The exterior of the pavilion also offers some insights into the overall plastic integration strategies. Burle Marx’s design for the central courtyard functioned in a much greater capacity than the tradition garden. Like all of Marx’s landscape designs, this one was also an anamorphic composition of water elements and vegetation areas. The forms and curves of the garden mimic those of the pavilion, but unlike the white building, the garden forms have been filled with vegetation and lush with color. The white building serves as the perfect counter to the vibrant garden, providing a much needed contrast to accentuate the landscape design. When viewed in front of the walls of the pavilion the water lillies and plants suddenly become more sculptural. Their forms up against this white backdrop evokes the of a gallery exhibition. The Brazilian plants are situated as objects
on display.

It is also clear from the pavilion architecture that the interior landscape was meant to be viewed at an elevated perspective. Burle Marx even viewed his landscape designs as art proclaiming, “there is no aesthetic difference between the object-painting and constructed object-landscape”.⁴⁴ As visitors exited the sinuous ramp at the second level, they would spill out onto the portico and look down upon the composition. This change in elevation created by the architecture modified the scale of the garden’s relationship to the viewer and allowed it to be experienced more like a painting than an immersive landscape. The architecture is a device that blurs the line between three dimensional landscape and two dimensional painting- making the garden more abstract. The landscape is read as a sculpture; the sculpture is read as a painting.

Roberto Burle Marx. Garden Design Saenz Peña Square.
1948. Gouache on paper.