some Kant for Mom
Painting, as the second kind of formative art, which presents a sensible illusion artificially combined with ideas, I would divide into the art of the beautiful depicting of nature and that of the beautiful arrangement of its products. This first is painting proper, the second is the art of landscape gardening. The first gives only the illusory appearance of corporeal extension; the second gives this in accordance with truth, but only the appearance of utility and availableness for other purposes than the merely play of the imagination in the contemplation of its forms. This latter is nothing else than the ornamentation of the soil with a variety of those things (grasses, flowers, shrubs, trees, even ponds, hillocks, and dells) which nature presents to an observer, only arranged differently and in conformity with certain ideas.
But, again, the beautiful arrangement of corporeal things is only apparent to the eye, like painting; the sense of touch cannot supply any intuitive presentation of such a form. Under painting in the wide sense I would reckon the decoration of rooms by the aid of tapestry, bric-a-brac, and all beautiful furniture which is merely available to be looked at; and the same may be said of the art of tasteful dressing (with rings, snuffboxes, etc). For a bed of various flowers, a room filled with various ornaments (including under this head even ladies’ finery), make at a fete a kind of picture which, like pictures properly so called (that are not intended to teach either history or natural science), has in view merely the entertainment of the imagination in free play with ideas and the occupation of the aesthetical judgment without any definite purpose. The detailed work in all this decoration may be quite distinct in the different cases and may require very different artists, but the judgment of taste upon whatever is beautiful in these various arts is always determined in the same way, viz. it only judges the forms (without any reference to a purpose) as they present themselves to the eye, either singly or in combination, according to the effect they produce upon the imagination. But that formative art may be compared (by analogy) with deportment in speech is justified by the fact that the spirit of the artist supplies by these figures a bodily expression to his thought and its mode, and makes the thing itself, as it were, speak in mimic language. This is a very common play of our fancy, which attributes to lifeless things a spirit suitable to their form by which they speak to us.
Kant, "Analytic of the Sublime," Critique of Judgement
Comments
While I was delighted that he recognized gardening as art, I take issue with the phrase “the beautiful arrangement of corporeal things is only apparent to the eye” –
There are special use sensory gardens whose primary purpose is to specifically and beautifully arrange texture or scent for senses other than vision. There is one at the Arkansas School for the Blind, which is intended as a tactile and scent garden; there is the herb garden at the Governor’s Mansion, which can, I submit, also provide an artfully “tasteful” experience.
Any good garden can make use of the texture of plants and the inorganic items that make up a garden so that it will appeal to more than the eye. Think in terms of the Japanese garden in San Francisco – while that garden is a beautiful arrangement that PRIMARILY appeals to the eye, think about your fingers and toes as they touch the wood, stone, and moss, etc., and consider your ears, as you listen to the symphony of sounds from the passive and mechanical water features, and the birds in the trees, and the wind riffling the wind chimes, and the pitches and cadences of wind whispering or whipping through the grasses and leaves and needles, even the sound (and feel, if you dare) of crickets in the garden. A good garden is much more than an appeal to the eye.
Indeed, I think you can make the case that nearly any garden is intended to be a multisensory experience, and elementary landscaping courses teach that as a fundamental precept -- gardens should appeal to spirit, soul, and body. If you doubt that gardens make various esthetic appeals to the soul, think of the mood in Muir Woods. Compare that to the elegance of the San Francisco gardens, or the informal open woods at Garvan, or a sunny meadow garden full of wildflowers, or the cozy cottage gardens in Irish cities.
A good garden’s appeal to the soul and spirit should stir the visitor’s imagination so that when they leave that garden, they are as changed as they could be by any other art form, be it theater, painting, book, etc.
I do tend to anthropomorphize things to a fault, but I also think a good garden becomes a living, unified community that takes on a very strong and influential persona all its own.
Thanks for the posting.
Posted by: mom | October 14, 2004 8:18 AM
Well put. My mom is such a rocker.
Posted by: Krista | October 14, 2004 8:40 AM
1)Thank you, and 2)hmmph.
Posted by: mom | October 14, 2004 9:18 AM