True Vision
Eric Herman
We may be well into our ninth year of publication, but I’m still amazed and often amused by the ways that some people choose to describe WaterShapes. I’ve heard some armchair critics, for instance, dismiss us “a pool magazine that covers ponds,” “a pond magazine that covers pools” or “a fountain magazine with
some stuff on streams.” Pithiest of all, I was once told the magazine is an “aquatic boutique for rich people.”
When confronted with such odd and entertaining mischaracterizations of the magazine’s all-inclusive approach (and once I get past the literal urge scratch my head), I often counter that WaterShapes treats water as an artistic medium and all forms of watershaping as ways of exploring its creative potential. I’m not always confident this statement clears away the haze, but it sounds dignified and, when you boil it down, it relates directly to the magazine’s basic mission of dealing with water as art.
After all these years, however, there is one misguided description of the magazine that truly bothers me, and it comes from those who describe WaterShapes as being for “high-end people who only do projects that are extremely expensive.” This is simply wrong, and it’s reached a point where I’ve become bolder in bluntly saying so.
Although projects featured in the magazine often come with big price tags, I see this abuse of the term “high-end” as a tragically limited way of looking at the work we profile in these pages. Fact is, we’re often approached by would-be contributors looking to publish stories about projects they consider “outstanding” mostly because they cost someone a fortune. While many are good examples of quality watershaping, there are also a significant number of these submissions that fail to reflect quality of design, quality of execution or overall aesthetic appeal.
In other words, just because something is big, complex and costly doesn’t mean it forwards the magazine’s ongoing discussion of great watershaping or merits publication. In that context, we prefer to associate with terms far more potent than “high-end,” including “creative,” “innovative,” “pioneering,” “elegant,” “appropriate,” “artistic,” “well-built” and “finely detailed.”
We embrace these terms not only because they describe our magazine’s ambitions accurately, but also (and more important) because they capture the true value of watershaping at its finest.
***
For years, many of our contributors have approached the subject of landscape and watershape lighting as an area of steadily increasing importance.
Indeed, it’s a subject that almost certainly deserves more attention than it’s received from us through the years, which is why I’m happy to shine a spotlight on the first of what will be many articles to be provided to us by lighting designer Mike Gambino.
Starting in this issue (click here), you’ll find “Night Eyes,” an introductory discussion in which Mike uses a recent project to define and illustrate his approach to designing systems that enliven landscapes and watershapes after the sun goes down. In a marketplace that’s increasingly about “the total outdoor environment,” this is valuable information – quite illuminating!