Vox Humana wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
What defines the difference between "natural landscaping" and unkempt?
How do we know the difference between a Nieman-Marcus yard and a Costco
one? Do we have a gene for perceiving invasive species?...


I would say that it is akin to the discernment of pornography vs. art You
know it when you see it. The introduction of the terms "Nieman-Marcus and
"Costco" reinforce my suspicion that there is something far more emotional
about this than landscape design or plant selection. I don't think it has
anything much to do with money. As my mother used to say, "You don't have
to have money to be clean." In other words, you can spend virtually no
money and have a great landscape. Mowing and pulling weeds is almost free.
You can generally befriend other gardeners and get divisions of perennials
for free. Starting plants from seeds is very inexpensive. Propagating
shrubs from cutting is nearly free. Of course you do have to devote your
time and effort. But really, if you aren't putting some effort into your
landscape, you are a gardener, you merely coexist with the property.
Gardening is not passive.

I'm not saying that people who don't garden are bad, but as you see, there
are certain expectations placed on you based on your setting. When you live
in a city, there is a social contract and certain laws. You have the
advantage of pooling your resources with the neighbors and in return you get
fire, police, water, sewers, cultural opportunities and so on. In exchange,
people expect you to conform to a norm that includes, among other things, a
minimum level of yard maintenance. If you live in a planned unit
development, the requirements may be higher. In a rural area, there are
fewer common benefits and lower maintenance requirements.

I think the concept of "invasive species" is a red herring. While
introducing invasives has a strong negative environmental impact, it has
little to do with your particular situation. I suspect that if you had a
well maintained yard full of invasive plants it wouldn't be a code
violation. Again, gardening isn't passive. Since we aren't born with
gardening expertise, one has to do some research.

As for "natural" and "unkempt" - again, I think it hinges on the concept of
being purposeful and active as opposed to neglectful and passive. Perhaps
"natural" would better be express as "informal." All landscapes have
structure. There is a canopy of trees, a mid-ground of shrubs and tall
perennials, and a foreground of short perennials and ground cover. There is
thought put into sight lines, just as one would compose a picture. There is
consideration given to leaf size, shape, color, and texture. Function is
considered - is the yard used for sports or relaxation. The particulars of
plant selection and hardscape material depends on your location and can be
skewed to minimize, but not eliminate, maintenance.


I would agree that a key attribute of high-quality
gardening or landscaping is that it makes the land
look managed, to some degree or other. But we
can go beyond the hoary old pornography comparison
in articulating what is acceptable management.
For example, I would argue that implicit in even
the natural lanscaping movement is the constraint
that while you can be infromal at the scale
of shrubs or larger, you better sweat the small
stuff: randomness or texture in vegetation shorter
than, say, knee level is unacceptable unless it
has flowers.

I've gotten interested in exploring the tension
at this boundary. My fake mushrooms are a
self-referential stunt (i.e. commenting on the
immediately surrounding vegetation) that, if I
installed more of them, could more or less call
for me to leave the property as is to make a
complete artistic statement (thereby begging for a
First Amendment defense if I get cited again,
of course).

What I'll do, though, is manage the vegetation so
that it's conventionally close-trimmed adjacent
to the house. This would complement my wife's
pansies in pots hanging on the porch. From there
outward I'll arrange to have a sort of gradient
into wildness.

--
(Charles Packer)
ungoogled: mailboxATSIGNcpacker.org
http://cpacker.org/whatnews