signature style or philosophy?

Part of the reason some architects exude 'star' quality and attract public attention is their unashamed pursuit of signature style buildings: ones often that put the ï¿¡ back into the Sterling Prize, or whatever are their national accolades. This can be at the expense of function and the use of architecture to pursue greater purposes. But, there is no denying they have often got a very developed sense of not only themselves but their art. In my view, all landscape architects should have a strong philosophical/theoretical grasp of the subject as part of their personal approach. Their pitch should start with this- not the cliche of 'we can offer a quality service that represents value'. Differentiate yourself- don't resort to tired marketing speak.

Jellicoe was keen on our profession of landscape architecture being an art too. This is not mutually exclusive to achieving the environmental goals or having scientific rigour. They complement each other. Science is not a neat and tidy linear path towards greater knowledge anymore than art. They are both often messy, can be sloppy and are always more complicated than it seems.

At the Kennedy Memorial near Windsor, Jellicoe spoke of using allegories and alluding to the 'unseen' using visual clues. Enric Miralles, who designed Parc Diagonal Mar, Barcelona (as pictured), was an architect who crossed over into landscape. His scheme clearly has a signature style, but is also distinctively Catalan in the experimental and inventive tradition of Guadi before him. I was fortunate many years ago to be guided round Little Sparta (a garden near Edinburgh) by the artist Ian Hamilton Finlay, where he used symbols to reference a mythology. Peter Walker, Hargreaves and Michael Van Valkenburgh to name a few practising American landscape architects go one step further than many other practices- and that is why they have world appeal. They push the development of their vision or philosophy until the blend between environmentalism and art has great clarity. This is much harder to do in landscape architecture than buildings, because landscape is a growing organism, not object. You can't force identity on it and have to work with nature (of which we are a part). The architect (who does landscape buildings) Emilio Ambasz put it well when he titled one of his books The Poetics of the Pragmatic. In turn he was inspired by Luis Barragan, whose approach was deeply influenced by his religion and the land. The landscape artist Robert Irwin titles one of his books Being and Circumstance. Whilst Charles Jencks calls his Cosmic Speculation. Each may have an ego, but are driven by a philosophical approach.

The American examples, in my experience whilst I was working there, have crafted their art with, initially, the help and rigour of studying at top university courses. On a study trip to New York I once took landscape students to Columbus Park in Chinatown. Here the elders practice Tai Chi and play chess. It is a perfect example of social landscape design, but some students asked where was the landscape design. They wanted shiny 'bells and whistles'...

Some of the most engaging designs don't even involve a designer- New York's community pocket gardens illustrate this.

As landscape architects, In attempting to be a broad profession of specialists who maintain high standards and distinction, we must not forget that those standards must include strong personal philosophies- not a re-cycling of practical slogans. It is the human stories that touch and engage the most. In fact, I'm certain that you cannot expect the public to act responsibly towards the wider landscape unless you connect them emotionally via these intangible, spiritual stories. To be a complete landscape architect, you need a little poetry in your soul.