performance art

One of the more obvious examples of Landscape as Art would be the work of Andy Cao. He's even featured in art galleries.

Here is a link that might be useful: Cao Artistic Landscapes

Can anything be art?

I think so. I think it was an inspirational quote in one of my high-school agendas (now long gone) which stated, "Anything done well is beautiful."

Although you can probably point out several (and most probably disgusting or vulgar) exceptions, this can apply to many things, landscaping included.

Beauty isn't just a characteristic of art, by which people say "This is beautiful" and it is agreed upon by taking in factors (principles of design?) and determining whether or not they have been fulfilled or not.

Beauty is something that is felt. There's a fine yet distinct line between something that looks nice, and something that is beautiful. Try it with your wife, SO, or anyone you happen to wish to pick up. See the difference in reactions between "Wow. You look nice," and "Wow. You look beautiful."

This could probably tie into the discussion of curb appeal. Does landscaping simply for the sake of instant, resellable curb appeal harm the advance of domestic garden design? Maybe, it's very debatable. But one difference is that curb appeal aims to sway the general public into saying "Oh, that house looks nice," while (truly inspired?) landscaping aims for the "That house/garden/landscape is beautiful."

So what's the difference? Art can be very hit-and-miss, and something that is new, edgy, and challenging may not appeal to many people. If you dwell in "Wal-Mart art" (as my art teacher called it), you creep back into people's comfort zone and churn out painting after painting of irises in a vase, or some sunny landscape in Provence.

The following question then arises: Does overexposure of the "Wal-Mart" form of art have the capacity to lower the general public's perspective and thus expectation of "truer" art? It may form a widely accepted paradigm that's not quite close to the original (think: "Home Depot" bonsai vs. real bonsai), but it doesn't stop the art form from constantly growing and thriving.

Going back to the original question, how about some rhetorical questions? Have you ever felt emotionally attached to a landscape? Has a landscape ever evoked an extra-ordinary sensation before? Can fountains, grand staircases, and exquisite parterres bring about a romantic whimsy? What about the unexplicable feelings of serenity and peacefulness people feel in Japanese gardens? I think that this constitutes the subconscious appeal.

-Audric

Ink, you got it backwards. Art is a landscape.

{{gwi:49302}}

Are we talking art in the formal sense of the word? Or as a "feeling" (this "feels like art...")?

Here are more artist/landscape designers of reknown. Look at some of these samples of their work and tell me if this is landscape as art, or art as landscape.

I also have a book to suggest: Gardens of Illusion,, by Sara Maitland and Peter Matthews (Published by Cassell & Co.)

Here is a link that might be useful: Art as Landscape or Landscape as Art

I think it is both "art is landscape" and "landscape is art". Especially Topher Delaney and Claude Cormiers Designs. Those two pictures describe me to a "T".

I think that to create a piece of art while addressing the function of the landscape, the biology of the landscape, the context of the landscape, the people the landscape is for, ..... is what it is all about.

Art can be a function on its own, as well.

I think you'll have an answer if you look at pix on the Japanese garden forum.

art1â /¨»rt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

¨Cnoun 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Yes.

The problem I have with the installation style gardens that cady shows is that they set out to be art and come across as a tad pretentious. Is it possible for a garden/landscape designed to be lived in to be art as well? I don't entirely agree that beauty and art are the same thing although I do accept that they are both difficult to pin down in any objective sense. What I think Jellicoe was driving at is the notion that art is less to do with the form and more to do with the feeling. This does not mean that the form is unimportant only that the landscape needs to engage your emotions for it to be art. The element that easily stirs the emotions is colour but for it to be art the garden must display something more. It is the thing that makes Maya Linn's monument art in spite of/ because of being black.

In the strictest sense, the arts are divided into categories: performing, fine and applied. Sometimes, applied art gets a bad rap by being called decorative art. It is really useful art. In that vein, gardens and landscapes along with architecture, furniture design, and all the other 'designed' arts that are meant to be used by humans on some level are surely art. The general difference is that fine art is meant to be looked at and applied art is meant to be used.

Gardens and landscapes like all of the other arts exist in many levels. There's the big eyed velvet painting types and then there are those whose beauty takes you breath away.

Something tells me that Sir Geoffrey is wrong.

A variety of gardens will stir feelings below the surface (if one denies this, there is probably self-deception taking place on a subconscious level), but that doesn't make them art. There is far greater complexity at work here.

One important corollary is that placing badly made objects into gardens does not make them (or the garden itself) art - even if they are painted blue (as seen in fashionable garden magazines).

Not to sound fresh but I am surprised to see this question even being asked, and on the landscape design forum, of all places. Of course landscape design is one of the fine arts and has been so considered for many centuries. Think the Villa Lante, Vaux-le-Viconte, Stourhead, just to pick a few.

Check out "History of Garden Art" by Marie Luise Gothein, first English edition 1928 but still a masterpiece of the genre and influencing historians of landscape-as-fine-art to this day.

Probably few home gardens reach the status of "fine art" but then few paintings or musical compositions or sculptures do either.

The question was probably posed to generate discussion rather than to find an answer. But re-reading the question, it asks if 'A' landscape can be art, which could be simply answered 'yes' with lots of examples to prove it, like those mentioned above.

Thank you maro, discussion it is.
Eric: it is not that any garden which stirs up emotions is guaranteed 'art' status, I don't think anyone is saying that. For sure the word 'art' sends people off in different directions and I posit Geoffrey Jellicoes theory, that can be studied in depth elswhere, as one example. To say that he is wrong as you do is a bit strange in a discourse that, as maro noticed is not about answers. What makes the gardens ginny suggests, art if indeed they are/were? I ask this question because I wonder is it is a worthwhile aim even a pie in the sky aim. For sure it is complex but if the question doesn't interest you, no problemo.

There's a difference between stirring emotions and provoking a response at a subconscious level, which is what Jellicoe apparently thinks is a defining characteristic of landscape-as-art.

Certainly a number of posters have answered your question in the affirmative. And there are implications to defining gardens as art (including preservation status).

What might clarify things further is discussing a few examples and whether they qualify as art or not. For an example, {{gwi:49300}} - which I think makes the grade, derivative though it may be. ;)

For a landscape to be considered "art" does it really need topiaries, raked gravel beds, parterre gardens, and the like? Can't a landscape just contain a pleasing composition of plants and hardscape and still be classified as art? It can sure be beautiful. Some times the word "art" comes along with bad connotations so I guess I would be more satisfied if someone labeled my landscape as "beautiful" than as "a piece of art".

- Brent

You don't seem to be paying attention eric. I say that I am interested in discussion and not definitives and you insist that my question has been answered. You then appear to be offering this statement up both as a definition of what "landscape as art" is and what it isn't: " placing badly made objects into gardens does not make them (or the garden itself) art - even if they are painted blue (as seen in fashionable garden magazines)." The picture you include is obviously meant as a joke unless you really have no idea what the topic being DISCUSSED is.

The link I posted was of a component to this garden, which involves an unusual and celebrated rendition in topiary of a Seurat painting. I regret that you don't like it but it is arguably art.

If you do not want to respond to those posters who have a definite opinion on the thread topic and/or have an interest in further clarification, you need not do so.

I think there would be general agreement amongst those with a genuine interest in art, landscape or both that the avenue to kitsch is lined with parodies of the work of famous artists. Seurats painting is art because, amongst other things (and these other things are important)it appeals to something beyond the forms he has outlined. When you copy only the forms of an artists work (like that picture) you miss the art. I welcome intelligent contributions to this discussion although, in case any one else has this impression, it is not my ambition to trump any contribution with my "Mr Wonderful" card.

All of it is art. The topiaries don't blow my skirt up ... I meant kilt. Neither does Martha Schuartz's bagel gardens. But it is art whether I am particularly fond of it or not. So is a street with large invasive Norway Maples forming a canopy tunnel. The tunnel is a more subtle art form, but it is surely art.

It's only art if it was intended to be art. If that canopy tunnel formed by large invasive Norway maples was meant to be such, then okay. But if it happens to form a tunnel, as Norway maples often do on Massachusetts roads, then it is artless -- just as a drawing by a typical pre-school toddler is.

Thanks to ink for providing a specific example of things he believes are and aren't art (and why), though I think he's missing something.

If adaptations in a different medium are considered beneath notice, then we miss out on genuinely great works. To take the example of another Impressionist, Ravel's orchestration of Moussorgsky's "Pictures At An Exhibition" (itself inspired by another's paintings) takes that work to a whole new level. Topiary art isn't to everyone's taste, but in this instance it literally adds a new dimension to the original composition. I think Seurat would have enjoyed it.
And there's a bizarre and original garden design out there based on one of Lewis Carroll's works ("Through The Looking Glass", if I remember right), posted to a thread here a long time ago. I haven't been able to find it again online but if anyone knows of it, a link would be appreciated.

Historically landscape design, along with painting and sculpture were considered "high or fine arts". In the days of the "Arcadian Ideal" the aristocracy regarded their carefully groomed eutopian vision with almost religious zeal. As time moved on social forces changed, and labor became more expensive. It became far cheaper to create art on a canvas than an estate. The art world became conflicted about it's role in commercialism (art for art sake)making design a word which has been known to cause culture vultures to raise thier noses in contempt. Sadly, landscape design lost it's status as a high/fine art. However, in my opinion,in many cases so has painting. I believe that art can be created in any medium,plants included. Do I believe that most foundation meet the criteria? Probably not. Luckily history has provided us with individuals such as Olmstead and Bebe-Wilder,for inspiration.
I don't suppose it's too difficult to guess my backgroud.

Olmstead is often called the father of landscape architecture. Bella mentions him in this thread about whether landscape can be art. Yet, Olmstead's work was anything but bagel gardens and whimsy. It was very subtle - much like the maple canopy over the road.

I think that once again we find that some people affix specific things to terms such as "art", "function", "creativity", and logic to name a few, while others have a broader interpretation of what those things are.

Bella obviously sees the whole landscape as a piece of art while others will look for art objects within the landscape. Olmstead is a great example when you think of the "art" of large scale that is put into Central Park. A year or two ago some artist (shoot me for not knowing or caring) tossed up a whole lot of orange banners in Central Park and so many people ooohed and ahhhhed at this "masterpiece" while Central Park was considered the canvas. It is something to think about.

I wonder if anyone looked at it as spray paint on a nice building? Would someone be a great artist if they added a small detail such as a nose ring to The Mona Lisa and stood up to take a bow? It is much like a thread in the last year where someone designed and installed a garden only to have the homeowner add her "garden art" junk into it.

On the same page?
"A pool is the eye of the garden in whose candid depths is mirrored its advancing grace."
- Lousie Bebe Wilder.
"The underlying attraction of the movement of water and sand is biological.
If we look more deeply we can see it as the basis of an abstract idea
linking ourselves with the limitless mechanics of the universe."
- Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe.
"A garden can move the imagination and senses powerfully, more powerfully than can an area whose beaurt comes from nature alone."
C.C.L.Hirschfeld.
When Witold Rybczynski (the author of 'a clearing in the distance')first experienced Mount Royal park in Montreal he believed it to be all natures doing instead of the work of F. L. Olmsted. People have the same feeling about Central Park.
The motivation behind the Bagel Garden was to challenge viewers perception of what 'art' and 'garden' is rather than to present itself as Art. Quite effective don't you think?

I feel like the Grinch but.... The name is spelled Frederick Law Olmsted, *not* Olmstead with an "a".

And it is correctly spelled "Louise Beebe Wilder", not one of the other variations appearing above. She was a garden writer and expert on rock gardens, more a horticulturist than a designer, tho she did design a few rock gardens of great beauty in the NY area.

Don't mean to be pedantic but just in case anyone tries to read further about these people, they will need the correct spelling. And the Olmstead-for-Olmsted thing is so common, it drives me nuts.

Brazilian landscaping is renowned for designing gardens that look like a piece of art translated into the landsape. it's incredible. Two examples: Sonia Infante's work on the garden at Sao Judas Tadeo farm in Petropolis (outside Rio de Janeiro) looks like modern abstract art, and Isabel Duprat's design for the BankBoston building in Sao Paolo.

Both of these are featured in a book by Roberto Silva called "New Brazilian Gardens: the legacy of Burle Marx" (Thames & Hudson pub.). It's the hands-down best landscape design book I own or have ever seen. I found it at The National Gallery in DC this summer.

jenny

I actually cut and copied the quote with the name attached, sorry ginny. The thoughts surrounding the quote are, however, my own. Other than to correct spelling or to express amazement at the topic do you have anything you would like to add that might further someones understanding?

"Wow, man!" - Tommy Chong

Meaning what Andrew?

The artist who put up the orange banners was Christo and his wife Jeanne Claude. I've never seen Central Park or Christo's work there but thirty years ago I lived in Sonoma County, Ca. I was sixteen and there was this artist named Christo who had a plan to put up a 30 mile billowing white canvas fence running through the rough and tumble Northern California hillside until making it's way to the Pacific and plunging down the rocky cliffs into the ocean.

I think the concensus of those of us who lived there was that the guy was crazy but I was fortunate to be able to ride in a small plane over this "fence" before it was taken down. Was it art? I don't know, but thirty years later I still remember it.

Maria

I have always loathed the work of Christo, which I had to study in an elective "art appreciation" course when I was at State U. To me, art involves a mastery in rendering in some material -- paint, clay, stone, wood, plants, whatever -- along with some measure of aesthetic content. Wrapping buildings in canvas or plastic just doesn't seem to fit my perhaps-rigid perspective.

Dang. Now I feel like I should have quoted someone, but I don't remember a thing my art appreciation prof said. Except about a sculpture of a young couple making out in the back seat of a Chevy, but I won't go there. Here's something else instead --

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we have a full tank of gase, a half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark out and we're wearing sunglasses.

Hit it!

-- Blues Brothers