Capability Brown
June 28th 2006 10:29
Historic Gardeners: Capability Brown
Who is this guy? Well... Lancelot Brown (1716-1783), otherwise known as 'Capability Brown' (one can assume him to capable), is considered to be England's greatest gardener. He designed over 170 parks, many of which still remain important legacies in the English Landscape school of design, which was to gain popularity particularly in the 19th Century. Notable works include Blanheim Palace, Kew Gardens, Warwick Castle, Bowood House, and Milton Abbey.
He was an innovator, and his landscapes of undulating grass, clumps, belts, scatterings of trees and curvaceous lakes broke the tradition of more formally structured gardens of the time. He was heavy criticised, but in time began to gain recognition among his peers.
This was a time of the naturalistic compositions of landscapers and gardeners such as Brown rivalling the more rigid, formal compositions from men such as Alexander Pope in the early 1700s. His popularity declined much after his death, as he was criticised for copying the works of nature too closely, indeed an anonymous writer stated in his obituary that:
"Such, however, was the effect of his genius that when he was the happiest man, he will be least remembered; so closely did he copy nature that his works will be mistaken".
In contrast, Richard Bisgrove, a recent historian has declared:
"...judicious manipulation of its components, adding a tree here or a concealed head of water there. His art attended to the formal potential of ground, water, trees and so gave to English landscape its ideal forms. The difficulty was that less capable imitators and less sophisticated spectators did not see nature perfected... they saw simply what they took to be nature."
Indeed for one who has studied a little landscape architecture myself (just a little), it is hard to see the difference in the way the landscape is treated, however if one looks harder viewpoints and the notions of revealing the landscape in a kind of cinematic process can be seen. You just have to look carefully.
Thanks to Wikipeida (my resource hero) for the info and images.
To learn more try here.
He was an innovator, and his landscapes of undulating grass, clumps, belts, scatterings of trees and curvaceous lakes broke the tradition of more formally structured gardens of the time. He was heavy criticised, but in time began to gain recognition among his peers.
A view from above in the design stage
"Such, however, was the effect of his genius that when he was the happiest man, he will be least remembered; so closely did he copy nature that his works will be mistaken".
In contrast, Richard Bisgrove, a recent historian has declared:
"...judicious manipulation of its components, adding a tree here or a concealed head of water there. His art attended to the formal potential of ground, water, trees and so gave to English landscape its ideal forms. The difficulty was that less capable imitators and less sophisticated spectators did not see nature perfected... they saw simply what they took to be nature."
Indeed for one who has studied a little landscape architecture myself (just a little), it is hard to see the difference in the way the landscape is treated, however if one looks harder viewpoints and the notions of revealing the landscape in a kind of cinematic process can be seen. You just have to look carefully.
Thanks to Wikipeida (my resource hero) for the info and images.
To learn more try here.
| 51 |
| Vote |
