Unity is abstract. It is simply keeping things from looking disjointed. There are many ways to build unity.

Take a drawer full of silverware and dump it out on the floor. The pieces will scatter. They will still have a few things going on that give them some unity. First, they are likely to be of similar color. Then there will be multiple pieces of only a few forms (several spoon, several knives, several forks) which is loosely repetitive. The surface of the floor is a unifying element that ties them together somewhat.

But, you can do several things to these pieces to add more unity. You can organize them into a pile of spoons, a pile of knives, and a pile of forks. You could align them in the same direction or make paterns with them. You could even organize then into place settings. You could pick them up and put them on a table. You could intoduce other unifying things such as place mats, plates, and napkins. You could use matching colors in those place mats and napkins.

Or, you can pick them up and neatly place them in the silverware drawer, or organize them in the dishwasher rack.

Unity can be acheived in many ways. It can be strong and it can be subtle.

I don't know if this is more confusing or helpful, but there is no one way to create unity and no minimum or maximum of how much there has to be.

Someone just posted about how much unity they got out of adding a brick or stone edging to a planting. It was a great piece because she did not just accept that as being done. She went further to match the color to other color in her planting. She also realized that she had gone a long way in trying to promote unity in the planting before the edging was done and that the edging teamed up with that to really make something very powerful.

That's good Laag. I can maybe offer a link back into gardening from the conceptual level.

I am a bit of a rebel in terms of things like unity and symmetry; I comply, but stubbornly have to do it my own way. I have several pairs of containers in the back yard, for example, but they are never placed directly opposite one another nor planted up the same.

Frankie started a wonderful thread about plant shapes some time back. This was a rescue concept for me in my own gardening; Instead of plant identities, I began to think in terms of plant shapes and their echos reverberating around the yard. That applies now to anything I put in by way of a design element; it has an echo element somewhere else in the vista. You can play the near view against the far view, the micro against the macro, and so on. For me, a dedicated collector of everything and so unable to commit to a single style that has inherent unity (a topiary garden, for example), the concept of judicious repetition of shapes has saved my yard from being a simple mish-mash of plants (at least I like to think it has).

It is no accident that this has also occurred in the immediate aftermath of the installation of a fair bit of hardscape that, while diverse, is consistent in being stone/concrete. That is the infrastructure of the garden (as is Frankie's edging in the post mentioned by Laag) and it provides inherent unity within with a lot of diversity can come together and present a coherent picture.

KarinL

There should be lots of potential for practical discussion on this. laag uses good metaphores.

If you look at "one" as a specimen; "two" as a pairing; "three" as a grouping, the odd number with a minimum of three can give you a pleasing jumping off point in making your visual statement. Proximity is placing elements together to form a grouping. Depending on how your taste in plant material runs, simply try to avoid using just one or two each of lots of different kind of plants unless you want the jumbled riot effect.

Repetition helps to relate various visual elements to each other. You don't have to repeat one specific plant throughout the space, however, consider replicating shape, color, or texture.

Continuation might be a line or edge - real or implied -that carries your eye throughout the space.

Continuity refers to the visual relationships between two or more planting designs. For a cohesive look even for separate gardening areas, rather than repeating the exact planting design for each garden bed, arrange them to complement each other by mixing plants with similar features such as color, shape or texture.

For me, simple largely means less. I repeat my use of daylilies, Siberian Iris, peonies, platycodon, tall garden phlox, nepeta, sedums, and lilies, etc. because they do well and I have a lot of stock to work with. Some of the over abundance I'm faced with is going to give way to some shrubs and conifers and maybe a few ornamental trees for vertical interest. Focal points or open space fillers? Plan hasn't quite gelled.

One reason why discussions may remain abstract is that, as alluded to many times before, there is no one set answer. You can have a garden with no repeated plants which could be just as unified as a garden with a highly controlled selection. To give examples of possible ways of creating unity may just be even more confusing than the most abstracted discussion.

I would define unity as something which works as a cohesive whole. The issue with relating unity with simplicity or repetition is that, when taken to an extreme, it can result in homogeneity.

Now, when dealing at a residential scale such as for a front yard garden, the space is typically small so that there is a lesser chance of homogeneity. So simplicity and repetition is often a good way to go. There is not much really to them; a dictionary definition is applicable to gardening as to any other use.

I see more issues arise not from understanding the concept, but to what they are applied. They do not need to apply literally to just plant choices. As mentioned above, shape, colour, texture, form, compositions, contrasts, sizes, etc. are all things which can be considered.

Simplicity: not complicated, not elaborate. Thus, fewer different types of plants, larger groupings, fewer groupings, massive groupings (in form, not in actual mass!) instead of greater contrasts, or perhaps the judicious use of fewer yet greater contrasts instead of multiple lesser contrasts, etc. Perhaps a consistent overriding form system.

Repetition: doing again, and again, and again, and again... (you get the idea). Again, not just in plant choices! Repeated forms, colours, textures, etc.

Like Laag, I don't know if I confused more than clarified. Short answer, "It depends" as oft quoted in this forum.

- Audric

Thanks guys, expounding on this helps me out. I'm trying to do the best to plan before I start into buying plants.

So I'm curious... how do you define a 'plant shape' for something like a lilac? The mature ones I've seen seem to be rather tall and amorphous. Previous owner left me a ton of them but they are mostly between 5 & 8 feet tall.

A Limelight hydrangea is basically a wide round shape, right?