The absurdity of gardening

We have learned and relearned about the psychology behind this practice in the US (“a well-manicured lawn is tethered to ideas like success and stability”), the amount of water needed (200 gallons – or 757000 liters of drinking water per day per person to water lawns in the US alone). But it seems like lawns are still here to stay. 

When searching on how much water is wasted per year to water lawns in the US, I came across this article from a synthetic grass provider. Statistics aside, the conclusion is “synthetic grass never needs watering”. 

This alternative has been used very often in both indoor and outdoor stadiums. Yet, after all, it is an alternative where we try to solve a problem by introducing more problems into the story: petroleum use, toxic chemicals from infill, health and safety concerns, and most of all, microplastic & rubber pollution in marine and soil environment. In terms of the latter, artificial turf is “second only to tire and road wear particles (TRWP) that make up a large portion of the fine road debris”. 

Or we can also dye the grass green. The spray is stated to be “non-toxic, biodegradable, and pet-friendly”. It only takes 30 minutes to dye the grass, the color can be kept up to several months and most of all, this keeps your water bill down. Only good things. 

Wherever I go in Europe I see lawns, in both cities or the countryside. Europeans can disagree on many things with US citizens across the Atlantic ocean, but when it comes to mowing the lawn and maintaining a beautiful garden, they can surely give each other a toast. 

But lawns are just a martyr of our times. If we take a closer look, English gardens or French formal gardens are as absurd, and to some extent, public parks and urban green space as well. Those are also green ornaments – non-productive and non-regenerative, with extremely low biodiversity, while requiring high energy-demanding setup and maintenance.

I didn’t truly understand this until I had to myself trim those beautiful, straight and perfectly symmetric green hedges in a French formal garden – at the Chateau de Beaumesnil in Normandy, France. The farm where I was volunteering shares a part of its land and properties with the Chateau, so we had to maintain and keep those properties clean and intact. 

It took us the whole day to trim down 10 meters long of hedge. We didn’t use any petrol-fueled devices, only mechanical pruners and shears. The job could soon become quite meditative when the only movement you had to do was to move the shears to cut down little leaves which just came into existence two months ago. But I remembered thinking to myself – “I’d rather spend this day taking care of the plants on the farm that eventually will give me something to eat”. 

But a garden is not a farmyard, nor an orchard, or a “potager” (a vegetable garden in English). Jacques Boyceau de La Barauderie, head garden designer of King Louis XVIII, wrote in 1638 in his book “Traité du jardinage, selon les raisons de la nature et de l’art” that “the principal reason for the existence of a garden is the aesthetic pleasure which it gives to the spectator.”

Formal gardens were never meant to nurture man. These high-energy and labor-demanding green ornaments were made to “manifest glory and power”, which were only accessible to a handful of the population. Until we decided to clone this practice that was applied to a handful, to the majority and it became standardized everywhere. 

Standardized private gardens

I find it strange to see a big house with a gigantic garden that does not offer its owner a single edible fruit or vegetable. What is the point of owning a 2000m2 garden and still having to go to the market to buy a bouquet garni for your soup, or buying apples packed in plastic in big-box stores and supermarkets? 

I brought this up to people I happened to co-habit, who own a large garden and love gardening and spend their days perfecting their gardens. They admire nature and its generosity, they don’t mind getting their hands dirty. 

But gardening somehow seems to be so different from cultivating. There is a difference between planting tulips and potatoes. One is beautiful to the eyes, other is good to the stomach. And as long as the stomach is secured, the eyes shall also have their feast. 

Standardized urban green space

Urban green spaces are gardens or lawns that are open to the public (e.g lawns in campuses, community parks or gardens, etc.). 

In 1618, Lincoln’s Inn Fields in London was one of the first green spaces in England, created as a “great ornament to the Citie, pleasure and freshness for the health and recreation of the Inhabitants thereabout, and for the sight and delight of Embassadors and Strangers coming to our Court and Cittie, and a memorable worke of our tyme for all posteritie.” 

Again we stick to the idea of “ornament”, of beautiful greeny things that will add up to pleasure and freshness, but not to the stomach.