Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Uncertain certainty1: The naearest of the far. Vaux-le-Vicomte vs. Versailles

Uncertain certainty1: The naearest of the far. Vaux-le-Vicomte vs. Versailles Abstract I would like to challenge Allen Weiss's assertion that Versailles is a ‘grandiloquent betrayal, a deficient, proportionless, hyperbolic imitation’4 of Vaux. Essentially, I would argue, Weiss has failed to consider what Versailles is, how it is experienced and what those experiences imply in relation to what it sets out to do. Rather, he judges it in relation to what it is not through a negativity that calls his indictment into doubt. Essentially, he is misjudging the failure of one garden by the success of another and his writing is guilty of straying into the realm of what Kant disdainfully refers to as commentary rather than critique.5 But Versailles and the intentions behind it are in direct opposition to those of Vaux; in fact, the very reasons Versailles could be understood as a success are the very reasons Weiss says that it is deficient. For what Weiss implies and desires but does not provide is a set standard of criteria by which even two gardens can be judged, or, much more ambitiously, by which all gardens can be judged. Rather, he praises Vaux and then criticizes Versailles in light of Vaux's praise. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes Taylor & Francis

Uncertain certainty1: The naearest of the far. Vaux-le-Vicomte vs. Versailles

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/uncertain-certainty1-the-naearest-of-the-far-vaux-le-vicomte-vs-C5wtMHuyA8

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1943-2186
eISSN
1460-1176
DOI
10.1080/14601176.2005.10435441
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract I would like to challenge Allen Weiss's assertion that Versailles is a ‘grandiloquent betrayal, a deficient, proportionless, hyperbolic imitation’4 of Vaux. Essentially, I would argue, Weiss has failed to consider what Versailles is, how it is experienced and what those experiences imply in relation to what it sets out to do. Rather, he judges it in relation to what it is not through a negativity that calls his indictment into doubt. Essentially, he is misjudging the failure of one garden by the success of another and his writing is guilty of straying into the realm of what Kant disdainfully refers to as commentary rather than critique.5 But Versailles and the intentions behind it are in direct opposition to those of Vaux; in fact, the very reasons Versailles could be understood as a success are the very reasons Weiss says that it is deficient. For what Weiss implies and desires but does not provide is a set standard of criteria by which even two gardens can be judged, or, much more ambitiously, by which all gardens can be judged. Rather, he praises Vaux and then criticizes Versailles in light of Vaux's praise.

Journal

Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.