The seemingly barren landscape of the rock garden created an illusion of infertility and inaccessibility. The lush forest of the cool temperate room formulated an aura of vivacity and accessibility. Composed of collections of plants from two drastically different climates, these two sectors of the Smith College Botanical garden greatly contrasted each other in their overall artisticelements of texture, color, and composition of the plants. Yet, both have the common scientific goals of conservation of rare and endangered species, presentation of plants from around the globe, and education of the public about the natural world. United in their differences from the localenvironment, the varying sectors of the botanical garden seclude visitors in the exoticness of distant locations. Oftentimes, people tend to overlook nature because of overexposure in everyday life, but Beach division of botanical gardens thus provides the isolation necessary to allowviewers to fully appreciate transcend their jaded apathy towards the strengths, uses, and beauty of plants.
Beauty manifests itself in a myriad of forms, the most obvious of which is physical appearance. Upon first glance, the rock garden appears void of lifelifeless. The white pebbles that crunch underfoot, the withered plants that wave with the wind, the dry coldness that is almost visible in the air despite the sun shining overhead... This rock garden was is composed of very short plants grouped mainly by height with breaks of uniformity created byhighlighted by comparatively taller plants and trees. The variations in plant texture and contrast of colors – mainly red, brown, green, and dull yellow - providesd a messy appearance similar to that ofto an amateur patchwork quilt. Within the lack of coherence, the aesthetic value can be discerned to be that of comes from its ragged wilderness. As Keith Thomas mentions in “Cultivation or Wilderness,” “By the early nineteenth century the taste for wild nature had far transcended this earlier dependence on prior artistic models [of cultivated and man-dominated landscapes].”[1] No longer was the idea of uniformity and order prevalent at the time this garden was created, but rather the replication of the disorder of nature as found in the natural habitats. Thus the imbalance and asymmetry found in the rock garden, along with its overall barrenness, formulates an image of reality in the tundra or mountain tops. While it lacks the gentle colors and shapes of the conventional beautiful landscape, its accuracy of another natural climate transports viewers to another setting, another understanding of what is considered beautiful.
The cool temperate room, on the other hand, paints an entirely disparate but more conventional image of striking landscape. The green of the subtropical plants merged seamlessly with each other, creating a continuous canvas of varying shades. Dotted in the blanketing green were surprising but pleasant spots of color. The orange of a bird-of-paradise, the light purple of budding olives, and the muted red of coffee all served to highlight the pleasingly soothing monotonous green of plant leaves. Nonetheless, tThe cool temperate room also shares aesthetic features with the rock garden. Plant textures varied from plant to plant and height discrepancies of plants, particularly the presence of tropical trees, broke the green mass that was most of the plants in the roomcreated a similar jagged line to that of the rock garden outside. This imbalance and asymmetry again speaks to an inclination towards wild nature. In addition to the natural barriers as found in the rock garden, the seclusion of this subtropical environment from the outside world is also resultant of human creations. At the same time, this room appears much more artificial than the rock garden because it is inside. For example, tFor example, the ceiling appears to prevent the growth of trees, while the potted plants seem out of place in such a natural setting. YetDespite this artificiality, the cool temperate room emanates a much more familiarfamiliar, natural, and exotic aura as compared to the rock garden. This idealized vision of the tropics resulted from subjective cultural emphasis and manipulation of the beauty of the tropics to the point where “it [tropics] signified a place of radical otherness to the temperate world, with which it contrasted and which it helped constitute.”[2] The tropics have always been glorified to be the hallmark of beautiful landscape. It thus comes as no surprise that the cool temperate room, which encompasses the subtropical regions of Australia/New Zealand, Asia, Latin America, and Africa, will elicit a warmer emotional response from viewers.
As with the different foundational aesthetic elements, the two sectors of the Smith College Botanical Garden also tell distinctive stories of survival with the same goal ofwhile allowing viewers to experience another part of the world. Composed primarily of rocks, the harsh terrain of the rock garden symbolizes the hardships and impenetrability of the unknown of the north. The winding path leads you into a shaded, encircled region, closing you in an alternate world of light and shade. Deep in the secluded garden with the trees acting as daunting forces of nature, it is cold but sheltered. Anything can occur in the shade of the trees, but no one will know…In the embrace of trees of the subtropical cool temperate room, the environment is much more recognizable. The lush greens of the plants and heightened trees envelope you in a cocoon of comfort. As you follow the zigzag path through the room to the four different locations in the world, you eventually alight upon a wooden bench facing the mini waterfall. This Water, the ultimate source of life, rejuvenates you to look around and lose yourself in the watery mist.
Beauty transcends beyond stories and physical appearances. Practicality and contributions also constitute beauty through advancement to a higher level of understanding. Both the rock garden and cool temperate room achieve this beauty with its efforts to preserve and promote plants of use to the public. First and foremost, the similarities of the scientific aspects of the two sectors arise from their mimicry of their respective climates. The rock garden represents the tundra and climates above the tree line on mountains. The Alpines, woodlands, and dwarf plants are characteristic plants of such environments. The shriveled aesthetic appeal of this forlorn land consequently arises from the need for varied sun and wind exposures through shade and height differences, water retention through rocks, and temperature ranges through the placement of plants. While the plants are from different geographical locations and do not belong to the same species, they all share a need for the control of climate in order to survive. Similarly, the subtropical regions require cooler temperatures and lower humidity achieved by indoor heating and moisture controls. This scientific control over the climate correlates with human control over nature. James Billard once spoke of a scientific future for the taming of nature in agriculture through weather control and other scientific advances. [3] To a certain extent, such a wish has been granted through the relocation of plants of different climates.
Furthermore, both sectors of the botanical garden have extensive collections of rare and endangered plants from around the world. Such a collection sought seeks to preserve these exotic species for scientific research and propagation but also “symbolize[d] the grandeur and civility” of their possessor.[4] These rare plants potentially added to the aesthetic beauty of the garden with strange shapes or colors and were thus highlighted and protected. Or, they looked very similar to other plants and were thus overlooked and preserved. There is also an economic factor to the different plants. Within the cool temperate room, there are specimens of tea, avocados, coffee, eucalyptus, and figs. While these plants are common, they contribute to the impression of the subtropical niche and even add to the artistic appeal of the environment (such as the color of coffee and smell of tea). The economic incentiveswhich arises from such produce will result in scientific research for its preservation and improvement to maintain the economy and studies for its improvement. Through scientific hybridization and cross-breeding, new species of crops can be created to maximize profit.[5] This hybrid between science and art in this botanical garden promotes an awareness of the beauty and applications of nature.
Through the collaboration of artistic beauty and scientific appeal, botanical gardens create the necessary isolated setting for visitors and patrons to appreciate the usual and unusual aspects of their environment. As demonstrated by its botanical garden, Smith College no doubt wished for this collection of plants to be alluring and educational. Its concerns about aesthetics and science can be seen in the efforts in placement and control of the plants. While it may have followed the trend of others in the creation of this botanical garden, Smith College puts a significant emphasis on the preservation of plants collected from the past as well as the continuation of previous practices in the establishment of a botanical garden. Furthermore, the College no doubt also promotes the discovery of new plants along with new processes of conservation as they use trial and error to maintain their garden. and preservation of old. Botanical gardens Bbringing visitors on a journey through the places of origin of plants and time marked by the evolution of plants and botanical gardens’ structures. and place, Through this expedition, botanical gardens seek to convert people from looking just at the big picture to also considering each individual detail of color, texture, composition, and the scientific processes involved in upholding this artistic integrity. Even the smallest purple flower can drastically change an image.
Nell Patterson:
INTRODUCTION
I was definitely impressed by your language and fluidity in this opening paragraph. It seems to move seemingly from sentence to sentence. I especially liked your two opening sentences, because they use really rich adjectives to describe the two rooms and you can tell those will be your focus in the essay. However, I felt a little lost in the last sentences. When you say “jaded apathy” I am not sure exactly what that means. Also, I am not sure where you talk about the “isolation of the plants”. I know they are not in their regular environments, but I don’t know if they are isolated, maybe that is just a picky thing, but I would think about changing that word.
Thank you very much! With “jaded apathy” I was trying to figure out how to say “people tend to overlook nature because it is such a constant part of their lives” without being too wordy. Perhaps it is necessary that I do elaborate though. Maybe I can just say that “the garden provides the isolation necessary to allow people to recognize the strengths, beauty, and uses of plants.” I’m not quite sure as to where “isolation of the plants” was in the introduction. When I said “isolation” I was trying to allude to how the plants isolate the people from the outside environment.
CONCLUSION
I felt fulfilled with your conclusion, because I think it really gets to the core of the purpose of the Botanical Garden. Your last two sentences, I could really hear your voice as you talked about “bringing visitors on a journey through time” and I like how you talk about looking at details. However, the sentence preceding that is a little trite for me. I am not really sure what you mean by “discovering of new and preservation of old.” I am not sure if this is referencing new plants, new techniques or new designs, so I would make that a little more specific
Thanks! I was a little bit hesitant about using that phrase. I never considered how it could have different meanings but the meanings you provided give me an entirely different angle to think about. I was trying to say that they help preserve the species of plants already known and possibly discover new species in the process. Now I feel as though I want to expand that to include the preservation of the purpose of gardens and discovering of new methods of preservation.
CONCLUSIONS/PITFALLS
I think in your paper, you will talk about Walpole, Drayton and Thomas in terms of the scientific and aesthetic elements of a garden. I can tell you may also reference Professor Courtright’s lecture on the English gardens, and the aesthetics of those. However, I think the real strength of your paper might be in your details and observations from your experience with the garden. In your introduction I could tell you really looked at the plants intently and would be able to describe them well. The potential pitfall I could see is this concept of isolation. I hope you develop more deeply what this isolation is, and I think you will in your body paragraphs.
Thanks for your comments! The main idea of isolation is isolation from the chaos of the outside world to really appreciate the natural world. I will be sure to go back through my paragraphs to see if this point comes through.
Aline Kim:
INTRODUCTION
Your introduction was very intriguing. The way you started was especially interesting and attention grabbing because you started out with a direct comparison of these two different gardens, while including their similarities and educational importance. However, the last sentence of your introduction was a little confusing and wordy. You move from these two specific gardens to the general “botanical gardens.” The phase “jaded apathy” was a little flowery and it took me a while to understand what you were trying to say.
Thanks! I didn’t realize that I made the transition from specific gardens to botanical gardens. I should probably add a sentence demonstrating that specific gardens are representative of the overall theme of botanical gardens. Nell also had the same problem with “jaded apathy.” I was trying to describe people’s tendency to overlook nature because of how much they’re exposed to it. I realize now that I should probably just say that instead of trying to condense it into two words.
CONCLUSION
Your conclusion, especially the first three sentences, was accessible. It clarified my confusion of your introduction. However, your ending distracted me because it was a little unexpected: it seemed like a new idea was being introduced when you talk about the individual details.
I guess I was trying to do more of a creative ending to the essay. I do understand what you’re saying about the new idea. I was trying to encompass a progression from old ideas to new, but that was also ambiguous and vague. I will explicitly say that I am going from the preservation of old plants and gardening habits to the discovery of new methods and plants in the process. The space and time would encompass the locations of plants and gardens and the evolution of botanical gardens through time.
WHAT TO EXPLECT/PITFALLS
Through your introduction, I expect you to use Stepan and her description about the temperate regions of the world. I think you might have also used Walpole to describe the layout of the Rock Garden. Judging by the word “control” in your conclusion, I think you might also refer to Scott and Drayton about plant and power. I would also expect to read more about the individual details and the purple flower you wrote about in your conclusion. A potential pitfall might be your flowery writing. While I can definitely hear you in the writing, sometimes your sentences are hard to understand because of the word choices. But besides that, I’m really curious to see how your paper turned out!
Thank you for your comments. Flowery writing is something that I’ve been trying to work against. I will try to be more concise and straightforward with how I present my ideas and eliminate the fancy word choices.
1
[1] Keith Thomas, “Cultivation or Wilderness?” Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800 (New York: Oxford UP, 1983), 266.
[2] Nancy Leys Stepan, Picturing Tropical Nature (Cornell UP, 2001), 17.
[3] James Scott, ch.8 “Nature and Space,” in Seeing Like a State (Yale UP, 1998), 271.
[4] Richard Drayton, Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the “Improvement” of the World (Yale UP, 2000), chapter 2, 43.
[5] Scott, 294.