Although most of the conceptual gardens leave me cold, I think I have to agree with Punkdoc on this one!
Gardening as a mass pursuit only really started with the housebuilding boom and growth of surburbia in the Thirties. Then came the war and in the Fifties the gardens I remember from my childhood had very little 'design' in them and a plant palette that was a watered down version of the Edwardian borders - delphiniums, phlox, Heleniums, Pyrethrum and roses of course. I don't know where people got plants other than divisions or cuttings from other gardeners or maybe market stalls, unless there was a handy nursery.
The sixties brought the first garden centres and from that point on fashion and big business became increasingly important. But for ordinary people there were literally hundreds of plants newly available to them that they had never seen before. Plant breeders became interested in mass markets and more new plants began to be developed. With car ownership, increasing affluence and television people saw more varied garden styles and began to think about design themselves.
Fast forward to now and the only new plants are either obscure rarities from the most inhospitable and inaccessible parts of the planet or mostly over- (genetically) engineered and usually over-hyped versions of existing plants. We can see landscapes and gardens from all over the world on TV and on the internet whenever we like and so it feels there is nothing new under the sun.
Newcomers to gardening still get that kick of novelty from finding out about new plants, and new to them ways of thinking. Those of us who have been at it for longer can get jaded though, and while we may love old familiar faces around us it is good for us to be jolted out of complacency sometimes.
Who better to give us that jolt than those with a totally different perspective, who can show us things in a different way?
The coverage is a bit repetitive, but done I guess to cater for the different viewers needs, along with the broad styles of dare I call it artistry in the design of gardens. Gardens mean different things to different people so are different. If it wasn't for progress in architecture, design, tools and materials we would still be living in wooden houses. Something similar has happened in gardens, once just for stately pleasure but also for functional food production. Now something of an art form too, and is all the better for it.
No I don't get conceptual gardens and I didn't really get the maltese quarry, but I can marvel at its form and construction and the execution of this. I was torn between the contemplative space of the cancer garden and Chris Beardshaws garden both beautiful in their own ways and functional as well, with beautiful plants. Am delighted heThe plants - yep that's what most want to see more of. No, I didn't want to see Mary Berrys garden again. I do want to see the palnts people who grow their plants, put on displays and for the love of it.
I prefer traditional planting and have a greater love for the plants themselves rather than the hard landscaping any day of the week, however good it may be.
However, that is me and perhaps many plant-a-holics too, but not everyone else of course, so I agree that there is room for many sorts of "garden" depending upon your tastes.
The thing with the M&G garden, I suppose, was that nobody would have the faintest idea what it was meant to represent without an explanation from the designer (rather like a lot of modern art where a few blobs dabbed on canvas represents a thought and it sells for thousands without anyone actually knowing what it means apart from the artist telling them).
Seeing the carefully shaped blocks in the M&G garden doesn't immediately say to me "ah, this is a quarry in Malta!"
Perhaps some rough areas of uncut rock and then some cut blocks would have illustrated it better.
There were so many of those short blocks that they detracted from the plants, which was a pity because there were some nice plants in the garden, all native to Malta.
It was interesting to learn that if you have a carob tree on your land in Malta, then you're not allowed to build there, so the inclusion of a carob was a nice touch.
Now, the Seedlip Garden on the other hand, I thought was quite nice. It needed no explanation - it was obvious that it was about distilling. You could then look at all the components of the garden and realise their uses in distillation, including the plants.
I thought the planting was beautiful in that garden and although, admittedly I probably wouldn't be the first to set up copper pipes in that fashion in my own garden, they served a perfect illustrative purpose in the show garden.
Show gardens are after all a stage, a set.
One garden I really didn't like was the Bermuda Triangle. You couldn't really call it a horticultural garden because there were hardly any plants. Perhaps they should invent a 'structural exhibit' class or something similar for such "gardens".
The Jo Whiley Scent garden was quite good actually. I enjoyed watching the interview with the designers last night. The planting was lovely and I liked the simple water feature. I hadn't been too keen on the wall/seat to begin with, but it grew on me in the end.
Gosho No Niwa No Wall, No War is still my very favourite though. Wish I could transplant that garden to mine!
Am delighted that Chris Beardshaw got the people's award and will probably mean more to him than the medal he got. Yes I think he was robbed too - again!
I was delighted to see the detail behind the for example The Hardy Plants Society stand and the stand itself, and that's what I wanted to see more of. It's a great society that I have no links too, but does great work.
Definitely not the padded out versions of the segments and the Latin names would be a help too.
Why not veg? With the displays and the Radio 2 garden Chris Evans was involved in, it's what we need to to be able to do is grow a plate of salad. it would be very difficult to be all things to all people and if there wasn't any changes in design and thought the discussions would be very dull so Vive la difference and like something or loathe it. Horticulture in all forms is a huge industry in this country and needs the coverage, it's just a real shame that the other garden shows are not given more prominence. A paltry Half an hour on Malvern, maybe if we are lucky the same on Chatsworth, Hampton Court the same. Why not have more coverage of the other shows. If there are the same plants people at the different shows it would be interesting to see their processes and journies across the seasons of the show circuit and what different plants they show.
I enjoy most of it, and make tea when the bits I'm not interested in come on. Don't mind being called a complete philistine for it.
I enjoyed watching about the Hardy Plant Society too - I've often wondered about joining.
I also enjoyed the piece on carnivorous plants last night.
Seemed more like 'proper' Chelsea to be interviewing growers and societies rather than Mary Berry's crystallisation class, which as good as Mary is and as nice as it is to crystallise flowers - just isn't Chelsea.
£100 for a non-RHS member ticket, blimey. Think of all the plants you would purchase for that It's turned into another social event on the calendar - regardless of interest in horticulture & landscaping, alongside the Ascot races, Henley Regatta, Wimbledon etc etc.
Well, money pays for the materials/products that the show uses and money pays for the 'stuff' that can be sold because it has been seen at Chelsea by people across the world ... And if there's more profit to be made from hard landscaping materials etc (and I suspect there is) then that'll be why there seems to be such a lot of it and why it gets so much exposure.
And without the huge amounts of money provided by sponsors, Chelsea would and could not exist.
Of course money speaks all languages ... we're in a global economy ... money makes the world go around ... and everything has a cost ... nothing is for free.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I was so glad CB won the People's Award. I thought it would be him or the Maggies Garden.
I too would like to see more items on the plants - what they are, where they come from, what the growers do etc etc. For me too much of the BBC programmes are full of 'stuff' . Interviews with designers - again and again, celebs, the same gardens again and again.
I often wonder if the cameramen are gardeners or the shows editors as I think if they were, the filming and program items would be more suited to a program aimed at gardeners than a program aimed at the general public.
I do now know why SR could not get stock to sell of Bupleurum longiflorum, as almost every garden had it in their planting!
'Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement' - Helen Keller
The RHS is a charity ... the show is one of the ways it raises its funds.
Many of the show gardens, although sponsored by big business (out of their advertising budgets), are also publicising and give benefit to various charities ... but no business could possibly spend the huge sums of money involved in sponsorship unless the company received a benefit from doing so.
The money to pay for it all has to come from somewhere.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Posts
Although most of the conceptual gardens leave me cold, I think I have to agree with Punkdoc on this one!
Gardening as a mass pursuit only really started with the housebuilding boom and growth of surburbia in the Thirties. Then came the war and in the Fifties the gardens I remember from my childhood had very little 'design' in them and a plant palette that was a watered down version of the Edwardian borders - delphiniums, phlox, Heleniums, Pyrethrum and roses of course. I don't know where people got plants other than divisions or cuttings from other gardeners or maybe market stalls, unless there was a handy nursery.
The sixties brought the first garden centres and from that point on fashion and big business became increasingly important. But for ordinary people there were literally hundreds of plants newly available to them that they had never seen before. Plant breeders became interested in mass markets and more new plants began to be developed. With car ownership, increasing affluence and television people saw more varied garden styles and began to think about design themselves.
Fast forward to now and the only new plants are either obscure rarities from the most inhospitable and inaccessible parts of the planet or mostly over- (genetically) engineered and usually over-hyped versions of existing plants. We can see landscapes and gardens from all over the world on TV and on the internet whenever we like and so it feels there is nothing new under the sun.
Newcomers to gardening still get that kick of novelty from finding out about new plants, and new to them ways of thinking. Those of us who have been at it for longer can get jaded though, and while we may love old familiar faces around us it is good for us to be jolted out of complacency sometimes.
Who better to give us that jolt than those with a totally different perspective, who can show us things in a different way?
Last edited: 27 May 2017 09:20:12
The coverage is a bit repetitive, but done I guess to cater for the different viewers needs, along with the broad styles of dare I call it artistry in the design of gardens. Gardens mean different things to different people so are different. If it wasn't for progress in architecture, design, tools and materials we would still be living in wooden houses. Something similar has happened in gardens, once just for stately pleasure but also for functional food production. Now something of an art form too, and is all the better for it.
No I don't get conceptual gardens and I didn't really get the maltese quarry, but I can marvel at its form and construction and the execution of this. I was torn between the contemplative space of the cancer garden and Chris Beardshaws garden both beautiful in their own ways and functional as well, with beautiful plants. Am delighted heThe plants - yep that's what most want to see more of. No, I didn't want to see Mary Berrys garden again. I do want to see the palnts people who grow their plants, put on displays and for the love of it.
I prefer traditional planting and have a greater love for the plants themselves rather than the hard landscaping any day of the week, however good it may be.
However, that is me and perhaps many plant-a-holics too, but not everyone else of course, so I agree that there is room for many sorts of "garden" depending upon your tastes.
The thing with the M&G garden, I suppose, was that nobody would have the faintest idea what it was meant to represent without an explanation from the designer (rather like a lot of modern art where a few blobs dabbed on canvas represents a thought and it sells for thousands without anyone actually knowing what it means apart from the artist telling them).
Seeing the carefully shaped blocks in the M&G garden doesn't immediately say to me "ah, this is a quarry in Malta!"
Perhaps some rough areas of uncut rock and then some cut blocks would have illustrated it better.
There were so many of those short blocks that they detracted from the plants, which was a pity because there were some nice plants in the garden, all native to Malta.
It was interesting to learn that if you have a carob tree on your land in Malta, then you're not allowed to build there, so the inclusion of a carob was a nice touch.
Now, the Seedlip Garden on the other hand, I thought was quite nice. It needed no explanation - it was obvious that it was about distilling. You could then look at all the components of the garden and realise their uses in distillation, including the plants.
I thought the planting was beautiful in that garden and although, admittedly I probably wouldn't be the first to set up copper pipes in that fashion in my own garden, they served a perfect illustrative purpose in the show garden.
Show gardens are after all a stage, a set.
One garden I really didn't like was the Bermuda Triangle. You couldn't really call it a horticultural garden because there were hardly any plants. Perhaps they should invent a 'structural exhibit' class or something similar for such "gardens".
The Jo Whiley Scent garden was quite good actually. I enjoyed watching the interview with the designers last night. The planting was lovely and I liked the simple water feature. I hadn't been too keen on the wall/seat to begin with, but it grew on me in the end.
Gosho No Niwa No Wall, No War is still my very favourite though. Wish I could transplant that garden to mine!
Last edited: 27 May 2017 09:59:24
Sorry edit timed out!
Am delighted that Chris Beardshaw got the people's award and will probably mean more to him than the medal he got. Yes I think he was robbed too - again!
I was delighted to see the detail behind the for example The Hardy Plants Society stand and the stand itself, and that's what I wanted to see more of. It's a great society that I have no links too, but does great work.
Definitely not the padded out versions of the segments and the Latin names would be a help too.
Why not veg? With the displays and the Radio 2 garden Chris Evans was involved in, it's what we need to to be able to do is grow a plate of salad. it would be very difficult to be all things to all people and if there wasn't any changes in design and thought the discussions would be very dull so Vive la difference and like something or loathe it. Horticulture in all forms is a huge industry in this country and needs the coverage, it's just a real shame that the other garden shows are not given more prominence. A paltry Half an hour on Malvern, maybe if we are lucky the same on Chatsworth, Hampton Court the same. Why not have more coverage of the other shows. If there are the same plants people at the different shows it would be interesting to see their processes and journies across the seasons of the show circuit and what different plants they show.
I enjoy most of it, and make tea when the bits I'm not interested in come on. Don't mind being called a complete philistine for it.
I enjoyed watching about the Hardy Plant Society too - I've often wondered about joining.
I also enjoyed the piece on carnivorous plants last night.
Seemed more like 'proper' Chelsea to be interviewing growers and societies rather than Mary Berry's crystallisation class, which as good as Mary is and as nice as it is to crystallise flowers - just isn't Chelsea.
Last edited: 27 May 2017 10:29:05
£100 for a non-RHS member ticket, blimey. Think of all the plants you would purchase for that
It's turned into another social event on the calendar - regardless of interest in horticulture & landscaping, alongside the Ascot races, Henley Regatta, Wimbledon etc etc.
Last edited: 27 May 2017 19:00:44
Well, money pays for the materials/products that the show uses and money pays for the 'stuff' that can be sold because it has been seen at Chelsea by people across the world ... And if there's more profit to be made from hard landscaping materials etc (and I suspect there is) then that'll be why there seems to be such a lot of it and why it gets so much exposure.
And without the huge amounts of money provided by sponsors, Chelsea would and could not exist.
Of course money speaks all languages ... we're in a global economy ... money makes the world go around ... and everything has a cost ... nothing is for free.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I thought it was some of charity event. Where did I get that idea? I have an even more jaundiced view of it now.
I was so glad CB won the People's Award. I thought it would be him or the Maggies Garden.
I too would like to see more items on the plants - what they are, where they come from, what the growers do etc etc. For me too much of the BBC programmes are full of 'stuff' . Interviews with designers - again and again, celebs, the same gardens again and again.
I often wonder if the cameramen are gardeners or the shows editors as I think if they were, the filming and program items would be more suited to a program aimed at gardeners than a program aimed at the general public.
I do now know why SR could not get stock to sell of Bupleurum longiflorum, as almost every garden had it in their planting!
The RHS is a charity ... the show is one of the ways it raises its funds.
Many of the show gardens, although sponsored by big business (out of their advertising budgets), are also publicising and give benefit to various charities ... but no business could possibly spend the huge sums of money involved in sponsorship unless the company received a benefit from doing so.
The money to pay for it all has to come from somewhere.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.