Difference between revisions of "View/Vista"
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Another element of view-making was the use of barriers (such as walls, fences, and hedges) to screen less picturesque elements of a plantation. This technique was reported in 1790 in a description of the Elias Hasket Derby Farm in Peabody, Mass. John Trumbull’s 1792 plan for Yale College included instructions for a similar barrier that would provide a screen for the nose as well as the eyes. Inscribed on the plan is the directive that “The Temples of Cloacina [or priveys] (which it is too much the custom of New England to place conspicuously), I would wish to have concealed as much as possible, by planting a variety of Shrubs, such as Laburnums, Lilacs, Roses, Snowballs, Laurels, &c.” <ref>John Trumbull describing his plan for Yale College, New Haven, Conn. Yale University Library, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale Picture Collection, 48-A-46, box 1, folder 2.</ref> | Another element of view-making was the use of barriers (such as walls, fences, and hedges) to screen less picturesque elements of a plantation. This technique was reported in 1790 in a description of the Elias Hasket Derby Farm in Peabody, Mass. John Trumbull’s 1792 plan for Yale College included instructions for a similar barrier that would provide a screen for the nose as well as the eyes. Inscribed on the plan is the directive that “The Temples of Cloacina [or priveys] (which it is too much the custom of New England to place conspicuously), I would wish to have concealed as much as possible, by planting a variety of Shrubs, such as Laburnums, Lilacs, Roses, Snowballs, Laurels, &c.” <ref>John Trumbull describing his plan for Yale College, New Haven, Conn. Yale University Library, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale Picture Collection, 48-A-46, box 1, folder 2.</ref> | ||
| − | In urban settings, where lot size and the proximity of buildings limited sightlines into the distance, gardens often reflected treatises’ instructions to enhance views with smaller property. Such structures as temples or summerhouses were placed in gardens to serve as both focal points and viewing platforms see Belvedere). These effects could also be achieved without building; in 1758 Theophilus Hardenbrook advertised designs for “Niche’s eyetraps trompe l’oeil, to represent a building, terminating a walk, or to hide some disagreeable object” in the New York Gazette. Treatises also suggested enhancing small gardens by laying out walks or terraces with converging (rather than parallel) sides to create the impression of greater depth. Similarly, such features as alleys or avenues with dimensions that appeared to converge created the illusion of distance from the viewer. | + | In urban settings, where lot size and the proximity of buildings limited sightlines into the distance, gardens often reflected treatises’ instructions to enhance views with smaller property. Such structures as temples or summerhouses were placed in gardens to serve as both focal points and viewing platforms see Belvedere). These effects could also be achieved without building; in 1758 Theophilus Hardenbrook advertised designs for “Niche’s eyetraps ''trompe l’oeil'', to represent a building, terminating a walk, or to hide some disagreeable object” in the New York Gazette. Treatises also suggested enhancing small gardens by laying out walks or terraces with converging (rather than parallel) sides to create the impression of greater depth. Similarly, such features as alleys or avenues with dimensions that appeared to converge created the illusion of distance from the viewer. |
Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe has commented that in England the importance of the creation of views and prospects “became apparent when the enclosed medieval walled garden gradually expanded into walled gardens of more than one compartment—preparing the way for a unity of design in the 17th c.”<ref>Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe, “Vista,” in ''Oxford Companion to Gardens'', ed. Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 590.</ref> In England the importance of views into the countryside increased as a principle of garden design and as an aspect of changing land use and property-holding practices.<ref>For an example of the design practices used in creating views and prospects in eighteenth-century English gardens, see Douglas Chambers, “Prospects and the Natural Beauties of Places: Joseph Spence,” in ''The Planters of the English Landscape Garden'' (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993), 164–76. For a discussion of changing land-use practices and their implications on the organization of sight in landscape gardening, see Denis E. Cosgrove, ''Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 189–222; Raymond Williams, ''The Country and the City'' (London: Palladin, 1973); Simon Pugh, ed., ''Reading Landscape: Country, City, Capital'' (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1990), including the essay by John Barrell, “The Public Prospect and the Private View: the Politics of Taste in Eighteenth-Century Britain,” 19–40. </ref> For historians of American gardens, understanding the visual organization of space is equally important not only because it was a fundamental principle of imported garden design, but also because it was a key factor in the design of gardens in America’s unique political, economic, and social setting. Abigail Adams’s poetic rendering of the view from Richmond Hill, N.Y., in 1789 evokes not only a romantic view of nature but also a vision of American estates as villas, linking the new nation to a past era of republican ideals. <ref>For a fuller discussion of the villa in the New World, see James Ackerman, ''The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses'' (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990).</ref> In 1824, Benjamin Silliman described Monte Video in Connecticut as poised between a wilderness of “rocks and forest” and a “vast sheet of cultivation, filled with inhabitants.” His evocative description expresses the landscape’s capacity to inspire both a sense of quiet contemplation and a connection to the industry and “frolicks” of village life. | Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe has commented that in England the importance of the creation of views and prospects “became apparent when the enclosed medieval walled garden gradually expanded into walled gardens of more than one compartment—preparing the way for a unity of design in the 17th c.”<ref>Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe, “Vista,” in ''Oxford Companion to Gardens'', ed. Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 590.</ref> In England the importance of views into the countryside increased as a principle of garden design and as an aspect of changing land use and property-holding practices.<ref>For an example of the design practices used in creating views and prospects in eighteenth-century English gardens, see Douglas Chambers, “Prospects and the Natural Beauties of Places: Joseph Spence,” in ''The Planters of the English Landscape Garden'' (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993), 164–76. For a discussion of changing land-use practices and their implications on the organization of sight in landscape gardening, see Denis E. Cosgrove, ''Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 189–222; Raymond Williams, ''The Country and the City'' (London: Palladin, 1973); Simon Pugh, ed., ''Reading Landscape: Country, City, Capital'' (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1990), including the essay by John Barrell, “The Public Prospect and the Private View: the Politics of Taste in Eighteenth-Century Britain,” 19–40. </ref> For historians of American gardens, understanding the visual organization of space is equally important not only because it was a fundamental principle of imported garden design, but also because it was a key factor in the design of gardens in America’s unique political, economic, and social setting. Abigail Adams’s poetic rendering of the view from Richmond Hill, N.Y., in 1789 evokes not only a romantic view of nature but also a vision of American estates as villas, linking the new nation to a past era of republican ideals. <ref>For a fuller discussion of the villa in the New World, see James Ackerman, ''The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses'' (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990).</ref> In 1824, Benjamin Silliman described Monte Video in Connecticut as poised between a wilderness of “rocks and forest” and a “vast sheet of cultivation, filled with inhabitants.” His evocative description expresses the landscape’s capacity to inspire both a sense of quiet contemplation and a connection to the industry and “frolicks” of village life. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
The organization of vision may also provide information regarding the social hierarchy that is encoded in gardens. For instance, Dell Upton has argued that the terraced gardens of such plantations as John Tayloe II’s Mount Airy in Richmond County inscribed the status of Virginia’s whites and blacks into the topography. The landscape design of gates, ramps, terraces, and walks created a series of physical and social hurdles that each individual had to navigate differently, depending on his or her social standing in colonial society.<ref>Dell Upton, ''Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia'' (New York: Architectural History Foundation and Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986) and “White and Black Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia,” in ''Material Culture in America, 1600–1860'', ed. Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 357–69.</ref> | The organization of vision may also provide information regarding the social hierarchy that is encoded in gardens. For instance, Dell Upton has argued that the terraced gardens of such plantations as John Tayloe II’s Mount Airy in Richmond County inscribed the status of Virginia’s whites and blacks into the topography. The landscape design of gates, ramps, terraces, and walks created a series of physical and social hurdles that each individual had to navigate differently, depending on his or her social standing in colonial society.<ref>Dell Upton, ''Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia'' (New York: Architectural History Foundation and Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986) and “White and Black Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia,” in ''Material Culture in America, 1600–1860'', ed. Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 357–69.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- ''Elizabeth Kryder-Reid'' | ||
==Texts== | ==Texts== | ||
Revision as of 21:21, November 17, 2015
History
Travelers’ accounts of their journeys through the early American colonies contain many descriptions of extensive views and fine prospects. The frequent repetition of these and the related terms vista, “eminence,” and by the mid-nineteenth century, “panorama,” suggests the importance of views and view-making in the perception, design, and representation of American landscapes. [1] The significance of composing a view in the landscape is echoed in the visual record of American gardens. Among the most common images of gardens are those framing the façade of the house and those taking a view from the house out toward the landscape.
As A.-J. Dézallier d’Argenville noted in 1712, one aspect of a “good situation, is, the View and Prospect of a fine Country,” and American property owners often sited their houses with this advice in mind. Planters situated their houses along well-traveled rivers and overlooking harbors, both capturing water views and creating highly visible architectural statements of their status and wealth [Figs. 1 and 2]. As at Monte Video [Fig. 3], houses were often sited on eminences to benefit from the natural topography. Gardens built around such houses took full advantage of their natural settings, and treatise writers such as A. J. Downing (1850) admonished gardeners to “study the character of the place” so as not to “shut out and obstruct the beauty of prospect which nature has placed before your eyes.” The frequent use of the words “command” and “commanding” by visitors recording their impressions indicates the assertion of ownership and control that was so clearly an aspect of the visual presentation of these estates. Water, topographic relief, a variety of rock formations, and vegetal and geological diversity were all prized components of views. Distance was also a measure of merit, not only contributing to the beauty of the scene, but also claiming the breadth of “command” over the countryside.
The term “vista,” while less commonly used than the related terms “prospect” and “view,” was similar in its designation of views created within the garden or looking out of the garden into the surrounding landscape. The term “vista” also carried the more particular connotation, as Thomas Sheridan noted in 1789 and Noah Webster in 1850, of the sight lines that created a view, whether made by an avenue, a meadow, or a space between trees. A vista within the garden was generally terminated by a focal point, such as the Chinese temple at Judge William Peters’s Belmont Mansion, near Philadelphia. Even more common are descriptions of vistas from the garden to the world beyond. John Parke Custis (1717), Hannah Callender (1762), George Washington (1785), and Thomas Jefferson (1804) all used the term to describe framed views created by land cleared of trees (see Prospect).
Views were carefully planned and manipulated by a variety of techniques. The architecture of the dwelling often included exterior viewing platforms such as porches, piazzas, porticos, and verandas [Fig. 4]. Views of the house often were choreographed by carefully designed approaches, which allowed a visitor to catch glimpses of the house as he or she arrived and departed. As an 1837 article in the Horticultural Register noted, the view should be “so divided into different scenes or compartments” by various types of vegetation. Garden buildings or seats, such as those seen at Montgomery Place [Fig. 5], and those placed under a cluster of trees in Charles Fraser’s painting of Rice Hope [Fig. 6], punctuated the landscape with invitations to pause and to admire the vista. Distant views were framed by plantings or by pruned trees, as at the Woodlands and at Springland [Fig. 7]. Their composition was also influenced by elevated mounts, such as those flanking the front gates of Mount Vernon; or by openings in hedges, trees, and walls [Fig. 8].
Another element of view-making was the use of barriers (such as walls, fences, and hedges) to screen less picturesque elements of a plantation. This technique was reported in 1790 in a description of the Elias Hasket Derby Farm in Peabody, Mass. John Trumbull’s 1792 plan for Yale College included instructions for a similar barrier that would provide a screen for the nose as well as the eyes. Inscribed on the plan is the directive that “The Temples of Cloacina [or priveys] (which it is too much the custom of New England to place conspicuously), I would wish to have concealed as much as possible, by planting a variety of Shrubs, such as Laburnums, Lilacs, Roses, Snowballs, Laurels, &c.” [2]
In urban settings, where lot size and the proximity of buildings limited sightlines into the distance, gardens often reflected treatises’ instructions to enhance views with smaller property. Such structures as temples or summerhouses were placed in gardens to serve as both focal points and viewing platforms see Belvedere). These effects could also be achieved without building; in 1758 Theophilus Hardenbrook advertised designs for “Niche’s eyetraps trompe l’oeil, to represent a building, terminating a walk, or to hide some disagreeable object” in the New York Gazette. Treatises also suggested enhancing small gardens by laying out walks or terraces with converging (rather than parallel) sides to create the impression of greater depth. Similarly, such features as alleys or avenues with dimensions that appeared to converge created the illusion of distance from the viewer.
Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe has commented that in England the importance of the creation of views and prospects “became apparent when the enclosed medieval walled garden gradually expanded into walled gardens of more than one compartment—preparing the way for a unity of design in the 17th c.”[3] In England the importance of views into the countryside increased as a principle of garden design and as an aspect of changing land use and property-holding practices.[4] For historians of American gardens, understanding the visual organization of space is equally important not only because it was a fundamental principle of imported garden design, but also because it was a key factor in the design of gardens in America’s unique political, economic, and social setting. Abigail Adams’s poetic rendering of the view from Richmond Hill, N.Y., in 1789 evokes not only a romantic view of nature but also a vision of American estates as villas, linking the new nation to a past era of republican ideals. [5] In 1824, Benjamin Silliman described Monte Video in Connecticut as poised between a wilderness of “rocks and forest” and a “vast sheet of cultivation, filled with inhabitants.” His evocative description expresses the landscape’s capacity to inspire both a sense of quiet contemplation and a connection to the industry and “frolicks” of village life.
Understanding the visual logic of American gardens has been particularly important in deciphering gardens as social commentary. For example, the reconstruction of specific viewing platforms, focal points, and openings in the visual barriers of a garden (walls, fences, rows of trees) provides valuable information about the ways in which people were intended to circulate in a garden.[6] At Fairmount Park in Philadelphia, for instance, the stairs and viewing pavilions created an explicit route through the grounds with carefully orchestrated views that are apparent in myriad illustrations and descriptions of the site. In another example, the triangular terraced garden built by Charles Carroll of Carrollton in Annapolis during the 1770s created very different visual effects depending upon where the viewer stood. A passerby on Spa Creek saw terraces that elevated and accentuated an impressive Georgian brick house. A visitor permitted to stroll to the top terrace was treated to a sweeping view of the creek and countryside beyond, an effect enhanced by the foreshortening of the terraces and falls, the placement of pavilions at the ends of the sea wall, and the spreading angle of the brick wall marking the garden’s hypotenuse. Only those permitted into the house, with its privileged views overlooking the terraces, gained the vantage point to appreciate the garden geometry with its 3-4-5 proportions and parterre planting patterns.
The organization of vision may also provide information regarding the social hierarchy that is encoded in gardens. For instance, Dell Upton has argued that the terraced gardens of such plantations as John Tayloe II’s Mount Airy in Richmond County inscribed the status of Virginia’s whites and blacks into the topography. The landscape design of gates, ramps, terraces, and walks created a series of physical and social hurdles that each individual had to navigate differently, depending on his or her social standing in colonial society.[7]
-- Elizabeth Kryder-Reid
Texts
Usages
Citations
Images
Notes
- ↑ For an example of the significance of the construction of views in landscape perception see Peter M. Briggs, “Timothy Dwight ‘Composes’ a Landscape for New England,” American Quarterly 40 (September 1988): 359–77. For a discussion of the links between optics, monumental architecture and landscapes, and social control, see Jerry D. Moore, Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 98–101 and 168–73.
- ↑ John Trumbull describing his plan for Yale College, New Haven, Conn. Yale University Library, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale Picture Collection, 48-A-46, box 1, folder 2.
- ↑ Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe, “Vista,” in Oxford Companion to Gardens, ed. Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 590.
- ↑ For an example of the design practices used in creating views and prospects in eighteenth-century English gardens, see Douglas Chambers, “Prospects and the Natural Beauties of Places: Joseph Spence,” in The Planters of the English Landscape Garden (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993), 164–76. For a discussion of changing land-use practices and their implications on the organization of sight in landscape gardening, see Denis E. Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 189–222; Raymond Williams, The Country and the City (London: Palladin, 1973); Simon Pugh, ed., Reading Landscape: Country, City, Capital (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1990), including the essay by John Barrell, “The Public Prospect and the Private View: the Politics of Taste in Eighteenth-Century Britain,” 19–40.
- ↑ For a fuller discussion of the villa in the New World, see James Ackerman, The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990).
- ↑ Elizabeth Kryder-Reid, “The Archaeology of Vision in Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Gardens,” Journal of Garden History 14 (spring 1994): 42–54, and Kryder-Reid, “Sites of Power and the Power of Sight: Vision in the California Mission Landscape,” in Dianne Harris and D. Fairchild Ruggles, Sites Unseen: Landscape and Vision (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007), 181–212.
- ↑ Dell Upton, Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia (New York: Architectural History Foundation and Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986) and “White and Black Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia,” in Material Culture in America, 1600–1860, ed. Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 357–69.
