A garden is a place of ambiguity – some people think of food, some think of flowers. I tend to think of the acres and acres of meadows and slopes turned into production chains, as arable land becomes a source. Gardening and agriculture may not be the same, but they both share the violent act of determining what a land ought to be. Gardening, be it botany or agriculture, fundamentally opposes the idea of wilderness (itself determined by a notion of rule), inasmuch as it starts with an act of taming and dominance, often meaning destruction. The coffee industry, for instance: rainforests or impenetrable thickness razored by narrow pathways, gentle slopes, and white flowers – trade monopolies, lush green, armed resistance, greed, layered canopies, stocks. Or the idea of crop rotation, fallow, and functional rest, to put it more simply.
Agriculture, in particular, has long played a pivotal role in different methods of invasion. Saint Helena’s inhospitable vegetation - where Napoleon exiled, allegedly believing that he was still ruling over Europe - was first tamed through agriculture, for example. First, the Portuguese planted a chapel. Then trees followed, then cattle, until a permanent settlement was established. The strategy did not differ much from the one that led to massive clearings of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil, as the coffee industry took off, or from the sheep the Danish used to clear out the Faroes. Fencing is most likely the epitome of such endeavor. Originally used to keep livestock captive, it turned into a form of marking property, demarking land as ownership, a title gloriously embodied by barbed wire.
Either way, the vision is old. As Wikipedia attests, “the single feature identifying even the wildest wild garden is control.” Indeed, the etymology of the word ‘gardening’ essentially goes back to a notion of walled enclosure, a conception strangely close to the notion of "paradise", also referred to as a sort of walled enclosure, from the Ancient Greek parádeisos (παράδεισος), which stemmed from Old Iranian, itself derived from the Proto-Iranian ‘parādaiĵah’, again ‘walled enclosure', in its turn derived from the Old Persian 𐎱𐎼𐎭𐎹𐎭𐎠𐎶 (p-r-d-y-d-a-m, /paridaidam/, a variation of the Avestan 𐬞𐬀𐬌𐬭𐬌 ‘pairi-daêza-‘, to the Persian فردوس (ferdaws, or ‘paradise’, ‘heaven’). Ultimately, paradise seems to be perceived as a place of domination. What was there before, though? – before the kings and the clearings, the package and the shipping, the high?
This tension between destruction and redemption is probably the tension Kant sought to unpack in his ‘Critique of Judgment’ as he argued that the beauty of plants is free. Freedom, in this case, means that any conception of usefulness or interest is irrelevant, for freedom holds independently of one’s judgment. That is also the main reason why Kant holds gardens as one of the highest forms of beauty (§45), as they combine natural beauty and human design, or better said human sovereignty over free beauty, as I’d put it (he calls it ‘reason over nature’, or ‘the morally good’). Versailles, I believe, is a great example of this project, with its 2,000 acres of trimmed and tamed forestry – a whole garden built in perspective to feed a gaze axed on a throne, the dictator’s room on top of the hill, right in the middle, a royal figure painted on the ceiling, strategically placed as a sun.