Comment: Bad role models for landscape architecture
In the first of a six part series on how bad design concepts can get projects off to a false start, Tim Waterman explores the shortcomings of the 'Inflexible Abstraction'...
Many a landscape student's bête noire is the concept – the 'big idea' that drives the design. Ultimately, any site's big idea is its context and how that fits with its possible programme. Many design concepts actually prevent landscapes from functioning, and this series of short articles looks at a few of the ways projects can get off to false starts or come to bad ends.
Bad concept no.1: The Inflexible Abstraction
Gazing into the stars or pondering the philosophical ineffable can inspire us to try to express universal truths or fascinating theories about the nature of life or the stuff of the cosmos. This is a deeply human goal, but one that can go badly awry when applied literally to site design. Forms derived from speculations unrelated to site can die on the drafting table and then be delivered stiff and stillborn onto a site.
Charles Jencks is the current master of the inflexible abstraction and thus serves as our first bad role model for landscape architecture. Much work has been inspired by his curvaceous forms, which can be photogenic, but when students try to recreate his methods they find their designs are little more than cake-decorating across the surface of the site.
Indeed, this is usually what Jencks's works do. His landforms strive towards a 'universal iconography' while expressing 'local, national, and cosmic history'. This is accomplished by, for example, creating a pond in the shape of Scotland. The world is shrunk into a grain of sand as black holes commingle with quarks and Higgs bashful boson. Pages 20 and 21 of Jencks' new book The Universe in the Landscape illustrate just how stiffly representational his work can be. A swirl of warped-grid paving curves into a massive concrete vortex. Visitors have been provided with a handrail so that they can resist the supergravity at the event horizon. Hang on tight!
Readers of Jencks's new doorstop, should they be able to persevere beyond these initial pages, will be treated to a carnival of horrors, the most striking of which is an enormous landform in the shape of an earth goddess to be known as 'Northumberlandia', who, while not an actual local, national, or cosmic deity, is representative of one. She looks uncomfortable in her role. Northumberlandia's hypertrophied breasts thrust into the sky while she lies in a twisted contraposto and raises a cold, dead hand in benediction. The icing on this particular piece of cake-decoration is that the artist saw fit to fashion an enormous mythic female form out of slag. Some day tourists will wave smugly from her hoar-frosted nipples.
A concept should give us a way of working with the landscape, not on the landscape. The projects illustrated in The Universe in the Landscape are models for concept-enslaved art imposed on the landscape, thus they are destructive models for landscape design.
Tim Waterman is honorary editor of Landscape and is a lecturer in landscape architecture and urban design at Writtle School of Design
*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the contributor and not necessarily those of the Landscape Institute.
Latest headlines
- Comment: Bad role models for landscape architecture Part III
- Rethinking HS2
- HASSELL makes top three in CERN competition
- GLVIA consultation to launch on 15 February
- Join Defra’s Civil Society Advisory Board
- Eight landscape projects shortlisted for 2012 Civic Trust Awards
- Cheltenham Design Festival 2012
- OLIN to create a city garden in Aberdeen
- Zhengdong Transit Hub win for BDP
- LI event focuses on improving open space in the affordable housing sector
- LI to launch Guide for Clients at Ecobuild
- Power and motion
- A new vision for Queen’s Jubilee Gardens
And I suppose you would have the same opinion of Picasso.
What is wrong with landscape design as a pure art form, pushing boundaries, stretching minds?
Get a life Tim.
Show us what you’ve designed, and more importantly, built.
Thank you for a thought-provoking comment, with which I disagree: (1) I don’t regard Jencks work as Abstract (2) in his own terminology, it is Postmodern and, I would add, ‘Post-abstract’ (3) but nor is Jencks work Functionalist, while much of what landscape architects do falls into this category (4) I fully understand why so many clients are turning to Jencks instead of to landscape architects: he is carrying forward the nexus of artistic ideas from which the landscape profession arose. As suggested on Talking Landscapes last year, I would like to see him being invited to become an Honorary member of the Landscape Institute.
For more info see: http://www.gardenvisit.com/garden/northumberlandia_landform_design_charles_jencks
From time to time Jencks may have turned a deaf ear to the Genius of the Place. But he has been listening to her at Cramlington.
Think this article should be re-titled ‘What lecturers are sick of seeing in student sketchbooks’.
Personally, I quite like Jencks’ work - it’s simple and is “what it says on the tin”. Hope Schwartz is next on the list…
Ian McHarg wrote a great book years ago “design with nature’. The basic thesis being to design within the site context. I have seen so many abstract concepts plonked down with no regard to what is around the site. I will desist from mentioning any names
People seem to imagine that what you will experience on site is what you can see gazing down at the drawing in the studio.
Having said that, a bit of humour and light heartedness is always welcome in a design
“Forms derived from speculations unrelated to site” are surely an essential part of the design process. The temple gardens at Kyoto don’t use gravel to minimise maintenance; nor is Castle Howard just a series of fun pavilions in good riding land. I think Jenck’s Garden of Cosmic Speculation is ambitious, visually stunning and in the main sustains the conceit - it was a breath of fresh air when completed. But I also think Northumberlandia is populist tosh and I wish the county name had not been bastardised to imply a culturally authentic link that just isn’t there.
One works; the other doesn’t. The proof is in the pudding and not in the methods of the chef.
I would agree with Tom turner, and also think the title does not aptly describe the content.
In simple terms, Jencks is a good designer badly copied.
Others who spring to mind are meis van der rohe, Warhol or Henry Moore, who have had a clarity of vision and a key signature style. All have fallen foul of bad facsimilies which de-value the original. Copying jencks work is testimony to the vision he represents, Cosmic speculation theories aside, the work carried out in portrack and in Edinburgh have created true destination landscapes.
Does jencks ask to be a role model? Perhaps not, but don’t role models stem from brilliance in their chosen subject? Inspire others? Forward their profession? Is it correct to then knock them off the pedestal?
Great preface !
Jencks has always struck me as polemical and provocative. He has kudos and conviction in his writing, architecture and now it seems landscape intervention. The output is tabloid, but has a rationale that must srike chords with clients or patrons, otherwise he would have realised nothing. We live in (are hanging on to) a society of free speech Landscape architecture is a creative, academic prpfession of expression therein. Jencks may or may not emerge as a maverick brand of short term castles in the sand. However to have built means to have installed in the memory for better or for worse
The juxtaposition of horizontal and vertical landscape elements and the symbiotic osmosis of visually symbolic synthesis with the linear squential orchestration of tension nodes in the mass void complex are stimulating.
I think a more honest title for this article would be, “I don’t like the work of Charles Jencks, and it really bugs me when undergrads copy him.”
While I wouldn’t have agreed with this position, I think it’s not an unreasonable view. But what does irritate me, is that an opinion piece is being passed off as established knowledge on the design process!
As it happens, I rather agree that poor design is most commonly a function of inadequate consideration of site and context, but that doesn’t mean that I think that good design in landscape architecture only derives from consideration of the site. Whilst I personally believe that a study of site context is important, I’m also aware that the rationale for this is a bit flimsy, if not bogus. What we consider as context is highly selective and typically based on own taste and values.
As I see it, there is a spectrum of design approach, based crudely on how much comes from the designer and how much comes from the site. It’s pretty obvious where the likes of Charles Jencks and Martha Schwartz sit along this continuum. However, neither perspective is right or wrong. Designers must themselves judge how the design balances new and old, internal and external, evolution and revolution.
I think Jencks work in landscape architecture is a rare spark of innovation, in a field that is otherwise dominated by apologetic rationalisation, rather than ideas. I guess that building a giant landform woman is a bit crass, but it’s also sound like fun and will no doubt stretch many people’s understanding of landscape. I suspect we could argue about the merits of this at length, but personally, I’m looking forward to having my picture taken standing on the aforementioned hoar-frosted nipples!
What a breath of fresh air from Tim. Common sense in plain english.
‘Garden of Cosmic Speculation’, ‘Northumberlandia’, ‘Spirals of Time’..yeauch..!
Expensive kitsch, innit, and parading as profundity, to boot..
The problem for me not being abstraction (although I’d defend TW’s use of the
term in its proper sense of reduction to essentials or schematisation),
it’s the painful naffness of it all…
What a great article. Jencks is provocative, post-modern, abstract and has a distinctive style. But is his work landscape architecture? Is it land art? Hearing him describe his own work recently I realise it was neither. His work is naively considered and poorly developed. If his work says anything at all it is only about form. Nothing else.
He is worlds away from great landscape thinkers like McHarg, great landscape artists like Smithson or great landscape architects like James Corner.
Honorary member of the LI. I don’t think so.
I’m glad to see this kind of article crop up in the news feed, well expressed opinions on design, I’ll be looking out for the next parts in this series.
I agree with others – that Jencks’ landscapes are the equivalent of Catwalk fashion. Whilst I’m not a huge fan I appreciate that he’s working on a cultural rather than purely technical level, and I’m glad they exist,
I too had the rare opportunity of designing a park that was built as a result of open cast mining. I like to think I consulted the genius loci and created a landform that nestled into the edge of the Durham Magnesian Limestone Plateau with the Tyne and Wear Lowlands to the west. The park has rolling hills to the east, fields and wetland to the west surmounted by Brownian clumps of woodland with hill tops kept clear as they have been since the Bronze Age in these parts. Slot in an amphitheatre in the classical tradition which nods towards the nearby Penshaw Monument (a nineteenth century classical folly, a replica of the Erectheion, a temple on The Acropolis, where did that come from?) and the park fits in a treat. It is called Herrington Country Park in Sunderland. It functions moderately well and is very popular with the locals. Even won a BALI award!
However more power to Jencks’ elbow I say. There is room for both approaches. Northumberlandia wins hands down in publicity terms if that’s what the client wants.
2 miles from Herrington Nearby there are two Magnesian Limestone hills with the archaic name Maiden’s Paps, now if only I had picked up that cue I could have beaten Jencks by 10 years.
Nothing against Jencks, but “concepts” and “themes”, beloved by clients are the bane of my design life. Especially once all the elements that actually tie the design to the concepts are deleted courtesy of the maintenance departments. If only “good design” could be sold as a concept ...
I simply do not understand why we, as a profession first and (ha, ha) a learned society second, should want to distance ourselves from a man who has done so much to challenge the modern idea of a park or garden.
I remember that Tschumi’s Parc de la Villette
astonished us at its competition win in 1982; yet now we see its faults. But his design at the time was wholly original spatially, conceptually and as an example of method. I think the same can be said of Jenck’s better work at his garden in Dumfrieshire.
Who among us would not hope the same could be said, one day, about our work?
And who among us would deny that it that is hugely unlikely?
The man has achieved something by a singularity of approach. OK sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. We make ourselves look foolish by rubbishing or denying the contribution he has made.
...but I think I agree with Nigel!
Let’s not deny the seduction of forms that Jenck’s work provides. Much of it is well made and beautiful. But is this what 21th century landscape aspires to?
At the Garden Marathon in October last year, Jencks described part of his project at Cern (http://www.charlesjencks.com/#!projects-cern) as raising questions that were difficult to answer. He went on to describe how he then proposed a landform in the shape of a question mark. This, for me, is enough to demand that he sticks to making beautiful private gardens and does not touch the public realm again or get up in public to explain/write about them.
There is a place for some of his type of work - but it should not be considered as having said or done anything significant for landscape architecture.
Another badly written article which only sheds negative light on the industry. Let’s show off how good we are as landscape architects and stop wasting time nitpicking at other professionals work. We can learn from mistakes but this kind of article just aims to limit our creativity and imagination. Chin up Tim and stay positive!
As a humble (retired) landscape manager, I wish I understood what you are all on about. The important thing to me is that the design meets the need and pleases the users, what ever the original concept. However a good basic concept is particularly important on a “clean slate” site so that there is a good base for all the detail.
Ask yourself why Jencks’s work is so prone to impersonation by undergraduates. It is because it has undeniable impact. As a first year undergraduate I went to one of my first tutorials clutching a faded print out of the Garden of Cosmic Speculation. Two further years of study have altered how I approach his work and my opinion of it, but I would still argue that it has its merit.
The adventurous zaniness of his creations should inspire students to not to be confined by perceived limitations of what landscape architects can produce. Students will inevitably attempt to imitate such things, producing work with various degrees of crassness and vulgarity. I myself plead guilty. But at the end of the day, this is part of the learning process. Experience quickly teaches us the insincerity of designs which totally disregard their context. Jencks’s approach is not necessarily the correct one, but in any design profession I believe that introduction to the widest range of styles and techniques will result in the most competent designer. Nine times out of ten the ‘inflexible abstraction’ approach may be inappropriate, but if it occasionally produces something strong and original who are you to judge the process by which it was created?
I have put a comment on the LI’s restricted-access Talking Landscape Forum http://talkinglandscape.org/forum/topics/a-publishing-policy-for-the-li?xg_source=activity. It notes that ‘Another way of looking at this is since the comment from Tim Waterman is under the News tab on the LI website, his provocative Opinion is likely to be read the official view of the Landscape Institute.’
I would have to agree entirely with Jonathan Clarke in the more apt title to this poor piece of conjecture: “I don’t like the work of Charles Jencks, and it really bugs me when undergrads copy him.” Some might even add something about feelings of professional inadequacy.
Mr Waterman, I am not aware of your design pedigree - which I’m sure to attain such a lofty position as an editor of “Landscape”, must be second to none - but I would hope, that as being, as far as I can see, a representative of the LI in this article, you might consider writing the future articles as what they are: your opinion.
I cannot disagree with the comments above that genus loci and functionality are very important in any space designed by a Landscape Architect, but what of Landscape Art? What of expressing something beyond the basic layers of the Landscape? What of appealing the the human psyche? I would greatly regret if our profession became so fearful of pushing the boundaries due to the negative critism that will surely result, that we are reduced to a trembling huddle of paint-by-numbers, box-ticking draftspeople. And I’m sorry Tim, but who are you to be telling a whole profession what is right or wrong. Yes, conceptual thinking is difficult for newcomers to design - we all know that, because we have all been there… some of us are still there. I can understand that your article was setting out to try and alleviate this problem, but by ridiculing “unconventional thinking”, students and professionals alike will be reduced to slavish functionality. But at least the Landscape Managers will be happy.
Whether I like Jenck’s work or not is irrelevant. I agree with the comment above that as long as attracts visitors, starts discussions (especially those as lively as this one), and pushes the boundaries of what is deemed to be Landscape Architecture, can it not be considered successful? Despite the fact that, heaven-forbid, it does not appeal to your sensitivities?
Please don’t add credence to the old addage: “if you can’t do, teach”. I would be very concerned about the integrity of students coming into the profession, after being told by someone in a position of regard, what is good design, and what is bad design, as a matter of fact, rather than opinion. Our whole profession is based on opinion. Some people like it some people don’t. Good design won’t please everyone.
I applaud the attempt to increase the quality of conceptual thinking (and how that is converted to functional design) at university. I certainly do not applaud ther manner in which it was done.
“T Waterman. D. See me”
It should be noted that the series ‘Bad role models for landscape architecture’ is a series of opinion pieces and that the views expressed are those of the contributor and not necessarily those of the Landscape Institute. Future opinion pieces will be labelled ‘Comment’ ahead of the title and will appear under the ‘People’ section of the website.
Criticism and debate have an important role to play and it is good to see the discussion that has emerged over the past few days. Further series are intended over the coming year and, should anyone like to suggest a topic for consideration and be interested in putting their name to a piece, please send your ideas to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Thanks.
Come on chaps, shouldn’t we all be busy working? Old Jenksy’s making a good living during the recession isn’t he? And the frosty nipples, we all want to see those really don’t we….....
Thanks for being provocative Tim, you got the old gardening club mumbling..
Thank you, everyone, for your comments - especially those of you who have the grace to include your real names. I hope the rest of this series inspires the same level of interest.
There are just a couple of general points that I would like to respond to at the moment. The rest will become clear as the series unfolds. I would like to make it clear that I have no objection to landscape art. I believe that art and science dwell together comfortably in great landscape design, and that it is an old-fashioned and very tired notion that one must choose either to be green or to pursue ‘high art’. Our great profession has proven in recent years that it is possible to do both beautifully, and to do it consistently.
My beef with Jencks is not his stance as an artist (or, incidentally, as a critic), nor with his use of curvilinear forms, nor with landforms in general. Nor, indeed, is it an issue of taste. I love seductive, curvy landforms. My worry is that landscape architects might see his flimsy yet wooden concepts as a viable method to create landscape architecture - and landscape architecture should work with site, with science, with art to create beauty, amenity, function, loving, being, dwelling.
In the rest of this series I will look at a variety of projects, artists, and designers, and I will often take a very nuanced view: finding fault with one part of a designer’s process, for example, while I may celebrate another characteristic. It is vitally important that we are welcoming of criticism as a profession, because our work is not, as suggested above, a matter of opinion. It is a matter of measured process, of science, of art, of ecology, and of humanity.