Are we exterior decorators then? Tarting up the landscape with meaningful details? If it were a girl thing then metrosexuals would cease to exist.

Some posts seem to look at landscaping (help me with curb appeal)as exterior decorating. The question is asked after the house is sited, the driveway and walkways installed and now it is what flowers and shrubs do I need? Same as what drapories, pillowes, pictures do I need on the inside after the house is constructed.

The devil is in the details.

It seems that interior design seems to be dismissed as decorating as often as landscape architecture/design is. At least, I find that interior design, despite the fact that walls, floor, and ceiling may all be in place, deals with a lot of design (not decorating) issues that parallel those outside. Not only do fabric choices and matching candlesticks pull a room together, but also the style of furnishings and - for that matter - what furnishings you put into what spaces and how. I guess there are vestiges of the model-building project still lingering within me, but I find that (at least for the most part) we are very much like interior designers.

As for decorating/ornamentation outside, I wouldn't consider planting design as decoration. The fact that it's often considered later and [sometimes, or perhaps too often?] has to compensate for other poor design choices makes it seem more like ornamentation or even a masking of said faults.

I find that details do not occupy a distinct segment of the "design process" (call it what you will). I'm not sure if I would consider details to be distinct physical objects either (i.e. flowers, or accessories). More often, I find that details arise from deliberate attention to all aspects of the design. In design studio today, the professors showed a huge amount of slides to help get us thinking about our orphaned urban spaces (project #2). Details included such small things as aligning a sewer grate with the square pattern in the pavement, or raising up the curb so slightly as to hinder people from trampling the grass in a raised border, to the off-centre placement of a fountain as to draw pedestrians around a corner. So, instead of details being the question of "What?", I think it more as a question of "How?" By thinking this, I hope to eliminate reliance on excessive ornamentation to pull a design together, thus to create the most effective, powerful design that I can.

-Audric

The details are most important when there is simplicity in design. Somtimes the simplist things are the most complex.

Nice post Audric and right on the money too. Of course broad strokes are important too and it may be that otherwise unnoticed details only become important after the event, see IB's post on the steps question.An artist/designer knows that only one mushroom or faerie or spacing between planks on a bridge is right and this makes the difference between average and excellent.

If you need a belt, wear a belt. If you wear a belt, get one that works with the rest of your outfit.

If you see a belt you like, buy it and wear it with no regard to the rest of your clothes?

Buy the belt because you like it, then adjust your wardrobe around it?

Do so whether you need the belt or not?

Now substitute any landscape element for the belt and your landscape for the wardrobe, clothes, or outfit.

Does the belt have a function whether it holds your pants up or not? If it is making your outfit more appealing, of course it has.

Ink, you are a genius to be able to take a belt story and get so much good dialog.

Other observations:
Metrosexuals are a girl thing practiced by non-girls.
Decorating is a portion of design.
A detail is something that influences the balance of a design - it does little on its own and much more by how it is compared to or compared against either subtly or overtly.

"A detail is something that influences the balance of a design - it does little on its own and much more by how it is compared to or compared against either subtly or overtly." I think this is a wise observation especially when the balance can be upset either way; that is with NO attention to detail or with too much attention to details so that the overall effect is lost. I once worked with mentally handicapped teenagers some had Downs syndrome, we had the felt tipped pens out for drawing one day and I told them that it was important to put the tops back on so that the pens didn't dry up. Stewart spent the whole time securing the pen tops and never got round to putting anything on paper. Meanwhile, some of the others had coloured the paper, the table and the backs of their hands! 'Balance' is a very important principle.

laag - great post. (Tho I'm not sure about the metrosexuals, myself). Not sure I have much new to say on the subject.

Tho, Audric, there's a difference between Interior Design and Interior Decorating, as well. Int. Design is about the forms and spaces, while Int. Decorating is simply about finishes and furnishings, if I understand correctly. Of course, there is overlap.

Personally, I think plant selection is more than just the details. The overall plan is only part of a design. The plant selection affects every aspect of the design, from form, maintenance, affect on the environment, color, and character, etc.

And a belt can make or break an outfit, as well...

Confession:

I wear a western style belt with a big silver Montana Silversmiths buckle with the Seal of the State of Idaho on it. I wear it with my jeans and T-shirts. But at least five days a week I wear it with my LL-Chinos, button down shirts (complete with pocket protector - no joke), and my cordovan penny loafers.

I guess that wipes out all of my credibility in this thread.

The good news is that I have not yet considered the necessity of having my name engraved on the back of my belt so that when I pull my head out ........ I can remember who I am.

Can I equate this to moving all over the world in many different climates, but having the need to have a Japanese Maple outside the front door no matter the garden style?

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Decorators get no respect.

I think when considering the difference between design and decorating we should step back and consider our own preconceived notions of "what is design" and "what is art."
Dismissing something as a "mere accessory" implies as much about or views as about the object in question.
I think that there may be a bit of sensitivity steming from the usual identification of landscape design as "low art" or mere "outide decorating." (although certain examples of landscape design, such as the gardens at Versailles, have sometimes been studied as "high art.")

But as someone who has spent their life studying artifacts rather than art, I must say:"What's wrong with decorating?"
Andy Warhol spent years decorating storefront windows for a department store in NY. No one ever called him a "mere decorator."

So-called "high art" BTW is stuff like paintings and scuplture, whereas "low art" includes things like ceramics and textiles. The dividing line between the two is FUNCTION.
I can't help wonder if that's why we consider the rose more beautiful than the tomato, the parterre superior to the potager.
Or if that's why so many of us are drawn to useless objects suchas gazing balls cluttering up our landscapes.

Personally, I find a mailbox more beautiful than a statuette, but I have always thought that when functional objects are beautiful (and they can be) that they are much more beautiful (to me) that a functionless art object.

There's my thoughts on accessories.

That was an enjoyable perspective BP.

The only objection I have to a "mere accessory" in the landscape is when it takes precedence to the exclusion of all else. It is kind of like a woman getting all couffed-up with hair, make-up, ear rings and pearl necklace but doesn't bother removing the booger hanging out of her nose.

But then... perhaps I am displaying my own preconceived notions.

IronBelly

As crude as that example is it may point to something other than chauvinism and that is the mistake of decorating to disguise. Andrew gets away with his nonchalant attitude towards accessories because the body he puts his T shirt and jeans on is Adonis like and needs no embellishment. The "western style belt" is icing on the cake so to speak and would look totally different on a body that needed the belt for structural purposes. In other words: when you have it flaunt it.

Thanks everyone for a very interesting read. I think this topic is under-emphasized. For us non-professionals, not going overboard on accessorizing is a major challenge. I've been waiting patiently for someone to bring up unity, or order, or some other design principle to help us decide when and how to accessorize, but it hasnÂt really happened, though I think it was implicit in burntplants post. Post-processing, what I think I learned was to accessorize when there is a reason to do so. For some, that reason might simply be "I need more decoration." So if you want a "pop-art" landscape, 200 gazing globes might be appropriate and not clutter. On the other hand, youÂll have to be an exceptional designer to make 200 gazing globes look like they belong on your property, not to mention youÂd have to be able to hire a lot of neighborhood kids to keep them polished. So for most of us, is less more?

ink: You've even de-accessorized your language. To many of us, the phrase is "when you've got it, flaunt it."

I can tell we can't get outside with the winter weather!:-)

Any photography folks? Think about depth of field. If you place an object at the front of the photo and another object in the distance of a similar size, the observer can understand the perspective of the distance from point A to point B.

Therefore, a carefully placed object (accessory) like an urn, at the beginning of a path and another like-sized object at the end of the path, draws the person down the path. In this case, the accessories serve a purpose.

Are stepping stones and pathways accessories? They can make a garden look so inviting for wandering through. They invite the person to stroll. Yet, they are functional as they define the path and give your feet a safe place to step.

Is a bench an accessory? Properly placed, it gives you somewhere to pause and rest, relax, etc. Functional. At the same time, the right bench can create a vignette of plants and structures in harmony.

I recently took 4 photos to group on a wall (decorating, right?).

In photo 1, my husband and I are standing in front of the Ponte de Gard in France with it's Roman-built arches.

Photo 2 relates to photo 1 as it is a photo of our cottage garden arched wooden bridge.

Photo 3 is of our two sons in front of a waterfall during a hike on the Appalachian Trail.

Photo 4 relates to 3 as it is a photo of the waterfall in our cottage garden.

Photos 1 and 3 are related -- we were away on vacations in beautiful places.

Photos 2 and 4 are related as they are of our cottage garden.

My analogy with the photo grouping is to show how related objects can be used to create a comfortable vision and sense of rhythm. It all makes sense to our minds, but we may not be aware of it. So, our challenge is to create a comfortable vision and rhythm, but the observer doesn't really know why the garden feels so right.

Accessories can help us when plant material and hardscape need something else> to evoke that sense of comfort and rhythm.

I think some of you may have missed this "Andrew gets away with his nonchalant attitude towards accessories because the body he puts his T shirt and jeans on is Adonis like and needs no embellishment" Anyone who has seen Michelangelo's 'David' knows that it stands alone as 'as good as it gets' and cannot be improved with adding anything or taking anything away. The tilt of the head or the way a hand is held up is the accessory or attention to detail that makes this sculpture holistically comforting. It stands in a square surrounded by tourists. So, no, an all inclusive depth of field is not the only way to take a photograph nor is the broad stroke the only way to view a garden. A garden or a sculpture or any other work of art needs a central idea. 'I want to wear my clothes so that girls will look at me and think that they want to be with me'. This may bring us back to the beginning and why this belt works and the other one doesn't.