

Visually, formality is vulnerable. Plants are not made out of a mold on a factory production line and shouldn't be treated as such. If you do, good luck keeping up with perfection. Matched pairs are in the same boat.

That's the way I see it, and it's my opinion only.

Mike

When I first started gardening I had a straight lined L shaped bed as my observations were of mostly rectangular beds, except those small round beds of hostas at the base of trees. I thought I was innovating by making a L shape. Then I learned about adding curves so the front edges were turned into curves, some wiggly, which didn't last long and were replaced with long sweeping curves.

My next big bed at the base of a maple tree in the front yard was a curved bed. Digging and preparing by hand took a month to remove sod, add amendments and plant. The neighborhood wondered what I was doing.

Other beds have been added. Some with both straight and curved edges and the latest bed with two straight edges to fit with the existing L bed. I'm too tired and physically limited to reconfigure the old bed.

I wish I had the acreage to have huge sweeping borders backed by layers of trees and shrubs. Instead I work with my small suburban yard, my two or three trees scattered around the yard and light restrictions to build the beds that fit. Sometimes that allows for curves and sometimes that requires straight lines.

Obviously, the only straight lines in the wood are the outlines of the horse-box...but thern again, I am not really gardening either - a kind of intermediate colonising, adding and mowing a few utility areas.

I did design to death and am heartily sick, sick, sick of it - those artfully placed pots, vistas and oh dear, you can see the whole thing at once - you NEED a surprise...gah!

It does seem that the smaller space you have, the more consistent and thoughtful you need to be. I have built a lot of very small Cambridge courtyard type gardens - we simply do not have the space in our tightly populated town for sweeping views and large trees...unless you are a very wealthy individual (and working for those types comes with specific attitudes too)...but mostly, it is the idea of making a garden in a week/month, for nitwit customers, which I just cannot bear to do any more. When the wood is a bit more cleared, I will grow plants for a living (yep, I know I will remain in poverty) but at least I won't have to deal with the general public (and their hopeless demands) any longer.

False dichotomy - why not some combination of straight AND curved lines. Design and cohesiveness of design should be looked at in its totality - critiquing the individual components like line and color is not useful - its how the components relate to each other, that's where Im looking for help .

There will always be straight lines of bldgs./property lines... which can be like frame framing a picture.

Texasranger, I think some of your examples relate a bit more to design and technique, which are related to and components of art (and science), but not the same. I think there are wrong ways to do design and technique, but I still contend there is no wrong way to do art because art just doesn't work that way. Bad art doesn't equal "wrong" art in the same way that bad design can equal wrong design. Is there objectively bad and good art? Maybe folks who have studied these things can advise.

This example of the clematis forest from the Royal Botanical Gardens that woodyoak has posted here (woody, I hope you don't mind that I am reposting your photo here. Full photo credit goes to you) is a lovely example of a design intended to incorporate aspects of science for study and art for admiration - although I do find myself wishing the straight lines of trees were staggered a bit more as it does remind me a bit of rows of corn.

While the above clematis layout may meet the requirements of showing different varieties I think there are more interesting ways they could have been displayed. Rather reminds me of a regiment of soldiers. Perhaps a curved line in front of the trees behind. I like the 'tree' trellising but not the layout. Too stilted and too isolated to be considered a forest.

Here are some paths and designs that I like... obviously very large gardens, but I think you can take these ideas and place them in a smaller garden...

..in this photo the shingled path is straight but softened with edging plants, and the path is tapered towards to end, which draws the visitor to it, I think...

..the same view 10 days later..... I like the way the blue Geraniums have now been replaced by the pink ones... but the yellows still draw me to the end of the path...

..another garden, another example of how I like to be drawn forward.... the very straight path narrowing in the distance to what appears to be a pair of dark green pillars..

..but it is in fact a Hop covered archway, the path softened and the gazebo enticing the visitor forward... I like this one very much... and I think could be replicated in a small garden...

..with a grass path, I like to see curves with plantings that hide the view ahead... and absolutely no spillage onto the paths... I don't like to see that with grass... preferring a nice clean sharp edge..

..with high straight walls, I think it's important to bring the borders outwards towards the centre... but I don't like these island beds here... although they serve a purpose in this particular garden...

..finally, I rather like the way the hedges here have been shaped to invite the visitor to take a turn right or left... it flows and I find it relaxing... and I wouldn't like it if it was sharp...

...hope you found something of interest in those...

For me, it's all about gently curving paths rather than large expanses of lawn. My lawn has been shrinking for over 30 years. I'm a slow learner. :-)

The garden should encourage wandering, even if it's only the eyes that wander.

Mike

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/Winter%202012-13/004.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/Botann/My%20favorite%20pics/2171847130036511179.jpg