when it tidyness becomes self regulating
-a

The garden is never done. There's always the next season, the next year. That is one of the greatest joys of gardening.

Jo:

I'm not sure a garden can ever be "left as is." Gardens by definition are not natural, thus they usually require some kind of intervention to maintain its "gardenness". To cite some examples, inevitably, a plant, like all living things, will die and require replacement. I feel uncomfortable calling that "maintenance". Trees will grow and their trunk caliper grows with them . . . understory plants that worked when the tree was younger, cannot survive anymore because of shade or nutrient competition.

Then there's human nature, especially when it comes to interests and hobbies. If gardening is your hobby and passion, I find it difficult to believe that you can leave your garden "as-is", anymore than a philatelist can keep his/her stamp collection static or an audio-video enthusiast refraining from tweaking his/her system to achieve the best sound.

specter

Jo-
I have on many occasions had to work in gardens that were beautiful and "finished", to my way of seeing and experiencing. But the owners were not satisfied.

Some want "instant beauty," constantly. Want plants removed and replaced(annuals, perennials, and shrubs!) as there is never enough color. Money and waste are not considerations. Want a "magazine garden" all the time. Don't appreciate quiet times in the garden's seasons. Don't see foliage, buds, bark, wildlife, etc. - only flowers in full bloom. (There should be a good name for this disease . . . . ).

Another thing I come upon quite often is the garden owner who does not like plants to touch. They plant groundcovers or spreaders and then want the bed changed entirely, all plants removed, and new tidy plants installed. Or they want the clumps neatened into the small size planted years earlier. The important thing is that ground is showing all around each plant. There are a good number of people who see their gardens in this fashion.

Also, change for change' sake. "Let's rip everything out and do a new garden. I'm having the entire downstairs redecorated, so we might as well do the garden, too."

G.

When clients ask me when will the garden be finished, I tell them never and it really isn't far from the truth. There is constant change whether you garden in the north or here in the tropics, the garden is constantly changing and you will have to make adjustments to these changes. Your basic plan should hold up but the details around this will change. For me this is what gardening and landscaping is all about. the architect builds his building and once it is finished it is finished --and static. The interior decorator does his job and his work is basically static but our work is ever changing and oh so much more satisfying.... chris

What an interesting thread. In a sense, you're talking about shabby chic in a gardening-sense or about a garden that is charming and beautiful because of its imperfections.

I agree with everyone else that gardens aren't stagnant, but I think there are gardens that exist with gardeners who don't overdo the manicured look or who don't let the rusty gate hinge bother them in the least.

Ginger, your description of some of the owners you worked with makes me shudder.

Also, I hear it's an American "thing" to have ground showing between plants. I read somewhere that British gardeners sometimes shake their head in bewilderment at Americans for our mulch-scapes and bare earth between plants. Is this true?

The bare earth thing makes me nuts. My mother does that, and insists she likes the way it looks. She's more of a plant collector, and sees each plant individually, rather than as part of the whole.

The post that got me thinking was this one:
"we often fail to see the value and beauty of that which is near. I find it amusing that we will laude praise on the starkness of Japanese gardens yet remain totally oblivious to the stark beauty inherent in rural Americana." IB

I realize that every garden changes, whether carefully tended or not. It's a living thing. My question has more to do with the idea that a modern gardener has the time and disposable income to create gardens that would have been inaccessible to the vast majority of people in the past.

As an example, I love old houses, and have seen many pictures of houses with faded paint, ancient plaster, and traces of three different paint jobs visible on the same surface. Sort of the English country house thing, with frayed upholstery in the sitting room and a couple of large stinky dogs on the sofa. Charming. But you know darn well that right after I move in, I'm patching the plaster, reupholstering, and shooing the stinky dogs off.

Here's a photo of a farmhouse. Very pretty, but could anyone of us move in and not plant something on every inch of it?
Jo

Here is a link that might be useful: farmhouse 1940

Are you kidding? With THAT amount of unimpeded sunshine? I'm a shade gardener by neccessity--not choice. Goodness. I could have a cutting garden, some fabulous old roses, and a mixed annual perennial bed...and STILL have shade beds!

melanie/always lived in the woods....

I could have left my garden "as is" about five years ago... then nature happened.

About fifty percent of a 60 year old huge magnolia tree died back. This totally changed the habitat for the shade lovers beneath: cyclamen, hosta, astilbe, ferns, toad lilies...You get the picture. I needed to do a change of habitat.

As often things in a garden go, one change leads to another and another. The American Red Cedar sent to me by my brother became huge over night. (I don't know how that happened.) Now it cast shade on my hardy orchids and mini roses. Time to move more things around, though not the cedar.

The Russian Olive had major leaning issues and the grass could no longer be cut underneath because the leaders were so low to the ground. What else could I do other than make a water feature beneath and plant ferns, hostas, toad lilies about the site?

Needed to make supports to keep the olive tree from toppling over completely. Now I need to plant something to grow up the supports. The clematis under the bedroom window needs to move so a pergola can be made and so on.

Although I did love how my garden looked five years ago, I think it is better now than back then. The day nothing needs to be changed in my garden is the day all the garden has been replaced by plastic or silk replicas. Yuck!

I agree with Melanie, leave all that "potential" vacant? Not a chance!

Honestly, I canÂt say if I could/would leave a simple farm garden exactly as is, even if it were historically correct. Of course, it would depend upon that specific situation. ThereÂs the preservation of a historic garden aspect that vs. the tricky matter of perception and personal taste as to what we each find to be beautiful vs. the argument that nothing is ever static. All valid points whether or not to leave a garden 'as is'.

Gardens are statements, intentional or not, of the people who made/make them. For me, a garden fulfills a promise of what could be and my need to create. ItÂs very like MelanieÂs dreaming of a cutting garden for SayPointÂs 1940 farm garden - taking advantage of the abundant sunshine she doesnÂt have now, and adding what she feels is needed and wanted - to achieve something beautiful. ItÂs finding a balance between historical context and intent, contemporary aesthetics, and what you and/or your clientÂs desire that can be such a tough row to hoe.

I can certainly appreciate a landscape for itÂs stark beauty whether it came from necessity, nature, or choice. But to answer spectreÂs question, it would be difficult to for me to leave something 'as is' unless I already found it beautiful. I can't help imagining the what ifÂs  but IÂm of the Âabundance is my forte persuasion. Though fully appreciated within itÂs own context, simple, bare, and stark is not something I normally gravitate toward which would explain my having a somewhat severe case of horror vacui, 'fear of empty spacesÂ. There was a lot of empty space out yonder on that farm! Not that I loathe 'empty', but for me thatÂs space that could Âbe - adding shape, form, color, texture, something new, different, exciting, more  an extension of who I am and what I perceive as beautiful. I struggle with some of my choices to leave 'space' in my garden, a place for the eye rest from the riot of color and form that typifies what I love. But I concede to some Âemptiness for the good of the composition  finding a different kind of balance within the context of my own garden.

This may sound rather basic and prejudicial (I apologize if I offend) but there seems to be two kinds of ÂgardenersÂ: those who Âgarden and those who Âhave a gardenÂ. Or more simply, those who have a love for beauty, living things, and all the possibilities that a garden may encompass, and those who just donÂt understand. Ginger sounds like she has had a few clients that, unfortunately, fall into that second category but I donÂt think IÂm being presumptuous in saying that most here belong to first group, where our love and passion is truly evident.

I can't see the photo, Saypoint. It says, "Temporary file open error. Display failed." (It said that yesterday when I tried to view it as well.)

I don't know Redthistle, it worked before, I think there's a problem on the website. I'll see if I can find it and repost another way.
Jo

here it is

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:1186231}}

What a beautiful house. Would I add more garden? I don't know.

That bare house says to me "dress me up". I cannot imagine any house that wouldn't look better with a carefully designed garden around it. Its like people, we can get up and rush out of the house dressed in any old thing or we can dress up and go out and make a statement with the image we present. That house could make a statement if it had a garden-- history or not.