Abstract
This article responds to Jane Gillette's query “Can gardens mean?” (2005) published in Landscape Journal. Although her title suggests an analysis of gardens and meaning, Gillette's essay inadequately develops the argument that gardens cannot mean. The goal of my response is not to prove that all gardens mean, but that they can. This is an important distinction because the way gardens communicate is often the task of designers, and the meanings that users ascribe to gardens are often why they are cherished and maintained. The meaning of gardens, as interpreted by critics, is also significant because it can situate a garden within the field of practice. These interpretations can enrich and diversify the audience for landscape architecture. Three of Gillette's explanations of why gardens cannot mean are problematic, and do not prove that gardens are unable to mean at all. Because Gillette's conception of meaning is insufficient, I propose an expanded understanding of meaning to include multiple interpretations, as well as movement, sensations, and emotions.
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
