I like this quote.."seeing too much is seeing nothing"..

While I generally agree in theory, I dislike the notion that opting for a very vibrant and mixed color scheme in the garden is somehow wrong or in poor taste. Mother Nature is not careful about editing for color and mixed wildflowers in bloom can be a riot of color!! And then there are the traditional British perennial borders that combine all manner of colors together, often with some careful planning behind them but just as many without. And while it is not my preference or taste, I have no issue with the typical 'cottage garden' style of planting either, which typically features a lot of diverse colors.

It is all a matter of personal preference and then weighing that with the principles behind good landscape design. To a gardener, their garden is a statement of their personality and is there is no right or wrong.......only what they like. Unless one is focused on the English style perennial border or on the cottage garden look, it is rare to have too many different plants in bloom at once so the coloring is staggered throughout the season. And the more ideal look will be one that features green in all its shades and hues as a backdrop and unifying element for passing splashes of color.

Even with a wide range of greens being used, the lack of any accenting or complimentary colors will lead to a very monochromatic and therefore boring landscape. This is also where the "seeing too much is seeing nothing" axiom comes into play as well - all that green blends into a sold wall of of the same color unless there is something in contrast to separate and distinguish its individual elements.

Agree with gardengal..I like the quote and it came to mind when I read this post but I DO love color..green is beautiful but I want MORE than just green..

But, Gardengal, isn't is exactly when one weighs personal preference with the principles behind good landscape design that it may discovered that one's "personal taste" (or skill) is not very good? The idea that "there is no right or wrong .....only what they like" seems to indicate that an outside measure cannot apply. To my thinking, when it comes to matters of taste and quality, it is EXACTLY an outside measure that has value. While people tend to like, or say they like, their own work (often because they did it, paid money for it and sometimes must live with it) that does not mean it has any value insofar as others being able to learn from or appreciate it. Isn't it those projects which nearly anyone can appreciate that have the most value insofar as being examples of goodness or which are worthy of copying and learning from?

Agree with Yardvaark too..I'm sick..feeling weak..inside and reading..now I'm confused..love simplicity and clean lines but also color..what I don't like are "spotty" bits of color..a little here..a little there..do like mass plantings..do think there is such a thing as good design principles..

Personal taste is a hard thing to monitor or evaluate :-) If you apply your requirements for a "tasteful" landscape to someone else's garden, they are just your requirements/opinions. I'm not sure how we got from personal 'taste' to 'quality' - the two are not mutually exclusive. I encounter gardens all the time that would not necessarily fit into the parameters of a "good " landscape design, yet they offer the qualities of being attractive, appealing, well kept and an expression of the owner's personality. Do they have less significance or are of they of less value simply because they do not strictly adhere to all the design principles? And I'm not sure I understand or accept the notion that a "good' landscape design can only derive value from an outside source or needs to be evaluated in terms of it being copied or used as a learning tool. If it successfully satisfies all the owner's wants and needs and does so in a reasonably defined and well thought-out manner, isn't that sufficient?

Using a lot of different colors may not be to your taste but it does not necessarily contradict any design principles to do so. Color in itself is not a major design element except how it interacts with the common principles like repetition and balance. When I teach design classes, I usually recommend that my students ignore flower colors when creating their design. Flowers are extremely transitory in their appearance and come and go in the blink of an eye. They should be of very tertiary consideration when creating a design, whereas foliage color, and especially evergreen or permanent foliage color, does play a far more significant role. But even then, to suggest that blue or gold or red foliage has no place in a good design or will result in a 'detergent box' landscape is stretching things to the extreme.

One of the reasons I opted to become a garden designer rather than a landscape designer or landscape architect (even though I have a previous architecture degree) is because I wanted to be able to help gardeners/homeowners create a garden - not a landscape - that suited their needs and wishes and reflected their personality. It's a pretty fine distinction, I know, but one that I feel is significant. One carries a sense of ownership and interaction; the other is much more impersonal and reflects the site primarily.....the ownership and involvement is really inconsequential.

I am probably not explaining myself well but it is Saturday afternoon and my brain is not well centered for getting into a pretty esoteric design discussion :-)) I've been outside plunking more color into my landscape!!

Does anyone here know about the Philadelphia Flower Show? It is an annual fundraiser held in March. Part of the show includes exhibits which compete for the blue ribbon. The last time I went was about 20 years ago. I was totally preoccupied with a recreation of NJ Pine Barrens Bog. It was complete with water feature, fallen logs, mosses, ferns and an occasional Rose Pogonia.

OMG right next to this scene was just the opposite. It looked like someone trucked in 1000 potted hyacinths. No design skill, no theme, no thoughtful preparation, no nothing. BTW the hyacinths attracted very little attention from attendees.

So what's it gonna be? If the choice is between Charlize Theron or Dolly Parton, I'll choose the former.

But ..... but .... I really like Dolly!

"I am probably not explaining myself well but it is Saturday afternoon and my brain is not well centered for getting into a pretty esoteric design discussion :-)) I've been outside plunking more color into my landscape!!" You were perhaps DRUNK ON COLOR?? :-)

GG, wouldn't the characteristics which would make a garden "not necessarily good design," also make it less attractive and/or less functional than it otherwise would or could be IF it was good design?

"If it [a garden] successfully satisfies all the owner's wants and needs and does so in a reasonably defined and well thought-out manner, isn't that sufficient?" Maybe for the owner but not necessarily anyone else. We see a number of times those who come to this forum, state their problem and then list out their bad and wrong ideas of how they're going to solve it ... and sometimes cannot be talked out of it. What one accepts for himself may have no particular value worth repeating for anyone else. In spite of this, I don't see that helping someone achieve their personal goals has any less value than helping someone else achieve a goal that has broad appeal for the general public. But the end result in one case, by definition, has broad appeal and in the other case MAY not .... though it is not necessarily the case that it WILL not.

I would never claim that certain colors don't have a place in the landscape, or that sometimes many colors don't. But neither would I deny that colors or the way they're used can diminish or even decimate a landscape. Like the other arts, how the ingredients are used plays a large part in the success of the end product.

LOL @ Yardvaark, OK I'll ask it another way:

.... Charlize Theron or Dame Edna, I'll choose the former :)

Woodies are sometimes overlooked in landscape design, IMO they are the backbone and skeleton. Broad-leaved evergreens (BLEs) are especially important. Here in the mid-Atlantic from Thanksgiving through April green is especially important and those BLEs provide great variety of texture, form plus, simply put they add a touch of class to the winter landscape.

"Woodies are sometimes overlooked in landscape design"

Not in my area!! Woodies are the staples of any landscape design here with flowering perennials definitely taking a secondary role in the design. However, green here in winter is unrelenting so adding some winter color, whether through foliage, bark effect or winter flowering is pretty much de rigueur.

"wouldn't the characteristics which would make a garden "not necessarily good design," also make it less attractive and/or less functional than it otherwise would or could be IF it was good design?"

Not necessarily :-)) I find that some gardens have a very strong appeal aesthetically as well as function perfectly well that do not follow many of the basic design principles. One down the street from me comes to mind as I drive by it on almost a daily basis. It is pretty much a mish-mash of plants ala cottage garden style - edibles, fruit trees, small ornamental trees, grasses, perennials and biennials/annuals. It is an evolved garden rather than a planned garden and at this time of year, a riot of color. Would I have designed this garden in a similar style?........not at all but it is nonetheless striking and demands attention. Cars inevitably slow going by.

And I'd argue whether a garden needs to satisfy anyone other than the owner. Is it really anyone else's business - unless governed by those ridiculous HOA requirements - how a garden is constructed or laid out and what it contains? As long as it does not infringe on the neighboring properties.

LOL!! It sounds like I am arguing against landscape design but that is really not the case :-) Some folks just don't have a clue and desperately need the help of a designer. And there are others - quite a lot in my area - who are avid gardeners but with little to no training in design yet seem to know innately how to arrange things in a visually pleasing and perfectly functional manner.

It could be that gardens supposedly not following "many of the basic design principles" (yet functioning and being aesthetic) are actually following the REAL design principles but not the supposed design principles. I'm pretty sure we would have some differences of opinion about what the principle actually are. Also, the purpose and goals of the outdoor project can vary so widely and the measure of it must take this into account. I agree that a garden does not need to measure up to or satisfy anyone else's, but the owners. But merely satisfying that requirement alone is not going to mean that its design is good. We know that many people have some very low standards when it comes to the outdoors. I think that many avid gardeners create wonderful spaces because many of the tools they are working with are gorgeous pretty much no matter what one does with them. Harley-Davidson made a bunch of ugly engine machinery pretty just by chroming everything. Remove all that chrome and a Harley would not be the piece of jewelry that it is.