|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||||
|
|
The Greensward Plan Most historians of Central Park have stressed the unique genius of one man, Frederick Law Olmsted, allowing even his codesigner, Calvert Vaux, to recede from view. One historian tells us that "the actual design work in the park was functionally divided -- Vaux handled all the structures -- pavilions, boathouses, bridges; Olmsted handled all the rest." Vaux had "deferred to Olmsted in areas of aesthetic decision." [Ch52] The effacement of Vaux as codesigner began as early as May 1858 when the Central Park commissioners conferred the singular title of architect-in-chief on Olmsted, who had since September 1857 been superintendent, and began paying Vaux a daily wage as his assistant. (Not until January 1859 would Vaux receive the title of consulting architect). Olmsted presented himself thereafter as Central Park's "representative man." [Ch53] Yet had Olmsted worked alone, had Vaux deferred to his partner in "areas of aesthetic decision," the Greensward plan would not have included some of its most distinguishing features. The premise of the Greensward plan was that Central Park should express an overarching aesthetic motive. In criticizing Viele's plan, Vaux stressed its lack of an "artistic conception" that would give shape and coherence to the viewer's experience. The goal of Vaux's entire professional career had been to arrange "useful and necessary forms" to "suggest the pleasant ideas of harmonious proportion, fitness, and agreeable variety to the eye." For Vaux to have accepted the unplanned and eclectic aesthetic of commercial pleasure gardens would have meant surrendering his judgment as an artist. Olmsted, who admired the harmonious composition of English parks, found spontaneous manners as well as eclectic design distasteful. The partners envisioned the future Central Park as a unified work of landscape art. [Ch523] Even before the competition, both men had advocated government support of culture and the arts, and they viewed a public park as one public institution among many -- schools, museums, libraries -- that could enhance the lives of free citizens. Central Park would be a democratic institution by virtue of the mixing of classes within its boundaries. And the Greensward plan itself postulated what individuals from all social backgrounds would do there: admire the artistically composed scenery, enjoy the spectacle of the crowd on the promenade, and engage in the wholesome exercise of driving, riding, walking, skating, or -- for those who played cricket -- competitive sports. |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||||
