Is it me or has the corporatisation of Chelsea Flower show really gone too far this year? I was looking on the RHS website yesterday for winning show gardens and was impressed with the quality of the videos and information up there. Sadly not the same as seeing the gardens in person (can'tmake it myself as am too busy right now - May is always a mad month). However, when browsing round the winning gardens I was a little dismayed whe,n in describing one of the winning gardens the corporate sponsors said it 'refelected their values of contemplation',etc. As I had never heard of the company I went to their website, thinking maybe they were something to do with health or wellbeing and found, to my dismay that they are an investment company!!
It seems to me that Chelsea is in danger of just becoming a PR exercise for companies who want to impress their clients and get loads of publicity. Perhaps it has always been that way but it seems more overt now. I know when i used to go regularly in the 90's there was always a degree of snobbery in the competition but I don't remember it being so soul-less as now. Seems to me it is all about big business and careers more than about growing or the beauty of gardens. I understand this viewpoint may be unpopular, particularly as I know that so many garden related industries put their heart and soul into their exhibits. But I feel that the real meaning of growing plants and making gardens is disappearing in the corporate hype.
Just my opinion..
Views: 71
Replies
Have you also noticed Patricia, that the Chelsea Flower Show coverage on the BBC is one of the very very few programmes where the sponsor's name is mentioned in the introduction?
Shows are a big money spinner for the RHS - whether it's appropriate for an investment company to sponsor something as natural as a plant and landscaping show is a matter for debate.
I think Chelsea has been a PR exercise for many years now; the big show gardens all have major sponsors and they will do everything in their power to make sure they get maximum publicity. There is also an air of the designer being more important than their garden, and new designers are being portrayed as going through initiation into a special exclusive club rather than competing for medals by showing off their talent.
The floral marquee is fairly similar; all those different companies showing off their plants and yet certain stands get repeated through the weeks while others are lucky to be shown in a fancy pan-shot of the show. Having worked flower shows on 'the other side' I don't mind saying that in my opinion the media are lazy and will always go for the easiest option, and if a media team from a company/organisation present them with a story 'in the bag' they will go for it, rather than looking for something new and distinctive themselves.
An increasing number of very good gardeners and nurserymen roll their eyes at the mere mention of Chelsea.
I have also helped out on a show garden there once (not my own) and though I enjoyed the experience I had no wish to repeat it. The endless questions about the same plants (it was all about clematis and delphiniums that year) and sense of palpable greed just put me off. When I went round the 'Garden of contemplation' (a moss garden that was really beautiful), I was jossled and pushed around by anxious women wanting photos and even witnessed an argument between two people who wanted that same view. So, it was not exactly a calm experience.
So, yes, I am a little negative about it now. And you are probably right the media are largely driving it through laziness and unwillingness to stretch themselves.
Hello Patricia,
Disheartening isn't it? The CFS is a huge cash cow for the RHS, it must be worth millions for them & I suppose in turn for the industry. I've stopped attending these last two years because the Chelsea Flower Show actually became the Chelsea Bun Fight, like you my visitor experience was no way worth the sixty quid or so I paid for a ticket.
I've turned my interest towards the Chelsea Fringe for now & I've stopped giving the CFS show any coverage in my social media timelines, instead I'm interacting with local suppliers & nursery growers & attend local plant fairs & it's all feeling a lot more comfortable.
And as for the investment bank's values of contemplation blah blah....that must be contemplation before they rip us of our value.
Thanks for posting.
Regards-Helen
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds it soul-less and disheartening. I thought maybe it was me being ungenerous to all these would-be successful designers (or maybe professional envy) but I have come to think it just doesn't sit with my values. I attach a picture here of a garden I've looked after for 15 years - it isn't a Chelsea garden at all only a real one but still beautiful in a messy, natural way..
I have recently uploaded some others to my website as I was so moved by visiting a recently designed garden 2 years on from planting and it made my heart sing. And that isn't pride (well maybe a little since I designed it) but it was pure joy. I don't see a lot of that at Chelsea.
Another thing from a design angle are the gardens much the like as previous years, there doesn't seem to be anyone pushing the bounds of horticulture anymore to my mind. Plants and flowers to me are playing second fiddle for the sake of hard landscaping. I know this is an important element but come on I don't go to look at the latest craze in paving, I go for the plants and to find new introductions. By the way I have nothing against hard landscaping, before someone orders a hit.
Not being able to see things (and/or being jostled around constantly) is another thing that puts me off going. Paying a fortune for tickets (plus the cost of getting to, staying in and traveling around London) only to see sod all- not for me.
My wife works for the investment company mentioned in the original post. The company are no better than bankers.....first up against the wall. Oh and if they were on fire.....
not wasted my time reading all replies & ignored for 24hrs.
same as anything now its p.c.bs politicians, corporate, bankers as we know all know rule the world ( or so they think)
rhs and chelsea are both corporates. always will be a 'bigger' organisation that gains profit.
STOKE-ON-TRENT city council paid 300-400, 000 for that display in the aim to get publicity.
- it was a good design and reflects stokes art/ culture actually.
there spokeslady said they received 1.5m publicity ( they added up last year?)
- but NO mention of ACTUAL income/ profit/ direct benefit to SSC.
love or money :-/ both is nice
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next