The Chelsea debate
Post categories: Lila Das Gupta
| 19:11 UK time, Thursday, 21 May 2009
There's always a debate at Chelsea: should the show be an aspirational cat-walk, or is its purpose to show people what they can copy at home?
This week I attended a very interesting debate at The Garden Museum, part of the VISTA lecture series, chaired by critic Tim Richardson and writer Noel Kingsbury. The participants included Swedish designer, Eva Gustavsson and design legend John Brookes.
When posed with the same question it was interesting that John Brookes was firmly in the camp of those who think flower shows should be there to guide people through the design and planting process. In fact, when asked what sort of show garden he would build today if he were taking part, he said he would construct a garden with a very large plan attached to the side of it so that people could see exactly how it was put together. (It's not just what you put in a garden he says, - the spaces between what you put in are just as important)
This was Eva's first time at Chelsea and her observation was how 'male' the designers and indeed the gardens themselves were. Did you like the winning 'best in show' Daily Telegraph Garden by Ulf Nordfjell? It wasn't my personal favourite (though I would say that when I saw it at night, it was sensational), but Eva pointed out that perhaps it was a garden that appealed less to women because we tend to garden in a different style and have different concerns. I think there may be something in what she says.
For me, the answer is that you need a bit of both approaches at Chelsea. The big show gardens add a sense of drama and wonder to the show, (and in a difficult economic climate, escapism is all the more important...). But, as a gardener whose fingernails are permanently muddy, I'm rather glad that there are always ideas that I can recreate at home.
* The Vista podcast of this debate will appear shortly on the web-site of Gardens Illustrated magazine.
Comment number 1.
At 22nd May 2009, jod wrote:The fact that I'm looking at your website and can't find out the dimensions of the various Chelsea gardens shows exactly what the problem is. Presenters of garden shows have always thrown about terms like "large" and "small" without defining what they mean, even Geoff Hamilton used to do it. If I don't know how large an area I am looking at I can't relate it to my own garden and therefore much of the point of the programme is lost. Your coverage of Chelsea seems to go overboard on visuals while being very light on basic information.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 22nd May 2009, timmyh10 wrote:I am looking for recommendations on planting in two particularly difficult areas:
Firstly a north facing wall; secondly planting under trees. Any comments or suggestions on either of these two areas would be welcome!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 23rd May 2009, Leones26 wrote:i'd like tips on planting under a ceanathus bush
www.thechelseablogger.com
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 23rd May 2009, coolshirleyb wrote:I've watched very little of ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Chelsea Flower Show coverage for more than a few minutes each day. Each year it's increasingly more about the irritating celebrities and the pontificating of the presenters scoring points off each other - it really has become quite a bore. Then there's the mindless interviews - example: a typical dumb blonde presenter question: "What do you think it means to be a winner at Chelsea" - doh!!!! As one winner rightly said, who was about to be given his prize, "Get to the point" or words to that effect! Best way to watch it is at the end on ipod and skip through to the relevant important bits like the growers, the plants and the gardens.
Hearty congratulations to all the winners!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 23rd May 2009, 999graham999 wrote:How right coolshirleyb is. In the first Chelsea Flower show programme this year I got about half way through and gave up. The next few I recorded so I could fast forwarded through to the bits about the gardens. In one of these I counted about 1 and a half gardens being showed properly, which took about 2 minutes of an hour long programme. Finally I give up and stopped watching all together.
Come on ´óÏó´«Ã½ lets get it right and show the gardens and the plants.
Graham
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 25th May 2009, Howard wrote:The Chelsea flower show is becoming tedious, same old format, same old faces doing the same old thing last year and all the previous years. We need something different, more time discussing the gardens with the designers, far less time watching two men discussing themselves pretending to be matey. not nice to watch and very very boring. Wake up ´óÏó´«Ã½ move on please
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 26th May 2009, SelinaBotham wrote:I do agree with the comments about the ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of the shows. There is so much celeb. talk and most of the commentators seem so keen to make their own comments that they barely listen to the people they are interviewing. Rachel de Thame interrupted the Brazilian florist during one of the 'interviews' just as she was explaining how her amazing tower of rose buds would work. I had spotted Zita's work as one of the most exciting exhibits of the show the day before when I visited. Luckily I had spoken to her myself and she had explained that, although the goblet style arrangement only stayed fresh for a week, it slowly dried in situ so would last much longer as a dried flower arrangement! Now I think that is really clever and innovative... All of the TV viewing public would have found that out too if Rachel hadn't been so quick to have her say.
I think it would be great to see more of the show gardens and speak to more of the designers about what they have tried to do. It'd be good to hear what they think and how they got their ideas. Gardening is a form of Art and I think that we should be talking to the designers as we would an artist, what was their inspiration, what do they like best about their creation and what would they change? The judging is another fascinating side of things and I love to hear what was the judges assessment was and what was their feedback. These are the things I ask the designers if I am lucky enough to see them when I am visiting the show and I think that is what most people would like to know.
.....And as for garden design being something you can do without any training, I have never quite been able to get over Rachel de Thame's comments last year. Clearly anyone can design a garden but can just anyone do it well? It's a bit like saying that I can cook - I can cook, but not like a professionally trained chef! If I think I can do it as well as a professional aren't I missing out if I don't try and find out more, I could look at and taste and appreciate what can be done by the professional chefs - surely this is what Chelsea and Hampton should be all about, we want to see and try to understand what can be done by professionals. Now I wonder if this is half the problem? I wonder if the commentators think they know so much already, does this mean they are not really interested in finding out more? This might explain why there is so much opinion and less actual 'reporting'. What a shame it is because the public misses out on finding out more and we'd like to know.... ?
Selina
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)