Capability Brown

Capability Brown

Blenheim Palace (Source: Chuck)

Croome Court (Source: National trust)

The name Capability Brown refers to a famous English landscape designer who lived from 1716 to 1783. Although his real name was Lancelot Brown, they called him Capability Brown because he would talk about how an estate had great ‘capability’ for his architectural design. He emphasized the English Garden Design which did not use carved stone or obvious patterns, but used still ponds of water, clumps of trees, and green rolling hills (Garden Visit).

In Tom Stoppards, Arcadia the name Capability Brown and his architectural style surface throughout the play. In Act 1 Scene 1, the garden in Sidley Park is discussed as Richard Noakes, the architect, is in the process of redesigning the garden to look more gothic. However, Lady Croom, disagrees and says, “But Sidley park is already a picture, and a most amiable picture too. The slopes are green and gentle. The trees are companionably grouped at intervals that show them to advantage” (Stoppard 16).  This argument between Lady Croom and Noakes continues throughout the play. The passage demonstrates how the garden style in Sidley Park is the English Garden Design, influenced by Capability Brown. The architectural design also arises in the next scene, where Bernard and Hannah are in the present time period. Hannah is in the process of writing about the history of the parks architecture and she argues that Capability Brown’s design was not actually as original as people thought. It simply copied past French, Italian and Greek architecture. In Hannah’s history of  Sidley Park garden she writes, “By 1760 everything had gone – the topiary, pools, terraces, fountains, an avenue of limes – the whole sublime geometry was ploughed under by Capability Brown” (Stoppard 31). This line reflects the history of Capability Browns design where he used natural looking clumps of trees and ponds instead of engraved stone work and obvious patterns.

            References to Capability Brown reveal prominent themes in Arcadia. Using the English Garden Design, Stoppard questions the idea of what is ‘natural’. While Capability Brown’s architecture looks natural, it is quite the opposite, and every tree and bush has been placed in its rightful position. The architectural reference brings up the idea of how something that looks randomly put together, could be planned, or the other way around. This idea connects with how Hannah and Valentine dig up information about the past, and they try to figure out, historically, what has been strategically placed and what is simply a coincidence. The reference also shows the passage of different time periods as the garden goes through architectural transformations involving the romantic and classic time periods. This theme also connects to how Stoppard combines different generations into one play and shows their similarities and differences.

Works Cited

Chuck, and Claire. "European Adventures." : Blenheim Palace, Woodstock. Google Blogs, 5 June 2010. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.

Garden Visit. "Lancelot 'Capability' Brown." Gardenvisitcom. Nightingale Garden Company, 2008. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.

National Trust. "Treasure Hunt." Treasure Hunt. National Trust Collections, 18 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.

Stoppard, Tom. Arcadia. London: Faber and Faber, 1993. Print.

Arrogance or Lack of Knowledge?

          After reading Krakauer’s Into the Wild, It seemed to me that Chris McCandless was just a young guy who thought he could adventure into the forest without learning the proper skills of living in such a remote environment. To me, it sounded like McCandless thought humans had a natural understanding of nature, and living with nature wasn't a learned skill, but an inherent ability.  McCandless thought since he was indeed an animal, he could survive with other animals. He thought he didn't need help from family, friends, or society, whether they gave him money, food or clothing, he believed none of it was necessary. He seemed unable to understand that living in the wild required training, so that when he was faced with a life or death situation, he could handle it. After first reading the book, in my opinion I thought McCandless died because he was arrogant. He went into Alaska thinking he was better than everyone else because he had the strength to live without society. With this opinion, McCandless contradicts many humans. Humans generally believe they are above nature, and they feel powerful living outside of nature, in their man-made buildings. In contrast, McCandless feels more powerful than society when he lives with nature, outside of the human community. But ultimately, if he had trained and learned about the dangers of the wild, and used society’s help, he would have lived.

            At least that was my first impression of Chris McCandless. Yet after reading the New York article by Krakauer, I felt that McCandless had a better understanding of his situation than I originally believed. McCandless actually died from eating grass pea, a plant that even the experts did not understand at the time of his expedition. Since learning this information I feel that McCandless had trained himself to live with nature. He knew what plants to eat and how to kill animals for food. He did not die because he didn’t have enough food or money, or because of his arrogant feelings towards society. Society most likely could not have helped McCandless avoid his death, because nobody knew much information about the deathly plant.

Between the two articles, Krakauer’s perspective also has changed about McCandless’s death.  In the book, Into the Wild, Krakauer seemed to think that McCandless died from a toxin found in wild potato seeds, yet later it was determined that he died of a different amino acid in the grass pea plant. While at first it seemed Krauker thought McCandless simply did not do enough research about his surroundings, suddenly Krauker thought McCandless died because of a virtually unknown element in the plant. His death changed from being caused by his personal knowledge, to being caused by people’s knowledge in general. Krakauer’s pursuit to free McCandless’s death from false judgments directly reflects his experiences with nature. Similar to Krakauer, I was easily persuaded by the new information about McCandless’s death.  Although I do not have an intense relationship with nature, I enjoy vacationing at my family’s farm, where wild forests spring up across the ridge, and ponds and rivers spread wide across the terrain. I love adventuring into the unexplored and un-humanized land, and part of me just wanted to believe that McCandless could have survived in the wild if he had not encountered the deathly plant.

            The source of Chris McCandless’s death may seem irrelevant since he died so many years ago, yet there is purpose in finding the true cause. Many people do not understand McCandless’s story, and many have quickly jumped to conclusions about his ideals, just as I did after reading Into the Wild. Yet finding just a little bit more information about his death can dramatically change somebody’s opinion, just like how it changed mine. Whether or not a human of today’s world can live in nature without technology and outside help, is a question that many people ask themselves, but never fully pursue. After McCandless died in the wild, the answer to the question seemed to be no. However the new information lets people understand that he did not die from starvation, but he died from a misunderstood plant. Since it was discovered that McCandless could have survived in the wild without technology, if it weren't for a rare sickness, the question arises once again.

                        

Triptych: Technology in My Daily Life

            These three videos are connected because they each have human constructed elements in them, for example one has a computer, one has a treadmill, and one has a house. Each video shows how nature inter-plays with society and they each contrast each other in different ways. Although these video clips do not focus on sublime nature, they demonstrate how nature fits into my daily life.

          The first video presents my distant relationship with the natural world. While I mostly run inside during the winter, sometimes I run inside during perfectly beautiful spring days. In this video, it seems like I purposely distance myself from nature. The video shows how I see nature as a scenic experience, something to look at, but not necessarily adventure into. While I look at the outside world when I run, I distance myself from it, because as I run towards it, I am never able to reach it. The second short clip demonstrates a similar reaction to nature. I always use beautiful scenic views for my computer desktop because I like looking at the vast, unchanged environment. Similar to the first video, I enjoy looking at nature, but not living in it. However in contrast to the first vine, the second shows how society pressures people to enjoy sublime nature, while in the first video, I pressure myself to look at nature. The second clip also shows how uncommon nature is. While people try to make natural scenery part of human culture, reality shows how the natural world is distant and hardly reachable. The third video clip contrasts the others because instead of demonstrating my distant feelings towards nature, it shows how I feel close with it. Every day when I come home from school, I always feel like I have emerged from a cave, where I was held all day and forced to look at blank walls. Similar to the “Allegory of the Cave” after school, I feel like I have been trapped from the sunlight and the outside world. However when I come home, I sit for a few moments and look outside at the trees and the water in my backyard, and a calm feeling washes over me. When I look at computer pictures of scenic views, or when I run towards nature, never able to reach it, the peaceful feeling of living in nature seems unattainable. However, in the third clip, I have attained the peaceful feeling. 

First Vine: Indoors vs. in nature

Second Vine: Reality

 Third Vine: Enjoying nature