刊首語(yǔ)

1990年代初，中國(guó)的報(bào)紙一般只有4版，最多不會(huì)超過(guò)8版，所以當(dāng)我那時(shí)剛跨出國(guó)門(mén)，看到許多歐洲報(bào)紙都有厚厚的近百頁(yè)時(shí)，感到非常新奇。那些報(bào)紙經(jīng)常有關(guān)于藝術(shù)、設(shè)計(jì)和城市發(fā)展的板塊，主要內(nèi)容是藝術(shù)、規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)評(píng)論，盡管面對(duì)的讀者是普通民眾，但幾乎所有評(píng)論都極為嚴(yán)肅和專業(yè)，有些甚至附有圖紙和模型照片。頻繁刊登的評(píng)論讓公眾深入了解了藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師的作品，他們的工作方式、思想體系和理論學(xué)說(shuō)，培養(yǎng)了公眾對(duì)藝術(shù)和設(shè)計(jì)的鑒賞能力，也提高了他們參與和評(píng)價(jià)藝術(shù)及設(shè)計(jì)作品的熱情。難怪歐洲大眾對(duì)已經(jīng)建成、即將建造、甚至只有方案，未必實(shí)施的建筑和景觀作品都非常熟悉，都能說(shuō)出一大串藝術(shù)家或是設(shè)計(jì)師的名字。當(dāng)然，這些評(píng)論對(duì)藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師來(lái)說(shuō)也意義重大，因?yàn)橥ㄟ^(guò)評(píng)論，藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師能聽(tīng)到更多公眾的聲音，也可以增進(jìn)交流，活躍思想，反思自己，提高設(shè)計(jì)水準(zhǔn)，更重要的是，被評(píng)論就是藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師工作生活的一部分，也是他們作品的一部分。藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師愿意甚至渴望被評(píng)論，因?yàn)椴槐辉u(píng)論的人意味著無(wú)足輕重，不被評(píng)論的思想意味著不具影響，不被評(píng)論的作品意味著不受關(guān)注。

那個(gè)年代，傳媒遠(yuǎn)不如現(xiàn)在發(fā)達(dá)，國(guó)際上風(fēng)景園林方面的專業(yè)雜志種類也有限，但幾乎每一本專業(yè)雜志都不會(huì)缺少評(píng)論，這些評(píng)論以讀者來(lái)信、人物與作品介紹、書(shū)評(píng)等方式呈現(xiàn)出來(lái)，當(dāng)然幾乎所有的介紹都來(lái)自于第三方，很少有設(shè)計(jì)師自己闡釋個(gè)人的作品。

當(dāng)時(shí)我深深地體會(huì)到評(píng)論對(duì)風(fēng)景園林在交流、爭(zhēng)鳴、反思和進(jìn)步中的價(jià)值，也非常希望中國(guó)的風(fēng)景園林界能開(kāi)展全面的評(píng)論。然而，20多年過(guò)去了，今天中國(guó)的風(fēng)景園林似乎并沒(méi)有發(fā)展起健康的評(píng)論。盡管各類評(píng)論文章也不少，但是人物的評(píng)論往往是晚輩寫(xiě)前輩，當(dāng)然都是一片贊譽(yù)；作品的評(píng)論往往是設(shè)計(jì)者的自我介紹，自己解釋，避實(shí)就虛和夸大其詞普遍存在，而思想和理論的評(píng)論則是少之又少了。

風(fēng)景園林評(píng)論就是對(duì)風(fēng)景園林所涉及的層面，包括對(duì)人物，事情、作品、著作、理論、觀點(diǎn)等進(jìn)行判斷和評(píng)價(jià)，專業(yè)的評(píng)論需要現(xiàn)場(chǎng)觀察、資料閱讀、與設(shè)計(jì)師的討論和深入的研究等。如果具有一定的專業(yè)素養(yǎng)、敏銳的思維和客觀的心境，進(jìn)行風(fēng)景園林評(píng)論并不難，因?yàn)樵诮裉?，任何評(píng)論者都能非常容易地獲得較為全面的資料信息、并親臨現(xiàn)場(chǎng)考察，甚至有機(jī)會(huì)與被評(píng)論者進(jìn)行深入交流。

然而，由于歷史和文化的原因，在中國(guó)開(kāi)展評(píng)論又并非易事。評(píng)論不僅要梳理出被評(píng)論客體特殊的價(jià)值和品質(zhì)，更要揭示其存在的問(wèn)題，然而我們卻缺少健康的互相批評(píng)的傳統(tǒng)，人人都只喜歡聽(tīng)好聽(tīng)的，評(píng)論者很難超脫于中國(guó)式的人情世故和復(fù)雜的利益糾纏之外，做出客觀的評(píng)論。

評(píng)論不容易開(kāi)展的另一個(gè)原因在于，任何評(píng)論都需要承載的媒介，對(duì)于專業(yè)媒體而言，刊登評(píng)論總會(huì)有一些壓力。盡管?chē)?yán)肅的評(píng)論人人愛(ài)看，評(píng)論也有利于明辨是非，但是由于不少對(duì)事不對(duì)人的評(píng)論，最終都有可能演化成對(duì)人不對(duì)事的結(jié)果，所以許多專業(yè)媒體對(duì)刊登筆鋒犀利的評(píng)論都有所顧慮，怕一旦發(fā)表會(huì)惹惱了被評(píng)論的對(duì)象，從而不得不放棄一些好的評(píng)論文章。

評(píng)論不易還在于，風(fēng)景園林涉及到廣泛的社會(huì)、人文和藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域，盡管在不同的時(shí)代，人們總是嘗試尋找蘊(yùn)含在景觀客體中恒定的并普遍適用的思想、規(guī)范和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以此建立景觀實(shí)踐的準(zhǔn)則，但是對(duì)同一件作品，評(píng)論者與設(shè)計(jì)師和大眾的普遍感受往往并不一致，評(píng)價(jià)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)又如何確定呢？

正是由于評(píng)論沒(méi)有固定的模式，景觀的作品也沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，所以評(píng)論也往往會(huì)帶來(lái)爭(zhēng)議，評(píng)論也會(huì)被再評(píng)論，所以應(yīng)當(dāng)允許評(píng)論者具有相當(dāng)程度的主觀性，帶有個(gè)人的觀點(diǎn)和立場(chǎng)，但這種主觀性的前提必須是評(píng)論者具有良好的知識(shí)儲(chǔ)備、正面的價(jià)值取向和無(wú)私的品質(zhì)，是在進(jìn)行充分研究后做出的理性判斷，評(píng)論必須有理有據(jù)并符合基本事實(shí)。

在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)日益發(fā)達(dá)的今天，評(píng)論必然出現(xiàn)多元化和多途徑的局面?，F(xiàn)在每個(gè)人都可以對(duì)風(fēng)景園林的任何層面進(jìn)行評(píng)論，表達(dá)自己的看法，并借助于新媒體迅速?gòu)V泛地傳播。新媒體為評(píng)論創(chuàng)造了以往難以想象的寬松氛圍，但無(wú)論通過(guò)怎樣的媒介進(jìn)行評(píng)論，有價(jià)值和健康的評(píng)論永遠(yuǎn)是理性的和嚴(yán)肅的，這些評(píng)論不會(huì)為了某些利益夸大或做有利或不利的選擇，更不會(huì)利用評(píng)論來(lái)宣泄私憤。

PREFACE

At the beginning of the 1990s, the newspapers in China were only about four editions, and no more than eight generally. So I was surprised when fi rst got abroad and saw newspapers in Europe with nearly a hundred pages. These newspapers often include sections about art, design and urban development, presenting the reviews and comments on art, planning and design. Although facing with the readers mostly ordinary public, almost all the reviews are serious and professional, even with drawings and modeling photos. Frequently published reviews provide the public with a deeper understanding of the work of artists and designers, along with their ideology and theory, cultivating public appreciation of art and design, enhancing public enthusiasm of the participation and evaluation of art and design works. No wonder that the European public is mostly very familiar with the architecture and landscape works that have been built, will be built, or even those only in the program process and may not be implemented, they can easily list plenty of artists' or designers' name. For certain, these reviews are also signi fi cant for artists and designers. Via the comments, artists and designers can get widely access to the public voices, therefore enhancing communication and active thinking, reflecting on their works, improving the design standards. More important, being commented is part of their work and life for artists and designers, who are actually willing and even eager to be commented. Because not being commented means insigni fi cant, the idea fail to gain public review are mostly not in fl uential, and the works without public review refers to the lacking of social concern.

At that time, media is far inferior to today's prosperity, the professional magazines in the field of landscape architecture are limited worldwide, but reviews is never absent in almost every professional magazine. These reviews were presented in reader letters, figures, work introductions, book reviews, etc. Of course, almost all of the introductions are from a third party, very few designers presenting their own works.

I deeply realized the value of review in idea exchange, contention, re fl ection and progress of landscape architecture, and also eagerly hope that landscape architecture in China may carry out comprehensive review through various platforms. However, more than 20 years past, healthy review does not seem to develop in the professional fi eld. Though reviewing essays emerge frequently, comments on fi gures are mostly praises from the young generations for the predecessors, while reviews on projects are often the designer's self-introduction and interpretation, evading the drawbacks and over praising the strengths. Few reviews and criticisms focus on the idea and theory.

Landscape architecture review refers to the judgments and evaluation on all levels of landscape architecture, including the fi gures, affairs, projects, researches, theories, and viewpoints etc. Professional review requires on-site observation, data comprehending, in-depth research and even discussion with designers. With certain professional qualities, keen thinking and objective state of mind, review on landscape would not be dif fi cult, because of the easy access to any comprehensive information and data, as well the personal visit onsite, and even the opportunity of face-to-face communication with the designers.

However, due to historical and cultural background, carrying out reviews in China is quite hard. Reviews not only need to put forward the special value and quality of the target, but also reveals its drawbacks. Yet, a healthy tradition of mutual criticism is hardly formed. Everyone likes to be complimented, thus reviewers are hard to make objective comment surpassing the sophistication and complexity of the interests and social relations.

What also accounts for hardness of review is that reviews need to be carried by the media. More or less pressure exists for the professional media to post reviews. Although serious reviews may be popular and may help professionals distinguish right from wrong, many of the criticizing reviews toward ideas rather than people eventually evolve into negative results against certain person. So many professional medias avoid publicizing sharp comments, just in case stirring up the one being commented, thus giving up some high-standard reviewing articles.

It is hard for landscape architecture review to popularize also because the subject involves a wide coverage of society, humanity and art fields. For various decades, people always try to fi nd ideas, norms, and standards that are constant and universally applicable so as to form a criteria for landscape practices. However, with regard to the same piece of work, the perspective of reviewers, designers and the general public are often inconsistent, then how to formulate the evaluation criteria?

It is precisely because no fixed standard for landscape works exist, there is no uniform model for reviews, so the comments are often controversial, and comments will be re-commented. A considerable degree of subjectivity, personal views and positions should be accepted, yet only when the reviewer has a good knowledge reserve, a positive value orientation and a disinterested position, forming rational judgment along with comprehensive study and justi fi ed facts.

In today's internet prosperity, reviews are inevitably facing with a diversified and multipath situation. Everyone can comment on any aspect of landscape architecture, expressing their viewpoints, quickly and widely spreading with the help of new media, which creates an unprecedented loose atmosphere for reviews. But no matter through which media the reviews spread, valuable and healthy reviews are always rational and serious, without exaggeration, favoritism or the venting of private emotions.

October 18, 2016 WANG Xiang-rong