"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
wrote:

Sue wrote:
: I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty
: Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have
: particularly jarred every time I've watched:
:
: a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and
: b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/

I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real
gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners?

delurks

can someone tell me what a real gardener is?

You for a start!

Well now, had you asked for *who* is a real gardener, then contrary to the
awful "Mr Smugmarsh" reference I would say Alan Titchmarsh is a very real
gardener.
Perhaps it's his common sense touch and the earthy logical plainness of how
he seems to be expressing a deliberate simplicity of unmysterious
presentations that might irk some eonough to seeth.
If he seems a tad too smug...folly though that may be... well he has dam
well earned the right to lean out of his trolly so we can also plainly see,
someone who has done much, so very very much for this garden industry.


I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the
distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars.

Standing by Diarmuids National Lottery Garden a couple were chatting next to
me. She said something like ; oh look how the grass (lawn) sweeps under the
concrete. That is soooo new. Must be a new idea and it looks wonderful.
Everyone else would just bring it up to the edge.. How interesting! How new!

Now, suffice to say, there are a few here who might suggest she is not a
"real gardener". The term "Real gardener" probably refers to at least a
basic measure of knowledge that would enable an show observer to realise the
difference between reality and fantasy. Perhaps another title might be a
"reality" gardener
Many "garden designers" lack just such realism yet get tend to be vastly
more appreciated and recognised then "real gardeners" and so I tend to dream
up various different titles for them, none of which are really repeatable on
a newsgroup.

That said, much as they are such *******, credit where credit is due, this
years chelsea show gardens were the best yet and futhermore the judging
seems more accurate, though very tight. Too tight for argue over.

The really interesting thing about that garden would have being it's
agelessness.
Real gardener or not, we are all susceptible to first impressions.
That ahhhh factor that so many find relevant in other people's gardens (but
not their own) was created through the suberb planting design and the reason
for it's agelessness was in how that design would evoke just such a response
years down the road when the colour of the hardsurfaces has being lost to
uniform grey and maybe slippery with it. When the highly selected, amazing
uniformity of the as yet slightly underdeveloped and overpopulated plants
give way to the ravages of competition and animal tracks throughout and when
the grass running under the concrete has long sice muddied over levaing
strangly whisps of untidness.. it will still hold it's visitor's illusion.
It is when someone can see through such illusions that they might quite
mistakenly delude themselves to thinking that unlike those who have yet to
notice, s/he is a Real gardener

--
Paul C