These buildings are in different periods. For most of the 20th century, landscape architecture knowledge was spread as an activity center in a few western countries in a standardized form. In the past few decades, in different environments, completely different landscape buildings or some overlapping features have appeared. These buildings have different identification signs in different periods. Sometimes it is identified by the signs of countries and regions, sometimes by the scope of language use, and sometimes by cultural background. In specific occupations, including practitioners and scholars, these identification marks are closely related to national and international models and cross-cultural communication. For most of the 20th century, due to political reasons and other factors, China and those countries and regions whose mother tongue is Chinese have been in a completely different environment from the western countries where landscape architecture prevailed.
In recent years, with the increasing contacts between students and professionals in China and western academic institutions, two main problems have emerged:
First, how many foreign cultural exchanges can China bear under the situation that China is constantly introducing design concepts and technologies from the West? This puzzling problem is becoming more and more urgent for us. Handshakes and smiles are everywhere, but the cultural input and substantive problems faced by cultural exchanges are covered up by cliches. At the end of the 20th century, China and the Asia-Pacific region became the focus of rapid development. What kind of new scripts should we conceive for cross-cultural communication?
Second, educational institutions, colleges and universities and their specific practices have played an important role in expecting sensitive and powerful cross-cultural contacts. But how can these institutions that introduce the concept of landscape architecture guide us from one-way cultural collision to multi-cultural exchange?
This paper will try to answer the questions in cross-cultural communication and the reform of educational institutions. The analysis to be made is not so descriptive as exploratory. It will try to arouse the possibility of cultural transformation between expectations and opinions and cause thinking.
"Landscape restoration as an important practice" has three understandings here:
① Treat the cultural vision with a critical attitude, because it naturalizes and legalizes the local concept in some form when it presents the characteristics of convergence.
(2) By digging the root of the current predicament of landscape or culture, we can deny, ignore or revive it, so as to achieve the purpose of restoring a certain landscape or cultural form? This mainly refers to the landscape culture of China.
③ Explain why landscape restoration involves "restoration theory", which is misinterpreted by busy practitioners and confused students for various reasons.
The basic premise is that the current development of landscape architecture is easier to combine with China culture than at any time in the 20th century. The method of demonstration is based on facts and selective. This paper will mainly analyze the fragments of papers on landscape architecture popular among western readers in recent years, and reveal how their papers cover up the possibility of cross-cultural communication. The purpose is not to draw conclusions or criticize them, but mainly to quote the opinions of these authors. The author's main interest lies in the possible time travel in cross-cultural communication, and will not stay in deep criticism. In any case, Shuttle of Hope can not only make us feel the possibility of communication, but also remind us that our personal views are limited.
Before we begin our discussion, let's rule out three inappropriate assumptions.
First, the interest in culture lies not in the static content, but in its dynamic changing process. The process of cross-cultural communication is as follows: people who study landscape architecture try their best to answer specific dilemmas and keep up with greater changes, which may include cross-cultural communication;
Second, the scene of cross-cultural communication cannot be confined to the range where people can theme or localize "China" or "non-Western". The possibility of cross-cultural dialogue can be extended to the following special scenes: a person is discussing China Garden, a community center in China, the China Embassy or China City. It may even appear that the author is not talking about the China issue on the surface, but it may also cause controversy and eventually lead to cross-cultural communication. Finally, differences are not irrelevant reasons. On the contrary, it is the differences in geographical location, environment, cultural background and preconceptions that make it difficult for us to face up to the mutual inspiration of relevance and stimulating discovery.
1. Landscape process, touch and (poetic) language understanding Landscape language in the pure visual field has been criticized in recent years. Anne whitson Bourne complained in an article entitled "Architecture in Landscape: Towards a Unified Vision": "Many architects and even landscape designers insist on understanding landscape architecture in this way: they oppose the dynamic creative process, only regard the landscape as the visual setting of existing buildings, and only consider the shapes and colors of mountains, trees and flowers in the landscape, without considering the process of making the landscape dynamic." In another article on the same topic, James. Kona pointed out that in the important cultural work of landscape design, we should consider the tactile sense of material as an important factor, because emphasizing tactile sense can help us avoid the design impulse of "restoring the landscape to the landscape or visual background". Visual observation of landscape tends to objectify and distance subjective objects. On the contrary, touch can attract and draw people closer to the experience of the environment and sublimate this experience. Tactile feedback reflects the close relationship between the warmth of trees and the coldness of metals, the fragrance of wet leaves and the fragrance of humid air, and the roughness of volcanic rocks and the smoothness of fossils.
Criticizing the concept of landscape as a visual setting can clear the way for discussing China gardens, because China gardens are often misunderstood as complete outdoor spaces, including spaces under buildings and pavilions. This overall understanding became vague in the 20th century. Under the influence of the West, China's garden research has been dominated by two main viewpoints. One view is popular among scholars in architectural colleges, emphasizing the study of landscape architecture; Another view insists that gardening is the most important consideration, which is advocated by scholars in landscape architecture colleges. Spencer's viewpoint of visual unity of landscape and architecture replaces the viewpoint of dividing landscape and architecture into two in understanding, which is contrary to China's traditional viewpoint. Spencer's insistence on the dynamic landscape model is also helpful to restore the modernity of China gardens, which has long been weakened by the modernist understanding model that emphasizes static space and empty pictures. Kona's emphasis on touch is helpful to restore and experience the sense of scale in gardens. This sense of scale is dominant in China's garden works, but it is ignored by most China garden publications showing landscape pictures in this century.
We can also imagine how China's traditional concept of landscape evokes a new round of reflection on Bourne's and Kona's papers. For example, we can compare Spencer's argument about "process" with China's view about "characteristics". The term "China characteristics" was first put forward when discussing China's military policy and politics, but it was gradually used in calligraphy, landscape, painting, history and other fields. This statement is turbulent in both dynamic and static views: that is, in any given structural system, unexpanded things have an inherent characteristic. For example, water spewed out from the wall that once blocked it, destroying everything around it; Or stretching the crossbow to a certain limit will have a fatal impact within a certain distance; By studying some strategic factors, a skilled general can get the maximum effect with the least troops within a certain distance. Students majoring in modern landscape architecture will realize the echo of China's traditional thought and Kona's exposition on "site design". This feature is controlled by tension (similar to the tension caused by water being blocked by a wall and the tension caused by crossbows being pulled to the limit). This tension can be contrasted with Spencer's "unified vision". In this view, there is peace and basic adaptability, for example, it can exist between the roof of Greenmel Carter and the eucalyptus awning on the roof, and it can also exist between the pouring rain and the huge sink that meets the drainage demand.
Second, think about the passage extracted from Spencer's paper: "Landscape is the most primitive residence ... This kind of building originated from avoiding wind and rain and wild animals. Architecture is a powerful adaptive tool, but now it has become a tool that alienates us from nature. In most modern buildings, the windows are sealed, emphasizing the facade and ignoring the landscape, which separates us from the intimate life state, nature and basic lifestyle. Our power to change the earth makes us hallucinate, as if we have controlled nature, and we are getting rid of our dependence on nature to some extent. As a species, what we rely on now is whether we can adapt to nature in new ways. The solution of the basic problem of our survival age will determine our viability as a species. We must finally adapt to our system, our architecture, landscape and residence. "
Readers will be moved by Aristotle's statement about methods and goals in Spencer's original text. In fact, the dialogue about characteristics has never made clear the connection between methods and goals, but it has always been regarded as a progressive and effective way of operation. The keen strategy of expressing the connection between methods and goals seems to be implicit in the discussion of Spencer's original text, but in some classic works such as Tarier Cynthia and Green. Poetic descriptions can be found in Melkat's house. Spencer's theory of visual unity of architecture and landscape is reflected in the works of famous professional designers; This is still a reward for human intermediary and leaves a lot of room for human subjectivity. In contrast, China's emphasis on characteristics leads to the view that efficiency does not depend on individual human values. The purpose of my comparison is not to make a judgment or reveal a tendency, but to show that the basic ideas in landscape architecture papers can be well combined with China's concerns, giving everyone the feeling that cross-cultural dialogue is feasible.
The following facts can be regarded as a higher level of cross-cultural buzz: among the authors of landscape architecture, Spencer is outstanding, because he pioneered the use of poetry to attract people's attention to art. Spencer's interest in poetry does not lie in the important role of poetry in China's traditional culture and the transmission of values and emotions, but in a basic way to arouse the attention of landscape architecture circles to the current predicament. With the development of time, words and formulas that can arouse thinking, convey feelings and express feelings have become comfortable platitudes. In the traditional discussion of China gardens, poetic language with literary fantasy is widely used, emphasizing concreteness and detail, avoiding abstraction and theory. In China's garden monographs in the17th century, Yuanye is a famous example. In a recent comment, I tried to point out that there is a shrinking thinking in the book, which makes the stale repetitive forms and countless facts stay at the level of directly expressing information. In 1980s, as a new academic wave, many academic papers about Yuan Ye appeared in China. In this academic wave, there is a tendency to focus on some specific paragraphs and ideas in Yuan Ye and evaluate its importance by repeatedly discussing the original structure. After a period of time, there is a new trend, which is to pay attention to the content that evokes tortuous thoughts and consciousness.
When we review the discussions on ecology and process in landscape architecture in the past 20 years, we can't help but wonder: To what extent will popular cliches about species and habitats reduce the possibility of new ideas? We can take some popular sayings, such as Gray. Compared with Snyder's poems, the grammar and wording in Snyder's works suggest a new intimate and natural relationship between us and the land. In his poem "ForAll", there is a novel antithesis that is consistent with Kona's emphasis on touch: "The water in the glacier is shining, rustling/stones are turning under their feet, small and hard as toes." Here, the metaphor of "as hard as toes" modifies the contact way of perching on land. However, every novel language's thoughtful application and novel ideas, like in traditional China, are facing the situation of being rejected by popular languages. Please note that the current predicament is not because there is a feasible common and definite solution, but because any thoughtful answer to this question in a western paper may be of reference value to China's paper.
3. Duality and polarity of thinking In Snyder's poem "ForAll", "The stone is turning under the feet/small and hard as toes" echoes the poem "The nose is so cold that it will fall off/sing in the stream, sing in the heart/the smell of the sun shining on the gravel". Tim Dean found the corresponding feeling in these two poems: "as hard as toes" symbolizes the economic relationship between land and human beings here, while the metaphor "nose will fall off when it is cold" symbolizes the relationship between human beings and land economy-the poet's nose (and his poems) is like a stream in the northern Rocky Mountains. This language pattern leads us to think about thinking patterns. In a recent article by E K Meyer, he made enlightening criticism on the universal and harmful dual thinking mode in landscape design. Meyer thinks: "Landscape design is a mixed behavior, and we can't simply describe the two aspects of duality as opposing situations." He believes that the dual forms of architecture and landscape, men and women, culture and nature are components of outdated views, which have greatly influenced people's interest in landscape architecture and their understanding of its importance in this century. When thinking in a binary way, landscape is designated as female or other female elements, which is subordinate to culture and architecture. My interest in Meyer's criticism of dual thinking stems from the fact that in the tradition of British Europeans, the form of thinking has a philosophical and cultural basis. Its uncertainty is determined by the world view created by nothingness. In the process of creation, an uncertain and unconditional basic force determines the origin and order of the world. This kind of primary dualism in various forms is the source of binary classification mode, such as knowledge, concept, universality, particularity, nature, culture and causality, which constitute the human experience system. In western architecture, this empirical system is related to "geometry and algebra, ideal prototypes, … and the eternal contrast between their fluidity and the reality of the changing world on the ground". In the west, architecture and landscape design are regarded as a universal principle, which is reasonably applied to concrete design, and the importance of the above ideas is closely related to the simulation of nature by using the principles of geometry and balance.
As Augustine belk said recently, China developed the traditional concept of landscape without the help of dualistic thinking. China's traditional concept of landscape is based on the theory of Yin and Yang, which means that between two related elements, either one needs to quote the other element to be explained. Different from dualism, each pole of polarity needs the other pole as its existence condition. However, it should be noted that the relationship between the two poles is not dialectical. Different from dialectical relations, bipolar relations are not antagonistic relations arising from comparison and total cancellation. In the tradition of China, Yin and Yang are different from the binary principle of sunshine and darkness, and men and women. In this dualistic principle, the elements between opposites are mutually exclusive. Between Yin and Yang, "they bear each other, complement each other and become a whole". Even, Yin will be transformed into Yang, and vice versa. In addition, the relationship between Yin and Yang has a unique feature, which is "interrelated, interdependent, diverse and effective generating dynamic relationship". This dynamic relationship is considered to be internal and can stabilize the world. To sum up, Yin and Yang belong to the category of explanation, which expounds the relationship between the most direct and concrete things in the world. Differences in details and the lack of any assumptions of the same or strict identity are important here. In contrast, two aspects of dualism, such as nature and culture, or men and women, contain potentially the same factors. Therefore, it is important to realize that dualism and the theory of yin and yang refer to different dual thinking modes. In another article, I made a series of reflections on the key factors that embody China tradition in Yuan Ye, and showed how concepts such as interdependence, borrowing, appropriateness and appropriateness were produced by non-dualistic logic.
By comparing dualism and bipolar theory, it is now possible for us to realize that the criticism of the dichotomy of landscape and architecture is only a small part of the basic criticism of the British European tradition. By comparing with Augustine belk's recent works, Meyer's paper reveals the possibility of avoiding binary interpretation of China's traditional ideas. This will eventually lead to the understanding that once the modernism and dualism conjectures that have been added to the understanding of China's material materials are abandoned, Meyer's career may develop through reflection on China's landscape and gardens.
Fourth, the relationship occasion "Does landscape architecture really need theory?" "Does Landscape Architecture Really Need Theory?" "Do you think landscape architecture needs to develop through resources outside its field?" Many times, when faced with these questions, you will find yourself confused and speechless, because when asked these questions, cultural intermediaries about landscape architecture are rarely involved. What I want to ask is: Why don't we attack the cultural circles that keep silent on these issues? Why do these questions sound like we are debating whether some theories are necessary in principle? Why can't we clearly express the difficulties we are facing without the help of the concept of "theory" and ask whether these problems have been expressed convincingly and effectively?
Take Koolhaas's attempt to think about the future of the city within the scope of ordinary cities as an example. Koolhaas compared ordinary cities to modern airports and opposed to thinking about cities and buildings in the context of local identity. Koolhaas believes that this kind of ordinary city is the result of the disappearance of local identity. In his thesis, "local identifiability" is related to history and precipitated in architecture. Koolhaas thinks: "It is a failed proposition to regard local identifiability as a form of the past." Implicitly speaking, the concept of general city put forward by Koolhaas is a correct proposition and a manifestation of "Greater Asianism". If Koolhaas' paper means peeling off the skin of Asia, then he has succeeded. In Dialogue, an architectural magazine in Taiwan Province Province, Wang Weizhen observed that the concept of a general city is supported by the saying "the East in the eyes of westerners" and immersed in an atmosphere of "New Orientalism".
I haven't read the original text of Koolhaas carefully here, but I will still point out that his article is a symbol of a narrow concept of "globalization" and has no accurate theoretical basis. In traditional China, the physical living environment of buildings has not become an integral part of the city's "identifiability". Different from the tradition of permanent monuments in Europe, the architecture in China has been in a permanent cycle of construction and reconstruction. If Koolhaas finds himself having to face the "identifiability" of Asian cities, it is because Asian cities have gradually entered the "time-value" model that alois riegel said. When he opposed "identifiability" with generality, the theory he used seemed to be the generality and particularity that the West opposed. Readers who are familiar with the works of theorist John Rajman will realize that based on Janice Druze's point of view, identifiable attributes can be defined through different sets, rather than opposing general concepts. Referring to Rajman's point of view, I have explained in other articles how to re-understand the thinking mode of classification category on the issues of the identifiability of China landscape architecture without the help of the concept of classification itself. Readers can feel that Koolhaas correctly criticized some attitudes, but there is no sign of cross-cultural thinking differences in his criticism. He ended his discussion with a universalist attitude of imposing the European model. This is a good example that "theory" can play an important role.
The above discussion attempts to show that theoretical reflection and writing can activate cross-cultural communication of landscape design, and such theoretical activities can strengthen our feeling that cross-cultural communication is feasible, and make us moved by the feeling that blood is thicker than water. With George. In Derkum's contribution to this theme, we can summarize this idea as a way to restore "things that undertake the transformation between expectations and ideas ... to complete this complex transformation with minimal force ... to discover, disturb and awaken pre-existing things, and bring this thing to the present ... to repeatedly think about the generality of a place and impose a seemingly obvious transformation ... to establish new forms, new feelings and new connections". With the help of these languages, it is hoped that theoretical reflection can be linked with practitioners' thinking through practical activities, and they can be infected by the same kind of stimuli and explore achievements in the field of mutual efforts.
Cross-cultural thinking is carried out in the form of time and space shuttle, which is an unfolding beat with an open ending and consistent implementation. It resists linear thinking and teleology that transcends experience and has authoritative statements. Taking concrete works as examples, this kind of shuttle is not in the category of abstract patterns such as "things", "form and content", "time and space" and "landscape and language". This shuttle reflects the special structure of the concept in the cycle; In fact, it can't be regarded as a ubiquitous and infinitely extended way of thinking, which appears repeatedly without restriction in the process of thinking. This kind of shuttle evokes a new related experience, which is called "cultural interaction" in landscape architecture. With diversified resources, it plays a special role in educational institutions, helping landscape architecture clearly express the experience of cultural reciprocity in the era of globalization.
For more information about project/service/procurement bidding, and to improve the winning rate, please click on the bottom of official website Customer Service for free consultation:/#/? source=bdzd