Challenging the Perception of the Garden

     In the case of both Isamu Noguchi’s Sunken Garden in the Chase Manhattan Building, and Ken Smith’s rooftop garden on the MOMA building in New York, the architects have attempted to affect the way their non occupiable spaces are perceived by the viewer, and to differentiate their spaces from more traditional understanding of a garden. While neither of these spaces are by any means traditional gardens they can both be defined that way because of the way the designers created the space in a way that simulates nature and gives the viewer the impression of something more than what is actually in front of them. In this way every garden is in some way a simulation of a natural environment usually on a smaller scale and with some kind of applied order.

Both the Sunken Garden and the Rooftop Garden looked for unique ways to create spaces that both simulate natural spaces and also create new dynamic spaces serving similar functions. Both projects are gardens that are supposed to be seen but not occupied, and yet this means very different things for these two projects. In the case of the MOMA Rooftop garden the defining factor is the scale at which the viewer observes the garden, since it is on the roof that can’t be accessed by the gallery space of the museum, it is only viable from the point of view of the surrounding towers that have a perspective that is past the level where detail can be recognized. So the designer goes almost out of his way to use materials and details that individually have very little connection to the nature, or a traditional garden space, but when put together and seen from the perspective of the surrounding towers, create a cohesive whole that is reminiscent of a natural space. This very different from the way the Sunken Garden was conceptualized; with that space the scale at which the viewer could see the space was quite close despite the not being able to physically occupy it. The garden is also unique in that it gives two very different perspectives in which to view it, one being at the level of it yet separated by a wall of glass, and the other be one level above it yet being outside with it and hearing a feeling the way the water is moving through the garden. It should be no surprise that both projects claim to take inspiration form the Zen gardens of Japan, which where meditative spaces that, were also seen from the perimeter of the space and not occupied. These are some of the best examples in historical architecture of how to challenge the perspective of the viewer and to really influence the way that they can experience a garden, using a technique of a seemingly simple and easily understood layout, that still challenges the viewer to be able to truly understand how the space is layed out, and what kind of logic or thinking could have been used in order to arrive at the final setup.