[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: permaculture digest: August 05, 2000
- To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: permaculture digest: August 05, 2000
- From: Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:30:33 -0600
- In-reply-to: <LYR101940-72689-2000.08.14-17.12.23--pci#permaculture-inst.org@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Newsgroups: permaculture
This is a favorite point of mine. Who gets to definethis
beauty beast? I walk
in beauty, and my designs are always beautiful, and I am continually
adding
to and increasing their beauty. But my criteria for beauty include many
items
that don't register on the scale in any garden or landscaping magazine I
have
ever seen. I have had several very good vegetable growers tell me they
pull
dandelions (Taraxacum) because they are ugly! I have never heard
anyone
criticize Pc as lacking in the esthetic dimension and yet furnish a
definition of beauty that resonates for me.
A good design surprises you continually with its own spontaneous,
autocthonos
beauty. Can you imagine to control it?!
I cannot. My designs are beautiful too, and yet the conversation was
about why mainstream landscape designers avoid pc, not about criticizing
permaculture among permies, or defining beauty.
arina