Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Growing Australian landscapes: the use and meanings of native plants in gardens in twentieth-century Australia
Katie Holmes Version of record first published: 09 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Katie Holmes (2011): Growing Australian landscapes: the use and meanings of native plants in gardens in twentieth-century Australia, Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes: An International Quarterly, 31:2, 121-130 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14601176.2011.556371
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions 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. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Growing Australian landscapes: the use and meanings of native plants in gardens in twentieth-century Australia
katie holmes
In 1903 Charles Bogue-Luffman, the Principal of Australias first Horticultural College, Burnley, opined about the Australian flora and its lack of suitability for the garden: we suffer here from a lack of fine natural shapes, and graceful combinations in nature. There is, indeed, little of a soul-stirring and invigorating kind.1 One hundred years later Australians were being encouraged to go native in their gardens, to use this cultivated place to express something uniquely Australian.2 In the century that separated such diverse attitudes, much was said and written about the use of native Australian plants in the garden. This article examines the kinds of meanings attached to native plants, and considers what they can tell us about attitudes to both the Australian landscape and ideas about national character and identity. The Federation of Australia in 1901 left white Australians with a dual status. Gone were their numerous colonial identities; they were now both subjects of the British crown, and citizens of Australia. Aboriginal Australians, believed at the time to be a dying race, were not eligible for citizenship. How was this dual status of British subject and Australian citizen cultivated in, and through, the garden? I suggest here that the distinction made by many Australians between the garden and the bush provided a way for white Australians to negotiate their understanding of national identities. Although garden writers and horticulturalists enthused about the garden as a reflection of national pride, horticultural practice, did not match that rhetoric. This conflict between aspiration and practice as it developed over the twentieth century is central to the problem this article addresses. And central to that conflict, I suggest, is a very clear
issn 1460-1176 # 2011 taylor & francis vol. 31, no. 2
demarcation between bush and garden, and the negotiation of a dominant garden aesthetic, which viewed native plants as wild and, like the Aborigines who were also called natives, as unknown, untamed and unpredictable. The trajectory towards the growing use of native plants in Australian urban gardens was complex. There was no linear process that saw the eventual establishment of all-native gardens; rather, we see an accommodation of native plants and designs alongside exotic species, and a changing attitude toward the Australian bush whereby it became more familiar and tame, even a place to be replicated in the garden.
121
citizens in general: a reaction of pride, wonder and awe in the face of such natural beauty. But it is worth observing that Galbraiths effusive reaction was to the sight of wattles blooming in their natural environment the bush and not in the garden. Given the newness of the Australian nation, it is not surprising that a great deal of attention in gardening literature was given to thinking about the ways the garden could help instil in the population the kind of qualities needed for its future citizenry. Just as Wattle Day symbolized the golden anticipation of a happy future, so the garden would contribute materially to a better home life which is the very foundation of a nations wealth, strength and happiness.7 In inter-war garden literature we find a desire to marry the British gardening heritage with a new and emerging Australian identity. Millie Gibson was a landscape architect and writer for the Melbourne newspaper the Argus. Her weekly column, The Garden. Amateurs and Their Work. Hints and Comments, established her as a highly popular garden writer. Writing under the name Culturist, she displayed an intimate knowledge of the gardens of suburban Melbourne, providing gardeners with information and advice, as well as regular musings about the moral benefits of gardening. In November 1924, she addressed the relationship between gardens and national character:
The gardens of England bring us nearer home. Here we feel our feet tread on familiar ground. . . . The English have the same feeling for grouping flowers, but always with a lot of restraint, as befitting the soberness of the climate and the people. Now we are of that race, but with a different environment, and it is surely an interesting question to ask how our national gardening will develop. . . . The outstanding characteristic to-day seems to be a vivid sense of colour. Likely this is being unconsciously absorbed from the blue of our skies and the vivid hues of the Australian native flora . . . Can it be that the national gardening here will unite the sterling qualities of the British with the colour of Italy?8
It was precisely this kind of sentiment that the advocates of wattles in particular, but native plants more generally, hoped could be instilled amongst Australian
Millie Gibson herself promoted the use of native plants, believing they had practical qualities to offer the gardener: They had early flowering habits,9 and a predominance of vivid bloom in the spring. We do not realize all the possibilities of our native plants, which, including the acacias alone, give a wide range.10 Gibsons attention was to the look, the show of the plants, the way they fitted within the inherited visual idea of what a garden should look like. Wattles conformed particularly well in this regard. They had good shape and vivid
122
Perhaps the reason they were not often seen in gardens was that their relatively large size makes them unsuitable for many suburban gardens, and neither do they grow particularly well in Melbourne. Gibsons horticultural expertise did not lie in native plants. In this she was not alone. But what is revealing is that not only was she unfamiliar in a practical way with the plants she advocated but she adopted the view that most native Australian shrubs lacked beauty of form. One of the key problems for many gardeners and horticulturalists alike was (and in many ways still remains) the dominance of the European aesthetic in the garden, the reiteration of pictorial or picturesque structuring. Inheritors of what John Dixon Hunt describes as an uneasy legacy of pictorial taste, Australian gardeners, especially those living in the southern states of Australia, found it difficult to integrate native plants into their visions of what a garden should look like.12 The plants that did fit with that legacy of pictorial taste, and which also drew on memory and association, were primarily exotics: The dahlia is so gorgeous in colour and so valuable for garden display and cut flowers during the autumn that no garden should be without some,13 enthused Gibson. Lilies were another favourite: the Madonna lily is one of the easiest grown, and is to be found in almost every cottage garden in England.14 It was the ultimate endorsement. The influences on Gibsons own taste are readily apparent. She bemoaned the absence of much gardening literature dealing with Australian conditions, and in its place recommended the writings of Gertrude Jekyll (18431932), that enthusiastic advocate of natural gardens, to her readers as the standard works.15 When it came to shrubs, Gibson passed on the advice of William Robinson (18381935), the well-known English landscape gardener: Forsythia Suspense [sic] is certainly one of our finest shrubs and should be found in
every garden, however small.16 The similarity of this shrub with some wattles is readily apparent and helps us understand the readiness with which the wattle itself was embraced. The use of England as the measure of good taste in gardening reflected the dominance of the idea of English gardens, as well as the emotional connection many Australians still felt toward the centre of the Empire. Jean Galbraith, the wattle enthusiast and avid promoter of the use of native plants, captured this sense: It was inevitable that we, gardeners all and lovers of the England we had never seen should long to plant such a hedge.17 The very idea of an English garden, while rarely seen in situ, was the powerful determinant in shaping how a garden should look. Of the eucalypt Galbraith noted that, One can understand their absence from the city they could have no place in trim suburban gardens, where beds and borders toss their blossom to the edges of the lawns. In the country though, they should be valued.18 The country garden could be expansive enough to include such trees, where their shape and colour could even be featured and valued. In fact, Galbraiths own integration of native plants with exotics allowed her to create a very different vision of a garden than was common. In the orchard, she planted evergreens alongside the fruit-bearing trees, intermingling natives with more familiar plants. That may be why this garden is in no way separate from the valley. It is a flower of the same soil as the bush and the grass paddocks are, and seems to recognise its kinship with them.19 Few horticulturalists promoted the use of native plants in the inter-war garden as eloquently as Jean Galbraith. In this she was aided by the Field Naturalists Society, of which she was a member. Each year the Society held an annual wildflower show, in which they sought to display the variety and beauty of native plants, and to encourage the growing of them in suburban gardens. The show was usually opened by a local dignitary who made appropriate comments about the beauty of the exhibits and endorsed the activities of the Society. In 1925, the Minister for Railways, Mr Eggleston, called on the Field Naturalists to help in the stimulation of an Australian sentiment by educating Australians about their native flora.20 While he did not specify just what an Australian sentiment entailed, we can be confident it involved taking patriotic pride in Australias natural environment and that knowledge about native plants would assist in its development. Many horticultural writers did extol the uniqueness and beauty of Australian wildflowers, and the variety and colour to be found in the native flora, and encouraged their planting in home gardens. But a different prevailing practice is
123
124
125
Post-war attitudes
After World War II, ideas about the garden began to change, albeit slowly. Garden writers might encourage gardeners to use more native plants in their garden, but did not refrain from disparaging comment about their inadequacies. Reginald Edwards, in The Australian Garden Book (1950), for example, encouraged gardeners not to have their blocks cleared of all trees when building their homes, then proceeded to observe that native trees and shrubs were not so colourful and beautiful as many imported kinds, and throw much less shade, but they should not be despised, for they are very hardy and with a little care and attention can be converted into specimens of lasting utility and decoration. But his 316 page book devotes just six and a half pages to native flowers. A more notable shift in attitudes toward native plants began to happen with the publication of several significant books by women writers, namely Edna Wallings The Australian Roadside (1952), and Thistle Harriss Australian Plants for the Garden (1953).38 In 1957, the New South Wales-based Thistle Harris and the Victorian botanist Arthur Swaby founded the Society for Growing Australian Plants, which helped to disseminate knowledge about the cultivation of native plants. In post-war Australia, the encouragement to grow native plants was framed less as a patriotic duty and more as an expression of national identity, their suitability to the environment and as a measure towards their preservation. Thistle Harris believed that the majority of exotic plants were ill-suited to the Australian climate, and she wanted to publicize the versatility of the Australian flora. Prewar concerns about the threat posed to Australias unique botanical heritage were compounded, post-war, by expanding suburban development. In the 1950s and 1960s, calls to grow more native plants frequently echoed earlier fears that White settlement threatened those same plants with extinction. The Society for Growing Native Plants took as its motto Preservations through Cultivation, and sought to cultivate, improve and preserve Australian flora in both the garden and the bush.39 The Society played a significant role in educating the public about native plants and their possible use in gardens. There were other such groups with similar motivations. The Beaumaris Tree Preservation Society, from the Melbourne
126
127
Conclusion
For the century or more that garden writers and horticulturalists in Australia have been encouraging Australians to grow more native plants in their gardens, the call has increased in intensity with the passing of each decade. The reasons given as to why Australian gardeners should so cultivate the native flora has changed, but the ongoing presence of such encouragement alerts us to an inescapable fact: Australian gardeners themselves have not been very keen on going native in their gardens, and they have proved strikingly resistant to the barrage of arguments advanced as to why their garden aesthetic should change. In particular, calls to use the garden to reflect ideas about Australian national identity or character have had little sway, although gardening books will frequently discuss the need for the garden to incorporate the outdoor lifestyle many Australians enjoy. When designer Jim Fogarty was selected to take his award winning Australian Inspiration garden to the Chelsea Flower Show, he observed: This is not an Australian native garden. It is, nevertheless, a typical Australian garden. A true blue Australian garden with an eclectic blend of plants, indigenous and exotic, brought together in an informal and relaxed way.58 There is recognition here of the diversity of Australian gardening culture and the mixture of international influences that have now shaped it, and a repetition of Walker and Moloneys idea that the garden should reflect the easy-going character of the Australian people. Some garden writers would still seek to have the garden express something of the surrounding landscape and national
128
notes
1. Charles Luffman, Principles of Australian Gardening (Melbourne: The Book Lovers Library, 1903), p. 20. 2. Anonymous, Going Native. Very Best of Gardens and Outdoor Living Garden Design, i, 2003, quoted in David Trigger, Jane Mulcock, Andrea Gaynor and Yuan Toussaint, Ecological restoration, cultural preferences and the negotiation of nativeness in Australia, Geoforum, xxxix, 2008, p. 1276. 3. National Trust Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance. http://www.nattrust.com.au/trust_register/search_the_register/maranoa_gardens_and_beckett_park. Maranoa Gardens is still an all native Australian Garden and open daily to the public. 4. See John Foster, Natives in the Nineteenth Century Garden, Australian Garden History, ii/4, January and February 1991, pp. 35. See also Libby Robin, Nationalising Nature: Wattle Days in Australia, Journal of Australian Studies, lxxvii, March 2002, pp. 1326; and Kylie Mirmohamadi in this issue. 5. Garden and Home Maker of Australia (1 August 1927), p. 16. 6. Jean Galbraith to John Inglis Lothian, 14 August 1927, State Library of Victoria [SLV], Manuscripts Collection, MS 12637, Box 3462/6. 7. Harold C. K. Stephens, Beautiful Surroundings an Essential to the Modern Home. Hornsby and KuRing-Gai Shires Advocate (24 August 1928), p. 12. 8. Argus (7 November 1924), p. 16. 9. Argus (31 October 1924), p. 16. 10. Argus (21 August 1925), p. 16. 11. Argus (1 May 1925), p. 4. 12. John Dixon Hunt, Greater Perfections: The Practice of Garden Theory (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000), p. 128. 13. Argus (28 November 1924), p. 16. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Argus (2 January 1925), p. 3. Argus (14 November 1924), p. 16. Argus (24 July 1925), p. 17. Jean Galbraith, Garden in a Valley, 1939 (Hawthorn: The Five Mile Press, 1985), p. 59. Australian Garden Lover (1 May 1927), p. 62. Ibid., p. 96. Argus (23 September 1925), p. 25. Australian Home Beautiful (June 1930), p. 37. Garden Lover (1 January 1926), p. 338. Nancy Bonin (ed.), Katie Hume on the Darling Downs: A Colonial Marriage: Letters of a Colonial Lady (Toowomba: Darling Downs Institute Press, 1984), p. 14. Garden and Home Maker of Australia (1 February 1929), p. 208. Dixon Hunt, Greater Perfections, p. 128. Garden and the Home (1 November, 1923), p. 28.
129
39.
40.
41.
130