Naslov
The contemporary profile of landscape architecture

Autori
Ogrin, Dušan

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, cjeloviti rad (in extenso), pregledni

Izvornik
XXXV. Znanstveni skup hrvatskih agronoma s međunarodnim sudjelovanjem / Tupajić, D. - Zagreb : Agronomski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 1999, 234-271

Skup
XXXV. Znanstveni skup hrvatskih agronoma s međunarodnim sudjelovanjem

Mjesto i datum
Opatija, Hrvatska, 02.02.1999. - 25.02.1999

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Pozvano predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Domaća recenzija

Ključne riječi
landscape architecture

Sažetak
This paper was provoked by a subdued image of the profession of landscape architecture in our society. Unfortunately, the situation is not much better in the related disciplines, therefore such a treatise seems appropriate at this point of time. I would like to begin with an issue of paramount importance, namely: can landscape architecture produce works of art? If it were not possible to give an affirmative answer to this question, landscape architecture would not exist and this paper would be oblivious. It may seem paradoxical, but it is a matter of fact that landscape architecture as an art of making landscapes, no matter under what names it appeared in history, has never been thoroughly founded. The fact that the landscape artefacts, e.g. of the Renaissance, Baroque or Japan, are works of art was taken for granted and never questioned nor theoretically verified. Surprisingly enough, even the great authors, like Christian Hirschfeld in his monumental Theory of Garden Art in seven volumes (1) or Marie-Luise Gotthein in her still unsurpassed History of Garden Art (2), bypassed this issue. These omissions ununderstandably continue into our time as is clearly demonstrated by the large recently published volume on History of Garden Design (3). However, it seemed to me necessary to offer to this conference a more articulated image of what landscape architecture is as a design, artworks producing discipline. Namely, if we want an answer to the question: can landscape architecture produce works of art, we must be able to anchor this issue into the broader context of art definition. Here is a shortcut towards this goal in a very generalised formulation: Certain man's activity can achieve the status of art only when it meets some general requirements, such as: - when it makes a contribution towards further humanisation of man - when it clearly reflects man's conditions of life, his anguish and strivings, falls and rises, his per aspera ad astra, and - when it can express all that in a clear and specific language of forms. In a more detailed articulation, the essential features that determine landscape architecture as an art can be, in my opinion, described in the following nine fundamental points: 1. The ability to transcend, to mean something else than the sheer, visible reality of the object itself is saying. In other words, landscape architecture is capable of producing meaningful signs, symbols. 2. Possession of specific techniques by which during the design procedure landscape materials are translated into logical, legible structures. 3. Development of the own formal language that makes landscape architecture clearly distinguished from other visual arts. The way in which its materials are creatively processed determines the most important ontological features of any art discipline. There is a saying by Ernesto Grassi that is crucial in this context (quote): Modern art - and this equally refers to arts of any period - is art only then when its materials serve the presentation of certain ideas of human possibilities (3). With this feature stands or falls the ability of any visual production to promote itself into the status of art. Conclusion of this point is: Garden art/Landscape architecture was not only capable of producing specific means of expression but has also been able to integrate itself in any stylistic configuration in history, from ancient Egypt up to the modern times. 4. Use of own, specific materials just as is the case in other art disciplines; however, here in a widest possible selection of both living and non-living natural to artificial materials. This is an important chapter. The great German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, when discussing theoretical aspects of architectural design has referred also to landscape architecture. In his most important work Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung he made a statement: "Garden art does not have such a good command of its materials as is the case in architecture" and a little further: "The beauty... belongs almost entirely to nature, the contribution of garden art to it is quite modest..." (4) . As far as the difficulty in the control of the landscape material is concerned he was right. But for the rest, the great philosopher was not familiar enough with the phenomenal achievements e.g. of the Renaissance and the Baroque or Sino-japanese legacies where landscape materials are treated with a brilliant skill. 5. Mirroring and depicting the contemporary social conditions and even more: landscape architecture has also contributed to the social and cultural formation of any period. 6. Marking the position of man on the earth in a clear, recognisable form 7. Provision of security for man throughout the entire history, especially by supplying him with status symbols 8. Landscape architecture is a part of the historical awareness of mankind, an overall incorporated societal experience 9. Landscape architecture has made, like architecture, an important and very specific contribution in humanising Man which is the highest accomplishment that any art can possibly achieve. Again and again, it has helped Man to exceed the already achieved level of social awareness and in this way to foster and further continue the process of humanisation. Means of expression - design language in landscape architecture In order to reach these high goals, landscape architecture had to develop a great variety of composition techniques and means for expression. This development was extremely difficult because landscape design had first to separate its materials, plants, rocks, land, water, from the world to which they belong, that means alienate them from nature, in order to be able to create a new reality, a reality that could carry man's messages and permanently communicate them. It must not be forgotten that throughout history, until very recently, this natural world has been perceived by Man as hostile and as a source of uncertainty. Considering that, landscape architecture represents a unique spiritual rise of Man, indeed, a triumph of his creative genius and achievement in the most demanding and difficult means of expression among all arts - in the living natural material. Let me briefly outline some basic procedures in which landscape architecture creates a formal language of its own. These techniques are incomparable with any other visual discipline. As mentioned, our main material comes from the nature with familiar characteristics. If we are to process them into structures that should mean something else than the very nature, we must take away any association with their natural habitat. Such interventions take place through a series of abstractions. These are - transfiguration as the oldest form of abstraction; it first appeared as a tumulus, a burial mound, certainly of the earliest man's remodelling of the land; the purpose: gaining favour of the predecessors by protecting their dead bodies from animals; later on this procedure was extended to water, plants and rocks; - regular arrangement which is a form of spatial order developed already in the prehistoric cultures as circular, in civilisations of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt as linear, and later accomplished by Roman quincunx as grid formations; - agglomeration as the assembling of a number of individual elements, trees or rocks, so that they form a new plastic entity: clumps of trees in the English landscape movement or shanshui, motif of mountain and water in the Chinese legacy; - reduction of three-dimensional bodies into planar structures (massing flowering and ground cover plants or stones into homogeneous surfaces) where individual features are subdued in the new plastic phenomenon; - synchronising different scales in the same layout as it frequently appears in karesanzui landscapes. Further forms of abstraction include, among others, atectonics, isolation, symbolic substitution, thematic reduction and some others. Talking about design language, we must bear in mind that we get here products, both at the vocabulary and the syntactic, hierarchically higher level. It is very important to note that use of abstraction was made not only in the geometrical approach but also in landscape design that operates within the organic landscape morphology, like in the landscape style, and in the Chinese or Japanese traditions. This implies also a clear negation of the often suggested theses of the mimetic, imitative nature of landscape design. The entire phenomenology of abstraction evidently contradicts such theories which appear even in our time. A thorough analysis of any landscape artefact in history, from ancient Egypt through Renaissance, Baroque, English landscape style, Chinese, Japanese or Islamic garden would clearly show that they all are based on abstraction procedures. It is precisely these methods of generating design language that yields landscape architecture the highest level of the autonomy and identity among the visual arts. Relationship with other plastic arts There has always been a keen interest in the relationship between visual disciplines. This particularly refers to painting and architecture as being close to landscape architecture in one way or another. In the 17th Century England, there has developed a widespread opinion that the composition technique of the landscape style was largely modelled after paintings by Claude Lorrain, Poussin and others. It is beyond any doubt that the painting was partly instrumental in the formation of the new style. It has certainly helped to shape the pictorial scheme of the period, but the real forces behind the origin of the English style are in the specific socio-economic and political situation of England as an emerging parliamentarian democracy in conflict with the feudal court, and also as a becoming leading imperial power. As such it could not accept the spatial symbols of the baroque/feudal era imported from her greatest political rival - then still feudal France. Also, we should keep in mind that the idea of the new landscape was first conceived in the English pastoral poetry. Therefore, such conclusions are risky. Or, it could equally be put that also the Neo-Palladian architecture was derived from Lorrain's paintings which, of course, makes no sense. Another questionable statement of this kind would be to say that paintings of Mondrian have generated Modern architecture or landscape design. This is partly true, but only in so far as all arts have originated in the same atmosphere of philosophical ideas, social movements, economic conditions, aesthetic spirit of the period, advances in natural sciences etc. In this context, a saying by Kandinsky sounds most relevant: "We can learn from the related disciplines, however, the recognitions we borrow from them must be processed according to composition laws of our own discipline". Speaking about relationships, we must, in the first place, be aware of the differences and the demarcation line between painting on the one hand, and architecture and landscape architecture on the other. Painting is representational art, it shows certain reality in two-dimensional images. On the contrary, architecture and landscape architecture do not represent anything, they are realities themselves, man-made physical worlds and not pictorial presentations. This was well shown by Schopenhauer: "The art of building differs from the plastic arts (painting and sculpture) and the poetry in that it is not an after-image, an imitation, but constitutes the reality" (6). Susan Langer supports this viewpoint saying that: "The architect deals with a created space, a virtual entity"(7). Needless to say, these statements fully apply also to landscape architecture. The fundamental ontological difference of the arts in question can briefly be shown in the following comparative scheme: painting, sculpture architecture landscape architecture depict a reality creates a new creates a new, non- (e.g. landscape) hitherto unknown existing world by using figures) or ideas using reality by using material material that does possess amorphous material without aesthetically own natural shapes which (paints, charcoal, clay, perceivable shape can be subject of aesthetic stone, wood etc.) (cement, clay, sand, brick) appreciation (rocks, plants). A comparative scheme showing common and differential features LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE Social subordination High High Social function Solving problems in Solving problems arrangement of open spaces in building Impact of the programme on designed structures Medium High Site dependence/relation High or (rarely) low None to low (rarely high) Ecological dependence High Low to none Planning procedure Largely identical Problem definition - site recognition/evaluation- analysis - development of alternative concepts - selection and elaboration of the optimal alternative - final plan - graphic, verbal and numeric presentation Design methods Essentially different Determined by characteristics Processing of inorganic, often of natural materials that impose prefabricated materials that numerous constraints; constituted allow great to full freedom of a series of versatile abstractions; in design Most importantly: landscape design deals with complex, architecture with basically individual structures Morphology of designed artefacts Organic (close-to-nature) Geometry-based forms or geometrical Spatial character Prevailingly planar Exclusively three-dimensional Single nature - all exterior, Double nature: interior and exterior, hence direct design approach hence a more complex design approach; Corbusier: The Plan proceeds from within to without; the exterior is the result of an interior (8) Adaptability/susceptibility for change High to low Low Predictability Low in designs close to nature, Completely under control high in geometrical arrangements Time dynamics Subject to considerable changes None to low due to dynamics of growth and natural wearing processes Environmental attitude More or less beneficial Always more or less detrimental The above scheme was made in an attempt to outline the characteristics to the best of my knowledge and as objectively as I could. Certainly, there are shortcomings which I would be happy to receive in any form., also will be obliged for any amendment. Sometimes, there appear theses that architecture and landscape architecture are actually the same profession. It is true, they are the closest disciplines among all visual disciplines. However, a careful study of the essentials in both professions would unveil deep differences that do not allow such conclusion. Also the practice does not approve such assertion. Yet, we must never forget that these two professions are crucial for the quality of our environment. Hence our responsibility to develop a feeling of the belonging to common objectives and awareness of need to act so that our forces are combined in a sinergetic effect. It should not be difficult to note that the above statements are design-oriented. Such an interpretation was made in order to clarify some relationships and to outline the ontological essence of our profession. However, in our century, especially in the period after the world war two another facet of landscape architecture has expanded enormously. Here I have in mind the landscape planning, a discipline of landscape architecture that is dealing with development and conservation aspects of landscapes. It provides basic knowledge about landscapes in their cultural and ecological dimensions, and interpolates these recognitions into the process of land-use decisions. In this quality, it an indispensable partner of urban and regional planning with a growing importance in the years to come.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Poljoprivreda (agronomija)

POVEZANOST RADA