In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

130 haRoLd a. capaRN thoughts on Planting Composition (1929) From Landscape Architecture 19, no. 3 (April 1929): 141–56. The frame of mind that is prone to classify things, that is, to group them in their proper relationship, is constructive and helpful so long as this is done to promote thought, but not if it is done to evade thought, to pigeonhole things that should not be pigeonholed, so that places for them can be settled without further consideration. If it is done to simplify a general subject by resolving it into its component parts in their due relation so that it may be viewed and better understood as a whole, the classification is plainly a good thing. It is hoped that the analysis of planting design here attempted may be of the latter kind. Planting Composition, by which is meant the combining of planting material to produce pleasing effects, may be divided into two classes: (1) architectural or formal, and (2) other. By “architectural” planting is meant the use of the material much as the architect uses his bricks or stone. He translates walls, arches, columns, obelisks, pylons, and even sculpture into terms of vegetation . But as soon as we leave the architectural manner we reach a different set of conditions. Nothing is on axis, though everything should be subtly balanced. Symmetry is disagreeable, though that stability of composition which gives a sense of equilibrium, and which alone satisfies, must govern. Irregularity and a certain unexpectedness are pervading, though repose is essential. Variety is orthodox; restlessness and confusion are tabooed. Simplicity must prevail, though elaboration be everywhere. These generalities will hardly be denied, but they are not of very much use, either to the planting designer or his critics , without more specific application to examples. Fortunately, these may be found in all good works of landscape design in an informal manner, and in the works of nature wherever man has not interfered with them. Planting designers have obtained their ideas and their inspiration primarily from thouGhts on PlantinG ComPosition 131 two sources, (1) the works of Nature, and Nature modified by man, and (2) the works of painters. Inasmuch as the painters got their inspiration originally from the works of Nature, selecting from them such subjects as seemed paintable and worth recording, it might appear that their works may be neglected in the present discussion ; but second thought will show that they may be of value as indicating interpretations of natural conditions by trained and gifted brains and hands. We live in a mathematical Universe. The stars and planets move in calculable orbits at calculable distances, and in calculable periods of time. All have mathematical forms. All are interdependent, and obey the laws of periodicity, and perhaps of recurrence. As above, so below. Our earth revolves on an axis, and every part of it, from a grain of sand to a mountain, contains a line which, if supported, would maintain it in equilibrium. This earth and all its parts depend for existence and progress on a vast series of balances under the law of compensation . Everything, from a cloud to a butterfly , has a middle and two sides. All things tend to compensation and mutual adjustment , if not in one form, then in another, from the forces that control the weather to those which influence human action. The whole vegetable world exemplifies this. From a round trunk of generally symmetrical structure are suspended branches arranged to keep it in equilibrium considering the weight of leaves, the wind pressure and the other forces that we do not understand . Every branch and twig is a replica of the trunk, but rooted in the trunk instead of in the soil. Leaves are constructed on either side of a central rib, and the sepals, petals and stamens of a flower are disposed round the axis of the stem, not in perfect symmetry, but so as to produce a mental impression of symmetry. This impression, far more vital and interesting than if the symmetry were “perfect” is produced by perfect balance, not by duplication of size. When man emerged from his caves and began to construct things for himself for which there was no original to copy and no precedent in Nature to follow, it was inevitable that he should be impressed, or rather controlled, by the universal law of symmetry and balance. So he built his structures with four sides and made their doors and windows of the same general shape. In fact...

Share