LA访谈 | 从行路者到引路者——玛莎·施瓦茨的设计教学、实践与研究哲思
全文刊登于《风景园林》2020年第6期 P54-62
访谈人物：（美）玛莎·施瓦茨
女 / 哈佛大学设计研究生院风景园林设计实践教授 / 玛莎·施瓦茨合伙人事务所总裁 / 研究方向为可持续性城市景观规划与设计
采访者：莫非
女 / 博士 / 上海交通大学设计学院风景园林系讲师 / 本刊特约编辑 / 研究方向为风景园林教育、历史与保护
摘要：玛莎·施瓦茨是首位获得哈佛大学风景园林方向终身教职的女性设计师，在风景园林设计实践及教育领域具有广泛的国际影响力。专访中，玛莎就设计教学、实践和研究阐述了自己的核心思想。在教学方面，最根本的理念是帮助学生克服对设计的畏惧，建立个人的设计哲学与表达方式，启发他们通过观察和眼手协作的思维训练促进直觉和认知的发展。在实践方面，设计不仅要解决问题，更要建立设计与使用者的情感联系，并重点讲述了“面包圈花园”背后的故事及其发表后的影响。在研究方面，强调了风景园林对缓解城市环境问题、建立低碳地球系统的意义。
关键词：设计教育；设计实践；眼手协作；直觉；面包圈花园；脱碳；地球系统
2019年11月20—21日，上海交通大学设计学院召开首届设计教育理念国际研讨会，来自国内外近百位知名院校的学者、设计教育专家及设计大师受邀参会，与会嘉宾是来自风景园林学、建筑学、城市规划学、设计学领域的领军人物。此次会议旨在探讨设计教育如何应对当下人类社会面临的重大挑战，以及设计教育背后的伦理和技术问题。应邀作大会主旨报告的发言人玛莎·施瓦茨教授，在参会期间，接受了本刊特约编辑莫非老师的专访，就其在设计教育、实践及研究方面的哲学思考展开了深入探讨。
Q
A
LAJ
《风景园林》杂志
Martha
玛莎·施瓦茨
LAJ：施瓦茨教授，很荣幸能有机会在上海交通大学与您探讨风景园林设计教育，在对交大的学生设计作业进行点评后，您认为交大风景园林设计教学的主要优势是什么？
Martha：被邀请到上海交通大学并有机会与学生交流是我的荣幸。同学们丰富的知识令我印象深刻，并且能够将其运用到对场地环境、社会等要素的分析评价中。他们对气候变化有着非常全面的认识，甚至提出通过引入社区参与机制来应对气候变化。同学们学习了多样的设计理念及实践案例，并展现出通过构建新的体系，建立使多方受益的“良性循环”的能力。
LAJ：您认为教授风景园林设计最好的方法是什么？可以谈谈您核心的教学理念吗？
Martha：我最根本的教学理念是帮助学生认识自我，并找到表达个人设计理念的方式。我从不教学生我怎么做，也不教他们按我的想法去思考。我认为，教设计最好的方法是帮助学生去发掘自己的感受，认识自己拥有什么，作为一个人，有什么是从内而外的、可以给予外界的东西。我坚信这也是培养创造力的关键。
在从事了28年的设计教学之后，我逐渐认识到，必须让设计师或艺术家来教设计。设计不能让没有足够设计或艺术创造经验的人来教。创造，首先是从内在产生的，是个性化的尝试，所以我们每个人的创作过程各不相同。但是，艺术家和设计师可以用自己的视角和经验教别人如何进行设计。好的艺术或设计学校不存在适合所有人的课程或老师。举例来说，哈佛大学设计研究生院有许多设计师，而且每年还会邀请来自世界各地的设计师，开展设计课教学，这样就会有非常多样的想法、方法、美学和哲学思想给予学生，并由学生去寻找自己的方向和想法。设计教学必须教会学生如何自由而批判地思考。
我认为设计不能通过计算机来教，我的设计课（图1、2）、设计实践在设计概念阶段都要求手绘（图3）。原因很简单，计算机并不能培养人的创造力。参数化设计使用算法能将一个构想演化为数百种变体，但是最初进入计算机的想法只是一个。从这个角度来说，这是一种对想法的“垂直”探索，限制了“水平”思维，最终产生的想法会更少。而通过手绘进行设计时，是视觉思维，构图、观察、思考、评估、修改、塑形等同时进行；设计过程更流畅、更快捷、更易产生新想法、也更有尺度感。只有通过眼和手的协作，才能培养非线性的直觉思维。
1 玛莎在设计课上对学生手绘的概念设计方案进行指导（2020年春季的哈佛大学设计课）
2 应对气候变化的未来城市景观总体规划方案（玛莎2020 春季设计课：Holyoke未来城市景观规划）
3 北京北七家科技商业园设计概念手绘图（玛莎·施瓦茨合伙人事务所设计）
在设计教学中，我们必须提升对直觉的价值的认识，并通过加强相关训练，激发学生的潜力。直觉（或称“非线性思维”）就好比一个混乱的蜘蛛网，比“线性逻辑”能建立更多随机连接，从而在设计过程中产生新的想法（图4）。我是一个“直觉”式思维的人，这意味着我可能不知不觉地接收了很多信息，然后在没有使用任何线性分析的情况下，内心就被某种事物吸引了（或觉得不感兴趣）——一件雕塑、一个想法、森林里的一棵树，或者也许是一个人。如果我被吸引了，我会进一步进行线性分析式思考，去理解到底什么吸引了我。但是，我最初的反应，是让我的大脑通过直觉，去找到那些使我好奇或感兴趣的点。对于设计师和艺术家来说，在头脑中建立这一“门户”至关重要，会帮助你认识自我（你喜欢什么、不喜欢什么、被什么吸引等）。对于任何成功的艺术家或设计师而言，知道自己是谁都是必要的。
4 直觉思维类似“蜘蛛网”结构
最后，如果一个人对艺术不感兴趣，那他就不能成为“完整”的设计师。艺术家是视觉领域的“研究者”，从研究现有的艺术形式开始，对其进行探索，然后进行延伸或重新诠释。热爱艺术意味着需要保持好奇心，挑战现状，行事和思维都须打破常规。为什么艺术家经常被视为“激进”，因为他们挑战了大多数人认为的“正常”或“传统”，而他们所谓的对“正常”感兴趣，也只是为了通过探索新的观察、思考和制作方式来挑战它。这就是艺术家做的事情，也因此他们对文化和社会发展如此重要。我们的教育不仅是培养学生的审美，更要鼓励他们像艺术家一样自由而批判地思考，充满好奇和勇气。
LAJ：上海交通大学的学生背景非常多样，其中有一部分学生在进大学前有美术基础，但相当一部分学生没有相关经验，哈佛大学设计研究生院是什么情况？
Martha：哈佛大学设计研究生院也有类似的情况，我们学生的背景非常多样，这本身是一件很好的事。真正的挑战是如何帮助学生克服“对设计的畏惧”，这是最常见的也最难克服的障碍。较晚开始接受设计教育的学生，因为害怕失败，往往会很犹豫，不敢表现自己。哈佛的学生并不习惯失败，这种对于手绘和构图的犹豫不决，是一座学生们难以翻越的高山。
犯错是一件好事！作为教师要允许学生犯错，并培养“尝试—失败—重试”的毅力。如果做到了这一点，学生将逐渐能摆脱“对设计的恐惧”从而开始越做越好。在手绘过程中，犯错是更能直观感受到的学习过程，因为在手绘时，可以很容易地识别出自己不喜欢的东西，然后重画，直到画到“正确”为止，这本身就是学习的过程。
另外，必须要有足够的时间进行基础性训练，帮助学生来适应设计课程。比如教会学生如何观察，建立艺术基础，动手制作模型，通过3D思维进行批判性的思考，这样慢慢地才能建立足够的信心开始自己的探索。
LAJ：您提到在设计方面认识自我的重要性，但要了解自己的喜好和在设计方面的天赋并不容易。在这一点上您有什么特别的建议吗？
Martha：这确实不容易，就设计而言，最基本的是训练“看”的能力。比如思考你会被什么所吸引？展现在你眼前的究竟是什么？材质意味着什么？对不同的颜色和空间我们会有什么不同的反应？如果让你画画，你究竟会如何诠释光影在水面上的跳跃？很多时候我们看了却没有思考。我喜欢和别人一起旅行去看艺术作品，并问他们最喜欢其中哪些部分。我们也一起做各种实验，比如在一个盒子里做一个小型设计，并试着诠释它。以此来真正感受与了解：为什么我要这么做？为什么我觉得它重要？如何才能通过某种设计形式把想法表达出来？通过这个过程，训练他人相信直觉，并认识与表达自我。有时候人们不敢表达自我的想法，是因为害怕遭受批评，但克服这种恐惧真的不容易。我想，很重要的一点是帮助对方认识到，自己才能决定自己的喜好，而不是他人。
LAJ：就设计而言，您最根本的设计哲学是什么？
Martha：我会考虑设计的很多方面。从根本上说，设计是一种创造的行为。是的，我们解决问题，但是设计必须超越解决问题的层面，仅仅是“解决问题”还不够。作为设计师，我们决定该如何设计。通过设计，我们要实现的、也是最后最重要的一步—建立与使用者的情感联系。建立这种情感联系可以给使用者带来另一个层次的情感体验，比如创造记忆，引发惊喜或好奇，还有当我们感受美好事物时会产生的愉悦感。
LAJ：您有没有最喜欢的作品，比如一项最能反映您的设计哲学的建成作品？
Martha：我实在无法对自己的作品进行排名，就像无法在自己的孩子里选出哪个最好，这是不可能的。但是和他人共同创作的一些艺术装置至今令我印象最为深刻，因为其中蕴含了很多回忆。面包圈花园对我来说依然是一个十分难忘的作品，它同时给我带来羁绊和幸运，这正是它如此特别的原因。
LAJ：能不能详细谈谈为什么面包圈花园如此特别？
Martha：它起源于一个微不足道的想法，创作之初我只是想开个玩笑，给出差回来的丈夫一个“惊喜聚会”。我用面包圈在我们波士顿后湾区的房子前造了这个花园（图5）。当时来参加聚会的朋友鼓励我把照片发给美国风景园林师协会（ASLA）的官方杂志——Landscape Architecture Magazine。杂志主编格雷迪·克莱（Grady Clay）①回复说他愿意发表这个作品，但是我必须写明为什么我要设计面包圈花园。
5 面包圈花园
当时，我对风景园林行业非常批判。以我个人长期的艺术积累和对艺术界发展的了解，我看到风景园林行业使用的设计语言非常局限，而形式又几乎千篇一律的“现代主义”，我对当时一味追求优质的材料和精细的细节的风气感到沮丧。
我那篇介绍面包圈花园的文章，找了很多理由来说明为什么面包圈是一种“合适的材料”：“面包不贵（比起植物材料便宜多了）、易获取（在街角的小店就可买到）、易于维护（不需要浇水或除草）、不需要阳光（对于这个朝北的花园来说是必须考虑的因素）。”其实我就是在找些“理由”以自圆其说，而真正想通过这个作品表达的内容写在后面一段：
“当前艺术界有大量的新的材料和空间组织的想法可以引入到景观设计中。从社会的角度而言，使用我们传统的主流材料和施工技术的造价日益攀升，使得我们提供的服务，远远超出了本该极大地受益于我们的才华的人们的经济承受能力，特别是那些生活在衰落的城区的人群。然而，我们必须谨记：设计的本质不是材料，而是和不同形式的空间的关系。”
面包圈花园作为Landscape Architecture Magazine 1980年1月封面刊登（图6），同期刊载了我介绍这个花园的设计理念的文章（图7、8）。由于这是ASLA的官方刊物，在当时引来了巨大的争议。在同年5月，该杂志又以《面包圈花园：响亮而清晰》为题，刊登了持不同立场的读者来信，足见当时这一作品的发表对业界产生的思想冲击。比如有的人批评说它实在太丑了！但也有很多人持不同观点，认为这是一个有趣的作品，或许我们应该换个角度来思考。
6 面包圈花园刊于美国
Landscape Architecture Magazine 1980 年第1 期封面，由美国 Landscape Architecture Magazine 授权重印
7 面包圈花园的平面设计图
8 面包圈花园剖面图
其实，争议的根源在于我们到底应该如何与景观产生连接？为什么景观设计就不能抽象？为什么不能引发争议？为什么不能是未来主义的？为什么要看上去恰当合宜？这个作品本身引发的争议和思考，在当时促进了行业的转变，但这与格雷迪·克莱以及Landscape Architecture Magazine的勇气密不可分。
LAJ：一幅封面照片为何可以引发如此巨大的影响？
Martha：这就好像一个想法、一幅画、一本书何以改变世界。没有为什么，该发生的时候就发生了。这就是为什么我们认为某些人或事物重要。作为一个个体，你也可以改变世界。甘地、毕加索、《圣经》，哪个没有给世界带来深刻改变？做和别人不一样的事情是一种冒险，因为凡事总有代价，它总是困难的。但格雷迪·克莱就是一位英雄，如果不是他，我不确定这个行业现在会成什么样。
LAJ：感谢您与我们分享面包圈花园背后的故事，可以从设计师的角度，再列举几个您所喜爱的设计吗？
Martha：我最喜爱的设计包含一些小型的艺术装置和几个大型项目。如怀特海德研究所拼接花园（图9）、迈阿密音墙、致敬奴隶妇女的“斯波莱托节”（图10）、戴维斯住宅花园（图11）、瑞士再保险公司花园（图12）、梅萨表演艺术中心花园（图13）、大地艺术项目“IBA电源线”（图14）、明日之城“马尔默·柳”园（图15）、51个花园装饰品园（图16）、铝矾土–雷克雅未克当代艺术博物馆、2011西安世界园艺博览会“城市与自然的和谐关系”展园（图17）、重庆火锅园（图18）。还有一些未建成的，那个名单就太长了！
9 怀特海德研究所拼接花园
10 “斯波莱托节”致敬奴隶妇女
11 戴维斯住宅花园
12 瑞士再保险公司总部花园
13 梅萨艺术中心花园
14 IBA电源线
15 明日之城（马尔默·柳）
16 51个花园装饰品园
17 西安世界园艺博览会“城市与自然的和谐关系”展园
18 重庆火锅园
LAJ：您是出色的设计师、教育家、艺术家，请问您在众多角色中是如何平衡的？
Martha：我并不认为自己的每个角色都称得上出色。我是一位母亲和妻子，我有自己的事务所，都需要投入很多精力，我还教学，现在我正在建立一个应对气候变化的非营利组织，确实在做很多事情，很难面面俱到。对我来说，家庭角色始终是最重要的，但平衡各种角色确实很不容易。我有3个孩子，最难的是如何平衡工作和家庭，估计绝大多数职业女性都会有同感。
我很幸运有自己的事务所，可以在同一个地方工作和生活，这对于有孩子的女性来说是一种理想的状态，但大多数女性并没有这样的条件。在我年轻的时候，如果我不能一边工作，一边照顾孩子，我可能会选择待在家里。一路走来，我做了很多选择。特别是关于我应该去哪？做些什么？是不是该为了一些事情而放弃另外一些？我只能说我做得还不错。现在我比以往更加重视教学，当我年轻的时候，我会更愿意去实现设计构想，看到设计作品的建成，而现在，我更愿意去思考。
我们行业有相当数量的女性，许多因为无法兼顾高强度的工作和照顾孩子而选择了离开职场，我完全能理解她们。但我们也必须认识到，如何设计、建造工作场所，如何控制工作时长，能否建立更有弹性的工作机制，能不能推动对妇女和儿童更具支持性的政策实施，这些都会影响很多人的人生选择，而这需要我们共同努力。
LAJ：您认为风景园林研究在未来环境发展中会扮演怎样的角色？
Martha：有很多事情我们可以做，我的研究重点关注城市区域，因为到2050年，全球会有约70%的人口生活在城市。现在全球的城市有太多的环境问题需要解决，比如城市的热岛效应会影响很多人，还有特别重要的贫民问题。水资源管理、食物获取、气候变化等会给城市环境造成压力的议题，都能成为我们的研究机会。如果能够找到某种更好地将设计理念与技术产业相结合的方法，更有可能运用技术来改进生态服务。
脱碳（decarbonization）会是一个很有潜力的研究方向。世界的土壤、森林、草原、湿地和泥地只吸收了大气中所有碳的25%，风景园林专业应该致力于降低碳含量。如果我们要引导脱碳，就需要学习新的思想、设计和技术，这是一个刚刚起步的会收益数万亿美元的产业。当建筑师和建筑商将二氧化碳排放到大气中时，风景园林设计师要知道如何进行脱碳，这是我们必须要了解的。
在我看来，我们领域充满了研究机会，但如果仅仅认为我们专业的核心任务就是做设计，那知识面就会过于狭窄。事实上，我们越了解所生存的世界，就越能产生富有创造力的想法和发明。很多时候，我们的创造力受到抑制是因为我们没有去懂得更多。比如我们学院会与机械工程、地球科学等学院展开紧密合作，因为我们必须对整个地球系统有更全面的认识。我们正在面临全球范围气候变化的影响，只有理解了“地球系统”（earth system），才能在全球范围内达成更多共识并开展行动。我们的生态思维必须从本地或区域的规模范围转变为“地球系统”规模（全球范围）的思维。
致谢：
特别感谢上海交通大学设计学院、风景园林系，玛莎·施瓦茨合伙人事务所纽约部、上海部对本次专访的支持。
中文稿审校：王云（上海交通大学设计学院风景园林系主任、教授）、李清韵（上海交通大学设计学院风景园林系本科生）。
英文稿审校：玛莎·施瓦茨（哈佛大学设计研究生院教授）、金伯利·特里巴（玛莎·施瓦茨合伙人事务所商务发展总监）、亚伯拉罕·扎姆查克（上海交通大学博士候选人）。
采访稿整理与校对：李清韵、杜柳君、吴哲群。
摄影及图片处理：唐飞龙、吴蔚文、黄际澍、吴炯（以上均为上海交通大学设计学院学生）。
注释：
① 格雷迪·克莱（Grady Clay）1960—1984年担任美国Landscape Architecture Magazine主编，被誉为无所畏惧的格雷迪·克莱，详见：https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2013/03/20/grady-clay/。
参考文献：
[1] SCHWARTZ M. Back Bay Bagel Garden: Le Petit Parterre Embroiderie[J]. Landscape Architecture Magazine, 1980, 70(1): 43-46.
[2] HEPTING J, DAUPHINE S, HSU R, et al. The Bagel Garden: Loud and Clear[J]. Landscape Architecture Magazine, 1980, 70(5): 266-268.
图片来源：
采访现场图由吴蔚文摄，黄际澍后期处理。图1、5、9~18由玛莎·施瓦茨合伙人事务所纽约部提供，并授权刊登。图2由哈佛大学设计研究生院2019级学生陈海纳提供并授权刊登，李清韵后期处理。图3由玛莎·施瓦茨合伙人事务所上海部提供，并授权刊登。图4由莫非拍摄。图6~8原图刊登于美国Landscape Architecture Magazine 1980年1月刊，玛莎·施瓦茨合伙人事务所纽约部授权刊登，Landscape Architecture Magazine授权转载。
From Explorer to Pioneer: Martha Schwartz’s Philosophy of Design Education, Practice and Research
On November 20th and 21st, 2019, the first International Symposium on the Idea of Design Education was held at the School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU). Over 100 eminent educators, scholars and practitioners from world renowned universities and colleges in China and abroad were invited. They are leaders from landscape architecture, architecture, urban planning and design backgrounds. The symposium was intended to discuss how design education can cope with the grand challenges facing humanity today, including related ethical and technical issues. Professor Martha Schwartz, who was invited as a keynote speaker, was interviewed by our contributing editor Ms. MO Fei during the event. A comprehensive discussion on her philosophy of design education, practice and research was carried out at SJTU.
Q
A
LAJ
《风景园林》杂志
Martha
玛莎·施瓦茨
LAJ: Professor Schwartz, it’s my honor to discuss landscape design and education with you at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. After reviewing students’ work at SJTU, what do you think are the main strengths of landscape design teaching here?
Martha: It is my great honor to be invited to be here, and to have the opportunity to interact with students at SJTU. I was impressed by the amount of knowledge the students have so they can assess environmental and social issues and problems on sites. They have a very holistic comprehension of what is happening about climate change and even suggest including community involvement. They are very well equipped with a huge variety of different ideas and practices and demonstrated solutions that create systems, or “virtuous cycles” of benefits.
LAJ: What do you think is the best way to teach design? Could you share some core teaching philosophy?
Martha: My fundamental teaching philosophy is to help students to understand themselves, to find their own design language through which they can express themselves. Above all, I do not to teach students what I do, or to think what I think. I teach to help each student to discover what they feel and what they have, as an individual, something inside of themselves to offer others. These are the most important things I can do to teach design. I believe this is also the key to cultivate creativity.
After having 28 years teaching design, I have come to recognize that we must have designers and/or artists to teach design. Design cannot be taught through someone without enough experience designing and making things. Creation is a personal endeavor; it comes from within an individual and therefore our processes for creation are all different. But artists and designers can teach others to design, using their own perspective and experience. A one-size-fits-all curriculum or teacher does not exist in good art/design school. As an example, at the GSD there are many designers in the faculty, and we have designers from around the world to teach studios every year. A great variety of ideas, methods, aesthetics and philosophies are offered to the students. It is up to the student to find their own directions and ideas. Design education must teach students how to think freely and critically.
I believe we cannot use computer to teach people how to design; drawing by hand is required to generate design ideas in my studios (Fig. 1, 2) and practice (Fig. 3). The reason is simple, the computer is not a device for teaching creativity. Parametric design uses algorithms, a program that takes a form (one idea) to produce hundreds of variations of. However, the original idea that is put into the computer is only one. In this sense, it is a “vertical” exploration of one idea, and limits “horizontal” thinking, meaning there are less ideas that are generated eventually. Sketching ideas are visual thinking, making form while observing, thinking, evaluating, revising and shaping all happen at the same time. The design process goes more smoothly, quicker, with a better sense of scale. New ideas can be generated easily. The only way to cultivate non- linear intuitive thinking is through the coordination between hands and eyes.
We must raise awareness of the value of intuition, and enhance relevant training to open students up to its potential, if teaching design is an objective. Intuition (or “non-linear logic”) is like a chaotic spider’s web, making many more random connections than in ‘linear logic’ that allows the creative process to generate new ideas (Fig. 4). I am an “intuitive” person, meaning, I take in a lot of information, perhaps unconsciously，and then, internally, without using linear analysis, I am attracted (or not) to something - a piece of sculpture, an idea, a tree in a forest, or maybe a person. If I am attracted, I then become more analytic and linear, to understand why and what qualities about what I am seeing has attracted me. But my very first response was to let my intuitive brain find what I was curious or interested in. It is essential, for designers and artists, to have this “portal” into ones’ brain so the information that results in an “intuition” can lead you to understand who you are. And understanding who you are (what you like, don’t like, are attracted to etc.) is essential to any successful artist or designer.
Lastly, one cannot be a complete designer if not interested in art. Artists are the “researchers” of the visual realm. Artists often start with studying existing forms of art, explore it, and then expand or reinterpret it. This means that they wish to test a new idea or aesthetic that has not existed yet. In order to do this, artists are very inquisitive, challenge the status quo, and break into doing and thinking in another way. This is why artists are often viewed as “radical”, because they are challenging what most people consider “normal”, or “traditional”. They are interested in what is “normal” only to challenge it through exploring new ways of seeing, thinking, and making. That are what artists do. It is why they are so important to cultural and societal evolution. Our education should not only cultivate students’ taste of art, but also to encourage them to think freely and critically like artists, full of curiosity and courage.
LAJ: At SJTU, we have students from very diverse backgrounds. Some of them studied art before entering university, but many others do not have relevant experience. What is the situation at GSD?
Martha: We experience similar situations in the GSD where people come from all different backgrounds, which is a very good thing. The real challenge is how to help students to overcome the “FEAR OF DESIGN”. This is the most common barrier but cannot be overcome easily. People who come into design at a later stage in their education are usually very hesitant to expose themselves because they are afraid of failing. Our students at the GSD are not used to failing. This hesitation to work with one’s hands and make shapes is a very large mountain to get the students over.
Making mistakes is a good thing! It is our job as design teachers to allow students to make mistakes, and encourage them to try things, fail and try again perseveringly. If this is done, students will be able to start to design better without the “FEAR OF DESIGN”. Making mistakes is part of the process, which only hand-drawing can provide, as it is easy to recognize something you do not like as you are drawing, and draw over it until you get it “right”. This is a process of learning.
In addition, sufficient time for basic trainings is essential to equip students to adapt design curriculum. Students should be trained to see, to build art foundations, to make models by hands and to think in three dimensions critically, so as to slowly build enough confidence to start exploring on their own.
LAJ: As you have mentioned that developing self-awareness is crucial, may I ask if you have any particular suggestions on how to do this? It seems not easy to understand our preference and gifts in design.
Martha: It is not easy. The most basic thing of design is to learn how to “see”. What kind of things you are attracted to? What allows you to see? What does texture mean? How do we react to colors and space? If you draw, how would you really interpret the light bouncing on this table or water? These are all things everybody sees but we are not thinking about it. I would like to take people on a trip to see art and I will ask them to pick something they really like. We do experiments, a little kind of design in a box, and learn how to interpret it. It is really sensing and getting to understand why I like this, why I feel it is important and how we can express it in forms. Through this process, to help others to trust intuitions, to understand and express themselves. Sometimes people are very hesitating to expose themselves because they might be criticized. It’s really up to you to decide whether you like it or not, not others.
LAJ: With regards to landscape design, what is your fundamental design philosophy?
Martha: There are many aspects of design I will have thought about. Fundamentally, design is a creative act. Yes, we solve problems, but design must go beyond problem solving. It is not enough to “solve the problem”. As designers, we give shape to what needs to be done. Through design, we make the last, and perhaps most important step, which is to make an emotional connection to people. Evoking an emotional response from people can bring another level of experience to people, such as the creation of a memory, a sense of wonder or curiosity, and pleasure that is felt when we experience something of beauty.
LAJ: Do you have any favorite personal built work, such as one that represents your key design philosophy?
Martha: I really cannot rank my own work, as it is like choosing among your children who is the best, which is not possible. But the works that remain strongest in my mind are the ones I built with others. These were art installations, and are still my favorite because I have so many memories attached to them. The Bagel Garden is still vivid in my mind. It is both a tether and a great piece of luck at the same time and that is why it is so special.
LAJ: Could you tell us a bit more about the Bagel Garden, as it is so special?
Martha: The Bagel Garden came from a very humble beginning. I did it as a funny joke and a ‘surprise party’ for my husband when he returned from a business trip. I had built this funny garden in front of our house in Backbay, Boston using bagels (Fig. 5). Friends encouraged me to send a picture to the Landscape Architecture Magazine, the official publication of the American Society of Landscape Architects. The editor of the magazine, Grady Clay①, responded, saying he would like to publish this, but I must write WHY I had done the Bagel Garden.
At that time, I was quite critical of the landscape profession. I had a strong background and knowledge of the artworld, landscape design was using very a specific design language and style that was very ‘modernist’. I was very frustrated by the trend that chasing good materials and fine details.
In my article introducing the Bagel Garden, I argued that the bagel was an “appropriate landscape material”, as it is inexpensive (far less costly than plant materials), available (from the corner deli), easy to maintain (requiring no watering or weeding), require no sun (which is essential to this north facing garden). In fact, this was making sense out of nonsense, but a more significant opinion was expressed in the next paragraph:
“There is presently a wealth of new ideas in materials and spatial arrangement which can be translated from the art world into landscape. From a social perspective, the increasing costs of our traditional palette of landscape materials and construction methods has placed our services well beyond the financial reach of people who could most benefit from our talent (particularly those live in depressed urban areas). However, we must remember that design is not intrinsic in materials, it is the relationship of forms in space.”
The photo of Bagel Garden was published on the front cover of the Landscape Architecture Magazine in January, 1980 (Fig. 6), and my article that introduced its design was also published in the same issue (Fig. 7, 8). As it is the official publication of ASLA, the publication of this work brought huge controversy at the time. In May of the year, the magazine published readers’ comments in an article entitled The Bagel Garden: Clear and Loud, which included diverse opinions. This revealed the publication directly impinged professional opinions of landscape design. Some people commented that it is too ugly! But a lot of people said other things, which is like maybe that is interesting, or maybe we could see that in a different way.
The debates commenced from how we and the landscape could start to come together. Why landscape cannot have a content? Why it cannot be conceptual? Why we cannot have a debate about it? Why it cannot be futuristic? Why does it always have to be appropriate? So that is how the transformation started from, but it was also because of the braveness of Grady Clay and the Landscape Architecture Magazine.
LAJ: How can one cover photo bring about such remarkable influences?
Martha: How can one idea change the world? How can one painting change the world? How can one book change the world? This happens because it does. That is why. That’s why what we do and why we think things are important. You can change the world as an individual. Karl Marx, Picasso, these are all people who come up with ideas. It is a risky business not to do the same thing as everybody else. You always pay for that. It’s always difficult. Grady is a hero. If he didn’t do that, I’m not sure the profession would be where it is.
LAJ: Thanks for sharing with us the hidden story of the Bagel Garden. Could you list a few more personal favorite designs from a designer’s perspective?
Martha: My favorites include some small art installations, with a few larger projects, such as Whitehead Institute Splice Garden (Fig. 9), Miami Sound Wall, Spoleto Festival Tribute to Slave Women (Fig. 10), Davis Residence Garden (Fig. 11), Swiss Re Headquarter Garden (Fig. 12), Mesa Arts Centre(Fig. 13), IBA Power Lines (Fig. 14), City of Tomorrow - Malmo Willow (Fig. 15), 51 Garden Ornaments (Fig. 16), Aluminati - Reykjavik Museum of contemporary Art, Xi’an International Horticultural Exposition “The Harmonious Relationship Between City and Nature” (Fig. 17) and Chongqing Hot Pot Garden (Fig. 18). There are some favorites that never got built. That list is too long!
LAJ: As an outstanding designer, educator and artist, how can you balance different roles?
Martha: I am not sure if I am successful at all my roles, at any one time. I am a mother, wife, have a practice which is very demanding, I teach, and am building a non-profit organization to fight climate change. Maintaining my family is the most important role. I have three children. I believe trying to balance work and family is the biggest challenge of all. I would guess that most women who are working feel the same.
I have been very lucky to have my own practice, and I have been able to live/work at the same place. This is an ideal situation for women with kids. But most women do not have this privilege. If I had had to leave my children when they were so young, I may have chosen to stay at home. All along the way, I have to make choices about things. I’ve made lots of choices and decisions about where I am, what I will do or give up one for something else. But in terms of teaching, I find teaching is a lot more valuable right now. Previously I really just want to build and make things, but now I’m keener to thinking about things.
We lose a lot of women in the field of landscape architecture after having children because the job is rigorous and demanding so they choose to be with their children, which I completely understand. But the way we construct our workplace, hours of work, whether we can establish more flexible working rules and to promote policy that can support women and children, will affect many people’s life choices. It is up to us to make changes.
LAJ: In your opinion, what is the role of landscape research for future environmental development?
Martha: There is so much research we can do. I focus on urban area because 70% of human populations are living in cities until 2050. There are so many issues that we need to resolve in cities. Urban heat island effect makes it so people, especially poor people, can’t stay in their buildings. People are starting to go out into the streets and green spaces. So how do we capture the water? How do we recycle? How do we integrate different systems? If we could somehow integrate design engineering into our ideas, we could learn how to build technologies that can help us to improve ecological services.
Decarbonization will be a direction that is full of potentiality. The world’s soil, forests, grasslands, wetlands and peatlands draw down 25% of all the carbon in the atmosphere. This is the core of our profession. Learning about new ideas, practices, technologies will be essential if we are to lead in decarbonization, which will be a trillion-dollar economy that is just starting now. While architects and builders put CO2 into the atmosphere, landscape architects will know methods of how to decarbonize. This is what we must learn about.
These are all things that need to be researched. But if we think our only task is design, we are trapped by only have a little knowledge. The more we understand our world, the more imaginations can invent things. So, we are stopping ourselves from becoming creative without understanding more. Our departments have to start joining with engineering and earth sciences departments. We have to have a much bigger understanding of not just ecology but the earth system which is beyond the scale of ecology. Given we are facing the effects of climate change globally, I believe we should and can step up to the next scale of engagement- which is the understanding of global systems (the EARTH SYSTEM). We have bump up to a much bigger scale of understanding and action. We must go from the scale of ecological-scale-thinking (local/regional-scale) to earth-system scale thinking (global scale).
Acknowledgments:
Particular thanks are given to the Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Martha Schwartz Partner New York and Shanghai Offices.
Chinese Version Proofreaders: Professor WANG Yun, the Head of the Department of Landscape Architecture, SJTU; LI Qingyun, undergraduate student, SJTU.
English Version Proofreaders: Professor Martha Schwarts, GSD, Harvard University; Kimberly Tryba, the Head of Business Development, MSP; Abraham Zamcheck, Ph. D. candidate, SJTU.
Interview Transcription Developers: LI Qingyun, DU Liujun, WU Zhequn.
Photographers: TANG Feilong, WU Weiwen, Huang Jishu, WU Jiong. (The names mentioned above are undergraduate students at SJTU).
Note:
① Grady Clay, known as Fearless Grady Clay, working editor of the Landscape Architecture Magazine from 1960 to 1984. https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2013/03/20/grady-clay/.
Sources of Figures:
The image of the interview was photographed by WU Weiwen and was amended by HUANG Jishu. Fig 1, 5, 9-18 were provided by MSP New York Office; Fig 2 was provided by CHEN Haina, a postgraduate student at GSD, Harvard University; Fig. 3 was provided by MSP Shanghai Office; Fig. 4 was photographed by MO Fei; Fig. 6-8 were originally published by Landscape Architecture Magazine in January 1980. Copy rights and reprinting permissions were obtained from the sources that provided the Figures.
采访现场
左：玛莎·施瓦茨教授 右：莫非
相关阅读：《风景园林》2020-06刊首语 | 郑曦：设计思想的形成《风景园林》2020-06目录 | 风景园林设计思想研究新刊速览 | 《风景园林》2020-06 风景园林设计思想研究《风景园林》2020-06专题导读 | 风景园林设计思想研究LA专题 | Miquel Vidal Pla | 当代景观设计的现时危机与未来挑战：从特质出发的设计途径LA专题 | 金秋野 | 巴拉干建筑中的“自然之影”LA研究 | 赵智聪 彭琳 | 国家公园分区规划演变及其发展趋势
完整深度阅读请参看《风景园林》2020年6期
扫描下方小程序码或点击阅读原文进入店铺购买
微信编辑 刘芝若
微信校对 刘昱霏
声明
本文版权归本文作者所有
未经允许禁止转载
如需转载请与后台联系
欢迎转发