STATUS TYPE OCLC # In Transit Copy 76811822 SOURCE REQUEST DATE NEED BEFORE 127567746 ILLiad 07/08/2014 08/07/2014 BORROWER RECEIVE DATE DUE DATE IUA LENDERS *CUY, EYM, NTE, ORU, VPI BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION LOCAL ID 2006- AUTHOR ARTICLE AUTHOR Marc Treib TITLE Journal of landscape architecture : JoLA. ARTICLE TITLE Landscapes transitional, modern, modernistic, modernist IMPRINT Wageningen : European Council of Landscape FORMAT Serial Architecture Schools EDITION ISSN 1862-6033 VOLUME 8 NUMBER 1 DATE 2013 PAGES 6-15 INTERLIBRARY LOAN INFORMATION ALERT AFFILIATION AMIGOS-ILL,@/BCR, LVIS, recip <#11-DAL>, COPYRIGHT US:CCG VERIFIED <TN:610980><ODYSSEY:129.107.67.177/ILL> MAX COST OCLC IFM - 25.00 USD SHIPPED DATE 07/08/2014 LEND CHARGES OCLC IFM - 17.00 USD FAX NUMBER 817-272-5804 LEND RESTRICTIONS EMAIL [email protected] ODYSSEY 129.107.67.177/ILL ARIEL FTP ARIEL EMAIL BILL TO ILL OFFICE UTA LIBRARIES 702 PLANETARIUM PLACE ARLINGTON, TX, US 76019-0497 BILLING NOTES Pls include copy of workform and your FEIN with invoice, thanks. SHIPPING INFORMATION SHIP VIA Odyssey//email//1st CLASS RETURN VIA SHIP TO ILL OFFICE <TEXPRESS #11 DAL> RETURN TO UTA LIBRARIES N/A 702 PLANETARIUM PLACE ARLINGTON, TX, US 76019-0497 This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Berkeley] On: 08 July 2014, At: 08:41 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Landscape Architecture Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjla20 Landscapes transitional, modern, modernistic, modernist Marc Treib a a University of California , Berkeley , USA Published online: 24 May 2013. To cite this article: Marc Treib (2013) Landscapes transitional, modern, modernistic, modernist, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 8:1, 6-15, DOI: 10.1080/18626033.2013.798917 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2013.798917 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions landscapes transitional, modern, modernistic, modernist Marc Treib, University of California, Berkeley, Usa Abstract The term ‘modern landscape architecture’ normally qualifies those twen- In 1938 the Canadian landscape architect Christopher Tunnard called tieth-century designs that looked ahead, rather than to the past. To be for a modern garden in accord with contemporary life, arguing that the more precise, however, we might add to the broad category of ‘modern’ modern condition demanded a new aesthetic expression. [1] Much of Tun- the sub-categories of ‘transitional’, ‘modernistic’ and ‘modernist’. Seen nard’s argument was predicated on ideas then circulating in the world of in this light, modern refers to twentieth-century landscapes that derived English architecture; much less so in the making of landscapes. Architec- from the materials, technology and social needs of the times, but with ture, unlike landscape design, was profiting from_and deriving a new no restriction on vocabulary. Modernistic landscapes borrowed in a sim- aesthetic from_the flood of new materials and technologies coming into ilar way, but more superficially, retaining the spatial structure of historic common use: structural systems of steel and concrete, window glass now landscapes_as did transitional works, including those rooted in nat- available in large panes and the elevator that made tall buildings practi- uralism. Modernist, then, specifically applies only to those landscapes cal. [2] Landscape architecture could not rely on new materials to an equal that deliberately proposed and tested new spatial and formal ideas, often degree. Then, what factors might drive similar innovations in landscape adapting graphic idioms drawn from the modern plastic arts. architecture expressive of the modern condition? How does one convey ideas of modernity using living materials that are inherently ‘conserva- G. N. Brandt / Garrett Eckbo / expression / tive’—plants and trees that have existed for centuries and will continue to modern landscape / modernist landscape exist in those forms far into the future? What, in fact, might constitute a contemporary landscape in accord with, and expressive of, modern life? While many practitioners, including some of the best-known, believed they were engaged in the production of modern landscapes, today we may question the radicalism of their designs as inventions in space and form, if not in programme and social efficacy. We may even question the basis of their ideas or the retention of vegetation as their primary material. Our first task, then, is to try to define modern landscape architecture, of which the modern garden was a part. Defining terms One definition of modern applies to the ideas, values and objects created Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 08:41 08 July 2014 during the period in which we live. That notion of modern is notoriously shifty, however, since the times are always changing; what is modern today will not be modern tomorrow. In 1860 Paul Letarouilly titled his book Les Édifices de Rome Moderne, although the buildings he presented dated from much earlier years. [3] Today the book is a document of cen- turies even further in the past_and hardly modern. Some two centuries after Letarouilly, the American architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock called his pioneering study Modern Architecture, that is, concern- ing a particular architecture from the twentieth century. [4 ] He champi- oned what has come to be called the International Style, in opposition to what he considered a retrograde classicism. So, defining modern as be- ing ‘of our time’ is obviously insufficient_the idea of modern is itself too dynamic. Is modern, then a style? Must the garden or building in some way look innovative, perhaps by borrowing forms, materials or spatial ideas from the period’s sister arts? That is probably closer to how we nor- mally regard the idea of a modern landscape_but I would suggest that the term remains too inclusive and unspecific. 6 Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2013 Figure 1 Gertrude Jekyll, Hestercombe, Taunton, Figure 2 Gunnar Asplund and Sigurd Lewerentz, Woodland Cemetery, Enskede, Sweden, England, 1907. The Dutch Garden. 1915–1940. The meditation knoll seen from the Chapel of the Holy Cross. The literary theorist Marshall Berman advanced a triad of terms that quire a definition of modern that embraces all these various categories of might provide a useful framework for studying the landscapes of the landscape design_or a division between form and making. In Jekyll’s case, twentieth century. These are modernization, modernity and modernism. the horticultural technique was modern but not the form of the land- [5] Modernization traces the shift from agriculture to industry, the coun- scape that resulted. try to the city, lower to higher population densities. Modernity, in Ber- To the term modern, then, we might propose the further division into man’s view, is the consequent state achieved by modernization; we dwell modernist_and even a third and fourth group, transitional and modern- in a state of modernity. Modernism, by extension, qualifies those arts that istic. Modern then refers to twentieth-century landscapes that relied on consciously attempt to enfold or express that state of modernity. That is the materials, technology and social needs of its times. According to one to say, modernist works are those which use the attitudes, materials and ideal, its forms would reflect these parameters. Transitional landscapes ad- technologies offered by contemporary conditions as the basis of the for- vanced new ideas in certain areas but remained rooted in the past. Modern- mal creation. We can debate whether this definition can ever hold true istic landscapes retained existing spatial structures while borrowing from in landscape architecture, where we rely to such a large degree on living the modern plastic arts, but somewhat superficially. Modernist becomes a materials whose physical properties elude their times. Regardless of the sub-category of the modern, landscape designs that deliberately tested new resultant form, the forces behind landscape design_current technology spatial and formal