Smith's Folly - Mt. Vernon c. 1936

Editor: This is "Smith's Folly - Mt. Vernon," a watercolor drawing from around 1936. I find the way the artist uses botanical illustrations almost as a border to the imagined garden layout quite charming, but a little odd. What jumps out at you when you look at it? Curator: Well, first, the title strikes me. "Folly" often suggests something built for pleasure or ornament, perhaps even hinting at impracticality or whimsy. We should ask, was this garden actually realized or just planned? That could tell us more about the social function of this type of landscape design. Who was it for? Editor: That's a great point! The detail is remarkable for just a plan. And who is "Smith" anyway? Curator: Good questions. Knowing the patron would be crucial. Think about the power dynamics at play in commissioning such a work. The style evokes older estate plans. It's a curated presentation of land ownership and wealth, isn’t it? Even if imaginary, the drawing presents a social aspiration. And what about those meticulously labelled herbs? It’s also projecting ideas about the land’s bounty and uses. Editor: I see what you mean. It's not just a picture, but a statement about status and control. I had focused on its prettiness, but now I am looking more at its presentation and implied ownership. Curator: Exactly. And next time you see a landscape, think about what it leaves out, who is missing from the scene and whose perspectives are left out. We must keep interrogating what any view really presents, beyond just beauty. Editor: This makes me think about the public accessibility of such spaces and how landscape painting contributes or not, to a wider discourse of landscape ownership. Thanks for shifting my perspective!