martinhouseclr

50 DARWIN D. MARTIN HOUSE // CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT upon request of Darwin and Isabelle. The second is a conspicuous and continuous amendment of the plants in the garden based upon the planting desires of the owner. With a mere 1-1/3 rd of an acre property, a full time (and later residence-on-premises) gardener on staff, a propagation greenhouse, and a considerable personal interest in horticulture by both Darwin and Isabelle, a reasonable amount of owner manipulation of the landscape would be expected. Regardless of this modification, it is important to note that the alternations were generally based on thoughtful stewardship of the Wright-Griffin designed landscape as opposed to any sort of redesign by the Martins. The overall spatial arrangement and character of the garden remained as Wright envisioned through Martin’s tenure. Eventually realized considerations of plant performance, unforeseen micro-climatic conditions, or other maintenance matters no doubt required minimal intervention by Martin over the life of the landscape. The Blueprint and the Original Linen One of the more confusing details regarding the spring 1905 planting effort is that of the difference between the original 15 February 1905 ‘Plan of Plantings’ and the blueprint. It is evident that the blueprint of the planting plan was mostly illegible and Walter Burley Griffin endeavored to clarify it through to the early May 1905 planting time. Indeed, a close examination of the original linen drawing reveals that the ink plant symbols and plant names are drawn over an earlier pencil version of a mostly similar plan. [Fig. 31] In some cases the inked plant names are drawn longer or shorter than the equivalent pencil underlay versions, perhaps on account of a difference in letter spacing or other similar reasons. In other cases, plants were changed to something else when the ink-over was done. This seems to generally be a minor change in species as opposed to genus or entirely different scheme. The designed character of the arrangement between the two plans appears to be equivalent. 128 [Fig. 32] The most glaring difference between the two plans seems to have no relation to the planting installations performed in May of 1905. That difference is that the Barton House plantings that appear on the original drawing are not visible on the blueprint. Even the pencil underlay of plant names and symbols visible on the original planting plan was not copied to the blueprint version – suggesting both the pencil and ink planting plans around the Barton House would have been drawn after the blueprint was made and provided to Martin. Furthermore, though the ink overlay plant names match the rest of the plan in lettering size and style, the pencil underlay around the Barton House is noticeably 128 A side-by-side comparison between the blueprint version and the ink original proved to be unfeasible due to the illegibility of the blueprint. looser and the text is often in cursive as opposed to architectural lettering. Given that the plant material around the Barton House was installed the fall prior (Oct 1904), it suggests that the material was either changed in spring 1905 or the plants on the original planting plan represent an as-built survey of Barton House material by Griffin while on site in spring of 1905, likely the latter. [Fig. 33] The question surrounding these two plans then becomes: Why does it appear that the blueprint was utilized for the spring planting (due to the abundant field notations) when it was considered illegible by Martin) and certainly was illegible)? What seems plausible is that Walter Burley Griffin completed the original plan as the planting date arrived, bringing it with him to oversee the planting and finishing up the Barton House portions of the plan based on extant field conditions. 129 The plans are nearly identical and the original plan would have been consulted for direction while the blueprint would have been used to make field-notations, thereby saving the original from undesired markup. A review of the blueprint’s field notations with respect to the known planting timeline and photographic record also suggests that the blueprint served as a record of additions or modifications made to the landscape through time by the Martins. 130 129 Indications of Griffin’s visits are present on the historic material and this would explain the absence of further written correspondence about the original planting plan until after the plant material was installed. 130 For instance, the noted plant materials in the front raised Fig. 31, opposite Original ink on linen version of Plan of Plantings, 15 Feb 1905.