I suppose we normally consider a focal point as that which first draws the eye. But then again, one's attention could be drawn to texture, scent, sound, or taste as well. Perception would be dependent on one's ability to process outside stimulii to any of the senses, the eye not being exclusive.

But the pitfall for me, being sighted, would be concentrating on what is visible.

Anything that makes everything around it seem subordinate.

It can be a good thing or a not so good thing. It can be strengthened by weakening what is around it and it can be weakened by strengthening what is around it. Strengthening or weakening can be intentional or unintentional and can be desired or not desired.

That does not clear things up, does it?

I'm assuming that the inspiration for this thread was another post where there were so many elements dispersed within a small space with the owner searching for a focal point or to try to create a focal point. If a focal point was the goal in that garden, it was achieved because there are so many things that not one thing (a thing can be several objects acting as one element) makes the rest look subordinate to it.

A focal point is not a necessity. It is a choice.

Duluth, I agree, I will automatically react to a visible focal point to the exclusion of other types.

What I'm kind of fascinated with is the challenge of attracting anyone to a spot featuring types of focus other than the visible. Something has to draw one to the spot.

A scent floating on the air is easy to understand, as it becomes stronger as one moves toward it.

Think, for example, of a garden area meant to be touched. One would almost have to be told about it to begin touching everything. To combine that with visual beauty would be an interesting project.

Then there is a destination as a focal point. Maybe there is a path leading there, but the focal point is assumed instead of actually observed.

"Anything that makes everything around it seem subordinate."
There's a lot of latitude in that definition. The path with no visible end could fit that, as it is temporarily the focal point until the one around the bend reveals itself. That's where a touching garden, or a scent garden, could be more readily recognised, at the end of a path.

Yes, the other thread got me thinking, can it be a focal point if one can't stand back far enough to see it? Based on the two responses here, which are very thoughtful and well-expressed, the answer is obviously 'yes.'

Thanks for helping me recognise yet another facet of design.
Maro

By definition a 'focal point' is visual, surely. The purpose of a focal point is to draw the attention and as it is a term borrowed from visual arts it may not embrace all that can draw the attention in a garden. I don't agree with Andrews "Anything that makes everything around it seem subordinate," as a definition, which to me is backwards, as a focal point works by being bigger or more showy rather than subordinating other things. The point being to draw one towards it so that the 'other things' then appear equal. A garden that is enjoyed from within, like the one in the post mentioned above doesn't need a focal point.

I tend to agree with Ink on this - the accepted definition of a 'focal point' as it relates to the visual arts (and there we have our first clue) is that it is the "center of visual attention". Generally, it is the point to which the eye is naturally drawn because of its prominence as a visual feature. It stops and holds our attention before the eye wanders to take in the rest of the composition. It can be something as simple as single specimen plant, a borrowed vista, a unique color feature or a manmade object, like an urn, birdbath, piece of sculpture or water feature. The size is really not material - even quite small objects can have significant visual impact. It depends on the context :-)

It is stated that all gardens, even very tiny ones, need to have at least one focal point or a single feature that stands out from the rest. To not include one runs the risk of the eye wandering aimlessly with no place to rest or focus and then the garden becomes just a collection of objects or masses with no definition. One sees this often in cottage style gardens (although many do have focal points) and it is one of the reasons they often appear messy and disjointed - they lack a distinguishing feature or focal point and the effect is chaotic and disorganized. I also believe the same concept holds true for a great many ordinary landscapes - they lack a significant element that acts as a focal point to draw attention and appear as just an amorphous mass of plantings with no defining characteristic. If a landscape design is considered a visual composition, then to be successful it must have a focal point.

I have found this thread a bit disturbing. Like Tony and Pam, I too feel semantics require a visual component. Considering a focal point to be non-visual is a bit like claiming that you have music in your home because there is a CD lying on the kitchen counter.

IÂm not certain why so much confusion surrounds the term, "focal point" Â but mired in confusion it certainly remains. Perhaps it would also be helpful to consider what the term is not.

I generally consider a successful focal point to be an endeavor that has been developed. Success is rarely or, at most, only partially achieved when we hear the all-to-common story: "Something was just missing in my garden  I really didnÂt know what  so I went to a local craft show to find a focal point. I spotted the cutest bird house on-a-stick and just loved it! Yep. I bought me one of them there bird houses on-a-stick and plopped it in the yard to give me a focal point."

Of course, the classic example of a focal point is the magnificent urn or fountain in the distance, located at the end of a long pathway of an estate. Very few of us have an estate or the opportunity to garden on one. However, that does not preclude those of us with less space from creating a focal point. Some of the most effective focal points are found hidden around an unexpected corner.

The concept that I would like to stress is that good landscape design  and good gardening, for that matter  is groomed in the mind. In other words, make attempts to properly craft a stage your chosen focal point so that it can attain an ideal setting for optimum viewing and impact. To be certain, emphasis should be placed upon eliminating distractions.

Be mindful that distractions may be subconscious and/or less than obvious. The other thread with the monster photos begat this discussion. To that posterÂs credit, her confusion was freely admitted. However, I find those photos illustrative of a plethora of distractions. The efficacy of the featured objects as potential focal points is open to subjective discussion. On the other hand, I found my eyes constantly drawn to the discordant walking surface. I draw emphasis to PamÂs astute comment in the above posting: "Â the point to which the eye is naturally drawn Â" My diverted attention was not rooted in aesthetic interest but rather one of subconscious safety. When one traverses irregular surfaces, much attention is subconsciously given to foot placement out of fear of tripping and/or falling. In general, an underlying feel of unsure discomfort is experienced. This is not to say that this surface treatment could not be used effectively elsewhere in the garden. But, I dare say it contributes nothing toward properly crafting a stage for the chosen focal point.

IronBelly

I think the confusion is related more to what a focal point is meant to achieve than what it is. To use the garden on the other thread, once again as an example, what is missing is order, or unity. One way of achieving order is to arrange things around a focal point but you could also achieve unity by dividing everything into symmetrical squares. A difference between the art of painting (that is meant to be looked at from a specific viewpoint) and the art of garden design is that we can physically enter a garden, a focal point may encourage entry, and when we do we have multiple viewpoints.

Another difference between painting and gardens is the element of time. What catches your eye and attention will vary from season to season, or even day to day, as different things bloom, change color, grow, get cut back, etc. And even the static elements will vary as far as how much they are the center of attention or covered by foliage, as the background changes, etc.

Needless to say, in a painting, they usually don't change very much over time...

I contend that a designated focal point in a garden will not change over time unless substantially altered/replaced by the gardener/designer. Nor should it. A specimen tree will remain so in leaf or out (and a 'focal point' is unlikely to be cut back to any significant degree) and a fountain or urn will remain unchanged. One can move it, replace it or eliminate it, but that's about it. While the garden may evolve around the focal point through the seasons and over time, the focal point should remain relatively static or it ceases to possess the characteristics that make it a focal point. In this manner, a landscaped garden is not a very different type of composition than that of a painting or any other visual design.

oooo--semantics. One of my FAVORITE subjects. (Seriously. I am a word geek.)

Since the word "focal point" has it's origin in optics--I think it is safe to say it ought to be limited to VISUAL stuff.

Is there an aural counterpart to the visual "focal"? Something that means "to focus one's hearing?" I'll have to give that some serious thought/research.

melanie

I'll rest comfortably on my answer. I am not taking it to the level of what is a "good" focal point or what is a goal as a focal point. It merely is that a focal point, whether designed, intended, or there by default, is something or some things that dominate your attention. In order to have light there must be dark. In order to be dominant, something has to subordinate. How can this not be correct?

I think it is, as a lot of these discussions go, that the conotation, in this case being subordinate, means that something is bad or lacking. It does not. To some, to agree with my definition is to believe that not everything in their composition is good. Since they know everything in the composition is good, it can not be true that something is subordinate. I disagree.

Put 49 Miss America contestants in white bikinis and circle them around one in a red bikini. Where is the focal point? The red one. Are the rest of the contestants dogs? I think not (I know, the same can not be said for me).

Laag, outstanding example! :) As ever, you have the most inclusive interpretation, and with your last post to spell it out, it works well.

Where does everyone find that focal point is by definition visual (though Pam did qualify her statement) or has to be visual? The closest dictionary entry I can find that might apply to gardening is something like Âthe center of activity or attention and I found nothing at all that specifies Âvisual. But I do think that when weÂre discussing landscaping topics, most people would assume Âfocal point refers to the visual, whether formally defined that way or not.

IBÂs analogy was totally confusing, but whatÂs really interesting is applying the definitions to his own reaction when his own eye was altogether drawn to the uneven pathway.

Something I read (Grant) helped me conceptually, though, and it was the idea of a tree having a Âsphere of influence. In the same way, a chosen focal point could be said to require a Âsphere of influence in which the surroundings are developed to support it as far around it as it seems to warrant. In the treeÂs case, it was a radius the same as the expected tree height. I think it helps amateur (me) to decide what to put in my garden and where to put it. A vignette is born. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Oops, getting away from the point again  or maybe not.

Maro

Maro--I guess I was keying in on "focal point" as an optics term...

1. A point of convergence of light (or other radiation) or a point from which it diverges
   - focus
   
2. A central point or locus of an infection in an organism
   - focus, nidus
   
3. The concentration of attention or energy on something
   - focus, focusing, focussing, direction, centering [US], centreing [Brit, Cdn], centring [Brit, Cdn]

Third definition seems to be the one YOU intended.

Melanie, I think so. But really, if we just say garden focal point - - - :) - - which I'm pretty sure most will agree doesn't have to be said when the subject is landscaping. But can you say its origin is in optics? My dict. doesn't say.

Interesting to you and me . . . :)

Interestingly, I do think "focal point" in a garden is a visual experience.

Humans are about 90% visual most of the time. Yep, I have had to access other senses since I no longer have sight, but the others--hearing, smell, touch, taste--remain subordinate for the majority of humans. The greatest exception might be for synesthetes--persons who "see" sounds, "hear" colors, etc.

To borrow from Laag, the emphasis on sight does not mean that it is "better" than the other senses. It's just that for millions of years we've been using our eyes as the dominant sense for survival.

Fragrance, my favorite second sense to play with in the garden, is unreliable for centering a composition. For precisely that reason, because it is often difficult to know where the wafting perfume is actually coming from, it is a wonderful tool, perhaps the best, for creating mystery, atmosphere, memory. That's its strong suit. It doesn't diminish fragrance to know that it plays a subordinate role in the creation of a focal point.

That isn't to say that fragrance isn't powerful. It can draw gardners outside at night. It can make us hunt every aisle of a garden center in search of that tantalizing perfume. For the gentleman readers, an alluring fragrance may cause them to go and see who is just around the corner. If it happens to be Miss America in that red bikini, then she will most definitely take up all their attention once she is in sight. The perfume is still there, still alluring, but it isn't the main attraction.

Wellspring

Are we really thinking about this or just saying stuff to prolong the agony? Pam has experience and knowledge to back up her contribution, Melanie looks at the dictionary, Andrew, with more knowledge of the Miss America contest than me, offers a focal point as something superior to its surroundings by being different. Yet, when you apply yourself, it would be possible to make something stand out (be a focal point)by making sure that it is surrounded by 'dogs'. In the end it does seem to be all about what words mean: focal is to do with focus and so anything that encourages focus could be considered focal. However, as gardengal says, 'focal point' comes with some baggage because it has such value in the world of visual art. So the real question might be "How do I create a garden that focus's on Miss Venezuela?"

Oh, I'm thinking about this, but not to the exclusion of lunch. Prob'ly won't be still thinking about it tomorrow, though.
Think about 'subordinate' as a noun rather than an adjective. Then we can have a dominant feature and its subordinates, or its assistants, or supporters, rather than 'lower' or 'inferior.'

Then we have Andrew using 'subordinate' as a verb. He may not have meant to, though.

Well, they all work in one way or another.

Wellspring, thanks for addressing my notion of focal point as other than visual.

To answer YOUR question, Tony, -- I have two dogs who are sort of decorative. In my garden, I would place one on either side of Miss V.

:) :) :) :) :)

Maro, every time this question about focal points comes up for discussion I find myself unable to put into words an intuitive process which I would call 'second nature' for many of us. Also find that I am not alone when searching "landscape focal points" and reading pages devoted to the subject which really do not explain the process.

Yesterday I had the time to visit, by myself, a southern large plantation home and strolling gardens built as a winter home by a northern industrialist in the late 1800's. Entering the gardens it took me but a few minutes to realize that every landscape rule had been broken or ignored. Here was a plant collector's garden displaying every type of plant that would grow in this climate. There were focal points and oblisk type structures and entrances that did not make any sense. Somewhere the owner must have heard that the interior design concept of 'en filade' could be used in the garden. The attempt was poorly done.

After two trips through the gardens I sat on the back patio overlooking all, realizing that what I was viewing was charming, beautiful and chock full of specimen trees. A 65' Ilex opaca. An allee of 15' Franklinia alatamaha just coming into bloom! What an exciting surprise! This was a patchwork quilt garden built over the years with love and horticultural curiosity. To heck with the rules! A wonderful learning experience for LA's to study and critique.

You have been in some very unique places, Nandina, and it's nice to hear about them!

Looked up Franklinia alatamaka (and images):

"The exquisite Franklinia alatamaha tree, which boasts late summer blossoms, striking fall foliage, and an extraordinary history, is the most famous discovery of American botanists John and William Bartram. . . . They named the tree Franklinia alatamaha in honor of John Bartram's great friend, Benjamin Franklin."

and

"The trees bear white camellia-like flowers in late summer; their leaves turn red in autumn."

Must have been lovely. Imagine it in fall, also.

As far as focal points personally, I understand them as much as I need to for my own ejoyment, but there's always a lot of extra interesting stuff to add depth to the details of gardening.

Maro

Nandina comes at this from a different angle, which reminds me of John Dewey. When Dewey approached that old chestnut about beauty and the beholder he contended that 'beholding' was an active process that required participation from the 'beholder'. Nandina brings as much to this garden she describes as the person who made it, so when she says "to heck with the rules" (although it has to be said that no one suggested that having a focal point was a rule, read Andrew above)this comes from her experience of what she considers rules. The details of gardening are not the same as the details that apply to a garden as art or the design that makes it art.

"The details of gardening are not the same as the details that apply to a garden as art or the design that makes it art."

Yes, I agree with that fully.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of my own gardening experience including my own efforts to create a garden.

All of the issues discussed in this forum add great depth to that experience, including this topic and Nandina's insight on focal points and rules.

Thanks,

Maro

"I should have clarified that I was speaking of my own gardening experience including my own efforts to create a garden."
What do you mean by that maro?

Hi Tony
Let's see. . we need to go back a bit in the thread.

(Thinking . . .)

I need to postpone the answer 'til later.

Many of you are able to wax eloquent on the fine points of landscaping. I don't have your gift.

When I think of focal points, I like Felder Rushing's explanation - it's something to look at. Better than you staring at your neighbors staring back at you.

Tony, itÂs complicated!

I had written, "As far as focal points personally, I understand them as much as I need to for my own enjoyment, but there's always a lot of extra interesting stuff to add depth to the details of gardening."

Then you responded (in part), "The details of gardening are not the same as the details that apply to a garden as art or the design that makes it art." - which I thought was an admonishment to my statement.

Then, to explain, I wrote, "I should have clarified that I was speaking of my own gardening experience including my own efforts to create a garden."

Still not clear, or you wouldnÂt have needed to ask what I meant, IÂd like to try again.

Ahem:

I wrote the first statement to tell Nandina that even though I will never understand the focal point element fully with all its interpretations and applications, I do understand it enough for my own purposes; however, the theory, opinions and experiences (like NandinaÂs) expressed in this thread add a great deal of depth to my own garden-building experience. (The theory, opinions and experiences being the Âextra interesting stuff.Â)

(By the way, the same is true of most of the other discussions of this nature  they enhance my gardening experience.)

By now, IÂm Laughing Out Loud and I shouldnÂt put you through this torture. I did my best, and whether I was successful or not I leave for you to determine!

I am ready to use GigiÂs quote. Focal point = something to look at. That should take care of it.

Maro.
Belaboring this subject...I firmly believe that a focal point(s) is the the first rule of design. It is the 'where do I begin' question to be answered as a designer views a property for the first time. It is that 'point' on the earthly canvass from which the design flows. A completed and installed design which has no beginning point leaves the viewer wondering what is missing, so the next step is to plug into the scene an object of some type in an effort to direct the eye. Focal points, seen or unseen, should be the first points established at the beginning of the design process, not as an afterthought.

Should we consider focal points only as garden art? Perhaps some deeper thought on the subject might yield a different answer.

Now we are moving from focal points to focus of design which I think are two entirely different things. You can have a focal point in an incoherent landscape, and you can have no strong focal point in a well focused design. Does that make sense to anyone else?

Considering the question regarding a Ãfocal pointà I wonder if the answers would have been different if instead of ÃDoes a focal point have to be visual?à it read ÃDoes my garden need a focus and if so should that focus amount to a visual attention hook such as a focal point?à ?

laag's stating You can have a focal point in an incoherent landscape, and you can have no strong focal point in a well focused design doesn't make a quality judgement of an outcome in the art of landscaping or gardening. It simply points out to me that attention can be arrested by any something of any prominence that naturally occurred or that was chosen to be placed in a landscape. Likewise, should the space be that of a collector, the collection, even though "artfully" displayed, would be viewed as a whole and not by its individual components. The well focused design aspect reminds me of the Cone sisters' collection at the Baltimore Museum of Art - among the thousands of objects were Cezannes, Gauguins, van Goghs and 500 Matisse masterpieces. If we can say the focus of the collection was Matisse, does it necessarily follow that one particular work out of the 500 could be regarded as the focal point? From reading these threads, I see my spaces lean towards collections. Although, in my ongoing restoration of old gardens, I've tried to be sensitive to the terrain and blending against natural backdrops, etc., I do lack focal points. My idea for some well placed dwarf conifers may solve that. Hard to say because now I'm in the realm of nandina's afterthought.

Ink brought up Aristotle's idea of unity in a previous thread. In his Nichomachian Ethics he also put forth his idea of art as "anything that requires a maker, it cannot make itself". This might be where good, better, and best as well as bad, worse, and worst would enter the discussion. Nature is intrinsically beautiful, but it takes the hand of man to put a twirling plastic sunflower in it.

I'm "focused" on what is rather than what should be. That might be astray from what others are discussing.

Although, I do not believe that a strong focal point is a necessity, but certainly can have its use and appeal. My favorite gardens are often those which have unity, but keep you looking all around. Perhaps I would find Duluth's gardens very appealing, I don't know. I rather like when someone puts in what should be a striking focal point and proceeds to mitigate it with enough powerful visuals that it is much less a focal point. That is what I perceive as the mystique in Japanese Gardens.

Then again, a dramatic focal point with a lot of things that enhance it can be pretty awesome in itself.

It is art, isn't it? There are so many tools that we can work with or work against and make something beautiful. Yet, we can just as easily fail to make beauty trying just the same.

I'd like to thank Marcia for starting this thread - it has morphed into one of the better discussions on this forum I've had the pleasure to participate in. I tend to be a very literal (and not too deep) thinker and this discussion has provided much food for thought, at least for me.

Like Nandina, I tend to develop designs around a focal point(s), an object of visual prominence from which the rest of the design evolves. To me, this seems a very natural process in creating the composition. So it is difficult for me to comprehend adding a focal point 'after the fact'. Sometimes the object already exists and may need some assistance to become the focus and other times it is an applied focus, one that is intentionally sited and placed. But it is always there in some form or another. And no, it is not always garden art - in fact, more often than not, it isn't.

It does seem like some of the question comes back to intent - is it a focal point because someone designed everything in such a way as to center your attention on a particular object, or is it a focal point simply because it catches your attention more than anything else in the garden?

I tend to think either situation can be considered a focal point, fwiw.

Also brings to mind the contrast between French and English garden design traditions. For sake of simplicity, when I think of French gardening I mean the traditional chateau gardens like Versailles that are based on axes, focal points, vistas, etc. And when I say English, I mean the picturesque tradition that relies on meandering paths, a sense of mystery and discovery along the way.

In those French gardens, because everything is designed along axes, it tends to rely a great deal on focal points - the grand fountain, the statue, the vista back to the chateau, etc. (Alas, while I have spent a fair amount of time in French chateau gardens, I haven't been in any true English gardens in the sense that I am talking about. So, anything I say about them is based on pictures, etc, rather than experience.) But, as I understand English picturesque gardens, they are designed to tempt and tease you with bits of vistas and things in the distance to go and discover, and things that are half-buried, etc. I'm not sure how much framing of focal points happens in those - I would think so, but not sure. I think that is where some of the confusion lies in use of focal points, when you aren't basing the design on axes and vistas.

I'm starting to realize I've been influenced heavily by both of these traditions, and am trying to sort of combine them in my own, which may explain some of my own internal confusions as to my own goals at times! But I digress...

"What is a focal point?"
"Does a focal point have to be visible?"

I've been silent in this thread because early on laag expressed my thoughts on the subject. "Anything that makes everything around it seem subordinate." I might have said " That which one perceives to be prominent in the landscape." The focal point is not in the garden but develops in the mind. Which explains why some may see a focal point where others don't, or find that the focal point lies in a different place. Often it becomes the geographical reference point about which we order the space.

Something like a focal point can be found in music, where the focal point might be said to be that part of the song we find ourselves humming the next day. As in landscapes, good design dictates a single area of prominence. Consider what you get if you ask six musicians to play their best solo all at the same time, six different songs, six different melodies. Though each may be great in itself, together they are rank noise. The same thing happens in the landscape when multiple items compete for prominence.

A focal point in the landscape is not a necessity, just as a song does not have to have a melody, but they often show up whether wanted or not. And sometimes the focal point is pleasant, sometimes not.

Since most of our perception of the landscape is visual, what we see is often what determines a focal point, but there are exceptions. Throw a rattlesnake into any landscape, and it becomes the focal point instantly, as soon as one perceives it is there. It matters not how that perception is derived. Maybe you see it, maybe you hear it. Some say they can smell a rattlesnake. If you just think there is a snake, for most, it is the focal point. What's more, if you come back next week to the same garden, the snake will still be the focal point, though he is long gone from the scene.

The concept of focal point is important to good design. It exists in the mind, not the garden.

Hmmm... Language is a curious beast -- and one prone to personification.

Are we now talking about a "focal point" or a "point of focus"?

IronBelly

The last few posts have encouraged me to think about how much tradition and culture effect what some see as the necessity for a focal point. For instance does the musical emphasis pls8xx refers to apply to ALL music, Indian or Chinese or Arabic, for instance. Should we be looking for different experience in a traditional Japanese garden than in its French or English counterpart? Although we may not consider gardens to be art they do share similar traditions and dare I say rules, consequently an English tradition of landscape painting with its insistences passes on to landscape design and almost unconsciously we find ourselves placing a focal point in the centre of the view. Is a Chinese painting arranged in the same way? But then, is a garden a picture or a place? If it is a place then we have to consider more than what it looks like from just one viewpoint and so perspective is of less importance.

There are so many great comments to think about here! And I got behind.

Nandina, I also looked up Âen filade and have a much better impression of what you saw, but were the garden parts lined up like a series of rooms through which you could see the last door out - ? . . . . . This was a garden to be IN instead of just looked at. It is a place and not a picture, Ink. Is that right?

Nandina, you say a focal point "is the 'where do I begin' question to be answered as a designer views a property for the first time. It is that 'point' on the earthly canvas from which the design flows. . . . Focal points, seen or unseen, should be the first points established at the beginning of the design process, not as an afterthought. This is one of those gems that instantly gives me a better understanding. This isnÂt the first time one of your comments cleared the fog.

Though, some here donÂt see it that way, and to them focal points are not a given. Maybe so, but having a focal point enables me to act. I just want to make a garden and I havenÂt got all day to do that.

OT: Ink, did you note DuluthÂs comment on AristotleÂs idea of art?

Melanie, Âaural = of the ear; Âocular = of the eye. WouldnÂt "to focus one's hearing" be Âto listen intentlyÂ?

IB, Âfocal point and Âpoint of focus are so nearly identical in their definitions as to be interchangeable.

But Andrew, Âfocus of design IÂm still trying to figure out. As in "The focus of my design is to _______ (fill in the blank)? Please use Âfocus of design in a sentence. I think this has the makings of another gem. :)

IÂm sure getting sleepy. I sure hope I didnÂt put the rest of you to sleep. I havenÂt even scrutinized all of the posts yet, and I have to quit.

Marcia

I don't necessarily think that the focus of a design and a focal point are the same thing. The focus of the design of my garden was to create a feeling of being in another time, an escape from the bustle and pressures of the modern world.

I have a number of focal points, depending on where you are in the garden. As you enter the gate from the driveway and parking area, the path leads past the garden to a wooden bench that creates a little vignette. Once inside, however, you see the stonework, steps, and patio leading to the house on the right, which steals the show, becoming the new focal point, though the bench is still in view.

Once on the patio, the symmetrically shaped perennial garden opposite opens up to view, especially since the patio is elevated several feet higher than the level of the garden. At the far end is a concrete bird bath. Not particularly large or showy, but different because it is a man-made object in the middle of a large area of plants. This difference makes it stand out.

When the roses on the arbor halfway down the garden are in full bloom, they steal the show, changing the focal point again. If you follow the cross axis from the arbor out of the perennial garden and into the allee, the garden disappears from view, the wooden bench reappears at one end, and if I ever get my act together, a pergola with seating inside will appear at the opposite end from the bench, creating a new focal point that makes the bench subordinate in this view, and draws you in to sit a spell.

Hopefully, all of this splendor will will cause you to not notice that I am way behind on my weeding and that some of my plants are nearly dead because the summer has been Sahara-like and I didn't have time to water.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Saypoint, thank you for filling in the blank.

"The focus of my design is to _______ (fill in the blank)." Very helpful.

The purpose of the request is to illustrate Laag's observation "Now we are moving from focal points to focus of design which I think are two entirely different things."

I'd like more examples to solidly differentiate one from the other. They can be fictitious, just relevant.

I think "the focus of my design" and having "one central idea" are the same. As a practical guide it can lead to unity if you always come back to it when making decisions, for example you are blind and need to get around your garden easily without falling over each time you go out to gather flowers for the table. You need, flat smooth surfaces and easily reachable flower beds with perhaps a bench to sit on, this is your focus and should prevent you from cluttering the middle of your garden.
As for Aristotle Marcia, I am not sure he said that about art. Whatever he did say he would not have meant art as we understand it especially when trying to explain ethics. If what duluth writes is an interpretation then I imagine it was something about art as an action (making) as opposed to art as a thing.

Maro,

I think that it is easy to understand what I meant by a difference in "focal point" and "focus of a design" if you buy my concept of what a focal point is. My interpretation is very generic and pertains to anything within your view (literal view, as in what your eyes are taking in). Focal points are what commands the attention of your eyes whether it was intended to do so or not, whether it was put there or not, and whether it is ugly, or pretty, or somewhere in between. In other words I'm not placing "focal point" in a specific context.

You might say that I am breaking it down into a simple and basic element. It is easiest to understand it as a basic element than to add the complexities of everything within a landscape. The confusion comes when we unnecessarily blend it with all else that we know about design until it is no longer recognizable (kind of like me and some of my spelling).

You can't wish a focal point to either be, or for it to go away. You have to adjust it or what is around it until it becomes dominant as a focal point or its dominance has been conquered relieving itself (and you) from its being a focal point.

The terminology I used, "focus of design", is the context you want to create within a design. That is my interpretation of what Nandina was describing in that earlier post. Then she veared away from it as she described setting up focal points as her method for establishing a strong "focus of design". I'm not saying my views on this are THE right ones, just that they are how I see things.

The focus of a design might be to establish or reinforce a central feeling in front of the front door on a house. This happens to be the case on something I am currently working on. Currently, it has a circular driveway with a huge boulder in the middle of it (can you say "focal point). My focus of design is to mitigate that focal point to some degree and establish a feeling of a central space where you feel like you have arrived at the home and are comfortable. The next idea that I want in the guests subconscious is to enter the home and/or the private part of the property through the front door. Most of that is going to be achieved, assuming that it will be achieved, by keeping the guest from being attracted to other directions and not so much by screaming "HERE IS THE FRONT ENTRY!".

I'll have subtle focal points in this one, but it won't be the backbone to my "focus of design". I certainly use focal points to get things done in a lot of cases. I'm not against Nandina's approach by any means. I'm just using it as an example to clarify what I said.

Focal points are tools among many in our bags of tricks. I'm just saying you don't have to use every trick in the bag all of the time, unless you want to.

Does that make any sense to anybody else, or do I need to check in somewhere?

Ink, between you and Laag I am well served.

"I think "the focus of my design" and having "one central idea" are the same." That makes sense and seems obvious now that you said it.

"As a practical guide it can lead to unity if you always come back to it when making decisions" -- Now that is very helpful. Each decision has to fit the central idea, which will produce unity. The example of a garden for the blind is good.

"The focus of a design might be to establish or reinforce a central feeling in front of the front door on a house." -- That and your detailed description of how that might happen is the kind of example I was looking for. I can plug in my own situations and that would be my base.

I do hope that others trying to create their own gardens will be helped by this thread as I have been.

You know, much of my garden, front and back, is already in place, and you might not recognize in them the things you have taken the trouble to write here. That must be another thread sometime.