撰文：（美國）理查德·韋勒

翻譯：何志森

全球“畫”

撰文：（美國）理查德·韋勒

翻譯：何志森

每一年我都要為許多在美國申請研究學位的學生評估他們的作品集。這些學生來自世界不同地方。不管這種現(xiàn)象是否普遍，我還是要說這些學生的作品看起來竟然會是如此驚人的相似。大部分的學生作品呈現(xiàn)出來相同的畫圖技術(shù)，這些技術(shù)描述了相同的景觀類型，并且使用了相同的人物形象。

歡迎來到全球“畫”。

對這種畫圖表現(xiàn)方式一致性的擔心主要體現(xiàn)在兩個方面。第一是學生們?nèi)狈Ξ敶坝^美學批判的能力，第二是缺乏獨創(chuàng)性和個性。

整體上看來，幾乎所有申請作品都在表現(xiàn)相同的大概念：不管所有的種種不成立，現(xiàn)代性在這些學生圖里都可以成為一個完美的生態(tài)樂園，他們也一定可以讓這個成為現(xiàn)實。這種近乎狂熱的概念基本上通過健康的、幸福的人們沉浸在原始而自然的景觀中的小心刻畫來實現(xiàn)，如果這些形象令人信服，那這個世界大多會變成一塊濕地和一個鳥類保護區(qū)。

請別誤會我；把城市從機械系統(tǒng)轉(zhuǎn)變到生態(tài)系統(tǒng)絕對是21世紀最具有挑戰(zhàn)性的任務，但這并不是說我們可以自動接受一個失去的生態(tài)樂園批量生產(chǎn)出來的畫面。當然，也有些例子說明了新的景觀也能夠朝著源于人類學之前的生態(tài)形式和功能演變。但是總的來說，我們正工作在一個不可逆向改變的、嚴重污染的、混亂不堪的都市環(huán)境里。在這樣的環(huán)境里，與廣告里或者學生作品里描述的那個生態(tài)樂園是似是而非的。

當還停留在表面的時候，生態(tài)樂園所呈現(xiàn)出來的畫面看起來似乎是那么的無辜，所有包含其中的景觀都被塑造得高尚和令人向往。其實，他們沒有你想的那么簡單。就像最初的那個樂園一樣，他們所許諾的幸福和快樂是服務于歷史和政治的。通過對他們原有的機械血統(tǒng)的厭惡，向往的都市空間被形形色色重返自然和生態(tài)樂園的畫面所充滿。這樣的畫面剝奪了我們對美重新詮釋的可能性和對一些社會政治議程的積極見解。實際上，對于全球“畫”的追隨者來說，把這樣的畫面呈現(xiàn)出來給大家看是一點都不難理解的。就好像是商品的銷售借助美女帥哥的性感，現(xiàn)在都市主義也在依賴于“自然”。但是，這樣的“自然”好似裝飾用的背景音樂對于正統(tǒng)音樂一樣，是對藝術(shù)的一種侮辱。

在我身處的大學里，盡管浪漫主義依然活躍存在，我們始終鼓勵和塑造課程的原創(chuàng)性，或者更通俗的理解為創(chuàng)新。盡管設(shè)計師作為一個創(chuàng)新派的藝術(shù)師已經(jīng)被后現(xiàn)代主義所批評，我們?nèi)匀缓芸粗卦O(shè)計師嘗試和制造新事物的能力。我們希望設(shè)計師對案例要有批判性的解讀能力，并且能夠把它和當代的文化現(xiàn)狀聯(lián)系在一起。換句話說，美學的評判是以原創(chuàng)和復制品之間差異的程度為基準的，而不是逼真的程度。

這就引出了我的第二個擔憂：在我所有以往收到的學生作品集里個性和原創(chuàng)性明顯缺乏。

在不夸大個性的基礎(chǔ)上，設(shè)計師需要竭盡所能的培養(yǎng)出自己的世界觀。原因就是為了避免意識形態(tài)上毫無創(chuàng)意的模仿，就如歷史反復教導的，會帶來災難性的社會和生態(tài)后果。

圖片由柯丹繪制The image is by Dan KE

在中國，俞孔堅在這方面就是一個杰出的典范。對于西方案例和中國的農(nóng)業(yè)傳統(tǒng)他都有深刻研究。從這些研究中，他發(fā)展了自己對現(xiàn)代性的帶有批判的方法論以及他個人秉持的景觀美學。對于他所提出來的理論的對或錯并不重要：重要的是俞孔堅有一個很清晰的理論和實踐立場。從這我們可以去討論這個立場，甚至可以用我們自己的作品來推翻這個立場。比如說，你選擇俞孔堅的作品作為你自己作品的一個案例研究，那么你應該很清楚為什么要選用他的。作為一個有思考的設(shè)計師，你的責任就是在你簡單復制出這個作品之前一定要批判地去理解這個案例作品。在你自己的作品里必須也能夠讓人看到你如何對案例作品的不同理解、擴展甚至發(fā)展。這也會給這門學科、這個職業(yè)，或者在大層面上的文化，一些充滿智慧和創(chuàng)造性而又不乏批判的貢獻。

在提交作品集的同時，每個研究生學習申請者也會附上一份個人陳述信。就像作品集一樣，這些陳述信也非常相似。舉個例子說，大多數(shù)的中國學生都會不約而同地提到他們?nèi)绾卧谵r(nóng)村度過他們的童年，中國城市發(fā)展如何之快以及這對社會環(huán)境的改變等等。然后他們大談特談怎么利用風景園林這門課程來解決中國的環(huán)境和社會問題。對于正在經(jīng)歷巨大轉(zhuǎn)變的這樣一代人來說，我們是可以理解的。但是，這些學生（和他們的老師）需要思考的是怎樣才能把這樣的巨變放在他們的設(shè)計里，以及他們的設(shè)計如何才能和那些驅(qū)動變化的現(xiàn)代性因素結(jié)合在一起。

在我今年收到的所有那些感人肺腑的陳述信中，有2個中國學生脫穎而出。在信的開始，一名學生說到：“我不在乎過去的中國，我也不想做出像俞孔堅一樣的作品”！另外一個學生在信的開始先批判庫哈斯一味地把“類屬城市”看作是當代都市主義的一個主導形式，繼而陳述另外一種形式。不管這2個學生的觀點正確與否，在我心中，這2個學生至少有勇氣站出來表達帶有自己個性和批判性的立場和觀點。毋庸置疑，他們在我的選擇名單上是前兩位。

全球的風景園林需要設(shè)計師們在基于對案例有著批判的理解之上愿意去冒智慧和創(chuàng)新之險。風景園林學需要有能夠?qū)σ恍┳罨镜乃剖嵌堑恼擖c做出謹慎的思考的人。很多時候，這些似是而非的論點是實現(xiàn)我們作品的基石。但同時，我們也需要去抵制和重新定義這些似是而非的論點。風景園林學需要非被動的全球“畫”生產(chǎn)者和消費者。

（感謝柯丹和周張侃對此文所做的協(xié)助）

Every year I review many design folios from all over the world by undergraduate landscape architecture students applying for graduate study in the United States. Although it is a generalization and thus not always the case， it is fair to say that the design work by these students looks remarkably similar. The same representational techniques depict the same kinds of landscapes， populated with the same kind of people.

Welcome to ‘planet photoshop’.

My concern with this homogeneity is twofold. The first is a question of the lack of criticality in contemporary landscape aesthetics， and the second is a question of originality and individuality.

Taken as a whole， the folios typically express the same big idea： namely that modernity - despite all evidence to the contrary- can become an ecological paradise and landscape architects can make this happen. This evangelical notion is expressed primarily through carefully choreographed images of healthy， happy people immersed in pristine， naturalistic landscapes. Indeed， if the images are to be believed much of the world is becoming a wetland and a bird sanctuary.

Don’t get me wrong； the project of converting cities from mechanical to eco-logical systems is surely the primary design challenge for the 21stcentury but this does not automatically sanction the mass-production of images of a lostparadise. Of course， there are instances where new landscapes can and should evolve toward the form and function of pre-anthropogenic ecosystems， but generally speaking we work in irreversibly altered，toxic， chaotic urban conditions where eco-paradise as-advertised is specious.

Whilst on the surface of it， images of ecoparadise seem perfectly innocent and render all those involved in their production virtuous， they are not so simple. The bliss they promise is， like the original paradise itself， ahistorical and apolitical. By disguising their machinic origins and filling up urban space with a return-to-nature， ecoparadisiacal images foreclose the possibility of aesthetic invention and， by extension， the possibility of any socio-political programs other than passive observation. Indeed， as if to give the whole game away， it is not uncommon for the joyous citizens of planet photoshop to themselves be pictured taking photos of the very landscape they themselves have been flattened into. Just as sex sells objects， nature now sells urbanism but this nature is what muzak is to music， an insult to art.

In my school， however romantic it may be， we still encourage and shape our curriculum around the idea of originality， more commonly expressed as ‘innovation’. Although the idea of the designer as a revolutionary artist has been debunked by post-modernism we still place a premium on the designer’s ability to try and make something newish. We place a premium on a designer’s ability to critically interpret precedent and relate it to contemporary cultural conditions. In other words，aesthetic judgment is predicated on the degree of difference between the original and the copy， not the degree of verisimilitude.

Which leads to my second concern： the lack of apparent individuality and originality in the folios I receive.

Without exaggerating individuality， （since there is far more that we have in common than sets us apart）， designers need nonetheless to cultivate their own world-view as best they can. The reason for this is to avoid the slavish mass-production of ideology， which as history repeatedly teaches can have disastrous social and ecological consequences.

In China， Kongjian Yu is an outstanding role model in this regard. He has studied both western precedents and Chinese agrarian traditions and from these he has developed his own critical approach to modernity and his own related landscape aesthetic. It matters not whether he is right or wrong： what matters is that Yu has a clear theoretical and practical position and that we can then discuss this position and measure our own work against it. If， for example， you were to choose Yu’s work as a precedent for your own， you should then be able to answer why you are making this selection. Your obligation as a thinking designer is to critically understand the original before you simply reproduce it. You must also be able to show and explain how your interpretation alters， extends or in some way develops the precedent. This is what it means to make an intelligent， creative and critical contribution to the discipline， to the profession and， at best， to culture at large.

As well as submitting design folios every applicant for graduate study also writes a personal statement. Like the folios these letters are very similar. Most of the Chinese students for example，refer to their childhood in a village and how rapid development has changed everything. They then say how they want to solve China’s environmental and social problems with landscape architecture. This is understandable for a generation that has experienced traumatic change， but what the students （and their teachers） need to ask is how this trauma translates into their design work and how this design work is then really engaging with the forces of modernity that drive change.

From all the heartfelt letters I received this year， two stood out from the rest. In the first， the student began his letter by saying “I don’t care about old China and I don’t want to make designs like Konjian Yu”！ The second opened by saying she disagreed with Rem Koolhaas’ apparent acceptance of the ‘Generic city’ as the dominant form of contemporary urbanism and went on to describe an alternative approach. Irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with these two quite different points of view， because these two applicants had the courage to take a first step toward a critical and individual position， they went to the top of my list.

Global landscape architecture desperately needs designers who are willing to take intellectual and creative risks based upon a critical appreciation of precedent. Landscape architecture needs people who can seriously think about the fundamental paradox that our work is made possible by forces that we also need to resist and redirect. Landscape architecture needs people who are not passive consumers and producers of scenery for planet photoshop！

（The author wishes to thank Dan KE and Zhang-kan ZHOU for their assistance in the preparation of this article）

Planet Photoshop

Text by： Richard WELLER （US）
Translation： Jason HO

理查德·韋勒/講席教授/美國賓夕法尼亞大學設(shè)計學院風景園林系主任

譯者簡介：

何志森/博士/非正規(guī)工作室聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人/澳大利亞墨爾本皇家理工大學兼職講師

Biography：

Richard WELLER is the Martin and Margy Meyerson Chair of Urbanism and Professor and Chair of Landscape Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania.

About the Translator：

Jason HO is the Co-Founder of Urban Informality Lab and a Sessional Lecturer of School of Architecture and Design at RMIT University， Australia.