撰文：（美國）尼爾·柯克伍德翻譯：蕭蕾

風(fēng)景園林學(xué)：未來的發(fā)展前景與責(zé)任

撰文：（美國）尼爾·柯克伍德翻譯：蕭蕾

“我認為風(fēng)景園林是一個‘腦、心、手’合一的職業(yè)。我們用頭腦發(fā)現(xiàn)、探究、和理解自然世界，組織并構(gòu)建事物。我們通過心靈創(chuàng)造藝術(shù)、認知、感受和付出。我們用雙手組裝并感知景觀材料，無論是常用的還是少見的材料，都會激發(fā)完美制作后的愉悅。因而風(fēng)景園林全面發(fā)揮了人類的才能?！薄釥枴た驴宋榈?/p>

今天的風(fēng)景園林教育者有責(zé)任引領(lǐng)大家直面當(dāng)今不斷變化發(fā)展的學(xué)科邊界，并堅持本領(lǐng)域的追尋拷問和藝術(shù)探索。我堅信上述觀點，盡管全球環(huán)境的不利因素眾多，行業(yè)內(nèi)部也有不同聲音——景觀都市主義的追隨者們認為風(fēng)景園林師是環(huán)境領(lǐng)域?qū)I(yè)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者；有些人卻認為在日趨復(fù)雜和矛盾的世界里，在各國肆意揮霍森林和農(nóng)田資源、流域生態(tài)環(huán)境危機重重的情況下，在城市社區(qū)和私人企業(yè)爭奪有限的公共開放空間資源之際，風(fēng)景園林師的作用是次要的，或是中規(guī)中矩的。盡管如此，我還是樂觀地相信當(dāng)前的大環(huán)境和社會問題有助于風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科發(fā)力，并是設(shè)計領(lǐng)域發(fā)揮智慧、研究學(xué)術(shù)和該專業(yè)學(xué)生畢業(yè)后工作實踐被雇傭的方向所在。

全球和本土對環(huán)境資源的競爭似乎是當(dāng)下的新秩序，這就要求該領(lǐng)域心智強健、政治精明、財政穩(wěn)健。我樂觀地相信，當(dāng)下環(huán)境與社會的痼疾正適合風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科發(fā)揮實力，因為這正是目前設(shè)計行業(yè)關(guān)注的熱點，正是風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科研究加強投入的方向，也是專業(yè)學(xué)生畢業(yè)后在實踐中需要解決的問題。

目前風(fēng)景園林規(guī)劃與設(shè)計的挑戰(zhàn)十分艱巨——全球隨處可見大規(guī)模的自然破壞，發(fā)達國家和發(fā)展中國家人口中心的不斷擴張，水和礦物資源開采對偏遠而脆弱土地的沖擊，戰(zhàn)爭、人口遷移、污染、疾病、生態(tài)敏感區(qū)的持續(xù)毀壞，這些將日漸影響大型風(fēng)景園林企業(yè)的特征以及相對本土化的填入式開發(fā)模式。但我們不要忘記，風(fēng)景園林學(xué)過去曾經(jīng)高效地、務(wù)實地、藝術(shù)地迎接過類似的挑戰(zhàn)。19世紀下半葉至20世紀初期，人們曾面臨與現(xiàn)在類似的困境，當(dāng)時風(fēng)景園林師們以寬廣的視野和驚人的創(chuàng)造力處理問題，為國家景觀奠定了基礎(chǔ)、構(gòu)建了框架。我認為風(fēng)景園林學(xué)不能也不應(yīng)脫離這段歷史來討論未來展前景。

作為教育工作者，我主要關(guān)注如何培養(yǎng)學(xué)生的基本知識和技能。過去20年中，風(fēng)景園林規(guī)劃與設(shè)計公司主導(dǎo)著以項目為驅(qū)動的研究工作，在設(shè)計實踐與技術(shù)領(lǐng)域取得了開拓性的成果。但這些成果往往因權(quán)屬問題而保留在主導(dǎo)研究的公司里，未能公開共享。而現(xiàn)在是時機扭轉(zhuǎn)這一趨勢了，讓我們廣泛地聯(lián)合學(xué)術(shù)界和業(yè)界共同研究、共享成果。因此，我認為未來風(fēng)景園林發(fā)展前景有如下幾種可能性：

首先，專業(yè)研究應(yīng)緊密結(jié)合現(xiàn)實問題，更直接、更正式地在全球尺度和區(qū)域尺度上探討環(huán)境問題。為何業(yè)界有時不能直面一些風(fēng)景園林師應(yīng)該探索的議題？其次，應(yīng)明確并探討一系列專業(yè)知識和教育的焦點問題，以推動創(chuàng)造獨特的知識空間，讓各類構(gòu)想和信息在不同主題、不同師生研究成果之間傳遞——可以考慮的3個主題是：風(fēng)景園林與城市、風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計與修復(fù)，以及宏觀尺度的環(huán)境領(lǐng)域議題。

探討風(fēng)景園林發(fā)展前景的前提是作為一個設(shè)計行業(yè)，思想上必須清晰地認知以下問題——我們的基本工作是什么？我們思考的內(nèi)容是什么？最重要的是，我們作為風(fēng)景園林師所生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品是什么以及與之關(guān)聯(lián)的基本思考和訓(xùn)練是什么？也就是說，我們?nèi)绾卧诓煌叨壬线M行風(fēng)景園林規(guī)劃設(shè)計？這就是學(xué)術(shù)資本的延續(xù)性所在，能促進設(shè)計實踐智慧與大學(xué)卓越的資源相結(jié)合，推動風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域與學(xué)科發(fā)展。無論我們多么相信風(fēng)景園林師有強大的能力調(diào)整和規(guī)劃物質(zhì)空間的擴張，我們都需要重視不斷地為設(shè)計積累和發(fā)展新工具及新應(yīng)用技術(shù)。同時要注意風(fēng)景園林學(xué)基本知識體系的構(gòu)成內(nèi)容——什么是核心知識？什么可能成為專業(yè)學(xué)習(xí)和研究的新興領(lǐng)域？

要完成以上任務(wù)，風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域必須努力創(chuàng)造、全情投入、并全力支持良好的研究氛圍，并邀請全體風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)學(xué)生和實踐者參與。這要求不懈的設(shè)計探索：追尋植物、土壤、地形、水系統(tǒng)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、建筑的表現(xiàn)潛能，并結(jié)合其他領(lǐng)域和學(xué)科的相關(guān)信息——如環(huán)境工程、材料科學(xué)、公共健康、數(shù)字化媒體設(shè)計，以及氣候控制等。我認為風(fēng)景園林的未來趨勢將是持續(xù)關(guān)注本領(lǐng)域傳統(tǒng)議題和交叉學(xué)科議題，并緊密結(jié)合當(dāng)下的環(huán)境議題。

盡管大多數(shù)傳統(tǒng)風(fēng)景園林實踐關(guān)注物質(zhì)或視覺要素的完善和保護，但我們更急需理解并關(guān)注建成環(huán)境目前和未來的健康問題。首先，需要了解自然世界，了解人類發(fā)展如何利用自然過程。其次，需要了解人類文化如何演變并產(chǎn)生人類所珍視的習(xí)慣、知識和場所。讓我回到本文的目標(biāo)，描繪風(fēng)景園林未來工作的路線圖，展現(xiàn)專業(yè)發(fā)展中的陡峭頂峰和漫長等高線。

其中的核心就是前文提及的3個關(guān)注點：風(fēng)景園林與城市，風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計與修復(fù)，和環(huán)境領(lǐng)域議題。

（一）風(fēng)景園林與城市

作為第1個關(guān)注點，風(fēng)景園林與城市是一個適時的主題，它展現(xiàn)了人類社會與自然過程在人口高密度聚集的城市景觀中的聯(lián)合作用。盡管風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域?qū)Χ际凶h題的研究興趣已持續(xù)了相當(dāng)長的一段時間（并非僅僅是近來流行的景觀都市主義，一個即將終結(jié)的話題），近期該領(lǐng)域已顯示出對城市形態(tài)塑造的興趣。我們能看見并了解現(xiàn)代都市景觀規(guī)劃設(shè)計的視覺形態(tài)，這些形態(tài)并非少數(shù)設(shè)計師的突發(fā)奇想或外行人不計代價地追求關(guān)注和創(chuàng)新的結(jié)果，而是設(shè)計與當(dāng)時環(huán)境、社會、文化、經(jīng)濟、技術(shù)條件密切結(jié)合的必然產(chǎn)物。

（二）風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計與修復(fù)

作為第2個關(guān)注點，風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計與修復(fù)探討了人類與自然的分離，例如衰退的工業(yè)和水道。對致力于宏觀國家景觀修復(fù)再生的設(shè)計師來說，曾有兩種源于20世紀初進步時期的并行倡議：一種是保護主義運動，致力于保護和強化美國的開放空間及野生物種等自然環(huán)境特色；另一種是公共健康與衛(wèi)生改革，致力于清理污穢的城市環(huán)境，尤其是密集的工人聚居區(qū)。這2種倡議均源于19世紀晚期毫無節(jié)制的工業(yè)化。今天，風(fēng)景園林師終于意識到公共健康與衛(wèi)生改革的問題是當(dāng)代建成環(huán)境不可或缺的議題，而不僅僅是過去常強調(diào)的環(huán)境和野生物種保護問題。風(fēng)景園林師將在過去5年所完成的幾個提案基礎(chǔ)上，重點關(guān)注建立再生策略和技術(shù)的應(yīng)用知識的議案，以及在發(fā)達國家和發(fā)展中國家之間可轉(zhuǎn)讓風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域相關(guān)技術(shù)的議案。

（三）環(huán)境領(lǐng)域相關(guān)議題

最后的關(guān)注點在環(huán)境領(lǐng)域議題，一個在全球背景下關(guān)于大尺度景觀開發(fā)的前瞻性概念。這個議題關(guān)注復(fù)雜的景觀，例如都柏林至貝爾法斯特的經(jīng)濟走廊，深入推動相關(guān)地區(qū)打破國家、文化、政治和歷史邊界；又如中東和阿拉斯加的輸油管或是墨西哥北部的新建工業(yè)中心，關(guān)注特性、生態(tài)和發(fā)展模式，與區(qū)域景觀邊界的重構(gòu)相關(guān)聯(lián)。風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域所面臨的一個核心問題是發(fā)展一個合理的、靈活的、多焦點的途徑，去探討當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林所需要的寬廣知識，因為當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林無法用任何一個單一邏輯去理解。

綜上所述，與心靈和思想相關(guān)的事物是最恒久的。未來風(fēng)景園林師將繼續(xù)創(chuàng)造性地思考、教學(xué)、和研究，以此作為有效的工具去揭示、表達、延續(xù)風(fēng)景的現(xiàn)實與氛圍。通過風(fēng)景園林藝術(shù)、科學(xué)和文化研究，包括設(shè)計專業(yè)課、歷史與理論、自然系統(tǒng)、表現(xiàn)與技術(shù)，我們將擁有接觸并影響世界的迅速而明確的方法。

“I believe that we are concerned ultimately in our work with what you can call 'Head， Heart and Hands'. From the head，finding out and study， understanding the natural world， organizing and structuring，F(xiàn)rom the heart， the creative art， the knowing，the feeling， the giving， and the hands， the putting together， the sensing of landscape materials， whether living or inert， the pleasure of making， of a thing well made. Thus landscape architecture brings all the human faculties together.”

Niall Kirkwood

It is the responsibility of landscape educators to lead in confronting the changing boundaries ofour current world while continuing the intellectual pursuit and artful exploration of the landscape architectural field. I will not be discouraged by the apparently adverse conditions of much of what constitutes the current global environment or by contradictory concerns expressed， often from within our own profession， that the landscape architect is either the leader of the environmental professionals as expressed by landscape urbanism followers or has a somewhat secondary or lets say more normative role to play in this increasingly complex and often contradictory world where countries squander forests and farm-land， regions fail to protect watersheds， and city neighborhoods and private corporations compete for access to the limited resources of public open space. Global and local competition for and in the environment may be seen as the order of the day， and the situation demands intellectually strong， politically smart， and fiscally sound responses from this field. I believe optimistically that this broad current environmental and social malaise plays to the strength of the landscape discipline， it is where a good part of the current intellectual life of the design field lies， where the landscape architect is increasingly engaged academically， and where our current landscape students will be employed to work in practice after graduation.

Today’s landscape design challenges are formidable- severe levels of large-scale natural disturbance are to be found world-wide， population centers in industrialized and developing countries continue to need to expand， new sources of energy， water and minerals will be sought opening up remote large and fragile land areas， and war，population displacement， pollution， disease and the ongoing destruction of sensitive ecological areas will increasingly influence the nature of large-scale landscape enterprises as well as more localized patterns of infill development. But lest we all forget， landscape architecture has risen to this challenge before- and with great effectiveness，functionality and artfulness. The second half of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century can boast a similar litany of global woes but landscape architects with breadth of vision and striking creativity addressed them and in doing so laid the foundations and structure of national landscapes. Indeed I believe landscape architecture cannot and should not operate in a vacuum， separated from the issues of the time.

As an educator I am primarily concerned with building students essential knowledge and skills. Over the last twenty years professional landscape design and planning offices have led the way in developing project driven-research. Groundbreaking in areas of technology and design practice but often proprietary in its nature， this information has， not unexpectedly， stayed within the host offices. It is appropriate at this time that this trend is reversed and we can bridge the academic world and broader professional context with which it coexists. That being said there are a number of future prospects that I want to address.

The initial prospect is to engage the concerns of the contemporary world. This enables the landscape field to more directly and formally engage with problems of the environment both at the global and local levels. I have always been slightly mystified when the field has side-stepped what seem to me to be the issues in which landscape architects clearly must be engaged. The second is to articulate and exploit a series of specific areas of intellectual and educational foci. The intention is to create a distinct intellectual space where ideas and information can flow across and between subject areas and groups of faculty and student investigations-three topics to be considered are Landscape and the City， Landscape Design and Regeneration and Environmental Territories which is concerned with developing large-scale landscapes.

The premise und erlying Landscape Architecture’s future is the need to be intellectually clear as a design field - in short， to be precise about what we fundamentally do， what we think about，most importantly about what we make as landscape architects and the intellectual engagement and training that is necessary to carry it out. By this I mean more specifically how we plan and design at differing scales of operation. This is where the continuity of academic capital lies and where the intellect of landscape architects working with the outstanding resources of universities can best advance the landscape field and discipline. No matter how much we may believe in the endless ability of landscape architects to adapt and plan for physical growth there is the need to be vigilant to continue to accumulate or develop new tools and applied technologies to be applied in design. Hand in hand with this is the need to clarify what constitutes the dimensions of basic knowledge in landscape architecture- where the core knowledge lies， along with conversely， what may constitute new and emerging areas of specialized study and research.

To achieve this will require the landscape field to initiate and fully engage in and support a cultureof research and to engage all landscape students and practitioners at all stages of their careers here in these activities. This will require the ceaseless design exploration of the expressive potentials of plants， soil， landform， water systems， infrastructure and architecture allied with information from other fields and disciplines such as environmental engineering， material science， public health， digital media design， and climate control among others. I consider that this coming period will be marked by a continuity with traditional problems in the landscape field as well as more interdisciplinary and thorough re-engagement of landscape design with the current environment.

While much of traditional landscape practice is about the development and/or conservation of the physical and visual aspects of the landscape，there is more at stake than aesthetics in our need to understand and be concerned with the present and future health of built environments. There is a need to understand first the natural world and how development utilizes natural processes and second，how our particular culture has evolved to produce the habits， knowledge and places we hold dear. I want to continue by returning to my goals for landscape architecture that will serve as a 'roadmap' of how the long contours and sharp peaks in the fields development will appear as we work through the coming years.

Central to this are the three foci in Landscape and the Urban， Landscape Design and Regeneration， and Environmental Territories.

Landscape and The Urban

The first focus， -Landscape and the Urban is a timely subject in demonstrating the possibility of human society and natural processes jointly working together in a densely populated city landscape. The field has demonstrated recent interest in the shaping of city form， although it has been engaged in issues of an urban nature for some considerable time- （not just for the recent fashion of landscape urbanism now almost over）. We are in a position to see and know that the visible forms of what can be called modern urban landscape architecture and planning are not the whim of a few designers and interlopers hungry for attention and innovation at all costs， but the inevitable result of working with the environmental， social， cultural， economic and technical conditions of the time.

Landscape Design and Regeneration

The second focus， -Landscape Design and Regeneration addresses the disconnect between humanity and nature as evident in for example degraded industrial land and waterways. For the designer involved with the restoration and regeneration of the larger national landscape， there were two parallel strands that had their roots in the progressive era at the beginning of the 20thcentury. One was the conservation movement dedicated to preserving and enhancing Americas open spaces and wildlife， the other was public health or sanitary reform， dedicated to cleaning up squalid urban conditions particularly in mass housing. The two strands however， were born during the late 19thcentury in reaction to unbridled industrialization. Today landscape architects are finally recognizing the latter， public health or sanitary reform， as the missing link in an approach to the contemporary built environment that has often favored the former- the conservation of spaces and wildlife. Here landscape architects will build on a number of initiatives that have been carried out over the last five years. In particular， focusing on building applied knowledge of regeneration strategies and technologies along with initiatives in the field in transferable technologies between industrial and developing countries.

Environmental Territories

The third and final focus is on Environmental Territories- a forward looking notion of large scale landscape development in the international context. Here we are focused on complex landscapes such as the proposed Dublin-Belfast Economic Corridor crossing deeply forged national， cultural， political and historical boundaries， the oil pipelines of the Middle East and Alaska or the new industrial centers of Northern Mexico where issues of identity， ecology and development patterns intersect with the restructuring of regional landscape boundaries. One of the central questions facing the field is in developing a reasoned， flexible and multifocused means with which to address the breadth of knowledge necessary for these contemporary landscapes that are not accountable by any single logic.

In closing， believing， as we must that things of the heart and mind are the most enduring， in coming years landscape architects will continue creative thinking， teaching， and research as a potent instrument of revelation， expression， and perpetuation of the landscapes actualities and moods. Through the art， science and culture of landscape architecture- in studio design， and history/theory， natural systems， representation and technology， each no less than the other， we possess a swift and sure means of touching and affecting the greater world.

Landscape Architecture： Future Prospects and Responsibilities

Text by： Niall G. KIRKWOOD （US）Translation： XIAO Lei

尼爾·柯克伍德/美國哈佛大學(xué)設(shè)計研究生院風(fēng)景園林系教授、博士/美國風(fēng)景園林協(xié)會會士（FASLA）

譯者簡介：

蕭蕾/1975年生/女/廣東人/亞熱帶建筑科學(xué)國家重點實驗室、廣州市景觀建筑重點實驗室、華南理工大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院副教授（廣州510641）

About the Translator：

XIAO Lei， born in 1975， is a Deputy Professor of the School of Architecture in South China University of Technology.

Biography：

Niall G. Kirkwood has a doctor degree and is a Professor at the Department of Landscape Architecture of Graduate School of Design in Harvard University， US. He is also a Director of FASLA.