Browsing through garden blogs today, I noticed (belatedly) that there's been something of a kerfluffle* due to a post at Garden Rant condemning "ugly, unsightly vegetable gardens." Went and read the rant, which is precisely that, an exercise in hyperbole, even a polemic, if you will.
Yes, with veggies, it's better to weed than not to weed. And it's generally considered better to stake tomatoes than not. Healthy plants are better than not. However, rows do not necessarily rule. Square-foot gardening and sowing in patches is perfectly respectable. And so forth.
Mess is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Are we gardening so things look pretty or are we gardening so that we have some good fruits and vegetables, while also fitting in with our ecosystem--and possibly helping to nourish it? if the latter, messy gardens are something of a necessity, and whatever works best ecosystem-wise probably is best, design-wise.
Myself, if forced to choose, prefer the principles of permaculture to the principles of axial symmetry and don't think I've ever met an ugly plant. (Ugly is not the same as needing help, after all.) To me the "ugliest" garden, even in need of help, is lovelier far than a manicured, chemical-addicted "landscape" of turf grass and trees.
Anyone (all of us) who is learning while gardening is going to mess up. OK. In my book, anyone who grows good produce by organic methods has a beautiful garden, regardless of appearances. And if you include a small native flower patch as pollinator habitat, you're on the way to gardening enlightenment.
So why waste your time feeling hurt and reacting negatively to some deliberately over-the-top prose? Go out and garden in the way that best suits your site and your self. If you're just starting out, visit the Chicago Botanic Garden's page, "How to Start a Small-Space Vegetable Garden."
Happy gardening to all.
*I think chard is beautiful--to me it looks like "kerfluffle" sounds.
Comments