TV and Radio聽 permalink
Rachel de Thame Causes Uproar
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
We鈥檝e had Diarmuid Gavin vs Bunny Guinnes, Gavin suing Andy Sturgeon and now Rachel de Thame takes on the Garden Design Profession at, of all places, the Chelsea Flower Show! She claims that formal training is not necessary to design a garden for the Chelsea Flower Show. Its another year and another controversy. There's more here here via this link to an article in the Daily Telegraph Gardening Section:
I have given RdeT the benefit of the doubt for many years but no longer. The Chairman of the Society of Garden Designers sums it up 鈥淧erhaps you can present a television programme on plant care without knowing about plants by reading a script.鈥
"But it's a ludicrous idea that you can design a garden without specialist knowledge and understanding of the material required."
The Society of Garden Designers was established in 1981 to promote excellence in garden design. Registered members and fellows undergo a rigourous selection procedure prior to which they have undergone years of training and experience. RdeT renders it all worthless.
I now wonder at the agenda of the RHS. This whole saga underpins my long held suspicion that the best designers aren鈥檛 necessarily the ones who get to show case at Chelsea. The organisers look for established names who can generate sponsorship and publicity and in whom they have confidence that they can bring their project in on time, on budget and to the required standard and, let's face it, a glamorous TV presenter puts bums on seats. R de T admits she asks for and gets plenty of help both technically and horticulturally from her contractors and nursery. No doubt she does. I hope, for her sake, that her garden meets the reguired standard.
I also suspect designs submitted to the RHS need to be slewed to meet the criteria of the RHS Committee to stand the best chance of selection -but that鈥檚 another discussion.
Any thoughts anyone? -
Message 2
Posted by William (U2169036) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
In my opinion there are several issues underlying this controversy
One is the rather protectionistic behaviour of the chairman of the society of garden designers, in defence of the standards set by his society.
And though it may be that all those 'formally trained' to the standards of the Society are excellent garden designers, it does not mean that only those can be excellent garden designers....
Some great artists / actors / designers have been kicked out of art school or have never bothered to apply. Knowledge and skill can be gathered and compiled in more ways than formal training.
Another aspect might be phrased (to paraphrase Lord Acton): Commercial interest corrupts, commercial dependence corrupts absolutely.
Gardening shows have become big businesswith the side effect of partially attracting (enlarged) ego's. The RHS might be attracted to the global warming of the spotlights thus getting somewhat detached from its long standing roots.... With a big risk of becoming floppy if the spotlight turns it attention elsewhere..
But these are just reflections from the other side of the herring pond... -
Message 3
Posted by TallyHo (U2364821) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
The RHS might be attracted to the global warming of the spotlights thus getting somewhat detached from its long standing roots.... With a big risk of becoming floppy if the spotlight turns it attention elsewhere...聽
Like their centenary rose 'Wisley'? I bought this one at RHS Wisley and was entranced by the colour and scent, but every single rose was 'floppy' (the stem wasn't strong enough to hold the flower upright).
I thought I must have been doing something wrong for years with it, i.e. planted it in the wrong place, not fed it enough etc. etc., until I read in the 'Garden' that they'd bred a replacement which didn't flop. -
Message 4
Posted by pootles magnet (U11709665) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Personally I don't see why Chelsea shouldn't choose to have a few star names - it's a show after all. Yes, it's about gardening excellence, but it's also about entertaining the entrance fee paying public - and if they would rather see an inexpert garden by a well-known name, than a perfect garden by an expert, where's the harm?
After all, the 麻豆官网首页入口 give the Chelsea flower show a huge amount of promotion, which doubtlessly increases visitor numbers and therefore exposure for all the other garden designers, nurserymen etc. All round benefit if you ask me! -
Message 5
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
I think there are two questions here.
Can somebody without horticultural qualifications design a beautiful garden?
Should somebody without horticultural qualifications be designing for Chelsea?
In a brief answer to the first I think the answer is clearly yes. My horticultural knowledge was gleaned from a couple of D.G. Hessayon's and more so from reading these boards but a lot has been expensive trial and error which having a bit more knowledge might have avoided. I have designed my own garden which I believe to be beautiful and my planting schemes are based on an 'artistic' understanding of colour and texture - which is, I think, where Rachel was coming from. However, should I have paid a designer to do my garden (a possibility if my garden was larger) I would expect them to be qualified and have a good knowledge of all things horticultural as well as an artistic vision and to design me something which would withstand the test of time.
In terms of Chelsea it should be entirely about gardening excellence. There are other shows, Hampton Court, Tatton, etc. where inexpert gardens and celebs make them more generally entertaining (and quite often a lot more enjoyable). Chelsea is THE flower show and my expectation is to see the absolute top Designers showing innovative and exciting gardens. If I was going to a Milan Fashion Show I would expect to see creative, individual, conceptual clothing - not something I would ever wear or could get in M&S. My gripe with Chelsea is that in recent years the gardens have started to look less than perfect and more aimed at pleasing the masses.
I'm sure that many people who have spent years training are deeply hurt by Rachel's comment that they could make Chelsea without having bothered. Although it's probable that whatever she said has been taken out of context to provide a newsworthy story. However the fact is that she has been given a fantastic opportunity to do a Chelsea garden and whether it turns out to be stunningly beautiful or not the fact is that we will be left with the idea that she was only the ideas person and others followed it through to the final production and also that her "gardening celebrity" status may have had something to do with her inclusion. -
Message 6
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
In my opinion there are several issues underlying this controversy
One is the rather protectionistic behaviour of the chairman of the society of garden designers, in defence of the standards set by his society.
And though it may be that all those 'formally trained' to the standards of the Society are excellent garden designers, it does not mean that only those can be excellent garden designers....聽
The reason I think he feels so strongly is because the garden design 'profession' compared to say architecture or landscape architecture is still pretty much in its infancy and at present is unregulated. By setting up a body dedicated to and for professional garden designers who have attained a level of competancy The Society aims to fill this regulatory gap. Just as we look to hiring a contractor with a BALI registration or a gas fitter with Corgi registration The Society offers some assurance to the public when they engage a garden designer who is a Society member that they meet a standard.
Some great artists / actors / designers have been kicked out of art school or have never bothered to apply. Knowledge and skill can be gathered and compiled in more ways than formal training.聽
I take your point but what really grates is that if a friend of mine with some horticultural experience and a certificate applied to the RHS to construct a Chelsea garden they would be turned down - no argument. Should RdeT accept the medal she is awarded when the success of her garden has been achieved to a large extent by her supporting team? -
Message 7
Posted by Jenks812 (U5452843) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Well from what I read, RdT is the "designer" of the garden, so she should certainly accept any awards that come her way.
It's not a garden build award they are giving away.
I also don't read anywhere anything about a "supporting team".
I don't remember any gold medal winner ever saying they did it all themselves or any to that fact that said their support team deserved all the credit.
They designed it, they win it.
But this is coming from a poster who doesn't really buy into garden design. I'm actually with Rachel on this one.
I don't think you need to spend money on a course which teaches you about "focal points" and "sense of adventure".
It's all poppycock to me.
Get some plants, some paths and a few extra bits and if it is pleasing to the eye you're a winner.
The gardens on show at Chelsea say to me that if you've got a sponsor who gives you lots of money you can create something arty.
Who are these gardens being designed for?
Not the average gardener anyways.
Sure we can pick up little bits of inspiration but for the amount of money being spent on them I'd expect a whole lot more inspiration that they've ever given.
Sorry, rant over.
Happy gardening. -
Message 8
Posted by Alexlondon11 (U2577420) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Hi Karen-P,
I think Rachel's comment was very off-hand and not a little condescending.
Of course, it does not necessarily follow that someone with no qualifications cannot create a beautiful garden if they have enough of a creative slant and imagination. What is very important about training is the 'science' of design I think. By that, I mean knowing the materials, knowing how to analyse a site, choosing the right plants for the right place, all those elements in fact that will make not just a beautiful garden, but a sustainable and long-lasting garden that meets the needs of the client.
I sometimes think Chelsea is mostly all style and no substance. Much of the bread and butter of garden design is problem solving, negotiating difficult aspects of an existing garden, negotiating with clients, suppliers, landscapers and of course, budgets. Chelsea offers no such challenges; as I understand it, all your asked to do is stick to the brief.
I read in the papers of an Australian chap, James Durie who's designed a 拢390k garden. Well, I'm sorry, but when you've got a budget of 拢390k for a garden basically the sky's the limit. To me, that borders on the obscene. I wonder how much it cost to fly in all that Australian flora he's so keen to show off? Grrr.
It's a pity that the RHS and Chelsea put so much importance on their show gardens, when they fit so uncomfortably with reality.
One question for you Karen: is it really the case that even if you are qualified and have some experienced you'd get turned down for Chelsea? I thought anyone could apply, as long as they met the criteria.
Cheers. -
Message 9
Posted by William (U2169036) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
quote>I take your point but what really grates is that if a friend of mine with some horticultural experience and a certificate applied to the RHS to construct a Chelsea garden they would be turned down - no argument. Should RdeT accept the medal she is awarded when the success of her garden has been achieved to a large extent by her supporting team? </quote>
hmm I see that means measuring with different tape measures. Which isn't really fair.
The problem with a happening like Chelsea becoming so popular is that it attrackts corporate money that wil sponsor a garden / sports event / concert - whatever. And starts dealing out free tickets to their business partners just to show off, but with no interest in (or knowledge off) the event itself. Not sure about Chelsea and the RHS, but you can see it happen in several sport events where the main sponsors get a bundle of tickets for their employees / relations. And if these turn up at all they sometimes prefer to remain in the well catered vip area (sky box). With the main event turning into some wall papering.... grr
As to the point of the protection of the profession and the regulation. I'm not too keen on over regulating things. With architects, building contractors, electricians and gas fitters, there is a major safety and health issues. Not sure about garden design.
Im not quite sure how things are regulated over here (NL). I believe anyone can call himself garden designer. But Landscape Architect is a protected title.
And I agree with you that it takes a lot more than just planting some pretty plants in a nice pattern to be called a good garden designer / landscaper.
At the bottom of the market - unqualified competition pulls the plugg on the prices for garden designers. And bad quality reflects on the entire business.
Part of the dilemma is that lots of people are willing to spend loads of money on refurbishing kitchens and bathrooms, but only a few on investing in a well designed garden. -
Message 10
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
I don't think you need to spend money on a course which teaches you about "focal points" and "sense of adventure".
It's all poppycock to me.
Get some plants, some paths and a few extra bits and if it is pleasing to the eye you're a winner.聽
If only it were that simple. There's a little more to it than that.
-
Message 11
Posted by Jenks812 (U5452843) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
granted I was over simplifying but I'd be interested to know just how much more there is to it?
-
Message 12
Posted by Bluedoyenne (U2341157) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Karen-P I do understand how galling this must be for those with garden design credentials who have been denied the possibility of creating a garden at Chelsea. But aren't many of the designers at previous Chelsea shows missing 'formal' garden design credentials?
Take Diarmuid Gavin as just one example. I thought he studied horticulture at Glasnevin and I have not read anywhere that he has since studied garden design (apologies to DG if I am wrong here) but no-one in their right mind could say that he isn't a cutting-edge, innovative - if sometimes controversial - garden designer. Even if you don't like his designs, there is no denying that he has pushed the boundaries of garden design more than anyone else in a very long time; he has contributed a lot to the profession of garden design and merited being given the opportunity to design gardens at Chelsea.
So professional qualifications in design don't seem to be a requirement for designing a garden at Chelsea. But that said, RdT is not DG and I I was very surprised to learn that she had been accepted to design a garden there. If, as has been written, the choice of RdT is to get more 'bums on seats' then Chelsea is losing its way and sinking down 'bling bling alley'. Anyone going to Chelsea who is seriously interested in horticulture and garden design will head for the heavyweights of those worlds and give the glitz a miss (I know I would). -
Message 13
Posted by robkb1 (U6563738) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
I have a certain amount of sympathy for RdT on this issue. We all, to a degree, design our own gardens, mostly as a development of what we've inherited when we move to a new home. And we all learn as we go along, trying and discarding planting combinations and structural features. This is a constant process as we learn more and more, and no garden (outside the shows) is ever truly finished.
As for the 'celeb' issue, as far as I know neither Monty Don or Sarah Raven are formally trained in garden design, and yet I can see (from the photo's in their books and in person at Sarah Raven's open days) that they both have beautiful gardens. These are both people who combine an enthusiastic approach with (in my opinion) a natural aptitude or 'eye' for hard landscaping and good-looking combinations of plants. Perhaps RdT has these qualities - I haven't seen her garden so can't comment yet - and her project will be a success, but I think it's fair to say that people who can do this are in the minority. (And yes, I know neither Monty or Sarah have show gardens at Chelsea).
However, I do feel that gardens such as Monty Don's and Sarah Raven's are probably exceptions. I'd hate to have to design a garden - show or otherwise - from scratch without any proper training, and should I ever have the need (and the money!) to employ someone to design a garden for me, it's comforting to think that they would have some kind of formal qualification along with a portfolio of previous projects and design ideas that I could look at before making a decision to part with my cash. So I also sympathise with the Society of Garden Designers, who is only trying to protect the interests of his members - and after all, isn't that what all professional bodies are supposed to do?
Apologies if this comes across as slightly garbled - I don't usually post on these boards but this is something I've been thinking about since the story was in the news at the weekend. I'm very interested to read what other people think about this...
Cheers,
Rob. -
Message 14
Posted by blodau (U3908987) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
I think garden design is probably one of those difficult areas because it falls somewhere between a science and an art.
It has a strong artistic element and, to that extent, I agree that a qualification is not the only measure of skill. If I were to employ a designer, I think I would be as keen to see their portfolio as to see their certificates. It is the case that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if your designer is not on your wavelength then no amount of qualification on their part will result in a garden you will like.
Rachel de Thame has a horticultural qualification and I wonder sometimes if she doesn't suffer from having crossed over from other fields. We don't seem to welcome people changing direction. I'm thinking here of singers who try acting and vice versa. It always seem to be held against them that they started off elsewhere. I wonder if we would be having the same discussion if Mr Titchmarsh were the one designing the garden. It is also the case that having a pretty face does not mean that you don't know your stuff!
It's funny isn't it. This is almost the mirror image of Joe and his allotment but that was a designer daring to do some 'real' gardening!
Maybe the way to look at it is that someone should be judged by their work (as an artist would be) and therefore judgement is reserved until after Chelsea.
As for what Chelsea is all about - gardening in all its miriad of forms?
Blod -
Message 15
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
granted I was over simplifying but I'd be interested to know just how much more there is to it?聽
An overview:
Understanding decorative plants, their effects and use in design.
Thoughts, imagination and vision.
Planning.
Understanding shape, formal, informal and semi-formal.
Philosophy of discipline, organisation, practicality and simplicity.
Understanding garden styles and types.
Philosophy of space, sequence and movement.
Shapes and patterns - primary, secondary and tertiary.
Principles of design - discipline, unity, rhythm, movement, proportion and scale, balance and variety - size.
Surveying - notation, irregular shapes, leveling, site analysis, environmental factors.
Scale and scale drawing.
Design communication.
Keys and labelling systems.
Symbols.
Grids.
Types of plan used in garden design.
Projecting plans - the third dimension.
Perspectives.
Documentation and financial aspects.
Planning.
Schedule of works.
Bills of Quantity.
Costings.
Charging.
Hard and soft landscaping in detail..... I could go on and on and on. -
Message 16
Posted by linda (U1797657) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Hard and soft landscaping in detail..... I could go on and on and on.
Well Karen you forgot aspect, soil condition and soil type, but I agree there's a lot more to it, and looking at your list there's even more than I thought! I know because although I consider myself a good plantswoman I don't consider myself a designer and am envious of those who are. While some aspects of it need to be taught, I do think "design" is a gift you've either got or you ain't. So I agree that credentials are useful but not essential. Anyway, we'll see what stuff RacheldT is made of next week when she unveils her design. -
Message 17
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Well Karen you forgot aspect, soil condition and soil type ,聽
I knew I'd forget something.
-
Message 18
Posted by beejay (U2219592) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Is this a bit like the debate about people such as Kate Moss 'designing' clothes for Top Shop? Is it really design.
I think those people who talk about designing their own gardens are slightly missing the point. Many people do this extremely successfully, producing beautiful & well designed gardens. But you have the luxury of time, being able to make mistakes, learn as you go along, change things dramatically or fiddle around as you want as you feel that things work or not, ask other people for help or opinions, the list goes on.
Garden designers on the other hand generally are having to work to a brief (which may well entail extracting information from the client about what they want or don't want when they may not be able to verbalise it very clearly), work to a time limit & a set budget & be able to clearly instruct builders/gardeners/landscapers as to what is required.
As usual, Chelsea can be completely un-representative of the real world & is like the Milan or New York fashion shows. The briefs may not be realistic (for the big gardens anyway) - I mean who is going to be designing a garden on Mars just yet & can be complete flights of fantasy. Sponsors are important. It is all a bit of a showcase & should be enjoyed as such. R de T is part of that showcase & to an extent good luck to her - if she has people who are willing & able to help her achieve her 'design' then all well & good, but I think that generally the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus who wants someone to design his garden would be best advised to chose a properly trained/qualifeied designer who can show that they can produce something the client is happy with. -
Message 19
Posted by matthew_wilson-hc (U10841453) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Hello
Well said Beejay. Chelsea is exactly about flights of fancy in the same manner that Milan and Paris fashion shows are. It isn't supposed to be about what would work in a 'normal' garden - although often many of the designs would work in a domestic setting - it's about ideas. You wouldn't wear half the stuff that gets paraded down the fashion show runways (at least not without being arrested) but over the months those ideas then filter into mainstream fashion. So it is with Chelsea show gardens.
As for Rachel's comments, it depends on the context in which they were made. If she meant that everyone can dream a garden, i.e. visualise something, then I'd say that's fairly reasonable, although what is visualised will vary in quality and style. But no, not everyone can design a garden in the sense that Karen P puts it, in the same way that not everyone can strip down the engine of a Kawazaki Z1000J, design bridges, carry out brain surgery or anything else that requires a specific set of skills and experiences, including vocational and academic components. But let's not forget the media's inherent ability to take comments out of context; Rachel's comments could have been entirely innocent.
I'm lucky in that because of my job I get to go to Chelsea every year for the duration, usually getting there on the Sunday before the show is completed. And I love it. The show is full of ideas, excitement and sometimes controversy, and above all it's entertaining, which is what it's supposed to be.
As for the large sums of money spent, firstly the show is vitally important in bringing money to the coffers of the RHS to enable us to do all our charitable work and outreach activities and run our gardens. And from the sponsors perspective it is cheap advertising directly to their demographic, so rather than splurging several million on a TV ad that benefits no-one they are spending a fraction of that on a garden that can give us ideas and excite us, get more people into gardening and which are frequently 'recycled' into new locations in the UK after the show.
And finally on carbon footprint, yes, it's big. As is every big public gathering from the British GP to the Grand National and so on. But for some reason because it's a flower show it gets singled out in the way that none of the other do. The fact that visitors to the show, and the millions watching it on TV, might then get into gardening or garden in a more sustainable way, thereby in a small way improving the environment, is forgotten.
Cheers
Matthew Wilson -
Message 20
Posted by cornloopy (U11894777) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Karen-P I'm with you re RDT. Was it last year when there was the matching jacket and shoes, and reading a script. Well atleast there won't be any discussions re type of baby feeding. But I must admit, I'm interested to see what her garden would look like. Atleast RDT will be on as a designer and not a new Mother....... I wonder if Shade will play a part.
-
Message 21
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Well said Beejay and Matthew. Chelsea is fun and inspiration and publicity for products, growers and producers, sponsors, designers and does indded generate funds to support the work of the RHS - all positive attributes.
Karen P is also right in aiming for recognition of qualified and skilled garden designers and I hope that shows like Malvern, Chelsea, Hampton Court and Tatton all do their bit to make Joe and Joan Public think about what can be achieved in any size of plot and encourage them to engage professional designers - if they can afford it - or do something interesting with the inspiration of thses shows if they can't. -
Message 22
Posted by hotsunlover (U5664870) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Beejay, I agree with your post wholeheartedly.
We can all lay claims to havng 'designed' our own gardens but working for someone else, for money and with time restraints is completely different.
I have been asked several times to do a 'design' for a customers garden, I feel I am pretty much 'up' to doing border designs and have done so with I think, satisfactory results. I have however, refused to do do entire garden designs. Its a completely different ball game. Until I started gardening as a 'job' I thought Design was difficult but more about artistic flair than anything else. How wrong I was. -
Message 23
Posted by mirandalulu (U4817173) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Like all arts-based activities, garden design is something that can be taught to those who don't have it naturally - think how many painters, writers, poets and composers weren't trained in those arts. No-one should be sniffy about those who are "natural" garden designers (I'm sure we've all met at least one), and people who've spent a lot of money on a garden design qualification have certainly learnt their subject inside out. Some of them will have natural design flair and some of them won't - I think that's the one element (just as in the other arts) that CAN'T be taught. So although their designs might be satisfying on the surface and keep their clients happy (presumably they have neither the time or the interest to do it themselves) they won't have that touch of sheer magic that a "natural"'s garden will. There's room for both, they don't appeal to the same market. I'd go for natural flair over a qualification any time - but then I'd far, far rather do it myself !
-
Message 24
Posted by hotsunlover (U5664870) on Friday, 16th May 2008
garden design is something that can be taught to those who don't have it naturally 聽
But without heart it will never be as good. You can teach style but passion is not learnt. If you have the studied kowledge and the passion then you really have a force to be reckoned with. -
Message 25
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Friday, 16th May 2008
I think the point about a design qualification is that the holder knows what they're doing in terms of hard landscaping techniques, materials, site and legal requirements whereas an amateur could make a serious mistake. Just a tiny one like not sloping terraces away from the house will lead to major problems with damp - for example. Not knowing about how deep and solid or porous to make foundations for paths, terraces
and other permanent garden features can make a huge difference to their quality, durability and safety as well as the way the land drains heavy rainfall.
As for planting, I'd expect a garden designer to know or reearch the plants suitable for a given soil and situation so the client gets value for money rather than a lot of expensive mistakes.
It's different for we amateurs in our own garden as we have no-one to praise or blame but ourselves and tend to achieve our designs bit by bit rather than in one big makeover project so can adapt our ideas to time and budget and changing tastes and needs. -
Message 26
Posted by Alexlondon11 (U2577420) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Dear Matthew,
I understand your position of defending Chelsea against claims of wanton energy waste and money. I'm sure your position is a very rewarding and fulfilling one, so naturally you'll see the good of it.
I'm not saying events like Chelsea shouldn't be about fun and flights of fancy - of course they should; it's a public event. Does fun and fancy really have to cost so much money? Does it really? Why? Please tell me because right now I can't see it. And to argue that it's cheaper than a TV advert is shallow. You may as well say it's cheaper than a submarine. It doesn't mean anything. 拢390k for one garden? Come on. You could house a family of 5 with that, and you should be aware of the thousands of families in sore need of decent housing, let alone a bit of outside space to enjoy.
Ideas don't cost anything Matthew, but turning them into reality does. But that's the gripe I have; It's those who own the means of supplying said materials to create gardens that win out in the end with a massive profit in their pockets.
The whole slant of your point is like a horticultural version of 'Trickle Down' theory. Spend loads of money on entertaining sponsors and suppliers etc, advertising their supplies to the rich; some of it will eventually wash down to the rest in some degraded form or another.
It's good that you can admit that Chelsea is like a Milan fashion show and that the advertising and sponsorship is important for the RHS's charity work; just don't try and claim in the same breath that these approaches actually benefit anyone other than the sponsors, advertisers and super rich because they don't. Charity work, though all well and good, is like a plaster on the wound. It can do a certain amount of palliative care, not remove the actual cause of the wound.
On the note about carbon footprinting; are you actually telling me that because other big events waste huge amounts of energy, it's ok for Chelsea to do so as well? It's a bit of playground argument isn't it? "Well they're doing it, so people should forgive us for doing the same". Time to think things out a lot differently now; the times are changing rapidly and fence sitting is fast becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.
It's precisely because it's a show about the outside environment that Chelsea will attract criticism on energy waste and rightly so!
The RHS is looked up to by many people as the leading horticultural establishment in this country, so you need to take some responsibility.
If you were able to provide hard evidence that shows like Chelsea do get new generations of people into gardening and sustainable gardening, then I suppose you could justify flying in plants from climates vastly different from ours; but I'm not sure that you can somehow.
Ultimately, in a commercialised and globalised economy such as we live in today, Chelsea and the RHS are simply doing what they have to do in order to survive and they need to capitalise on the 'gardening craze' in order to beat off competition. Just have the stomach to admit this, and not pretend that the Chelsea Flower Show has some altruistic mission to save the environment, because if they were really serious about it, I don't believe they would be taking such a cavalier attitude to consumption and expenditure.
Good luck with the preparations however. -
Message 27
Posted by marinelilium (U8293024) on Friday, 16th May 2008
A Master Craftsman, or professionally qualified and certified worker, provides assurance to the client of a recognised level of competence, skill and knowledge. I would no sooner hand over work needed on my family, my car, my home, my garden or myself to the unqualified and uninsured.
The personal indulgences, whims and fancies we like to enjoy with our own garden can be part of a design brief but a Designer would flag up any problems that their professional knowledge brings to the table. Even though 鈥榟e who pays the piper calls the tune鈥 a true professional would advise the client of risks and offer options.
There is a almost an arrogance in thinking we are better placed than those professionally trained in a specific field. Today the access to knowledge has never been easier but it has never been broader either. Nine times out of ten, 鈥淵ou get what you pay for鈥. You will find talented amateurs in all creative arts, art is subjective, but construction, electricity, water ingress, tree roots etc can effect your most valuable asset. Professional work comes with a guarantee that if you are not happy with what you get there is recourse.
As for Chelsea鈥t鈥檚 a four letter word, a SHOW. A spectrum of possibilities; a feast for the senses, a springboard for ideas, an introduction to innovations, new products and services. It鈥檚 for fun as well as business opportunities. It鈥檚 for enjoying the Good, the Bad and even the Ugly.
MLx -
Message 28
Posted by matthew_wilson-hc (U10841453) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Hello Alexlondon
I'm not sure I fully understand your arguement but I'll do my best to address the points you've raised.
Firstly on cost, the figure of 拢390k for the Aussie garden may or may not be correct, and if it is it would certainly make it one of the most expensive gardens ever. But the majority of gardens and nursery displays cost a fraction of that to put on. The comment about cheap advertising is entirely relevant; for the Telegraph or Laurent Perrier (for example) it is much cheaper to stage a show garden and get it on TV and in the press over the course of the week than it is to run a week of TV ads, and rather than this money just disappearing on TV it ends up in a garden, which in turn has the potential to inspire. The cost of staging anything in central London will always be excessive as you will know (from you screen nickname I'm guessing, anyway) so for example just putting up a team of landscapers in even the cheapest hotels will cost double what it does outside of town.
The big show gardens are designed, by and large, from people working at the top of their game who want to make the best garden they possibly can, and that means the best plants, materials and so on. And of course, that costs. If they were not as good as they are then the whole premise of the show would collapse - it is supposed to be about the best, the most wondrous, the most exciting. I can have a lot of fun at a small village fete or county show but then I go there with limited expectations, whereas people go to Chelsea expecting all the above - and more!
I have no doubt that suppliers will make money from the gardens being built but since when was that a crime? I grew up on a nursery and I can tell you we were pretty strapped for cash most of the time, so I certainly don't begrudge nurseries, landscapers and suppliers having a decent pay day once in a while.
I'm not sure the arguement against a 'trickle down' is right, nor is the suggestion that Chelsea doesn't have an impact on influencing people's views. Chelsea will be watched on TV by 3 million or so people every night, feature in every national newspaper and numerous TV and radio news bulletins, not to mention all the gardening magazines. Driving home tonight the first item on Five Live news that I heard was about Chelsea Flower Show highlighting the environmental damage being caused by the paving over of front gardens. So Chelsea has a huge impact and is the single most newsworthy gardening event of the year. If you wanted to reduce its carbon footprint you could; by ending the show and never holding it again. Would that actually help? Around 40% of the carbon emissions in the UK are from domestic sources, and Chelsea palpably can play a part in educating people to do thing differently. How significant is Chelsea's carbon footprint compared with, for example, the population of the UK going to work each day? The answer is infintissimally small.
Finally on the point about the show only benefitting rich people and sponsors. There will be over 80 nursery exhibits in the floral pavillion, of whom the vast majority wouldn't even qualify as modestly well off. Of the show gardens, large and small, many will be designed by first time designers trying to make a career for themselves, which is pretty difficult in garden design. And as for 'rich sponsors', do these include Cancer Research UK, KT Wong Charitable Trust, The Children's Society, Motor Neurone Disease, Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad and St Joseph's Hospice, all of whom are show garden sponsors this year? Or previous sponsors like Help the Aged, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts - I could go on to cover just about every charitable activity sector you care to mention.
Ultimately we should get vexed about waste incinerators, landfill sites, needless packaging, overt pollutors, etc etc. But I do find it astonishing that people seem hell bent on attacking gardening (a totally benign activity) and for the same reason I find it crazy that we should want to beat up on a flower show.
The income generated by Chelsea helps to fund the RHS Flourish programme (developing veg gardens in schools in urban areas) the Gardening for Schools Campaign (over 15,000 school children each year taught, free of charge, at our gardens about plant growth, where food somes from, biodiversity and so on) and thousands more schools up and down the UK given free advice, seed packets, information packs and so on. It helps to fund our scientific work, the management of our gardens, and the support of numerous other activities that have a beneficial impact on green space in the UK. I feel saddened that you seem to be suggesting that this work is pointless.
Thanks for the good wishes and all best - if you are coming to Chelsea then say hello and we can share a cup of tea and a good arguement no doubt!
Matthew -
Message 29
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Oooo going a bit off topic here I'm afraid but I wouldn't call gardening a 'totally benign activity'. I've recently joined these boards and the thing I find striking is how many of the people using the boards are zapping everything they find alive in their gardens that doesn't conform to being a cultivated plant. Animals, insects, weeds, you name it, it sounds like half the beeb's board users are creating killing fields, nevermind benign. The amount of wanton destruction involved in creating and keeping gardens controlled horrifies moi.
Okay, end of diversion, you can all get back to your Chelsea discussion now. -
Message 30
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Good luck Rachel, I for one am looking forward to your design for exactly what it is, Someone who loves gardening and has the opportunity to have a go at designing.
Good Luck, I hope you will look back and say you enjoyed it.
paperwhite -
Message 31
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Hmm, I think I am going to return to this discussion, because there is something underlying Matthew W's comments that concerns me somehow (hello Matthew
). While its great that there will be an effort to show people about sustainable gardening in various guises, I agree with Alexlondon that flying in plants from around the world and stuff is a bit of an eco-problem.
I'm not thinking carbon footies here, in terms of the actual footprint of the show. I'm thinking about the exampls that the actual exhibits and stuff at the show gives people. I'm afraid I've come across a lot of people who are into what's fashionable and what they take away from Chelsea is that they can buy totally unsustainabe plantings/designs and not give a damn about sustainability.
I think its great that the RHS does lots of worthy stuff and that sustainability is creeping into the agenda - I like to think that MW will be someone who champions this sort of from the inside the ranks
.
However I am overcome by a sense of depression each year by these shows, because I feel that the over-riding thing that the majority of watching and visiting millions get out of it, is not to introduce more people to gardening and sustainable gardening, but to turn the whole growing things business into a very unsustainable, consumeristic activity, rather than the wonderfully sustainable, low-eco activity it can be. -
Message 32
Posted by Jungle-all-the-way (U11809934) on Friday, 16th May 2008
Finally a comment worth reading, well said Paperwhite.
I realise there maybe certain issues with hard landscaping and other areas but I really don't understand why you need to get a qualification for something that is totally subjective.
Why should the society of garden designers be the total authority on all that is gardening!
Who put the course together in the first place, were they qualified?
There are many beautiful garden around the world as highlighted in Monty鈥檚 recent programmes and I am sure many of those were developed without this important qualification that everyone is harping on about.
Why has gardening suddenly turned so stuffy!
Good luck Rachel, I hope you blow them away at Chelsea.. -
Message 33
Posted by violetsand (U11932418) on Friday, 16th May 2008
what an interesting subject. I am a trained 3D designer and an novice gardener just 18 months in my new garden! Many points have been raise here about qualifications etc. My two pennies worth is this:
Learning to be a Designer is about the technicalities of design, for example, is it fit for purpose, are the materials used in keeping with the brief, is it cost effective, functional, technically adaptable etc.
What makes something successful is not just the technical stuff but also the artistic interpretation the dsigner has and their creative ability to translate a functional concept into an aesthetically pleasing outcome.
both these areas are taught - the first is easy enough, the second skill - creativity is much harder and involves a lot of critical debate and rigourous examining of the body of work by peers and teachers/mentors.
i agree that there are some individuals who shine without training but i am passionate about my right to call myself a designer because of my years of training and failures as well as successes.
like all art forms, gardening has its ideas platform - chelsea being much like the turner prize, controversial and much debated. but it is successful in helping many to glen ideas, reject things they don't like and generally expose the wider public to the passion of the art of gardening.
sorry for poor grammer and spelling but just felt an urge to contribute!!
Thanks -
Message 34
Posted by Norfolk-boy (U2465679) on Saturday, 17th May 2008
I realise there maybe certain issues with hard landscaping and other areas but I really don't understand why you need to get a qualification for something that is totally subjective. 聽
Hmmm... ask ten people what sensible driving is and you'll get ten different answers, but you can't (legally) drive without a licence.
I have a great deal of sympathy with Karen on this one - it must be galling in the extreme to work your cobs off to gain qualifications and earn a living; then watch some TV totty waltz in and say it's just not necessary. Let's be honest, if she looked like Jade Goody would she have got the sponsorship to do a Chelsea garden? It's the same with Stella McCartney - without that surname she would have been just another struggling nobody in the fashion world, but because her Dad's an ex-Beatle the media treat her like she's Donatella Versace. -
Message 35
Posted by matthew_wilson-hc (U10841453) on Saturday, 17th May 2008
Hello
Well Aspidistra I don't doubt that the show could be more environmentally sensitive, but I do know that the RHS is trying, and encouraging the show contributors as much as possible.
And yes, myself and many others in the RHS have been championing the cause of environmental sensitivity, biodiversity in gardens and so on, and its very much part of the Society's make up now - but like everyone we're imperfect and still learning, and the trouble is that just getting out of bed in the morning is bad for the planet.
I guess that's why I made the comment about gardening being benign (and I do take your riposte about chemical use and so on, but I also think these people are in the minority nowadays) because I just feel we need a bit of perspective on this.
My last point on this is just to say that I have spoken to a few people now about Rachel's alleged comments (whcih started this thread) and nobody seems to think that she actually did make those comments at all. So maybe it's all media spin - unless somebody has it in black and white, first hand?
Cheers
Matthew Wilson -
Message 36
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Saturday, 17th May 2008
Thanks for answering, MW. Re not getting out of bed because of one's carbon footprint, best reason I've come across for ages to not get up on a rainy day. Over and out.
-
Message 37
Posted by budding1 (U2757103) on Sunday, 18th May 2008
The RHS does not stipulate that only people with formal qualifications and design experience can apply to construct a show garden.
To do so would be potentially damaging to the profession and prohibitive to the young up and coming designers.
One can only hope that Rachel鈥檚 garden was accepted due its merits rather than the profile of its designer.
Incidentally gardeners such as Kym Wilde (who appears to lack experience and qualifications) have put their name to gardens before, without an outcry so I fail to see the difference with Rachel.
It must be draining to be constantly attacked by a small band of people because you chose to dress up when your on telly, I suspect the reality is that the same people would choose to attack Rachel if she appeared on telly in a dirty old jumper and jeans.
It鈥檚 a shame that people feel a need to criticise Rachel鈥檚 entry in to the show without even having had the opportunity of a quick glance at the finished garden.
Its also that the event with have a large carbon foot print.
However the show is a vital opportunity for many in the industry to promote themselves and their plants.
Many of the nurseries at the show are small scale British producers, who generally speaking are selling plants produced in a much more sustainable way that the plants on offer in 90% of garden centres and chain DIY stores who import the plant from Holland and mainland Europe. -
Message 38
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Monday, 19th May 2008
Norfolk-boy understands my position exactly.
My last point on this is just to say that I have spoken to a few people now about Rachel's alleged comments (which started this thread) and nobody seems to think that she actually did make those comments at all. So maybe it's all media spin - unless somebody has it in black and white, first hand?聽
Matthew - I very much hope you are right. Her comment did seem over confident for a first timer at Chelsea who hadn't yet faced the judges. I will be at Chelsea tomorrow and I'm looking forward to viewing Rachel's garden. Despite the controvery I wish her all the best. At the very least I admire her guts. -
Message 39
Posted by Kernow Canna (U10937844) on Monday, 19th May 2008
I expect that "not what you know but who you know" will prevail and she will come away with a decent medal. I predict Andy Sturgeon will get a gold too.Look how cheesed off CB was last year when it all went awry.
-
Message 40
Posted by amourjardin (U2357488) on Monday, 19th May 2008
In my humble opinion flower shows (especially Chelsea) are all about showing off, and nothing to do with the love and pleasures of gardening.
-
Message 41
Posted by William (U2169036) on Monday, 19th May 2008
In my opinion Shows like Celsea do have a role in pushing back to frontiers of garden design. Big business sponsorship (attracted to the hot spotlight) opens up new ways with little limitations on the money that can be spent.
So one side of the deal is that it provides opportunities for providing all of us with fresh inspiration - which for most of us needs to be scaled down according to the size of our gardens and wallets....
The other side of the equasion seems to be that these "high profile" - "big business" - "celeb" events also tend to drift off into the somewhat different dimension or reality of "show" and "business".
This sometimes seems to blurr the focus on what it is all about. A bit like the Oscar circus.
Is the focus on garden design or on building on / harvesting from high profile celebreties.
A somewhat strange mix of the bitter and the sweet perhaps.... -
Message 42
Posted by Ken Smart (U1158196) on Monday, 19th May 2008
In my opinion Shows like Celsea do have a role in pushing back to frontiers of garden design.聽
Sorry William, but I disagree entirely with you. 'Pushing back frontiers' is always an easy way to describe things which are usually hellish. Where exactly do you imagine the majority of gardeners actually wish to go? I'm more than happy with what I've created, and keep chipping away year on year (as money and inspiration come to me). The people who do the 'pushing' are only interested in being different - not better. Where design (and good designers) comes into it's own, is when there is a need to start off with a blank canvas, or when someone with a lot of dosh wishes to have a major rehash of a property. In a few years time, someone (who wishes to be different) will be advocating a simple 'traditional' garden layout just like mine, and they'll have a huge following on TV. Meantime, all those who listen to the current pretentious twaddle will be in a big rush to 'get with it' again. It never fails to amaze me how many people have difficulty working things out for themselves these days. -
Message 43
Posted by William (U2169036) on Monday, 19th May 2008
Hi Ken,
It's always a good thing to diasagree....
What I like about art is that the artist 'boldly goes' where no one has gone before, exploring new possibilities, challenging what is commonly regarded as 'good practice' of 'sensible'. To me that is what innovative art and design is all about. So I regard it as a bonus when an artist ventures where the majority (including myself) hasn't been yet or is reluctant to go.
I find that inspirational.....
And in my opinion the stuff that you probably call "twaddle" "To go with it again" isn't challenging but just a mechanism intended to empty peoples pockets. To go and buy the stuff in de garden centre to replicate this weeks TV make over sponsored by that very Garden Centre. The "don't think for yourself bit", but "do as we have thought out for you bit".
Which doesn't mean that the things I find inspirational are practical (or enjoyable) for day to day use (let alone affordable)
On a practical basis I prefer to develop my garden step by step lacking almost any element of design... At the moment the best "design" reward I get in my own garden is a nest of bluetits nesting in a nestingbox I made two years ago out of old timber.
This weekend we watched the chicks leaving the nest.... no work of art can produce the joy one can have watching that....
Glass of win in hand, feet on the table...
On a day to day basis I don't want my garden to be challenging (or a challenge) but rewarding and relaxing. To me that is a green environment with lots of wildlife where I can put my feet up.
Or to cut it short...
I like the way a man like Diarmuid Gavin looks at the garden as a space and what can be done with it.... But I wouldn't let him touch my ownn garden.
BTW I will never forget an episode of Home Front??? where one of Gavins clients insited on incorporating a hen house in the design.... -
Message 44
Posted by Alexlondon11 (U2577420) on Monday, 19th May 2008
Hi Matthew,
I had meant to respond to your post sooner, but the weekend caught up with me.
And thank you really, for having the grace to actually reply to my (rather ranty-ish) post. I appreciate you took time out to reply.
Reading your post, you have listed quite a bit of evidence on the good work of the RHS and for that, I stand corrected.
The cost of the Aussie garden I learned about in the papers, so I took it as fact, but yes, you're right to point out all the major charities that do sponsor gardens and that, of course, is all to the good. I still have major doubts about the expense and the flying in of all that Australian flora, but it does appear to be the exception to the rule.
And I don't begrudge nurseries wanting to earn a living. I have a friend who's just got himself a nursery and I know it's not easy. When I talked of big sponsors lauding it around, I had in mind the major suppliers of hard landscaping materials, quarrying up half the country that go towards paving over people's front 'gardens'. They're the ones that grate me most, because you then see them sponsoring a gardening programme on the cable channels on telly. There's not a small amount of double standards going on there.
The other thing that got me about major suppliers sponsoring a designer to create a big show garden, was the one that won last year about an evening in Mars. It was sponsored by a hard landscaping firm and in a way it was an interesting exercise on how to create with a garden using different kinds of stone; but my question was to what extent was the designer given artistic freedom. It became a fine line between what was the designers own philosophy and an luxurious advert for the sponsor.
Granted, Chelsea is the event of the gardening calendar but you need to be careful in distinguishing between those who genuinely have a concern about the future of gardening and the environment and those cynical enough to highjack it just to make big bucks. At least the debate is opened I guess.
Gardening is an individual, creative and sometimes for the amateur gardener, a solitary experience which is partly why, I think, Chelsea does inflame such passions. It attracts a huge number of people, none of which would agree with everything Chelsea represents, not should they really if we value democracy.
I'm afraid I missed the boat with the Chelsea tickets this year, but thanks for the offer of a cup of tea and a chin wag, that is gentlemanly of you. I'll be going to Hampton Court instead for the first time. I'm all a bit new to this.
Oh, and just for the record, I am an RHS member (surprisingly!), and I do believe in supporting it. It's just I got a bit hot under the collar about all those elements around waste, consumption, money, justice etc.
Good luck this week - hope it all goes well.
alex -
Message 45
Posted by Jenks812 (U5452843) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
well congratulations to RdT for her Silver medal.
Not bad for someone with no design training. -
Message 46
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
I thought she did well from what I could see - which was very little actually as LLB and AT were in the way. I think the silver was appropriate but would like to see a close-up of the planting. For me it lacked originality - I've seen that curved seating area design in quite a few places now and recently in pictures of more than one garden at Malvern. Still lack of originality doesn't stop Diarmuid but then at least he is only re-inventing his own design each year.
-
Message 47
Posted by upthegardenpath (U5327429) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
The proof of this will be next year if the LLewellyn-Bowens get to do a garden - can't wait to see what that looks like!!!! BTW I'm 3/4 ofthe way through RHS Advanced and would not dream of doing a Chelsea garden As there is v.little desing element to the course.
-
Message 48
Posted by hdehoon (U2175617) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
@cynthia: 麓Diarmuid ... is only re-inventing his own design each year.麓
And gets a bronze...I guess he won麓t be at Chelsea again next year. Can麓t affort to get no prize at all... -
Message 49
Posted by Norfolk-boy (U2465679) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
This for me has been a good thought-provoking thread that, from a wholly-justified initial post has explored many aspects of the whole Chelsea package. I'll be honest and say that it does nothing for me - I've always viewed it primarily as something that Oxbridge grads, celebs and wannabes went to along with the Derby, Wimbledon and Henley; so I thank Matthew for taking the time to inform and educate about the more philanthropic aims of the RHS.
In Chelsea week with all its artifice, posturing and fantastical impossibilities it was ironic that I visited Long Whatton gardens just north of Loughborough where the herbaceous border, rhodos and azaleas, arboretum et al - beautiful as they were - were knocked into a cocked hat by the combination of wild garlic, forget-me-nots, pink campion and cow parsley; which stretched through the woods as far as the eye could see. I think it was Sarah Don who wrote in The Jewel Garden that a real challenge for Chelsea designers would be to restrict them to only using plants that were in season... this afternoon as I walked through those trees I doubted if anyone could create anything more beautiful... -
Message 50
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
There once was a trend for Chelsea show gardens to have every single plant in the garden in flower so you would get daffs with rhoddoes with dahlis all in one garden and it must have been an agony of preparation and forcing and holding back to get them all perfect.
I have noted in recent years a trend to have more sesaonal plants and flowers and a more natural look to the planting.
As for the work of the RHS, I can heartily recommend joining. The annual subscription is cheaper than a year's issues of GW magazine and you get an excellent monthly magazine plus free entry to all their gardens as well as others thrown in plus members' days access to shows and free access to all the RHS experts for advice on pests, diseases and plants. What's not to like?
About this Board
Welcome to the new Gardening Board. If this is your first time, then make sure you check out the
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
Weekdays 09:00-00:00
Weekends 10:00-00:00
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆官网首页入口 iD
麻豆官网首页入口 navigation
麻豆官网首页入口 links
麻豆官网首页入口 漏 2014 The 麻豆官网首页入口 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.