Good Afternoon,
Since my garden is a so-called "strolling garden" (in my mind), I check the appearance of stone situations from any approach angle. Sometimes if I forget to do this, I'll get one really satisfying arrangement and then later I see that I hate it from another angle. The "top down" aspect is least important in my way of thinking, and I concentrate mostly on an eye-level view (i.e. slight downward angle) whilst walking the paths. When you get them all correct (each instance of a setting) there is no better sense of satisfaction.
I have some problem with all of this since the garden is on a distinct slope (about a fifteen foot drop-off over thirty feet) and is moving towards the creek. Each spring I have to "reset" many path stones and never get them all level. For me, this adds to the so called "rustic" appearance. I do keep them safe, however. Even this afternoon, I'm having to arrange some sort of retaining wall (about five feet long) to stabilize the soil enough to get some juniper ground cover to take hold.
Dave

Firstly, there is huge assumption that Henrik's 'the art of placing stones' is one and the same as Herb's 'positioning rocks'. Art is very difficult to explain in pragmatic terms so, to describe something as a "painting of sunflowers with a whirling blue sky behind it" hardly explains it at all. Even more difficult: explain how to replicate that painting or that stone arrangement. If you see the arrangement of stones as a picture, to be viewed from a fixed position, it is one thing and if the garden is a place to be in then the stones take on a different significance and are another thing.

I've seen rock compositions in Japan that looked good from many angles. It's obviously not an impossible challenge to create such a thing.

Hi Herb et al - I've spent most of the last year in Asia away from GW but it looks like some familiar names and topics are still here.

Some gardens only allow a single view of a stone arrangement, making other views irrelevant, but if more angles are possible, they should be considered. I would also caution that stones look very different in different conditions (wet, dry, weathered), and in different light (different times of the day and different seasonal light). I don't see how "garden builders" can come in and place all the stones in a day or two - it always takes me a year or more to feel that a stone is really settled.

Hi Herb,

Every rock is placed while the designer is actually standing, or always considering, the chosen view point for a particular rock or grouping.

Of course every rock has a top, bottem, left, right, front and back. To place a rock without the front facing the right way is just incorrect, and yes any good rock placer sees the same spirit in any given rock, as such they would have the front facing the viewing position, what may vary is the viewing point and/or the rocks' actual place in the garden.

While placing a rock the other sides are considered, sometimes two views of the same rock, or a wider angle view of the rock are important, seldom would a rock look good from all sides, further, seldom would a designer want to create a sitiuation where people are walking all around the rock as though on a pedestal. That's not to say a rock is not seen from the back (weak side) it just woulden't be a prominant part of that angle. Things like ocean views, lanterns, plant materials or structures take the importance of that view of the rock away.

Hi Loius, the ability to place all the rocks at once during construction is a difficult skill and certainly a lot of thought is done befor the procedure is started. A big part of that skill is that when the garden is completed the rocks look as though they always were.

Gerald

Herb, I think these are two different forms of stone arrangement. One of these can be viewed from many directions, as in a courtyard surrounded by walks. It should have stones selected and arranged for enjoyment from all these views. A bonus is to have each perspective provoke a different response. But an arrangement viewed only from one or two directions can and should be concieved and set for these views. I know I have oversimplified here.

One problem I run into using the native stone here, sides of the stones that have had less exposure are distractingly white in an omni-directional setting. I have found that chemical staining works very well. Most often, I use manganese sulfate to color these areas, as well as patch up the unavoidable scratches that occur when you transport stones much larger than your brain should allow!

Dave, although it is painful and seems a waste, it sounds like your path stones should be 3 or 4 times the thickness you have. Even in flat pathways, my idea of good stones are 10 to 12" thick with only 2 or 3 inches (depending on the style) extending above the surface. Heavy, hard to find, hard to set, but last a loooong time!

I think that rocks standing up on end look jarring and artificial. So I'd say that one major goal is to strive for a horizontal feeling.

The view(s) always dictates the rock arrangements, itÂs obvious, so I donÂt know for sure why the question is put.

Saying this, the first thing to do is always to determine the view points. Whether this one or more points is not relevant to the question.

Second thing is to determine the (various) group(s). Whether this one or more groups is not relevant to the question.

Third thing is to set the main, normally the biggest stone within each group.

Fourth thing is to set the next stone within the group, according to the "requesting moods" of the "former" stone(s).

Fifth thing is to repeat step four untill all stones are settled down.

Another approach is to make a photograph of the best side of each stones, make a lay out of the garden and play around with it on papers or on screen. Has somebody done this ?