Conceptualism is interpreted in a multitude of ways by various different schools of design. Depending on the school, it can encompass everything from site-lead SAD methods to artistically driven processes. It is often the subject of debate between design academics, professionals and writers.
For me, conceptualism represents design which is idea lead.
While the use of ideas - underlying narratives, metaphors, allegories and messages - is not new to garden design, it was the works of Geoffrey Jellicoe, in the mid 20th century, that facilitated its formal introduction into contemporary design discourse. In more recent times, idea driven design has become hugely popular with designers such as Martha Swartz, Sarah Eberle and Tony Heywood, architect come landscape designer, Charles Jencks and landscape architecture firms such as West 8 and Gross Max who have all built successful practices on their ability to conceive, develop, refine and realise proposals built upon strong ideas.
Why use ideas?
Designers use idea driven processes for many reasons, the ones that spring immediately to mind include; to instil meaning within the fabric of a design composition, to provide a layer of intellectual stimulation, to communicate emotive messages, to provide inspiration, to raise the design medium above mere ornament, for contextual harmonisation, for historic reference and commemoration and to provide a possible route to originality. The list goes on. If you can add to it please do.
I personally use an idea driven approach to expedite the rapid production of a large number of design possibilities, which would not otherwise be arrived at. I am also a great believer that, as intelligent, sentient beings, we have a huge capacity to engage, interpret and gain value from multilayered landscapes.
Why not use an idea driven process?
The reasons why designers avoid idea driven design are complex. There are a whole host of processes that designers use and conceptualism is just one. Many prefer to utilise site and ecology focused approaches, others use functional systems, and over the last century, pattern assisted methods - in various forms - have become very popular. The latter method is perhaps best represented by John Brookes’ grid system. What proponents of all these approaches often fail to appreciate is that ideas are not a threat, they’re an opportunity.
From my own experience, I’ve found that traditional education methods, being primarily rote, linear and deductive, do not create good foundations for conceptual thinking. Designers, young and old, often fear, distrust and misunderstand the value of concepts and prefer the comfort of a more familiar, information lead approaches. As someone who started his design career with both feet firmly planted in the measurable world, and who didn’t’ get conceptualism until later on, I fully understand why some designers are initially sceptical. It’s their loss.
In addition to conceptualism’s contrast with conventional design thinking, it’s lateral nature can result in proposals which challenge tradition perceptions. This often leads to alienation of viewers and comments such as, ‘that’s not a garden’ are all too frequently heard around conceptual creations. While a conceptual path can indeed result in innovative, challenging creations, It is a great shame that many idea driven designers choose to ignore the fundamental principles of design.
The rise of conceptualism in design has grown such that the RHS has created a special category for it and has steered the Royal Hampton Court Palace Show in a firmly conceptual direction. While the UK is starting to catch on, the rest of Europe has a more historic connection with meaningful gardens, perhaps best represented by the Chaumont Garden Festival. In Ireland, the unfortunately doomed, Emo Court garden Festival was promised big things but couldn’t get the financial backing to make it an annual event. A result of it’s location rather than the quality of the gardens. Ireland’s primary gardening and design event, Bloom in the Park, does facilitate the inclusion of conceptual creations, but the decision to entitle them, engaging spaces, was short sighted and allowed attendees to dismiss anything innovative as NOT GARDENS. Should the grid pattern arrangements that draw the spolight on the showgarden cat walk be entitled DISengaging spaces?
A note on retrospective conceptualism
Retrospective conceptualism is an ability of a designer to instil meaning and message into a design proposal after it has been completed. It is something I have observed in students who have yet to understanding their thinking processes and to develop a mature design methodology. I have no doubt it is far more common than a lot of designers would admit.
When I first observed it, I was somewhat horrified and recall thinking that the students were lazy smart arses with limited design skills with a blaggers ability to think on their feet. Upon reflection I began to understand that the ability to retrospectively apply meaning actually highlighted a student’s innate talent to see. Now, rather than fighting it, I actively encourage it. The trick is to get the student to be consciously aware of their ability and to exploit it early in design development.
