中国园林·刊首语(2023-10) | 王向荣：风景园林评论

《中国园林》

Vol. 39  2023-10｜334

本期主题：风景园林评论

风景园林评论

Landscape Architecture Review

在我读书的年代，专业书籍和杂志很少，几乎每一期新的杂志出版，我都会和同学们一样，将每一篇文章仔细阅读。《建筑师》是为数不多的专业杂志中的一本，当时，经常有一位名为“窦武”的作者在杂志的“北窗杂记”专栏中发表一些语言朴实无华却一针见血的文章，让那时对专业还懵懂的我对许多问题有了逐渐清晰的认识。于是，我总是期待杂志的出版，希望读到窦武的文章。后来我才知道，窦武就是清华大学建筑史学家陈志华先生的笔名。陈先生随后将这些杂记陆续结集出版，成书《北窗杂记》一、二、三册，这几本书一直为读者所喜爱。《北窗杂记》中的相当一部分文章，可以说是中国整个建筑大行业中最早的评论，而且也是专业、客观、坦诚的高水平评论，它们源自陈志华先生精深的古典和现代建筑史积淀、深厚的人文修养、知识分子独立的人格和强烈的社会责任感。

图1 《北窗杂记》收录了陈志华先生以“窦武”为笔名在《建筑师》杂志上发表的评论文章

所以，优秀的专业评论，需要评论人具备很高的专业素养，还要有公正的立场和流畅的文笔。这样一种高要求也是优秀的专业评论稀缺的原因。绝大多数从事实践的设计师有实际经验，但无暇深入思考，也没有精力投入评论的写作；而对高校的教师而言，在专业研究向科学化转型的大趋势中，具有人文精神的评论文章既需要投入大量的精力，但很多时候却无法纳入科研评价体系之中，不能为升迁过程助力，实在是鸡肋。由于缺乏评论的传统和善于评论的专家学者，风景园林行业的评论尤其不发达，在专业杂志上发表的评论文章屈指可数。

优秀的评论难以产生，也与我们的文化传统相关。儒家讲究“为尊者讳，为贤者讳，为亲者讳”，因此对于长者、位高者和亲友，赞美可以，批评则是无“礼”的表现。这一文化渗入了我们的血脉，再加上不少评论是晚辈评前辈，学生评老师，自然都是一片赞誉，少有质疑。陈志华先生说：“没有批评的自由，就没有评论。”健康的评论是促进作品传播、促使人们更深刻地认识作品、探讨设计思想和设计理论、推动行业进步的一种途径。有认可，也有质疑，才能客观地反映事实。所以，评论需要评论者的勇气和被评论者良好的心态。

2018年底，我曾邀请了十余位风景园林师和建筑师去南宁园博园，在现场开展对7个采石场花园设计的研讨。大家都踊跃阐明观点，讨论采石场的价值、潜力、生态修复的技术手段以及将采石矿坑转化为奇特山水风景的可能。研讨会气氛十分热烈，有对这些采石场花园设计积极的肯定，更有客观的批评。大家的观点经文字整理后，发表在UED杂志上。这是一次非常成功的对设计作品进行研讨评论的活动，增进了设计师之间的交流，活跃了大家的创作思想，也帮助我们设计团队总结经验、发现问题，以便在未来取得更大的进步。这些评论的发表在更大的范围内激发了专业人员的思考，拓展大家对自然、风景、文化、生态修复等问题的认知。

图2 风景园林师和建筑师在南宁园博园落霞池研讨(摄影：UED杂志)

对设计师而言，作品被评论及评论他人的作品都是职业生活的一部分。被评论不仅意味着能看到听到对自己作品的评判甚至指导，也会增加自己作品的曝光度和关注度，扩大自身的影响力。而设计师评论他人的作品也是不断学习和进步的有效途径，因为评论的过程会伴随着探究、对照和反思。面对设计作品，评论者可能会有与设计师不同的解读和诠释。在某种程度上，专业的评论家甚至比设计师更能总结出其设计的条理和逻辑，并上升到理论的高度。这样的评论或将帮助设计师更系统地审视自己的作品，也可帮助其他专业人士更全面地理解设计作品和设计师的思想。

图3 对设计师而言，作品被评论及评论他人的作品都是职业生活的一部分，风景园林师和建筑师在南宁园博园飞瀑湖研讨(摄影：UED杂志)

虽然当前在传统的纸媒上缺少对中国风景园林严肃和专业的评论，但在人人都能拥有自媒体的时代，每当我们打开手机，就会在朋友圈、公众号和微博中看到有关风景园林活动、设计作品、设计师、风景园林理论、技术和管理等方面的文字或视频推送。有些来自自媒体的风景园林评论引起人们普遍的阅读兴趣，不仅获得了高点击率，有时还会在留言中被再评论。值得欣喜的是，随着自媒体的快速发展和越来越多专业人才的进入，自媒体风景园林评论的水准在不断提高。传播媒介的多样化，让风景园林评论变得活跃和丰富。

频繁举办的各种论坛也是发表风景园林评论的重要场所，几乎每次论坛都不乏针对风景园林教育、理论研究、规划设计、实施管理等方面问题的批评。那些具有深刻见解并引起共鸣的言论通过现场和线上听众的介绍以及会后各种媒体的报道得到更广泛的传播，从而引发行业更大范围的思考。

图4 各种论坛、研讨与对话是发表风景园林评论的重要场所论坛(摄影：陈春宇)

还有一种举足轻重的评论，是方案论证会或方案征集评标会上评委们的点评。由于相关法律的要求，这类评论不会被公开和传播，但它们会影响到重大项目实施方案的选择和方向，关系到行业发展的未来，于是，对评论者就提出了更高水准的要求。高水平的评委能够对方案进行公正客观的评价，慧眼识珠，甄选出最优方案，促进高质量的项目落地，推动行业进步。但如果某些评委的视野眼光、综合能力不足，又或者挟带一些私利，便会导致真正优秀的方案被淘汰，使项目在未来的发展中走入歧途。这样的评论就完全走向了客观、公正、严肃和专业的反面。

评论是人们按照自己的观念和认知进行的判断，具有浓厚的主观色彩。但是，严肃的风景园林评论应该是基于理性分析与深度思考后得出的冷静和客观的评价，而不应是预设立场或观点而做出的赞扬或反对的评价行为。也就是说，评论不应以个人趣味和主观偏好为标准，否则，评论必然是固执、武断和情绪化的反映。

优秀的评论有利于我们明辨是非，帮助我们不断反思、纠偏、推进理论研究，活跃创作思想，提高实践水准，促进学科和行业的进步发展。然而，写出这样的风景园林评论并非易事，这需要评论者不仅要有综合的专业基础、良好的知识储备、敏锐的洞察力和判断力、严谨的逻辑思辨能力、犀利的文笔，更需要评论者有理性严肃的研究态度，以及正面的价值取向和基本的道德修养。

When I was a student, there were very few professional books and magazines, and I would read every article in every new issue of magazines, just like my classmates. The Architect was one of the few professional magazines. At that time, a writer named "Dou Wu" often published some unpretentious but aculeate articles in the column of "North Window Miscellany", which made me, who was still ignorant of the profession at that time, gradually gain a clear understanding of many issues. Therefore, I looked forward to the publication of the magazine every time, hoping to read Dou Wu's articles. Later I learned that Dou Wu was the pen name of Professor Chen Zhihua, an architectural historian at Tsinghua University. Professor Chen then published these miscellanies one after another in the book of North Window Miscellany Volume I, II and III, which have been popular among readers. A considerable part of the articles in North Window Miscellany can be said to be the earliest commentaries in the whole construction industry in China, and they are also professional, objective, honest and high-level commentaries, which originated from Professor Chen Zhihua's profound accumulation of classical and modern architectural history, intensive humanistic cultivation, independent personality of intellectuals, and strong sense of social responsibility.

Therefore, an excellent professional review requires the reviewer to have a high level of professionalism, as well as an impartial stance and a fluent writing style Such a high demand is also the reason for the scarcity of excellent professional reviews. The vast majority of designers engaged in practice have practical experience, but have no time for in-depth thinking and no energy to put into the writing of commentaries; and for teachers in colleges and universities, in the general trend of the transformation of professional research into scientific research, commentaries with the spirit of humanism not only need the input of a lot of energy, but very often cannot be incorporated into the scientific research evaluation system, and cannot provide a boost for the promotion process, which is really of little value. Due to the lack of review tradition and experts and scholars who are good at review, the review of landscape architecture industry is particularly underdeveloped, and only a handful review articles have been published in professional magazines.

The difficulty in producing excellent commentaries is also related to our cultural tradition. Confucianism preaches "taboo for the honored one, for the virtuous one, and for the relatives", so for the elders, dignitaries, and friends and relatives, there could be praise, but criticism is no "etiquette" performance. This culture has infiltrated our bloodstream, coupled with the fact that many comments are made by juniors on their seniors and by students on their teachers, so naturally, there are all praises and few questions. Professor Chen Zhihua said, "Without the freedom of criticism, there is no review." Healthy comments are a way to promote the dissemination of works, prompt people to know the works more deeply, explore design ideas and design theories, and promote the progress of the industry. There is recognition and questioning in order to reflect the facts objectively. Therefore, commenting requires courage on the part of the commenter and a good mindset on the part of the person being commented.

At the end of 2018, I invited more than ten landscape architects and architects to Nanning Garden Expo Park to carry out on-site discussions on the design of seven quarry gardens. Everyone actively articulated their views, discussing the value of quarries, their potential, technical means of ecological restoration, and the possibility of transforming quarry pits into exotic landscapes. The atmosphere of the seminar was very enthusiastic, with positive affirmations of these quarry garden designs, as well as objective criticisms. The views of everyone were organized in writing and later published in the UED magazine. It was a very successful activity to discuss and comment on design works, which enhanced the communication among designers, enlivened our creative thoughts, and helped our design team to summarize experience and identify problems so that we can make more progress in the future. The publication of these comments stimulated the thinking of professionals on a wider scale, expanding our knowledge of nature, landscape, culture, ecological restoration and other issues.

For designers, having their works critiqued and critiquing the works of others is part of professional life. Being critiqued not only means seeing and hearing judgment and even guidance on one's own works, but also increases the exposure and attention of the works and expands one's influence. And designers commenting on other people's work is also an effective way of continuous learning and progress, because the process of commenting will be accompanied by inquiry, comparison and reflection. In the face of design works, commentators may have different interpretations and explanations from designers. To a certain extent, professional critics are even better than designers in summarizing the logic of their designs and raising them to the height of theory. Such comments may help designers to scrutinize their own works more systematically, and also help other professionals to understand design works and designers' thoughts more comprehensively.

Although there is currently a lack of serious and professional commentaries on Chinese landscape gardens in traditional printed media, in the era when everyone have access to self-media, whenever we turn on our cell phones, we will see text or video pushes about landscape gardening activities, design works, designers, landscape gardening theories, technologies and management in our WeChat moments, public accounts and Weibo. Some landscape architecture reviews from the self-published media aroused widespread interest in reading, and not only gained high click-through rates, but were sometimes re-reviewed in comments. It is gratifying to see that with the rapid development of self-media and the entry of more and more professionals, the level of self-media landscape architecture reviews is improving. The diversification of communication media makes landscape architecture commentaries active and rich.

Various forums held frequently are also important places for publishing landscape architecture commentaries, and almost every forum has no lack of criticisms on landscape architecture education, theoretical research, planning and design, and implementation and management. Those insightful and resonant comments are more widely disseminated through the introductions of the audience on site and online, as well as the reports of various media after the meetings, thus triggering a wider range of thinking in the industry.

Another type of pivotal comment is that of the judges at plan demonstration meetings or plan solicitation and bid evaluation meetings. Due to relevant legal requirements, such comments will not be disseminated, but they will affect the choice and direction of the implementation plans of major projects and the future development of the industry, so the commentators are required to be of a higher standard. High-level judges can make a fair and objective evaluation of the program, select the optimal plan with discerning eyes, promote the implementation of high-quality project, and promote the progress of the industry. However, if some judges have insufficient vision and comprehensive capabilities, or have some personal interests, it will lead to the elimination of truly outstanding plans and make the project go astray in future development. Such comments go against the objectivity, impartiality, seriousness and professionalism.

Reviews are judgments made by people according to their own ideas and perceptions, with a strong subjective color. However, serious landscape architecture reviews should be the calm and objective evaluation based on rational analysis and in-depth thinking, and should not be an evaluation behavior of praise or opposition based on preconceived ideas or opinions. In other words, reviews should not be based on personal interests or subjective preferences; otherwise, they are bound to be stubborn, arbitrary and emotional reflections.

Excellent comments are conducive to distinguishing right from wrong, helping us to constantly reflect, correct errors, promote theoretical research, enliven creative thinking, improve practical standards, and promote the progress and development of disciplines and the industry. However, it is not easy to make such a review of landscape architecture, because it requires the reviewer not only to have a comprehensive professional foundation, good knowledge reserves, keen insight and judgment, rigorous logic thinking ability, and sharp writing style, but also to have a rational and serious attitude towards research, positive value orientation, and basic moral cultivation.

本刊主编：王向荣 教授

Prof. Dr.-Ing. WANG Xiangrong

Chief Editor

引文格式

王向荣.风景园林评论[J].中国园林，2023，39(10)：2-3.

//////END//////

排版 | 李旻

校对 | 马琳

审核 | 金荷仙