跨越国界的景观设计与文化交流

注：原中英文全文刊发于《景观设计学》（Landscape Architecture Frontiers）2022年第4期“跨境景观本土化”。获取全文免费下载链接请点击“阅读原文”；参考引用格式见文末。

导 读

跨境景观本土化正成为国际学界所关切的重要议题，这与跨境景观实践活动的兴起及跨境景观本土化学术研究的范式转型息息相关。如何超越国家政治、经济、社会和文化框架的限定，从国际互动视角出发考察景观设计活动本土化过程中的运作机制、在地融合和传播影响，是景观理论和实践研究中亟需解决的关键问题。

对中国而言，跨境景观本土化的研究更具现实意义，不仅可以重新检视中国与其他国家在景观层面的历史互动，还可以从“他者”视角出发探究中国的区域景观特征，促进中国及其他相关国家的景观史、文化史和交流史研究的发展，并有利于中国进一步拓展“一带一路”“粤港澳大湾区”等跨境经济框架，向世界讲好中国故事，让世界更好了解中国。

关键词

跨境景观；本土化；研究范式；景观表达；中国

跨境景观本土化

Provincializing Transnational Landscape

张亦弛

英国保罗梅隆英国艺术研究中心

LAF

我曾与一位英国建筑师同游天津五大道。面对街区中一座座由英国人在20世纪初修筑的建筑时，他不禁发出感慨，五大道仿若一位带有中国口音的英国绅士，向人们讲述着独特的过往。无独有偶，当我走在拉脱维亚首都里加的布里维巴斯大道街头，或是美国费城的本杰明－富兰克林公园大道之上，也曾有着类似的感受：这些景观虽然分列于不同的国家、城市，却反映出同一种源自法国巴黎香榭丽舍大道的设计原型，并在与本土条件相结合的过程中，衍发出各自特征。

天津五大道具有英国特征的建筑 © 张亦弛

拉脱维亚首都里加的布里维巴斯大道，其设计以法国巴黎香榭丽舍大道为原型 © redzet

同样以法国巴黎香榭丽舍大道为设计原型的费城本杰明富兰克林公园大道 © 张亦弛

法国巴黎香榭丽舍大道 © Wikipedia

那么，是什么促进了景观思想的跨境传播？又是什么促使这些景观原型与本土要素的结合及本土化，从而衍发出诸般形式迥异的景观表达？

跨境景观本土化正成为国际学界所关切的重要议题。一方面，这与跨境景观实践活动的兴起息息相关。在全球化的背景下，资本、贸易、商业和人才都正以前所未有的速度实现着跨境流动^[1]。受此影响，各类景观思想、美学、技术、材料也逐渐跨越边境，并与本土互动，促进了全球范畴内的景观演化、变迁。更重要的是，在跨境景观本土化的过程中，各类景观要素也不断与政治结构、经济资本、社会体制、文化实践相互交织，使得后者在经由景观发生跨境传播与碰撞的同时，借由景观展现出来，进而引发相关影响、变革。

另一方面，跨境景观本土化的热议也与学术研究的范式转型紧密相连。自迈克尔·彼得·史密斯于2001年出版《跨境都市：定位全球化》^[1]以来，跨境视角逐渐作为一种研究范式在国际学界崭露头角。与全球化强调“共性”不同，跨境视角更加强调因为跨越国家或区域文化、政治、经济边界所带来的差异和改变。近年来，该议题愈加受到广泛关注。例如，英国《城市史》期刊于2009年出版“美国跨国城市史”专刊^[2]、意大利米兰理工大学戴维·庞齐尼教授于2020年发表《跨境建筑与都市主义——反思城市规划、转型及学习的途径》^[3]专著。

因此，如何超越国家政治、经济、社会和文化框架的限定，从国际互动视角出发考察景观设计活动本土化过程中的运作机制、在地融合和传播影响，正成为景观理论和实践研究中亟需解决的关键问题。

对中国而言，跨境景观本土化的研究更具现实意义。首先，历史上的中国就通过“丝绸之路”“东亚贸易体系”等网络与东、西方各国保持着紧密的联系，相关景观思想的本土化不仅形成了中国多元的景观格局，还促进了中华文化在世界的广泛传播。因此，从跨境景观本土化视角出发不仅可以重新检视中国与其他国家在景观层面的历史互动，还可以从“他者”视角探究中国的区域景观特征，促进中国及其他相关国家的景观史、文化史和交流史研究的发展。

其次，随着中国城市建设活动的日益深入，一系列流行于欧美的跨境景观思想、技术（如绿色城市、碳中和等）也在中国快速生根发芽。这就需要通过对跨境景观本土化进行研究，使这些思想与技术更好地与中国本土实际情况相结合，为相关建设活动提供理论支持和实践指导。

再次，在后疫情时代全球经贸格局与秩序发生重构的背景下，对于跨境景观本土化的探讨也将有利于中国进一步拓展“一带一路”“粤港澳大湾区”等跨境经济框架，向世界讲好中国故事，让世界更好了解中国。

 以下为文章英文版本 

 引用格式见文末 

A British architect and I once strolled along Wu Da Dao (Five Great Avenues) in Tianjin, China, a residential area built by British arrivals in the early 20th century. While standing in front of these European-style houses, the architect exclaimed that the area is like an elegant British gentleman but with a Chinese accent! Similar feelings of déjà vu had also emerged in front of me when I walked on the Liepu Aleja Brīvības bulvāris in Riga, Latvia, or the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, USA. Although these designed landscapes are located in different cities and even countries, their constructions are all under the light of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées of Paris, France, and present distinctive localized characteristics.

What promotes various landscape factors to be carried across national borders? And how are these landscape factors integrated with local identities and qualities, and thereby generate such various representations?

Provincializing transnational landscape is drawing increasing attention from international academia. This, on the one hand, benefits from the rapid growth of transnational landscape activities. With the process of globalization, transnational flows of capital exchange, commodities, business communities, and migratory movements carry landscape ideas, aesthetics, technologies, and materials across national boundaries, interacting with local conditions to promote the landscape evolution and development of the world^[1]. During this process, these landscape elements interplay with political, economic, social, and cultural actors, and thereby making these actors encode into the landscapes and present them in front of the public to promote the development of landscapes.

On the other hand, the rise of the topic of localizing transnational landscape results from the shift of the academic research paradigm. Since Michael Peter Smith published Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization^[1] in 2001, the transnational perspective has emerged in academia. Rather than focusing on the landscape homogenization brought by globalization, this perspective emphasizes the differences and changes produced by the transcendence of cultural, political, and economic borders of nations. Recently, it is even gaining increasing attention. For example, the journal Urban History published a special issue of “Transnational Urbanism in the Americas”^[2] in 2009, and Davide Ponzini, a professor from Politecnico di Milano, Italy, published the book Transnational Architecture and Urbanism—Rethinking How Cities Plan, Transform and Learn^[3] in 2020.

Therefore, it calls for us to move beyond the political, economic, social, and cultural boundaries of nations to explore mechanisms, processes, and influence of provincializing transnational landscape, contributing to developing practices and theories of landscape architecture.

It is particularly important for China to study provincializing transnational landscape. Firstly, China has been closely connecting with both Eastern and Western countries, for example, through the Silk Road and the Imperial Chinese Tributary System. The provincialization of landscape ideas not only forms the inclusive landscape layout of China but also promotes the spread of Chinese culture around the world. Studying provincializing transnational landscape will shed light on re-considering China’s historical local-global interactions through the landscape, and provide a lens of “the Other” to explore the regional characteristics of landscapes in China, which, in turn, will advance the research on the landscape, cultural, and communication histories of China and beyond.

Secondly, with the process of rapid urbanization, many transnational landscape ideas and technologies (such as green cities and carbon neutrality) popular in Europe and America are introduced into China. Examining provincializing transnational landscape will contribute to facilitating the implementation of these ideas and technologies in China by providing theoretical and practical support.

Last but not least, studying provincializing transnational landscape will aid China to advance its transnational economic cooperation frameworks, such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, in the context of the global economic and trade patterns and orders are reset with a post-pandemic world. In doing so, it will be beneficial to telling China’s story well, in order to let the world better understand China.

参考文献

[1] Smith, M. P. (2001). Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization. Wiley-Blackwell.

[2] Reiff, J. L., & Ethington, P. J. (2009). Introduction. Urban History, 36(2), 195-201.

[3] Ponzini, D. (2020). Transnational Architecture and Urbanism—Rethinking How Cities Plan, Transform, and Learn. Routledge.

本文引用格式 / PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS

Zhang, Y. (2022). Provincializing transnational landscape. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 10(4), 4‒7. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-LAF-1-010026

获取全文免费下载链接请点击“阅读原文”

编辑 | 田乐，王颖

制作 | 高雨婷

 END 

 ▽ 扫描下方二维码即可订购本期 

注：本文由作者及来源机构授权景观设计学前沿发布，未经授权不得以任何形式、任何文种在其他印刷版、网络版等媒介发表，如有违反，本刊将保留追究其法律责任的权利。若有转载，请后台回复关键词“转载”联系授权。

如果你喜欢本期推送，

请点“赞”和点亮“在看”，分享给更多朋友吧！