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.
Info from:
Private Club
