There is an expression that when something creative is remarkable, it is often said to be a ‘work of art’. We associate things not necessarily known definitively as art, as inspired pieces of creativity — suddenly belonging to the category of art or artistic expression. We revere art for its own sake. We value the creative expression that goes into its design and manifestation. We know on a more obscure level that a real person, the artist, created the piece.
Of course, not all art is considered ‘good’. But for gardens that are created in such a way that the artist shows through, we call that a work of art — because the designer’s artistic flair and expression is revealed.
The history of garden evolution and development has produced many garden styles over the years. I cannot resist looking at the contrast between East and West or European vs. Japanese garden history.
Formality vs. informality. Symmetry vs. Asymmetry. In answering my own question in the title, I find that Asian gardens seem to revere the wonder of Nature as opposed to the Western European favor towards the control of Nature through manipulation to honor Man’s so called works of art as in the Garden of Versailles.
A garden that is the expression of the designer is truly a Garden, perhaps inspired by Nature, but nonetheless full of human consciousness. A garden that mimics Nature in all of its inherent beauty, its seemingly random yet cohesive patterns of form is also a true work of art if one cannot see the difference between the natural form or the man made form.
In such a representation of Nature, often the soul of the garden can be felt, expressed through Man’s interpretation or re-creation. Herein lies the essence of what the garden designer attempted to capture and manifest in a covert way so as to not take credit.