“人類世”的顛覆式創(chuàng)新：重新認(rèn)識風(fēng)景園林的形式主義

撰文：（澳大利亞）蘇安·維爾

翻譯：張安

“人類世”的顛覆式創(chuàng)新：重新認(rèn)識風(fēng)景園林的形式主義

撰文：（澳大利亞）蘇安·維爾

翻譯：張安

1990年代后期和2000年代初期有一個有趣的現(xiàn)象，就是圍繞風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科及其學(xué)科覆蓋范圍的討論再一次興起（Corner， ed 1999；Berger， 2007； Waldheim， ed2006）。伴隨著全球金融危機(jī)的出現(xiàn)及其后續(xù)的影響，人們開始討論風(fēng)景園林規(guī)劃設(shè)計中的社會和政治議題，各執(zhí)己見，不同甚至對立的觀點層出不窮（Stohred， 2006； Fuad-Luke， 2009； Hester， 2010；Bell， Herlin& Stiles eds 2012）。關(guān)于風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科，尤其是有關(guān)生態(tài)都市主義的討論，正在逐漸挑戰(zhàn)風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科的內(nèi)涵，豐富風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科的語匯，并促使我們逐步考慮如何在以視覺和空間設(shè)計為主導(dǎo)的傳統(tǒng)風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計層面以外，引入已經(jīng)初步形成、并將繼續(xù)不斷衍生的有關(guān)社會生態(tài)學(xué)、生物生態(tài)學(xué)層面的議題及其它相關(guān)考慮因素（Bowring and Swaffield， 2013； Girot， 2013； Waldheim， 2013）。對于景觀而言，其本質(zhì)是以過程為主導(dǎo)的，不斷變化乃屬常態(tài)。除此之外，公共空間的景觀設(shè)計經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)因應(yīng)用實際而需要變更用途的情況，設(shè)計建議的用途往往與結(jié)果不同。尤其面對某些公共機(jī)構(gòu)的客戶時，他們?yōu)榱似胶飧鞣嚼娼?jīng)常提出較為平常和四平八穩(wěn)的設(shè)計要求，這自然會引發(fā)人們的爭論甚至悖論，更遑論客戶為增加設(shè)計的可預(yù)測性和規(guī)避設(shè)計風(fēng)險所提出的某些要求。本文將探討如何以“顛覆式創(chuàng)新”的模式或方法，研究和探索的風(fēng)景園林的表現(xiàn)方式。作者期望可以將“顛覆式創(chuàng)新”這一關(guān)鍵概念，用于思考風(fēng)景園林的未來和其他相關(guān)命題，并重新提出關(guān)于風(fēng)景園林形式主義的辯論。

“顛覆式創(chuàng)新”一詞，由克萊頓·克里斯滕森發(fā)明，用來描述一個產(chǎn)品或一種服務(wù)，從市場的最底端開始率先進(jìn)行一次簡單的變革，然后這改變會逐步升級直至取代市場上的其他競爭者（Christensen， 2011）。正如在出現(xiàn)蘋果 iPod和iPhone之前，索尼公司的Walkman和手機(jī)產(chǎn)品曾主導(dǎo)市場。然而蘋果公司的創(chuàng)新產(chǎn)品卻迅速成為市場的主流，并動搖了其它產(chǎn)品的市場地位。風(fēng)景園林師也曾經(jīng)在改善環(huán)境、創(chuàng)造附加價值和設(shè)計創(chuàng)新方面有著輝煌的傳統(tǒng)和歷史，但是我們是否可以找出一種“顛覆式的創(chuàng)新”，將其應(yīng)用于當(dāng)前的工程項目之中？我們是否可以將創(chuàng)新的思想意識應(yīng)用于未來的設(shè)計實踐當(dāng)中？

舉例來說，和城市街道一樣，公園和公共空間的設(shè)計都少不了要考慮雨洪利用和凈化。排水渠和雨洪收集設(shè)施都是出于公眾利益和衛(wèi)生考慮的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，因此以下這些案例都是同時將兩種以上的考慮因素融合于設(shè)計當(dāng)中，包括出于“愛護(hù)地球”的目的在建設(shè)過程中盡量減少制造和產(chǎn)生廢物，營造有利健康的環(huán)境，以及出于美學(xué)考慮蓄集和利用雨洪資源［參考案例：哈爾濱群力雨洪公園，土人景觀設(shè)計；新西蘭惠靈頓的懷唐伊（Waitangi）公園，萊特及合伙人設(shè)計；澳大利亞悉尼的維多利亞公園，怡景師設(shè)計。］在城市設(shè)計中，既然水資源的合理利用可以同時為公共設(shè)施增添有形和無形價值，那么我們是否應(yīng)該思考怎樣進(jìn)一步完善設(shè)計清單？現(xiàn)時的風(fēng)景園林，其表現(xiàn)形式已經(jīng)演變成為綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，而不再局限于傳統(tǒng)的18世紀(jì)公共空間概念了。除了添加了一些有現(xiàn)代感的審美考慮之外，這些項目與奧姆斯特德為波士頓設(shè)計的“后灣沼澤”并沒有太多不同。盡管本人非常欣賞這些作品當(dāng)中的部份，但仍不禁要問，我們可以怎樣以“顛覆式創(chuàng)新”來超越奧姆斯特德的經(jīng)典蓋世之作？

2014年9月，當(dāng)佩里·李斯林在巴塞羅那舉行的歐洲風(fēng)景園林雙年展上介紹由TCL和WA設(shè)計的新西蘭奧克蘭海濱公園時，提到如何在公共空間領(lǐng)域創(chuàng)造性地制造和利用沖突，促進(jìn)新的生態(tài)機(jī)制形成。他認(rèn)為該奧克蘭海濱港灣的景觀形成過程是具有多重性和復(fù)雜性的；當(dāng)這些包括漁港、豪華游艇修理廠、食用油脂和化工產(chǎn)品貨倉等在內(nèi)的各不相同的元素，與公共空間的設(shè)計內(nèi)容包括海濱長廊、零售店鋪、草地休息區(qū)等交織在一起時，既滿足了戶外活動的要求，也起到了利用生態(tài)草溝和城市河口有效地收集和潔凈雨水的目的。這是一個具合理性的例子，將不同類型的功能空間交叉、重迭，或設(shè)置無明顯界別的空間，類似伯納德·屈米（Bernard Tschumi）在設(shè)計巴黎拉維萊特公園時的手法。雖然如此，奧克蘭海濱在視覺和空間構(gòu)成上的表現(xiàn)方法，卻是更多依賴平面構(gòu)成、圖案、重復(fù)等手法，以及采用容易維護(hù)的材料等等。既然這一案例所采取的設(shè)計方法與其它21世紀(jì)的公共空間一樣，都是對現(xiàn)有條件和材料的重新利用、循環(huán)再用、改變功能，因此從美學(xué)角度來說也很難再有創(chuàng)新。既然如此，我們又如何可以在風(fēng)景園林的視覺和空間構(gòu)成上進(jìn)行“顛覆式的創(chuàng)新”？

不僅如此，由于我們生活在一個講求量化的年代，衡量一個風(fēng)景園林項目時，通常是考察和衡量其為公眾帶來的價值包括生態(tài)價值。在澳大利亞，這種討論已經(jīng)不限于城市設(shè)計中水資源的合理利用，人們轉(zhuǎn)而探討碳減排和碳封存，以及碳中和對環(huán)境生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的作用。我們承認(rèn)全球暖化，重新思考城市森林戰(zhàn)略，包括種植行道樹和公園樹木等，并選擇可以適應(yīng)溫度上升3℃-5℃的樹種，以期緩解城市熱島效應(yīng)。在未來可能受到海平面上升影響的地區(qū)，避免進(jìn)行建造活動，并以適應(yīng)潮汐變化的生境為公眾提供一個欣賞大自然的場所，同時也減少海平面上升對公眾造成的危險和財產(chǎn)損失。盡管如此，我仍然不認(rèn)為這些方法可以帶領(lǐng)我們的風(fēng)景園林行業(yè)進(jìn)入一個創(chuàng)新的領(lǐng)域。我相信在面對挑戰(zhàn)時，我們或許可以實現(xiàn)“顛覆式創(chuàng)新”，找到創(chuàng)新的風(fēng)景園林的生成方法和表現(xiàn)形式，然而我們可能仍舊力不從心，在重塑美學(xué)觀上難免要重蹈現(xiàn)代主義和后現(xiàn)代主義的覆轍。事實上，在這一點上仍然是“形式追隨功能”，所以我熱切期待在我們在審美觀上可以有一個重大的轉(zhuǎn)變。

如今我們生活在“人類世”，這是源自地質(zhì)學(xué)的關(guān)于紀(jì)元的學(xué)術(shù)名詞，指人類活動對全球環(huán)境和地球生態(tài)系統(tǒng)已經(jīng)造成了深遠(yuǎn)的影響。我相信風(fēng)景園林也已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)變，融入整個環(huán)境生態(tài)系統(tǒng)之內(nèi)，而不只是簡單改變了它們。這是通過對風(fēng)景園林永無窮盡的自然本質(zhì)的保護(hù)、欣賞和體驗，以及不斷更新實現(xiàn)的。風(fēng)景園林已經(jīng)逐步發(fā)展成為一個綜合社會、文化、生態(tài)等多層面的復(fù)雜組合。然而我們似乎過于強(qiáng)調(diào)從設(shè)計師和學(xué)者角度看到的風(fēng)景園林的表現(xiàn)形式和形成過程，至于風(fēng)景園林的形式和空間質(zhì)量，無論是學(xué)界還是業(yè)界，至今也未能出現(xiàn)令人矚目的、可以引發(fā)創(chuàng)新的爭辯。至于“圖畫式”和“布景式”風(fēng)景園林在空間構(gòu)成上的價值，已經(jīng)在我們的討論中被一早擯棄了，我們也不再討論再造一個叢林，還是在人工生態(tài)體系上迭加一個幾何構(gòu)圖，哪一種方式的美學(xué)價值更高這樣流于說教性質(zhì)的問題。然而所有的設(shè)計師們?nèi)匀磺宄?，我們的工作始終也離不開形式和空間的創(chuàng)造。無論是參數(shù)化，還是采用傳統(tǒng)的平面和透視方法，也無論是邊界式、幾何構(gòu)成式、瞬時式、漸進(jìn)式、有機(jī)整體式，還是暗喻修辭式景觀，無論是哪一種類型或形式，都有必要做出改變。在過去的幾十年間，關(guān)于風(fēng)景園林的審美標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和美學(xué)觀點也順應(yīng)著可持續(xù)發(fā)展、社會整合，以及風(fēng)景園林形成過程的變化而相應(yīng)做出改變，不再過于追求構(gòu)圖上的意義，也不會為追求裝飾效果而浪費金錢。

中國和澳大利亞都面臨著采礦、農(nóng)業(yè)和快速城鎮(zhèn)化帶來的沖擊。重新思考后工業(yè)時代的風(fēng)景園林，提出關(guān)于農(nóng)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型的方案，以及多種類型的城鎮(zhèn)化發(fā)展方向，盡管這些都是可以推動風(fēng)景園林行業(yè)發(fā)展的議題，但我們?nèi)匀槐仨氄归_關(guān)于風(fēng)景園林美學(xué)和空間形式及質(zhì)量的公開辯論。雖然我提出的對形式和空間的重視可能會被忽略，或被認(rèn)為過于表面化和追趕潮流。也可能有人會認(rèn)為，既然風(fēng)景園林的表現(xiàn)形式有其自身的組織系統(tǒng)，那么一個設(shè)計師的角色就應(yīng)當(dāng)是僅僅制訂一個框架，隨著時間變化空間也會自然調(diào)整和改變。這完全會讓人聯(lián)想起現(xiàn)代主義的風(fēng)景園林論題，至今在追求幾何構(gòu)圖方面仍然在發(fā)揮著影響。當(dāng)我向?qū)W界和業(yè)界同仁查詢，有沒有哪一個風(fēng)景園林作品具備“顛覆式創(chuàng)新”的屬性，我們絞盡腦汁也無法從已知或已了解的作品當(dāng)中，搜出一個極具創(chuàng)新的、不同于傳統(tǒng)大師作品的、具有劃時代意義的設(shè)計。因此這篇文章除了贊賞風(fēng)景園林行業(yè)的某些轉(zhuǎn)變之外，也強(qiáng)調(diào)關(guān)于風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計在美學(xué)和空間構(gòu)成方面，仍然需要批判性的討論和反思。

The late 1990’s and early 2000’s marked an interesting resurgence of discourse around landscapes and their operations （Corner， ed 1999；Berger， 2007； Waldheim， ed 2006）. Following on and concurrent with the global financial crisis， counter debates arose regarding socially or politically engaged design agendas. （Stohred，2006； Fuad-Luke， 2009； Hester， 2010； Bell，Herlin& Stiles eds 2012） Discussions in landscape architecture， particularly Ecological Urbanism，evolved further to challenge our profession’s need to consider broader landscape performativity which now includes constructed and yet open social and biological ecologies over visual or spatial compositional landscapes. （Bowring and Swaffield，2013； Girot， 2013； Waldheim， 2013）. Landscape， by its very nature， is process driven and in a constant state of becoming. Additionally， designed public landscapes are often appropriated in various ways，programming public space is often suggestive of use but often is also open-ended. Polemics and paradoxes arise when clients， usually public bodies，produce briefs which call for statsis or stability， let alone landscape predictability and risk abatement. The following essay examines how disruptive innovation is a mode or means by which we can examine and explore landscape performativity. It seeks to unashamedly appropriate this key concept from another context and apply it to other ways of thinking about current and future landscape propositions and ultimately the essay calls for a re-invigoration of debates regarding landscape formalism.

Disruptive innovation， a phrase devised by Clayton Christensen， describes a “process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentless moves up market， eventually displacing established competitors.” （Christensen， 2011） A fairly well known example of this in product design includes Apple IPODs and IPhones，Sony Walkmans and cell phones were after all commonplace before the Apple revolution， but they were able to disruptively innovate to such an extent that they are now the empire that others are toppling. Landscape Architects have a fantastic legacy and history of modifying landscapes， value adding and innovating but how have we disruptively innovated in our current projects and how can this ideology extend our future practices？

For example， public parks and open spaces are now commonly cross-programed with water catchment and cleansing regimes， as are many urban streets. Water drainage and storage are both performative operations and civic minded，thereby saving the planet by being less wasteful and caring for the health of our environment， while retaining water as an aesthetic feature of many of these projects. （See for example， Turenscape’s Qunli Storm Water Park， Haerbin City， China；Wraight + Associates’ Waitangi Park， Wellington，NZ； Hassell’s Victoria Park， Sydney Australia， etc.）While Water Sensitive Urban Design （WSUD）adds both intangible and tangible value to public amenities， how might our design agendas go further？ Landscape performativity in this context is construed as both green infrastructure with traditional 19th century notions of public space. This is much the same as what Olmstead was designing in the Boston’s Back Bay Fens albeit packaged within a more contemporary somewhat modernist aesthetic. While I very much appreciate a number of these projects， I am interested in how have we might have disruptively innovated beyond Olmstead’s canonical works？

Perry Lethleanwhen presenting TCL’s and WA’s Auckland Waterfront design at the European Landscape Biennale in Barcelona in September 2014， spoke about encouraging productive friction and constructed ecologies in public spaces. He discussed the landscape operations of this designed waterfront harbor as multiple and complex； a fishing port， a luxury yacht refurbishment site，storage for mass quantities of cooking oils and petrochemicals intertwined with public space programs of promenading， retail， lounging in the grass， holding outdoor events all while harvesting and cleansing water through bio-swales and an urban estuary. This is a reasonable example of disruptive innovation akin to Bernard Tschumi’s notions of cross and disprogramming tested in Paris’s Parc de la Villette （1982）. Yet the formal expression of the Auckland Waterfront and its visual and spatial composition relies on planametric techniques of pattern， repetition， and well-healed material selections. While its design like many 21stcentury public spaces reutilizes， recycles，and re-purposes many of existing conditions and materials， the aesthetic is hardly new. The question then follows how might we disruptively innovate visual and spatial compositions in landscape architecture？

Further， we live in a decade obsessed with metrics， in order to justify landscape architectural projects； we substantiate their public benefit by measuring and quantifying their ability to cleanse our planet. In Australia this debate has moved well beyond WSUD into carbon abatement andsequestration， we quantify our carbon offsets as a part of Ecosystem Services. We now acknowledge rising temperatures and rethink our urban forestry strategies， for example street trees and trees in parks， towards species selections which can both adapt to predicted temperature rises of 3 -5 degrees Celsius while mitigating urban heat island effects. We constrain future constructions in areas where predicted sea level risewill cause rampant loss of property， proposing instead public landscapes of tidal inundation celebrating flux while ameliorating public risk. Yet I cannot help but wonder if these tactics， while admirable， will force our design work into innovative new territories. I believe that through these challenges we might disruptively innovate landscape operations and performativity but again we might fail to reinvent modernist and postmodernist aesthetic sensibilities. Form is indeed subservient to function in this scenario and I await eagerly a major paradigm shift in our aesthetic predilections.

As we are living in the Anthropocene， a geologic chronological term for the proposed epoch that began when human activities had a significant global impact on the Earth's ecosystems，I believe that landscape architecture has indeed evolved to engage with these conditions rather than ameliorate them.

This has been facilitated through a renewal of appreciation and engagement with the open-ended nature of landscape； its complex social， cultural and biological ecologies. Yet we seemed to have privileged our designerly and scholarly concerns towards performative and operative landscapes. Very little notable scholarship or professional debate has reinvigorated debates over the formal and spatial qualities of our designed landscape. We have summarily dismissed all debates over the value of compositional strategies employed in the picturesque and sceneographic， or the didactic nature of recreating a bush aesthetic versus a geometric concern for our constructed ecologies. Yet all designers know that ultimately we are struggling with making form and making space. Whether it be parametrically， or through conventional plan and perspectival compositions，we need to make moves be they lateral， geometric，ephemeral， emergent， organic， metaphoric， etc. Beauty and aesthetics are relegated to sustainability，social inclusion and landscape process as an overreaction perhaps to the overly compositional and wasteful decorative landscapes of previous decades.

Both China and Australia are nations of mining， agriculture and rapid urbanization. Our profession has pushed the boundaries in some instances in terms of re-thinking of post-industrial landscapes， proposing agricultural transformation as well as re-inventing various forms urbanism but we have yet to debate openly aesthetic and formal qualities of our constructions. Some may dismiss my focus on form and space as superficial or simply a lack of interest in anything but stylistic endeavors. Others may argue that performative landscapes have their own self-organizing systems and that a designer role is to make frameworks which are open to spatial appropriation and change. This is entirely reminiscent of Modernist landscape propositions which still had formal ramifications and highly geometricized results. Yet，when I ask noted and learned academic colleagues and practitioners about contemporary works which disruptively innovate landscape architecture’s formal cannons， we struggle to name one project which clearly demonstrates a break from what we already know well and what we have already seen. So while this essay indeed celebrates the profession’s transformation in some respects， it is also a direct call for critical debate and reflection about design aesthetics and spatial composition.

［1］Berger， A （2007） Drosscape： Wasting Land in Urban America［M］. Princeton， NJ： Princeton University Press.

［2］Bell， S. Herlin， I， & Stiles， R editors （2012） Exploring the Boundaries of Landscape Architecture［M］. London：Routledge.

［3］Bowring， J and Swaffield， S （2013） Shifting Landscapes in-between Times［J］.Harvard Design Magazine 36， pp 96-104.

［4］Corner， J editor （1999） Recovering Landscape： Essay in Contemporary Landscape Architecture［M］.Princeton， NJ：Princeton University Press.

［5］Christensen， C & Irving， H （2011） The Innovative University： Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out［M］.San Francisco ： Jossey-Bass.

［6］Fuad-Luke， A （2009） Design Activism： Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World［M］.London： Earthscan Routledge.

［7］Girot， C （2013） Immanent Landscape［J］.Harvard Design Magazine no 36，pp 6-16.

［8］Hester， R （2010） Design for Ecological Democracy［M］. Cambridge， MA： MIT Press.

［9］Stohr， K editor （2006） Design Like You Give Damn：Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises［M］.New York： Architecture for Humanity.

［10］Waldheim， C editor （2006） The Landscape Urbanism Reader［M］.Princeton， NJ： Princeton University Press.

［11］Waldheim， C （2013） Landscape as Architecture［J］. Harvard Design Magazine 36，pp 17-20.

Disruptive Innovation in the Anthropocene Age： A Call for the Re-invention of Landscape Formalism

Text by： SueAnne WARE （AUSTRALIA）
Translation： ZHANG An

蘇安·維爾/女/澳大利亞紐卡斯?fàn)柎髮W(xué)建筑學(xué)院院長和教授

譯者簡介：

張安/女/香港大學(xué)風(fēng)景園林學(xué)博士/本刊特約編輯

Biography：

SueAnne WARE is the Head and Professor of School of Architecture and Built Environment， University of Newcastle，Australia.

About the Translator：

Ms ZHANG An holds a PhD in Landscape Architecture from the University of Hong Kong and she is also a Contributing Editor of Landscape Architecture Journal （China）.