Wow, what a timely discussion. DH and I just had an heated argument about a major structural change to the house and landscape...a garden shed. We both agree about the architectural style, but I say that it should match the house in material and color, with a few funky elements thrown in, like a stained glass transom window. DH says that he wants the whole thing painted in some funky color and wants it to be the focal point of the garden. He says he sees this done in gardening magazines all the time. I have seen this done in gardening magazines too, but I doubt our ability to analyze what makes those work and execute it similarly.

We'll probably go round and round. We'll drop it for awhile, and then we will come to a compromise. This is what usually happens, but right he's just being a butt head about it and I suppose I am too.

I am most comfortable with big picture traditionalism and individualism in the details. But, I do appreciate a bold departure when executed well. But, that takes an "artiste", someone with vision.

Redhead,

Be careful of some of those things "done in gardening magazines all the time." A little too often, "what makes those work" is a really good photographer. Any one that has had a photo shoot done on their property can tell you that the selected photos often bear little resemblance to reality. I had one done on a former garden of mine and hardly recognized the place appearing in the article.

IronBelly

Hey Brent,
We've used off the shelf materials like those in N. Virginia and have alternated the color range just like your revolutionary neighbor !

Take for instance the underappreciated common brick: ( see link ) - all common brick colors found at the local supply store. - comman red, rose, and black brick.

For a twist on the raised wooden planting beds we stained the 2x10 wood borders a dark moss green and then nailed commonly found wiggle board ( the stuff folks use under corrugated metal and plastic roofs ) on the top of it and painted it dusty rose. For finials we raided the local toy store and painted them blue.

all off the shelf common stuff.

Here is a link that might be useful:

I have a theory. People who want to do stuff like this (shed as focal point, decorating with junk) often have the eye for it, while people who don't have the eye either don't think of it or shy away from it. So Redhead, I'd let DH take the reins between his teeth and I bet you end up with the sharpest garden shed on the block.

And as a gardener who has had zero help in the yard for twelve years while hubby explored his automotive side, I'd like to say this: your husband wants to do something in the yard and you're trying to DIScourage him? Send him over, please!

Ink,
As I read your intial post a vision popped to mind. An Ohio backyard piled high with snow drifts against a vivid purple fence surrounding the yard in which a single pollarded Maple painted brilliant blue stands as a lone sentinal.

Let me tackle one of your questions..."Would you dare to use something other than horticulture to guide the design of your garden?" Actually I have done this twice. I don't feel that I can post the details, but I do know that in both situations it was the right way to landscape two unusual houses. The north country lends itself more to lawns or meadows with sculptural pieces, either man made or natural, placed about. Also a project which I have worked on. This type of landscaping depends on the site and the structure design.

But, the nice thing about paint is that when you tire of the color it can be repainted. No, I would not paint a living tree. It deserves to live it's life naturally without man's ego disturbing the growth pattern.

When working in the warmer/tropical climates landscaping 'out of the box' is easier. Painted colors seem to work better with the sky, native plants already on site which have texture and the play of shadows.

For those who need to express themselves in unusual ways...just do it! If you sense it was the wrong approach...undo it. You will never know unless you try.

Redhead - timely story. I've just finished our shed. We are on 5 acres and the shed is not very close to the house and can't be seen from the front road. It is at the ledge of a lawn and surounded by trees. I wanted a bright colour, my wife wanted brown to blend with the woods. I've always stained everything brown, and wanted something different. Neither of us would give, so we settled on a dark purple stain - almost brown but still some blue. It turned out blue.

The wife can live with it. I like it. I don't think the colour adds much to the landscape but it does make it a bit more interested.

if it had been close to the house I would not have gone with blue.

The thing I found out about painting my shed blue is that it disappears. Because it matches the color of shadows so well it's not a visual incongruity. If I'd painted it green...no matter what color green...it would have clashed with the natural greens the way green patio furniture and umbrellas clash with the garden.

There's a house down the street that's painted bright cerulean blue. With a red brick half front. And every year he plants red cannas, orange marigolds, magenta petunias. Plus some yews. The clash factor is breathtaking. Which blue you choose obviously makes a difference.

Out of the box is such a scorned concept because it's almost always done badly.

He might be color blind. I recently did a consult where her husbands color blindness was an issue for them that she had to take into consideration. It was something I was having a bit of trouble connecting to for good answers.

ilima

Interesting. I saw a garden done for a color-blind person. The designer found out - by asking questions - that his client could see, for example, green or red in large areas but not in small spots. The plantings were designed with massed bright green foliage and color spots were wide and deep.

Maro

Well, we all know I'm considering staining a 100' redwood fence purple, and that my house is trimmed in cornflower blue with a grape front door, so y'all know where I stand on this. But for me, as explained on another thread, my garden is a color playground where discovering mistakes brings as much joy as hitting the 'aha!' I imagine designers play and experiment in their gardens, too; but unfortunately, if one's in business, you don't have the luxury of "maybe this will work". Karen

Nandina, I so agree with what you have said, about just taking chances and the "just do it" approach. Later, undo it, if it doesn't work. Life is about taking chances, and sometimes, when you try something different, new ideas form, and instead of undoing it, a new direction emerges and you wind up adding to it instead. I bet IB wasn't planning a second rain garden when he conceived the construction of the first one. And yet, in a current thread, he talks of a new rain garden project in the works and the interest this new garden approach has born in others in his community. What may have started out as strange and unconventional, has become interesting and thought provoking. But if it had been a bad choice for IB, design wise, I think he would have removed it and changed to a different beat.

But, painting a living tree blue, maybe in Los Vegas...

Patrick,
Let me expand on your thoughts a bit. Ink is probably sitting around waiting for someone to cry foul with the statement he made at the beginning of this thread...."Thinking outside 'the box' can be a dangerous activity..." Good Heavens! If we did not have thinkers/dreamers/idealists in the world we would still be back in the Dark Ages. Those were the days when they used to torture and imprison anyone with any idea outside of 'the box'. Times have changed and they have been changed by creative thinkers who dared to dream.

Successful landscaping people must think out of 'the box'. Sometimes a site lends itself to a new idea or different approach and this can be accomplished without the customer realizing it. Best to hold your tongue in some situations. New materials, new products, either for the landscape or other applications are introduced every year and should be tried. "The box" to me means an opportunity to play when possible. And DIY's can also enjoy exploring different ideas for their 'boxes'.

This discussion reminds me an exhibit by a non-representational painter who included one highly representational (bordering on photographic) painting. Clearly, the painter felt it necessary to demonstrate that he had mastered "the box". Does an unconventional design stand on its own, or is it somehow enhanced by knowing that the designer has mastered the conventional?

Does one appreciate Picasso more knowing that he could paint "correctly"?

Bruce

Nandina, you are correct to think that Tony's trap has been set and is ready to spring! Ha! But 'so what!' as IB would point out. What is a snapshot of life but an expression of the current times and the thoughts that you may be experiencing in relation to the current trends, excepted or denounced. How lame the box might be, safe and secure,or exillerating; even sexual! But it isn't static. Fashion, as dull or excentric as it appears, is the driving force, and it is ever changing because commerce is the thrust. To step beyond the confines of what is NOW (the box) only makes two statements, either genious or moron, depending on the view or opinion of whoever seems to be looking. You can master the geometry of good design and still be mondane because you are not out of step enough with NOW.
SHEESH!!!
But still there is hope. Beyond dead turtles and the occasional puff on a cold spring day at Dusk (Tony, your slipping, take some B complex daily) it is possible to have a concept that moves beyond current color fads and perverse, eccentric, abusive attacks on other life forms (blue trees, eeeks!) that actually is simple and noteworthy. The problem to me is that what is often preceived as being outside the box is usually just babysteps away, not nearly enough distance to be truely inspirational. So, as David Burn asks in a previously fashionable moment, "How did I get there? This is not my beautiful house!"

I added the "t" for effect, no corrections are needed, Eric, but thanks anyway...

Interesting hearing others' perceptions of what the box is. Also interesting how some people seem to think that the box is made by designers and that it's some arbitrary concept like seasonal fashion.

But it's not. Good design...whether in fashion or in landscapes or teapots for that matter...is timeless, seasonless, and adheres to a certain set of principles. The box is fully aware of those principles. And going outside of it does not necessarily mean outlandish or garish or shocking. It just means awareness of the box and a move outside of it. Designers don't define the box. They use it.

Seems like two concepts have gotten smooshed together here. One is the disciplined mastery of design principles: the "box". [I don't think of the box having much to do with au currant conventions.] Another is, for lack of a better term, creativity artistry: sometimes intuitive, like Karin's people with "a good eye", sometimes also based in study of basic design principles.

Good designers have these talents integrated and available to apply to each situation, sometimes with plants, sometimes with plants' context. How flexibly a designer's mind moves in and out of the box during the envisioning process may be a function of the designer's creative style and personality. As I noted elsewhere, Keith Jarrett's improvisational genius on the piano flows from his mastery of the classics mixed with his intensity as a human being.

I'm coming at this as one who's always been told I have an artistic "good eye", working backwards into learning the box. It will be interesting to see how learning the box affects my intuitive impulses as the process evolves.

On a somewhat unrelated note, since I'm working on how to apply the above concepts to a shed I'm building, I would sure love to see GingerBlue, Redhead and Madtripper share photos of their sheds...perhaps on a new thread: "Examples of jumps out of the box??" Karen

P.S. INK, I'd sure like to know what you meant when you referred to "thinking outside the box" as a "dangerous activity". Dangerous how?

'Things' do not become conventional or 'standard practice' all on there own, sometimes there is a long history of experience to explain why it is done a certain way. Other times it may be "just because" or because Michael Jordan wears them or because "it has always been done this way". "Thinking outside the box" doesn't mean anarchy it means that you question the conventions that lead to clich and make a conscious decision. We are not sure if Keith Jarret is a skilled musician or a busker, a dangerous position for a professional musician to be in, we can hardly believe that Bobby McFerrin makes all those musical sounds without an instrument, and why?
After perusing the possibilities, twelve beats to a bar (a 1960's joke) or John Cage, then write the original work.
Mostly, a person who designs other peoples gardens for money is closer to Barry Manillo because that is what is expected of them. The exceptions live precariously.

Doesn't all depend on what kind of box you're in?

Hi Susan, Love your new display concept! Maybe you could take the 'rock' part to the extreme and install a big vibration machine under the floor that mimicks little earth quakes periodically, Or have those thorny palms at the entrance sway menacingly at anything under 4 feet! HA! Seriously, I think it will be stunning. And while I'm being serious, Tony, I just can't imagine you as a stand in for Barry Manilow, But I am intrigued. Some how, I thought you'd possess different hair...
The definition of 'the box' is often referred to on this forum as a set of rules on how things are to be done to arrive at the proper and exceptable norm commonly referred to as "good Design". In Architechture, there are set rules for buildings, codes, that are locally described. Travel across governmental borders and the codes can vary quite a lot, causing builders in different locals to approach the project differently, in effect, working inside a different box, by your definition: using rules of proceedure. But, After all the different specifics are applied, the two buildings end up looking the same, which "box" is the right one? To explore this more, let's consider the geodesic dome, invented in germany in 1922 by Dr. Walter Bauersfield and patented by R. Buckminster Fuller in 1954. This new design revolutionlized building concepts by eliminating the internal components that previously supported traditionally built structures, placing the wieght of the building soley on its skin, allowing the unobstructed interior of the dome to be used in any manor the owner could concieve. This concept was so outside the box that the building inspectors didn't understand how to apply its unique strucural integrety to the local codes, thus, many would be dome builders were faced with tremendous opposition. Evenually, the codes were adjusted to except the unique building style of the dome, but sadly, it never achieved a big following. Taste is subjective...
So what happened to "the Box". In some locals, it changed to fit the times, and the rules governing its process expanded. In other locals, the dome was rejected and the codes didn't change. Whether you think Domes are beautiful or not, They are brilliant examples of what stepping outside the box really is, yet they are constructed from the simplest geometric structure, a triangle...
My point is this: "the Box" isn't a set of rules as much as it is a conception supported by the current trends. When the trends change the rules do to. It is a fluid forward moving process that occationally really surprises us all...

Hi Susan, Love your new display concept! Maybe you could take the 'rock' part to the extreme and install a big vibration machine under the floor that mimicks little earth quakes periodically, Or have those thorny palms at the entrance sway menacingly at anything under 4 feet! HA! Seriously, I think it will be stunning. And while I'm being serious, Tony, I just can't imagine you as a stand in for Barry Manilow, But I am intrigued. Some how, I thought you'd possess different hair...
The definition of 'the box' is often referred to on this forum as a set of rules on how things are to be done to arrive at the proper and exceptable norm commonly referred to as "good Design". In Architechture, there are set rules for buildings, codes, that are locally described. Travel across governmental borders and the codes can vary quite a lot, causing builders in different locals to approach the project differently, in effect, working inside a different box, by your definition: using rules of proceedure. But, After all the different specifics are applied, the two buildings end up looking the same, which "box" is the right one? To explore this more, let's consider the geodesic dome, invented in germany in 1922 by Dr. Walter Bauersfield and patented by R. Buckminster Fuller in 1954. This new design revolutionlized building concepts by eliminating the internal components that previously supported traditionally built structures, placing the wieght of the building soley on its skin, allowing the unobstructed interior of the dome to be used in any manor the owner could concieve. This concept was so outside the box that the building inspectors didn't understand how to apply its unique strucural integrety to the local codes, thus, many would be dome builders were faced with tremendous opposition. Evenually, the codes were adjusted to except the unique building style of the dome, but sadly, it never achieved a big following. Taste is subjective...
So what happened to "the Box". In some locals, it changed to fit the times, and the rules governing its process expanded. In other locals, the dome was rejected and the codes didn't change. Whether you think Domes are beautiful or not, They are brilliant examples of what stepping outside the box really is, yet they are constructed from the simplest geometric structure, a triangle...
My point is this: "the Box" isn't a set of rules as much as it is a conception supported by the current trends. When the trends change the rules do to. It is a fluid forward moving process that occationally really surprises us all...

> Mostly, a person who designs other peoples gardens for money is closer to Barry Manillo because that is what is expected of them. The exceptions live precariously.

If an LD builds Manilow landscapes, that's what he'll be asked to build in future. I live with a musician who tells clients up front that doesn't play "old favorites" - as a result he's kept pretty busy playing his favorite music and isn't invited to work at events where they'd really prefer Manilow.

I don't see how it's any different for LDs.

Thank you for the correct spelling Nan, I was hoping Patrick would put me straight.

Ain't nothing like the real thing, Baby
Ain't nothing like the real thing
Ain't nothing like the real thing, Baby
Ain't nothing like the real thing

Lyrics by Barry

He only wishes those were his. They're from Ashford and Simpson.

Decorating the garden with "junk" is not an example of thinking outside the box. Based on the vast number of such gardens featured in various publications in the last decade or so, it's just another kind of box.

Seeking to outrage conventional thinking on gardens in any major way is a sure sign that the designer doesn't have to worry about reselling the property - or hasn't considered that wrinkle.

A successful garden is one that pleases the gardener.

Ah, I thought that was an authentic garden...

Was it the mention of Barry Manilow that awoke our cross dressing friend from his silent slumber or once again the idea that what pleases a garden designer may be different from what pleases "The Gardener"?
If reselling the property is to be our only guide in how to make a garden that pleases; the "box" may well be a coffin.

I was on vacation, luv...good to see that you missed me (although bringing up Barry "Manillo" would be enough to wake the Unholy One):

{{gwi:49078}}

"Was it...the idea that what pleases a garden designer may be different from what pleases "The Gardener"?"

The latter is what's relevant. But that may be another thread entirely.

Eric,
Just a little pinch of chartreuse in Batmans' flower box and he could have a whole new out look on life.

Who knows, it might please him .

Look what happened to Robin the Boy Wonder. It is rumored that he planted pansies and look what happened to him. - a girly man who wasn't afraid to wear tights.

Fight crime, plant a garden.

Recall that Manilow started in profession by writing advertising jingles:

Grab a bucket and mop
Scrub the bottom and top...
...Tell me, what does it mean?
McDonald's is clean.

You deserve a break today
So get up and get away
to McDonalds...

That should tell you something right away. Commercial writing/design can be catchy, flashy, and get across the client's message. But when you've heard/seen it too much, it becomes cliche.

that is, unless it becomes "classic".

plop plop fiz fiz

oh what a relief it is.

.... maybe ... not.

Nostalgia on a Wednesday evening in August, not so hot and humid now but still August. Can I still shake 'em up?

Shake, rattle, and roll.

in my own garden, yes yes yes. But that is because I am artistic and want to add a sense of whimsy. Plus solve an issue of needing more stucture in the beds that run across the drain field. I am considering brightly painted snags (dead trees) planted in a concrete post hole. No, I doubt I'll run the branches up with bottles. Wood speaks to me where as glass is not my material.

however, my interest is peaked by the junkers making bowling bowls into gazing balls with mosaic but mine would need to be highly personal and have meaning in it's placement to relate to the plants nearby... just toying with the possible is exciting.

my patio in progress is becoming very unusual as it's being made from left overs from previous jobs, one pallet contained several flat stones covered in fossils - so no those got put back in the truck and will be part of my hammock hidaway somehow.

And we're about due for another full moon.

Hopefully not a blue one. :)

It doesn't take much to shake up the conventional neighborhood in which I live. My property has no lawn on a street of lawns. My "hell strip" is planted up with 4' tall Russian sage, yarrow, catmint, daylily, coneflower, crocosmia, anise hyssop, Queen Anne's lace, lamb's ear and other butterfly attractants that make the strip alive with color, both floral and insectal.

The narrow strips along the driveway are planted with bamboos and native wildflowers, and the upper half of the paved driveway (sloped) is terraced with granite block, antique building facade bricks and pea stone, and decorated with ornate container plantings and raised beds. The front bed (the house faces sideways to the street) is filled with blueberry bushes, ornamental tall grasses, daylily, black-eyed Susans and serviceberry trees, clumping bamboo, hollies and mugo pine.

It started conventionally 12 years ago, was still fairly staid up to two years ago. I kept putting in slightly more outre things, gauging the neighbors' reactions if any. If no one said anything, I'd go a step further. Then last year it went crazy with the hell strip, and not a soul complained. I don't seem to have exceeded the tolerance range so far. Maybe it's time to try a big, rusted scrap metal sculpture in the front bed.

My clients tend to be more reserved, so I tone gardens down for them, but I'll still introduce something non-traditional where it works with a more traditional planting. I test the waters when I first consult with a new client, and see how far they are willing to push the envelope. Then I can offer varying degrees of "shake-up" that don't exceed their comfort zone (or just by a bit).

I used to think I was a werewolf but I am better nowhowwl!
Nicethyme: this may be the measure of a truly creative designer/installer, that is one who can turn left overs into a work of art rather than a pile of junk. Of course this is a very fine line as it is also possible to turn the finest materials into what looks like a pile of junk. Dare to speculate on how to define that line?

"Rock the boat,
Rock the boat, baby
Rock the baby
Don't tip the boat over"

Often when dealing with clients this is the mentality I use! Find their tipping point and stand on the threshold!

Ink, ah yes... amazing we talked of this very thing while weeding today. it is the line of demarcation between good taste and horrendous and somewhere in that you hit the curious/ confused reaction with no understanding of like / dislike.

But like all design, it's the purposefulness - feelings meant to be evoked - whether it's the ??? display or the calming zzzzzz or exciting !!!!

but just as you said, designer vs gardener and object d'art is so subjective to the individual beholder. So the line can only be clear to the gardener. And then speaks to all other viewers as the the level of garishness asigned to that gardener.

Then down to who do we design for? ourselves and our art? is it actually our art that we CAN design for the client/gardener. If knowing that person more intimately helps in achieving that end, then who better to design our OWN gardens than ourselves. So only we know our own line not to cross. Like anything, the overuse of any element in design can turn something of beauty into what appears as simply an obcession. Consider daylilies and hostas, those folks that consider all else as just companion plants - the obcessive collectors of one genre. One could become the equivalent in junk piling.

One must recognize where to stop, and of course it helps if your significant other is a staunchy traditionalist! ;)

hey cady, do you prefer not to show your perspective clients your personal gardens? I'm always concerned at anyone looking at my past work for fear they will believe that's only what I can or will do. I say something like every garden is designed for the owner and is not my style, that is only found in my garden. Then I don't give out my address! LOL

I agree with Eric_OH that junk and other 'props' do not define a cutting edge design.

I wonder how much of this drive to "think outside the box" (the phrase itself now cliched) stems from people's urge to shock the neighbors? As cady stated: "I don't seem to have exceeded the tolerance range so far. Maybe it's time to try a big, rusted scrap metal sculpture in the front bed."

As a fan of native plants, I sense that many native plant enthuseists are spoiling for a fight: "I know the Latin name of this plant, therefore it's not a weed, na, na!"

If you really want to shock the neighbors, try this: a swept dirt yard. Old-fashioned and full of history, this type of landscape would nevertheless stick out in modern landscape. But would it be innovative? Or even good design?

Are we trying to being individual for the sake of individualism? Is this necessarily a good thing?
Traditional designs have stood the test of time because they are good...this era's really good innovations will become the next generations' traditionals.
But are we all geniuses that need to attempt this level of innovation, or will we ultimately be disappointed??

Nicethyme, I invite prospective clients to do a driveby. My address isn't on my card (I have a PO box) but if they indicate they'd like to see, I give them my street address. I let them know up front that my personal tastes do not reflect limitations, and that my professional training covers all of the traditional forms of landscape/garden design. Then I offer to do a knot garden for them... lol

Mainly, I advise that rather than focus on the style of the garden they see, to instead focus on the plants, their health and vigor, their habits, color and form. Also, the hardscape materials and their textures, etc.

My garden actually is a test bed -- I test every plant before I recommend it to a client. My lot has varied conditions, from dry shade to baking sun, powerful winds, slope and wet areas. So, it permits me to experiment with plants that prefer differing conditions.

I agree with Eric_OH that junk and other 'props' do not define a cutting edge design.

I wonder how much of this drive to "think outside the box" (the phrase itself now cliched) stems from people's urge to shock the neighbors? As cady stated: "I don't seem to have exceeded the tolerance range so far. Maybe it's time to try a big, rusted scrap metal sculpture in the front bed."

As a fan of native plants, I sense that many native plant enthuseists are spoiling for a fight: "I know the Latin name of this plant, therefore it's not a weed, na, na!"

If you really want to shock the neighbors, try this: a swept dirt yard. Old-fashioned and full of history, this type of landscape would nevertheless stick out in modern landscape. But would it be innovative? Or even good design?

Are we trying to being individual for the sake of individualism? Is this necessarily a good thing?
Traditional designs have stood the test of time because they are good...this era's really good innovations will become the next generations' traditionals.
But are we all geniuses that need to attempt this level of innovation, or will we ultimately be disappointed??

"Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the gardens of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now...here's looking at you kid."

It is a strange notion that thinking outside the box equates with junk, extraneous props or with purposely shocking the neighbours. As I said above "Thinking outside the box" doesn't mean anarchy it means that you question the conventions that lead to clich and make a conscious decision." This doesn't require genius, only an open mind. An open mind would examine all the possibilities for dealing with walkways, including swept dirt, before installing whatever is 'normal'.

ah! eureka...

the box must be defined 1st. For the lady who wants to flank her house with 2 trees, it's what she's observed as being what you do in landscaping. That's her box. Instead of considering her unique architecture, setting and requirements, she's copying what she believes is good design and taste. Can you upsell her - probably not.

It doesn't have to be shocking to be outside the norm, it just may not be what they've seen before. It is the difference between individual design and production landscape. There being profitability in both but a more numerous demographic will buy the latter. How many of us are satisfied designing the latter?

I hope y'all realize that I was being facetious about the big, rusted metal sculpture.

Everything about my garden, from the design to the hardscape, plants and accoutrements, is to please my own eye. I'll do some eccentric things with the areas that are not in public view, but those parts of the garden that are in public view I keep just within the tolerance level of the neighbors, and, of course, not in violation of any ordinances.

When I work on a garden for a client, I discuss with them what pleases their eye and work toward that aim.

Kinda late joining here but yeah love shaking it up. Back to the original question, I'm probably the strangest thing in my garden. But I just moved to a new place and the weirdest thing I saw here was a mature row of pine blocking the view of a ravine below. I'm usually a tree hugger but the pine are gone now! And what about a hedge I'm planning, mixed of red spruce and yew?

There's a fine line between genius and madness.
Either can be more interesting than timid compliance.