DOI article:
Hunt, John Dixon: On the formation and conduct of garden history
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14576#0012
6
JOHN DIXON IIUNT
Those deliberately identified directions for the new journal (and for a subject that the journal's very
establishment promoted as a fresh "field" of study) were largely inspired and determined by the few aca-
démie practitioners of a garden history who had already made themselves conspicuous. Thèse were working
in art and architectural history (the leading Americans were David R. Coffin of Princeton University and
Elizabeth Blair MacDougal at Dumbarton Oaks), in literary studies (in France André Parreaux, Denis Lambin
and Michel Baridon had a literary background, which is also my own), and perhaps in geography (Jay Apple-
ton and Stephen Daniels in the UK). One major conséquence of the existing cluster of art historical and lit-
erary spécial i sts on the direction that garden history would take was a focus upon the study of patronage and
iconography (both fondamental to art historical study at that time) and the assumption that designed land-
scapes could be treated as "texte" and their often intricate meanings exposed (explications de texte were
central to the new literary criticism of the 1940s and 1950s).
The UK has also the somewhat unusual distinction of sustaining cadres of amateur scholars, independ-
ent of institutional affiliation and specializations, and thèse certainly contributed to the field (I think here
especially of Kenneth Woodbridge, who single-handedly researched and published the classical landscape
history of Stourhead, or Georgina Masson, working on Italian gardens) and thereby set standards for profes-
sional historiography1. This may well have been the case elsewhere, with antiquarian amateurs turning atten-
tion to local sites: it is an aspect of the establishment of garden history that would repay scrutiny.
Surprisingly, there was little to no interest at ail in garden and landscape history within the profession
of landscape architects: notable British exceptions (to prove that rule perhaps) were Geoffrey Jellicoe and
Frank Clark, but within the United States where every state has its own university department of landscape
architecture associated with one or other school deemed appropriate for it (architecture, fine arts, agriculture,
botany), if the history of the field was studied at ail, it was not taught by trained historians (the career of
John Brinckerhoff Jackson might be considered another exception here, also proving the gênerai rule2). To
this day there are a meager number of landscape architecture departments that offer courses in the history of
the field and the profession that are actually devised and taught by historians; it is generally deemed suffi-
cient if a curious and enquiring landscape architect gets the subject up (as we say) for a séries of lectures.
However, this situation changed dramatically in the 1990s, at least within the United States, when some
landscape architects suddenly chose to invigorate professional discourse with (admittedly much needed)
"theoretical" considérations; since thèse were not entirely possible without a smattering of historical know-
ledge of earlier conditions of both practice and conceptual writings, some attention began to be paid to the
historical narrative. The problem there in this belated subscription to modernist idéologies by landscape
architects - was that, like ail modernisms, its treatment of historical évidence was partial, tendentious, eclec-
tic and (perhaps understandably) self-serving3. By 2000, this situation itself began to be corrected to some
extent: the programme of landscape studies at Dumbarton Oaks tried to make some appeal to practitioners
with more carefully structured and conceived historical narratives (first under my direction and then that of
Joachim Wolschkle-Buhlmann and Michel Conan). Arguably, with more impact, significant new publications
began to provide historical narratives and criticism that sought to address not just a small group of garden-
ists, but to engage both a gênerai readership, itself increasingly interested in current design practice, and
a much larger constituency of professional designers4.
DETERMINING THE SHAPE OF GARDEN HISTORY
Thèse notes on the developments and character of garden history are a necessary prélude to a discussion
of what garden history can do and is doing. If history is essentially a story told by A about В to an audience
1 I have reflected at somewhat more length on this amateur situation in my contribution to the joint essay by E. H a r w o o d,
T. W i 11 i a m s o n, M. L e s 1 i e, Whither Garden History?, "Studies in the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes" (hereaf-
ter: SHGDL), 27 (2007), pp. 91-112.
2 He founded and edited the journal "Landscapes", and collected essays in various volumes tncluding Landscapes: Selected
Writings of... (The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst 1970) and The Necessity for Ruins, and Other Topics (The Univer-
sity of Massachusetts Press, Amherst 1980) .
1 Examples are many and probably invidious: but that of Ch. Tu n n a rd's Gardens in the Modem Landscape (Architectural
Press, 1938) suggests itself as a very early example of this tendency.
4 The publications of Dumbarton Oaks itself were crucial here, but publishers like the MIT Press and publications like "Land-
scape Journal" contributed to the strengthening of historical substance in landscape criticism.
JOHN DIXON IIUNT
Those deliberately identified directions for the new journal (and for a subject that the journal's very
establishment promoted as a fresh "field" of study) were largely inspired and determined by the few aca-
démie practitioners of a garden history who had already made themselves conspicuous. Thèse were working
in art and architectural history (the leading Americans were David R. Coffin of Princeton University and
Elizabeth Blair MacDougal at Dumbarton Oaks), in literary studies (in France André Parreaux, Denis Lambin
and Michel Baridon had a literary background, which is also my own), and perhaps in geography (Jay Apple-
ton and Stephen Daniels in the UK). One major conséquence of the existing cluster of art historical and lit-
erary spécial i sts on the direction that garden history would take was a focus upon the study of patronage and
iconography (both fondamental to art historical study at that time) and the assumption that designed land-
scapes could be treated as "texte" and their often intricate meanings exposed (explications de texte were
central to the new literary criticism of the 1940s and 1950s).
The UK has also the somewhat unusual distinction of sustaining cadres of amateur scholars, independ-
ent of institutional affiliation and specializations, and thèse certainly contributed to the field (I think here
especially of Kenneth Woodbridge, who single-handedly researched and published the classical landscape
history of Stourhead, or Georgina Masson, working on Italian gardens) and thereby set standards for profes-
sional historiography1. This may well have been the case elsewhere, with antiquarian amateurs turning atten-
tion to local sites: it is an aspect of the establishment of garden history that would repay scrutiny.
Surprisingly, there was little to no interest at ail in garden and landscape history within the profession
of landscape architects: notable British exceptions (to prove that rule perhaps) were Geoffrey Jellicoe and
Frank Clark, but within the United States where every state has its own university department of landscape
architecture associated with one or other school deemed appropriate for it (architecture, fine arts, agriculture,
botany), if the history of the field was studied at ail, it was not taught by trained historians (the career of
John Brinckerhoff Jackson might be considered another exception here, also proving the gênerai rule2). To
this day there are a meager number of landscape architecture departments that offer courses in the history of
the field and the profession that are actually devised and taught by historians; it is generally deemed suffi-
cient if a curious and enquiring landscape architect gets the subject up (as we say) for a séries of lectures.
However, this situation changed dramatically in the 1990s, at least within the United States, when some
landscape architects suddenly chose to invigorate professional discourse with (admittedly much needed)
"theoretical" considérations; since thèse were not entirely possible without a smattering of historical know-
ledge of earlier conditions of both practice and conceptual writings, some attention began to be paid to the
historical narrative. The problem there in this belated subscription to modernist idéologies by landscape
architects - was that, like ail modernisms, its treatment of historical évidence was partial, tendentious, eclec-
tic and (perhaps understandably) self-serving3. By 2000, this situation itself began to be corrected to some
extent: the programme of landscape studies at Dumbarton Oaks tried to make some appeal to practitioners
with more carefully structured and conceived historical narratives (first under my direction and then that of
Joachim Wolschkle-Buhlmann and Michel Conan). Arguably, with more impact, significant new publications
began to provide historical narratives and criticism that sought to address not just a small group of garden-
ists, but to engage both a gênerai readership, itself increasingly interested in current design practice, and
a much larger constituency of professional designers4.
DETERMINING THE SHAPE OF GARDEN HISTORY
Thèse notes on the developments and character of garden history are a necessary prélude to a discussion
of what garden history can do and is doing. If history is essentially a story told by A about В to an audience
1 I have reflected at somewhat more length on this amateur situation in my contribution to the joint essay by E. H a r w o o d,
T. W i 11 i a m s o n, M. L e s 1 i e, Whither Garden History?, "Studies in the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes" (hereaf-
ter: SHGDL), 27 (2007), pp. 91-112.
2 He founded and edited the journal "Landscapes", and collected essays in various volumes tncluding Landscapes: Selected
Writings of... (The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst 1970) and The Necessity for Ruins, and Other Topics (The Univer-
sity of Massachusetts Press, Amherst 1980) .
1 Examples are many and probably invidious: but that of Ch. Tu n n a rd's Gardens in the Modem Landscape (Architectural
Press, 1938) suggests itself as a very early example of this tendency.
4 The publications of Dumbarton Oaks itself were crucial here, but publishers like the MIT Press and publications like "Land-
scape Journal" contributed to the strengthening of historical substance in landscape criticism.