The blood of philosopher-kings
Landscape design theory has been rotting away, peacefully, like a garden temple, since the close of the eighteenth century. The Director of Land scape Architecture Studies at Dumbarton Oaks gives poverty as the explanation:
This ignorance or cavalier disregard of history is part and parcel of a larger poverty of discourse; as Steven R. Krog has written, landscape architecture is ‘a discipline in intellectual disarray’ and with a ‘deficiency of theoretical discourse’. Of all the modern arts none has displayed such a meagre com mand of analytical, including rudimentary philosophical, language as landscape studies. (Hunt, 1992)
. . . if you find yourselves in agreement with somebody about a beautiful design in land scape architecture, this happy accident can be explained in more cases than not by a shared class background or education rather than by any examinable philosophical criteria . . . Modern designs, perhaps to escape this solipsism, have insisted both upon design as problem solving and specifically upon de signing for groups or the community.