<posted May 16, 2013> In one of the daylily groups on Facebook I recently posted about my reading this back issue of the fabulous HORTICULTURE magazine (2011). If you don't subscribe, you should. I am always inspired by the writing. The final page in this particular issue has a great story about eccentric gardeners that I could read 1000 times.
As you can see, this 2011 issue features daylilies on the cover, so I have it saved with other magazines which highlight daylilies. I quite often set this stack of magazines out when garden tours come through, or when groups visit that aren't daylily-centric.
Now, answer this question for me:
Now, answer this question for me:
I often wonder why so many people who
"discover" daylilies for the first time are so astounded with the forms and
diversity in the flower. Looking at the
cover of HORTICULTURE, such prime real estate features basically a dark
burgundy fulva-ish face.
"They" have left us in 1950.
Why would such a magazine leave such a diverse flower so
mid-century? It's not like VOGUE or TIME look so far in the past for cover photos.
They feature today's look and feel and influence the buying patterns of
people who subscribe. They feature today's fashion.
Today's
issues. Today's "prime
stuff."
Why would HORTICULTURE
choose to put such a safe face on the cover?
I'm sending a package to its editor, complete with back issues of our amazing Daylily Journal and the Region 2 Newsletter. They will be so excited.
God Bless the historic cultivars and their
place in our space, but its time more general-gardening fanatic folks
understand that it's not your grandmother's daylily anymore.
What do you think? Would a cover be better with something like this?
Let's discuss.



























