Interpretation of Heritage Landscapes

Management of heritage landscapes is an important field of horticultural endeavour. Interpretation of those landscapes, ie telling people about the places through various kinds of media, eg signs, brochures, guides, maps, audio-visual presentations, greatly influences the quality of the experience and the understanding of the site. We spoke to Dr Jan Schapper and Karen Olsen about the nature of interpretation and how to make it both appropriate and effective.

One must decide what is important about the site. Different sites are important in different ways. For instance, if the historical fabric of the site is what is of paramount importance eg the layout, seating, structures, walls, etc, then the interpretation should not intrude on this. If on the other hand, the site is important because of what happened there, then the physical surroundings are less important than the story of the place. "Fabric" versus "events" - these are two dividers in determining what kind of interpretation is appropriate.

Three main aspects need to be weighed up - effectiveness of information transfer; the physical impact on the site (of a road, path, sign, etc) and the effect on the overall aesthetics of the landscape. Sometimes a sign may be the wrong thing, no matter how well it is done - but a bad sign is much worse! Other options should be explored. For instance, commentary by earphones can provide the visitor with information (or "an experience" as at Werribee Park Mansion where the clinking of glasses and swish of silk skirts accompanies a history of the property through the conversations of its early owners). In this case there is no visible physical manifestation of the interpretation tool at all. Of course some heritage places are of such significance that interpretation needs to be extremely discrete - Stonehenge for instance.

I am very pleased to see that the Burra Charter has been amended so that the spiritual value of sites is now recognised. I believe this is very important, particularly when dealing with landscapes of Aboriginal significance. Conveying the spiritual meaning of a place may be essential to the understanding of it. We have to encourage people to see things not just from their own cultural perspective. The person creating the interpretation could for example, be faced with not only interpreting Aboriginal culture but presenting it in a form that is meaningful to Japanese tourists - that is quite a challenge. The perceptions of the person providing the interpretation must also be subject to scrutiny. In the past we have often seen far too much emphasis on the interpretation of upper class life in heritage landscapes to the exclusion of aspects of working class life. It is very important to see the whole pattern of life - and a lot of the working class fabric of life can be most interesting.

Effective interpretation pays close attention to the sequence of the experience - arriving, moving into and then moving through the landscape. There is also a need to develop a hierarchy of information. It is a big mistake to provide too much detail. It may be very daunting and one can end up with the situation where the written word is doing the talking instead of the place. In all interpretation, restraint is vital.

To Karen Olsen -
What are the most important factors involved in determining what interpretation techniques should be chosen for historic gardens?

There are two aspects to this question. The first concerns techniques and the second concerns factors which determine those techniques. Techniques and mechanisms range from very simple ones to those that are highly complex. At one end of the spectrum are basic signs and brochures, at the other end, guided tours, visitors' centres, sound and light shows and even pyrotechnics. The key to successful interpretation is selecting the technique that best fulfils your aims. Each technique involves a whole range of different and sometimes very complicated choices and therefore decisions involve a juggling game of trying to fit the different needs of the garden with the various needs of the visitors.

People making these decisions may range from volunteers who are doing their best (often with very few resources or skills at their disposal) to preserve a bit of local garden history, to professionals who are working on large or complex projects. Regardless of the scale of the undertaking, I believe there are certain considerations that will aid success.

• Those who are responsible for the interpretation of the garden must be sensitive to the garden’s story and meaning. It may seem an obvious thing to say, but sometimes the fundamentals get lost in the technical details of dealing with historic gardens.
• Those preparing the interpretation must be very cognisant of who the target audience is. While few projects will have the resources to do the kind of market research necessary to determine this conclusively, a reasoned and thoughtful decision must be made about which groups are most likely to visit the garden. Choices can then be made that best serve these groups. Of course such decisions are fraught with difficulty and it is not always possible to satisfy everyone.
• The choices must be made with a clear view of their affordability. Expensive projects are certainly not always the best. In fact, in dealing with historic gardens, I would have to say that as a general rule, less is more. This does not only apply to the dollar value of a project.
• The Burra Charter contains a statement that expresses the essence of good care for historic gardens, that is "Do as much as necessary and as little as possible". While this statement relates to conservation specifically, it is also pertinent to interpretation.
• Whatever individual techniques are adopted, they must form part of a whole picture. A holistic view of the entire project is absolutely essential.

In addition to these things, of course it always helps to have access to someone with really good word-smithing skills. This is essential to high quality communication.

Do you ever feel that a historic garden experience should just involving "feeling" rather than "thinking"?

People have emotional responses to gardens. They are places of contemplation and relaxation but, in addition to recognising this, the person who interprets the site aims to draw out the significance of the garden through interpretation. Certainly, the aims of every visitor will not be the same as the aims of the person who interprets the site. Once again, this issue gets back to the idea of "less is more" - where interpretation is available but not intrusive. Certainly, a garden with too many signs becomes a bit like a dot-to-dot puzzle, but without some direction, visitors may get lost or confused and miss the message that the garden has to convey altogether. It is a balancing act to provide sufficient information to enhance the experience without detracting from it in any way.

About Dr Jan Schapper: Dr Jan Schapper is a Senior Lecturer at Burnley College. She lectures in the subjects of Landscape Heritage and Management of Heritage Landscapes. She also supervises post-graduate students in this field and is a member of the Heritage Council of Victoria.

About Karen Olsen: Karen Olsen is a historian and horticulturist specialising in the management of heritage landscapes. She is currently researching a PhD thesis on ‘Interpreting Historic Gardens for the Visiting Public’ at the University of Melbourne and also teaches Landscape Heritage there. She works with consulting firm Olsen, Wilken & Associates and is a Churchill Fellow.

Copyright protected - refer all copyright enquiries to Global Garden 
Global Garden http://www.global-garden.com.au

More "Down to Earth" articles

   RETURN TO GLOBAL GARDEN HOME PAGE