psychology of flower show attraction.
 

I've been wondering about the considerable differences between the
flower shows in UK that I've been too (Chelsea and Hampton) and those
I've now been to in Belgium (Beervelde, Tuin Expo and Gent's Floraline)
I find the difference is as much psychological as anything in terms of
the impact of the experience.
I wonder why is that?
Firstly, the Belgium shows, with the exception of Beervelde, which is
more like a garden centre market-fest, (rather then show-gardens
thing), do not emphasise individuality in the same way as British
flower shows do and the impact /experience is notable different.
By "not emphasise individuality" I mean for example, in the
floraline experience, individual show gardens are not presented as
entirely separate from the surrounding area. They are merged into and
within the overall design of the exhibit. The other difference is,
again, e.g. it was possible to see what looked like a patch of
municipal planting, where, something like a roundabout was planted up.
All plants looking like the came from the same supplier and planted
within the one (unidentified) design (designer) by the same person or
team ... and yet, dotted around were various individual official
notices identifying an individual or firm, who were presumably involved
with that bit.
Another huge difference I noticed, apart from the entirely indoors
(artificial lighting, pristine plants/flowers) aspect, was the sense of
contentment rarely experienced at UK shows at feeling certain I had
seen everything. That is because both the Floraline and Tuin Expo shows
lay out a cordoned off route to follow and the merging style provides
expanses of space from which to observe quite a lot.
And yet, neither were Chelsea or Hampton and I can't quite put my
finger on why.
There wasn't the same Buzz.
Might it be the lack of competitive emphasis with the Belgium shows?
What curious psychological difference does the merging impact, as
opposed to the London shows, where show gardens are definitely more
individual?
Why does that individuality impact so greatly? Is it the voyeuristic
aspect? The competitive rush? The surprise? Or simply the impact of the
distinctiveness, akin to separateness of experiences... flavours if
you will?

a.c. wrote:
[...]
There wasn't the same Buzz.
Might it be the lack of competitive emphasis with the Belgium
shows?
What curious psychological difference does the merging impact, as
opposed to the London shows, where show gardens are definitely more
individual?
Why does that individuality impact so greatly? Is it the
voyeuristic
aspect? The competitive rush? The surprise? Or simply the impact of
the distinctiveness, akin to separateness of experiences...
flavours
if you will?

A bit unfair to suggest a _voyeuristic_ motive! I think keen
gardeners just like seeing gardens: surely there's nothing perverse
about that?

But there is a strong tradition of confident individuality in British
gardening, and I'm quite sure few would bother to cross the road to
see a show where the keynote was conformity. I think that's even more
important than the competitive aspect. After all, while it is
competitive of course, it isn't really competitive in the ordinary
way: it's quite possible for every exhibitor to be awarded a gold
medal, so in a way the gardens are aiming for some sort of absolute
standard more than trying to beat one another.

--
Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote:
a.c. wrote:
[...]
There wasn't the same Buzz.
Might it be the lack of competitive emphasis with the Belgium
shows?
What curious psychological difference does the merging impact, as
opposed to the London shows, where show gardens are definitely more
individual?
Why does that individuality impact so greatly? Is it the
voyeuristic
aspect? The competitive rush? The surprise? Or simply the impact of
the distinctiveness, akin to separateness of experiences...
flavours
if you will?

A bit unfair to suggest a _voyeuristic_ motive!
Well, I was just trying to stir the pot with ideas.
Actually, it's not what I had in mind per say, but I note an element of
'entertainment' in the UK shows, which, although the Belgium ones also
gave an element of entertainment (in ways I've never seen), it was not
the same thing. (entertainment)

I think keen
gardeners just like seeing gardens: surely there's nothing perverse
about that?

Nope, but then not all who go to these shows are keen gardeners, so
what is the draw?

But there is a strong tradition of confident individuality in British
gardening, and I'm quite sure few would bother to cross the road to
see a show where the keynote was conformity.

Unless, as keen gardenered, the want to see examples of conformity at
its best?

I think that's even more
important than the competitive aspect. After all, while it is
competitive of course, it isn't really competitive in the ordinary
way: it's quite possible for every exhibitor to be awarded a gold
medal, so in a way the gardens are aiming for some sort of absolute
standard more than trying to beat one another.

Very true, though competing (striving; if you prefer)for a medal

--
Mike.