Would be interesting to know how fellow passionate gardeners feel if we have an intrinsic bias to symmetry or asymmetry with balance when it comes to what gardens we prefer?
Conversations with an architect about a mudbrick home restoration coupled with just too much time being locked down has left me thinking a lot about whether the amount of symmetry I’ve applied in my garden doesn’t necessarily contribute to the feeling of contemplative calm as I’d hoped. I’m sure most would agree we all have a heightened awareness of the value of creating more serene spaces lately.
Another rabbit hole of thought... Studies have found young children have strong aesthetic preference for symmetrical visual patterns but suggest however we then develop to have ‘highly plastic’ aesthetic preferences.
Another study states ‘visual symmetry is closely related to subjective beauty’; of course, this is by comparison with pure asymmetry, not asymmetry with balance . ‘Reflexive’ symmetry (mirror image) design created the greatest ‘happy’ response.
Exploring design principles attributed to Gestalt psychology, there’s a lot to support how a balanced composition from arranging both positive elements and negative space so that no one area overpowers another makes for a strong sense of pleasing calm. Recalling now also Gordon Ford’s notes on ‘Mass and Void’ and the ancient Japanese Zen Fukinsei.
Interestingly, a key word that appears more down the path of balanced asymmetry is ‘engaged’. Studies reveal that the depth and visual interest generates mind-soothing effects.
We all would agree that it’s all about how we feel in a garden space. Am I satisfied with feeling ‘happy’ from the strong symmetry or soothed from introducing more balanced asymmetry?
I’m easily confused.
Symmetry or Balanced Asymmetry?
Discussion
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve been thinking about this lately too. Been working on ideas for a paved area – 8×4 m – that is both permeable and broken up into into planted out bits. Found the work of the famous Greek architect Dimitris Pikionis that did the hard scraping around the Arcropolis. It is not symmetrical. Wes Anderson movies are annoyingly symmetrical to my mind, it’s kind of a cheap stylistic device that quickly slips into a trope (I adore his work), but they reflect a kind of mindset that is hell bent on control. I loathe Versailles. Magnificently boring beyond belief. I can’t rationalise my disappointment
with symmetry by going down any kind of psycho rabbit hole (though the arguments are interesting) other than to say the Nigerian women that decorate their total environment (clothes, sculpture, entrance to their mud homes) do it with such bold glorious abandon because it confuses the evil spirits. Every time I feel the urge to inflict control on a thing with symmetry, I resist by remembering those Nigerians.
So well written Ross. So well referenced. I struggle constantly. I think the zen mind like order, patterns ‘”sense making aesthetics”, but the flip side of man loves some vibrancy and the unexpected. Its the human “dichotomy of self “played out in the garden…..
What a great prompt. Thank you. I think symmetry will always risk being boring. And over reliance on it is dull. But balance is important (and sometimes symmetry helps us achieve that). We learn to plant in 3s and 5s – I think asymmetry probably keeps things interesting and the brain switched on. Whilst we might like symmetry, if rhythm isn’t there, it can feel empty and prosaic. I’d eschew colour-by-numbers at all costs. Isn’t the decision so much about a response to the built environment and the site? More questions than answers ….
Yeah, I’m convinced that our brain is constantly searching out pattern, and is kept most engaged by having pattern or predictability suggested but not quite delivered on. Unity is great, but can too easily step over into monotony.
We have an avenue with tall yew hedges on either side. I have made several attempts to plant something to liven it up (what and the problems are not material here). I feel absolutely clear that I should only plant on one side. I can’t explain this, especially to my symmetry mad husband. But planting up both edges would just be WRONG! Can anyone provide me with the explanation? One friend said it’s the reason why men’s suits have just one top pocket.
Many years ago, when Bernard Trainor and I were working together in a large old country garden, we had several discussions about the visual power of the breaking or interrupting of an established a pattern. It’s like creating an expectation of symmetry (in your case), and then just (either tantalisingly, or provocatively) failing to deliver on the promise. Magic
I definitely enjoy symmetry in a garden, but I also like to take cues from nature especially if the goal if a calming, peaceful place, and there is no symmetry in a natural landscape. I just imagine having a perfectly symmetrical garden and trying to relax, my eye would be bothered by anything out of place – a weed, something needing a trim/ there’s a controlling aspect there. A more naturally inspired garden encourages in my mind more of a wabi sabi (perfectly imperfect) view which I would find more peaceful and comfortable.
Hey Jenni, thanks so much for this great discussion. So pleased you registered that thought on the forum! Like you, I’m easily confused by these sorts of questions. I can really enjoy symmetry in other’s gardens. But I know that I don’t want it for my own. I love that idea that your mind can be set onto trying to ‘work out’ or interpret something, and is most engaged when it knows there’s something to work out (suggested by some kind of deliberate design-move, or predictability) but unable to quite get there – a state in which resolution remains elusive – just out of reach.
An interesting discussion in which balance seems to be the key word for either preference. I’m fond of contrasting areas of perfect symmetry with balanced asymmetry – e.g. a gate leading into a perfect Moorish design only 5x5m with an elevated view over an expansive garden around a vaguely rectangular lawn on the other side, where repetition of horizontal lines are at times implied, rather than applied. I think the biggest problem with perfect symmetry is predictability and even clichė – the ‘seen this before’ syndrome. I tend to think of good design as being symphonic. It hangs together, it repeats, it has certain overarching rhythms, but surprise and sequence are the real stars.
So grateful for a community whose authentic curiosity is driven by this compulsive gardening passion/obsession – thankyou!
Love how the embrace of a dive of enquiry can raise a hundred more questions and ideas … overthinking gardening can be such a joy.
My recently formed objective of a greater sense of ‘contemplative calm’ is but one of many positive human feelings a garden can invoke. Irrespective of what design approach is used to that end goal, you’ve shown me how vital balance and rhythm underpins it all.
I’ll never stop learning from those who have a bit of sap in their veins.
There is a place for both and both have aspects that are pleasing and at times frustrating.
I find when proportions and balance are right whether symmetric or asymmetric the result will likely be pleasing. I get excited by both.
I feel completely unqualified to even offer my opinion however this topic has long challenged me. I love balance. And I used to strive for it through symmetry and then be frustrated when nature wouldn’t cooperate with my need to control. Once I surrendered to the asymmetric tendencies of nature I found balance was far more achievable then I had ever imagined. I believe both have a place however for me, my garden is more peaceful when it is primarily asymmetric.
No less qualified than the rest of us, Alana. We’re all just guessing at this! So glad you joined in the conversation!