by Tom Waters
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness
in the proportion.
—Francis
Bacon
It seems like devotees of the dwarf and median irises, myself
included, are always talking about proportion. All the parts of the stalk, we
are told, must be in proportion: the height and width of the flowers, the
height and thickness of the stalk, even the leaves. Indeed, the American Iris
Society’s Handbook for Judges and Show Officials gives measurements and
ratios to define proper proportion for each class.
I’d like to raise a philosophical issue about proportion,
and how it relates to two iris classes in particular, the border bearded (BB)
and miniature dwarf bearded (MDB). These two classes face a similar problem:
most BBs are produced by crossing tall beardeds (TBs), and most MDBs are
produced by crossing standard dwarf beardeds (SDBs). Since the genetic background
of these classes comes mostly from a different, taller class, it is not unusual
to find flowers that are large, even when the height of the stem is short.
Purists are very bothered by this situation, but short irises with large
flowers seem to be popular with iris lovers and even judges. Are the many
people who enjoy large-flowered BBs and MDBs just wrong? Should they know better?
The philosophical issue is this: is “good proportion”
objective? Is there some numerical ratio of stem, flower, and foliage that is
aesthetically optimal? Or is it just in the eye of the beholder? If it is just a
personal, subjective preference, then the admonitions in the Judges' Handbook
start to seem a bit arrogant and elitist. The classic example of a subjective
judgment becoming judging gospel is the case of haft marks. In the mid-20th century, haft markings were the “fault” that everyone seemed obsessed with in TB
irises. Yet, what if I think haft marks are interesting or pretty? Is this any
different than preferring yellow to blue, or preferring plicatas to selfs? The condemnation
of haft marks reflects the struggles of hybridizers. In those early years, it
was very difficult to breed a true, clean, self-colored iris. Haft marks seemed
to always turn up and distract from the desired purity. So the frustration felt
by hybridizers was transformed into an esthetic standard that was promoted as something
objective and universal. Once clean selfs were achieved, then people could start
to enjoy haft marks for being “something different”!
Many, many “rules” that are enshrined in the Judges' Handbook are relics of the personal goals and frustrations of earlier
generations of hybridizers, even though they are presented as objective aesthetic truths. I think proportion is one of those things. I say this despite
the fact that I, personally, dislike large-flowered BBs and MDBs. If a BB blooms
in my garden with TB-sized blooms and thick, coarse stalks, it does not stay
here another year, no matter how pretty the color or form. However, in all
honesty, I have to describe this as a personal preference.
If there were some objective, universally valid, proportion
of bloom to stalk that looks best to everyone, then we would expect it to apply
to all kinds of plants. But in fact, we enjoy flowers with all different ratios
of bloom size to stem height, without thinking twice about it. Consider two
alliums I grow:
A. karataviense produces enormous globular flower heads
right at ground level. I enjoy it immensely.
A. caeruleum produces
small, airy blue flower heads on tall slender stalks. I enjoy it also. These
two could not be more different. And neither has the proportion of a “good” bearded
iris. In fact, I think an iris proportioned like either of the alliums would
inspire revulsion in a typical iris judge.
It may seem like I am now arguing for a free-for-all
approach to proportion. If it is all subjective, why should we worry about a BB
with TB-sized flowers or an MDB whose bloom is twice as wide as the height of
the entire stem? Perhaps judges should focus on more objective things, like
plant vigor and bud count, and let people enjoy different proportions, just as
we enjoy different colors?
No, that is not the approach I favor, although I think the
argument should be made from time to time to provoke thought and debate. I
believe there is a good reason for harping on proportion in the dwarf and
median irises, but I don’t think it has anything to do with some objective,
universal standard of beauty.
What then? If small-flowered BBs and MDBs are not
objectively superior to large-flowered ones, why should we care at all? I think
the answer lies in something else: class identity. Consider this: although they
fall in the same height range, miniature tall bearded (MTBs) are “supposed” to
have smaller flowers and more slender stems than BBs. If one proportion is more
attractive, shouldn’t all classes aspire to that same proportion?
To most median aficionados, the answer is obvious: each
class has its own aesthetic ideal. We like the fact that BBs look different from
MTBs. They are like two different styles of music. In our minds, we may have a
picture of the ideal, the prototype, as it were, for each class. It is these
mental prototypes that give each class its identity, its center of gravity in
the great sea of diversity that hybridizers have produced for us.
So I think what we are complaining about when we complain about
out-of-proportion BBs or MDBs is the erosion of the identity of the class, the weakening
of the mental prototype. The reason I have singled out BBs and MDBs is that the
irises in these classes are mostly “spill-overs” from TBs and SDBs, respectively.
There is a relentless pull on these classes to merge together with the larger
classes that give rise to them. If a BB is just a TB that is short, why not
call it a TB?
 |
'Icon' (Keppel, 2008)
an MDB whose proportion I like. |
Some have sought to strengthen the identity of these classes through breeding. Lynn Markham’s BBs
were produced intentionally to reinforce the distinct identity of the class. Ben Hager used a
similar strategy to reinforce the identity of the MDB class. These were valiant efforts, but they were not sufficient to turn the tide. So many people are crossing TBs that the “accidental” BBs that emerge from TB crosses far outnumber the “intentional” BBs that are produced by the small number of breeders who are interested in the class as an end in itself. Exactly the same is true of the MDB class.
I wish I could end on some profound revelation or recipe for
solving the conundrum of these classes, but I don’t think there is one. What it
comes down to is simply this: do we (the entire iris-loving public, hybridizers,
and judges) care enough about the identity of these classes to insist on
maintaining their integrity? Perhaps we don’t. It’s not obvious that we “should”,
after all. If we like the irises we’re growing, even when they depart from that
mental prototype, maybe that is fine. Collective opinion is not something that
can be easily predicted or controlled. It just is what it is.
But if nothing else, perhaps we can shift the language of
the conversation a little. Instead of talking about “good” or “bad” proportion,
perhaps we can talk instead of class identity. That seems more accurate and
to the point.
