编者按：郝普世托克先生的研究为我们展示了风景园林历史研究的新鲜角度。他通过传记研究的方式深入研究现代主义园林。他的研究并未试图把现代主义视为一种单独的风格加以概括总结，而是致力于通过仔细地考察设计师的生平和时代背景，揭示现代主义园林的复杂性和异质性。郝普世托克先生以自身的设计工作经验帮助了研究的深入，使得他可以在设计师的立场上更好地理解和阐释现代主义风景园林师的思想。无论是他的研究主题还是研究方法都可以为我们带来启发。

为什么研究现代主义园林？

相当长时间以来，现代主义风景园林在园林史研究中都未被充分介绍。除了20世纪早期风景园林师的论文数量有所上升外，直到现在也没有发现对于现代主义园林的全面综述。尽管如此，早期广为人知的园林和城市规划概念仍然展现在我们当今的环境中，我们所居住的很多地方都是1900年前后出生的设计师们所塑造的。为了能够充分地欣赏他们的成就，我们需要做更多的研究。

在建筑方面，当今的历史保护学家们对早期现代主义建筑遗产的损失哀悼不已。数不清的作品已经在战争中，战后重建的岁月里，或者后现代主义城市扩张项目内遭到摧毁。在风景园林学中，有一大批20世纪的遗产在我们认识到它们的品质之前可能就已经被毁掉了。西方文化认为对已建成作品的物质性摧毁是不可逆的，因为对初始材料固有部分的感知属于“真实性的气氛”，即使通过对项目的重建也无法完整重获。

大约20年之前，风景园林学科就已经开始思考自己的前辈，是他们塑造了我们当今所生活的世界。自1990年左右开始，相关论文的大量发表 ，反映了这种思考。尽管如此，仍有一些核心方面几乎未被关注到。例如，两次大战之间的德国民主政治时期（1918-1933）所发生的风景园林与前卫派艺术和建筑的交流。然而，现在可能是时候将传记研究中得到的见解，经过整合，发展为“现代风景园林的批判史”了。

“绿色”现代主义的悖论

“自然”这个词的意义很大程度上来自于其所处的语境。因此，几乎不可能单独对其进行应用。例如，“人的自然属性”可以意指完全不同的事物。它既可以表示“非道德”的人类本能，与“善的”文明人相对立，但当一个人相信“高贵的野蛮人”理论，认为原始人类的善良天真未受文明罪恶的玷污，它便表示完全相反的意义。语境的指代往往取决于思考者的意识倾向。

如今，“大自然”总是被看作一种现代主义世界观的对立面，因为现代主义世界观宣扬技术和人类对自然的支配。就这一点而言，针对现代主义的研究对我们专业来说存在一项核心缺陷。一个现代主义设计师的意识倾向通常由对“自然”的排斥所定义，因为“自然”对于现代主义者而言似乎代表着非理性主义、层级性和原始性。根据现代主义的定义，它们的支持者是在为了“自然”的对立面而努力：也就是理性、平等化和可控性。例如，阿道夫﹒洛斯认为建筑装饰（这正是他所反对的）的根源正是人的自然属性中的“野蛮性”。主导这种讨论的二元论非常普遍地与另一种形式层面的二元论相关联：认为几何形式所表达的是更加先进的思想，它们在道德上比有机的、柔性的形式更加优越。在这种背景下，一些学者把有机形式看作是浪漫的、反对现代主义立场的符号。一种完全排斥有机性的风景园林的形式是难以想象的。尽管如此，这些突出的观点确实有自己的道理，而且在关于现代主义风景园林的讨论中它们不可回避。

德国的状况

正如前文所述，“现代主义”这个词比人们想象的更容易产生歧义。19世纪和20世纪已经被称为“意识形态的年代”（Bracher 1982）。对于德国来说，这有特殊的意义。而且之所以现代主义在20世纪80年代前的研究中几乎销声匿迹是有特殊原因的：这一职业与1933-1945年的纳粹政权具有错综复杂的联系。总体来说，直到20世纪60年代晚期的学潮之前，有关纳粹时代的问题都是一种禁忌。

第一个完整的风景园林高校课程最早于1929年在柏林农业学院（柏林农业学院1934年并入了柏林大学）设立。这意味着学术传统的起始很快就受到了法西斯“鲜血与祖国”（Blut-und-Boden）意识形态的影响。直到20世纪60年代，公开的纳粹拥护者，如古斯塔夫·阿林格，阿尔维·塞弗特，或者弗里德里希·海恩里奇·维普金-尤根斯曼都是著名的人物，一直把持着核心的学术地位。只要他们还在世，就没有人敢于研究他们的过去。直到20世纪80年代，在哥特·古约宁和尤西姆·沃尔切克-布尔曼的努力下，一些事实才逐渐广为人知。比如说在整个第三帝国时期，柏林的教授维普金参与了波兰和俄罗斯被占领土的重构，而且他还撰写了极端种族主义的出版物以宣扬纳粹的意识形态。

至于设计，当然在德国我们面对着更为特殊的情况。现代主义艺术被希特勒的专制统治认为是一种堕落（这与意大利法西斯主义下的形势完全不同），所以受到了官方的打击。另一方面，有证据表明，现代主义美学一定程度上接受了纳粹世界。早在1984年，杰弗里·赫夫就在他的著作《反动的现代主义》中提出了一种观点，认为“反动的现代主义者”将技术革新和现代主义转入文化圈，因此形成了一种信奉技术现代主义的立场，他们“没有把理性主义的世界观应用到政治和文化中”（p.40）多位历史学家都曾提到这个问题。

一般而言，现代主义设计师通常把他们的作品看作是有益于社会的，所以有关法西斯主义、现代主义和社会进步的关系问题存在相关性。因此，园林历史学家们只有关注人文科学讨论的现状，才能从中得益。

人文科学与设计师式知识的整合

人文科学（艺术史，历史，文化研究等等）范畴中的现代主义要远比早期后现代主义评论家视野中的现代主义更加复杂、矛盾，更被视为异质化的现象。在这种情况下，园林历史编纂学必须发展，从寻找“一种”现代主义“风格”转向更加实际的问题，那就是在每一个特定的案例中，我们所面对的到底是“哪一种”现代主义。从这个观点出发，开展讨论以探讨作品在意识形态方面所受的影响，以及以传记式方法考据某种表面风格就尤为关键了。从这个立场出发，传记研究更具重要性，而体裁上的分类则失去了它的意义。现代主义艺术的历史编纂显示，一种具体的风格无法成为某种意识形态立场的证据。在当代历史理论中，“风格”一词已经失势。

风景园林学是一门设计行业，一定程度上从属于艺术理论和艺术史的分类。为了指导历史研究，风景园林师们有必要更加自主地提高应对这些不同领域的方法论的能力。事实上，很多艺术史学家同样在进行园林史研究。在必要的写作技巧方面他们更有优势，而且总体上看，他们具有相当大的方法论方面的优势。另一方面，风景园林师也有自己的优势。他们可以更好地理解设计的创造动机和认识论内容，比如在设计完成的人工制品中内含的隐性知识（参考Nigel Cross或者Bryan Lawson著作中的例证）。他们对空间也有更好的理解。例如，不同材料效果对空间品质的作用，或者空间中运动方式的引导。因此，如果从业人员把他们对于设计过程的知识带入现代主义园林的历史研究中，那将非常有益。

整体性的观点

形式的问题当然是设计行业的核心，但似乎存在着一系列其他有用的、非形式化的参考因素可以评价现代主义园林。大多数学者都可能认可的参考点之一就是现代主义所表现出的那种与社会住宅改革和公园改革运动（德国的大众公园）相关联的改革思想。至于私家园林，用另一种惯用的修辞表达就是“户外起居室”，它是一种聚焦于身心康乐的、功能化的、有组织的空间，连接了室内与室外。然后，在艺术理论层面，例如20世纪以A.W.N.普京和戈特弗里德·森佩尔为代表的实用美术改革和工艺美术运动追随者的唯物主义，现在仍然被现代主义设计的推广者所推崇。意识形态和美学的问题是所有设计学科的历史研究都会涉及的方面。对一个现代主义风景园林师的先进性进行评价，应该将上述不同方面都纳入评判，即所完成的形式、功能性意图和设计师自己的意识形态。

后现代主义形成了一些现在被历史学家普遍认可的见解。这首先是因为所有文献记载都这么理解；其次，也是由于我们对过去“实际发生了什么”知之甚少。除此之外，研究我们行业现代遗产最为重要的一点就是不去否认历史人物的生平和历史背景的复杂性。它们会引领我们更加接近前辈们的思想。

作者介绍：

2010年10月到2012年10月，郝普世托克先生在柏林工业大学Jürgen Weidinger教授领导的项目设计教席中担任助理研究员。在此期间，他主要从事设计理论研究，辅导学生进行设计Studio和毕业论文写作，同时主讲20世纪早期园林史课程。

郝普世托克先生于2003年在柏林工业大学获得硕士学位，他的硕士学位论文研究的是风景园林中作为意义载体的装饰品质。

他在柏林、里斯本和谢菲尔德的多家风景园林事务所从事过实践工作，主要负责方案设计，方案表现，以及投标项目的设计等工作。

近年来，郝普世托克先生主要研究方向转为园林艺术史和行业发展史。尤其关注风景园林设计领域内的艺术理论问题。2006年10月，郝普世托克获得德意志学术交流中心(DAAD)研究生奖学金，开始在英国谢菲尔德大学攻读博士学位。在Jan Woudstra 和Peter Blundell Jones两位导师的指导下，他开始进行关于Hermann Mattern (1902-1971)和德国现代主义风景园林的研究。

Some notes on research into garden modernism

Why do research on garden modernism?

For a long time landscape architecture modernism has been under-represented in Garden History research. Despite a rising number of dissertation theses about early 20th-century landscape architects, until now no comprehensive critical review of garden modernism can be found. Even though the better-known concepts for gardens and urban plans of earlier periods are still present in our environment today, many places we live in are much more shaped by designers born around and after 1900. In order to be able to fully appreciate their work more research is needed.

In respect to architecture, conservationists today mourn the loss of early modernist building heritage. Countless works have been destroyed in the war, during the decades of reconstruction, or with post-modernist urban renewal projects. In landscape architecture a great part of our heritage from the 20th century may be destroyed even before we are aware of its qualities. In Western culture material destruction of built works is irreversible because an intrinsic part of the perception of the original material is an ‘aura of authenticity’ that cannot fully be regained by reconstructing a project.

Some two decades ago the discipline of landscape architecture has really begun to bethink itself of the generation who shaped the world we were born into. This shows in the impressive number of respective monographs that has been published since around 1990. Nonetheless there are still central aspects left that have only rarely been considered. An example is the exchange between landscape architecture and the avant-garde in art and architecture during the democratic phase of the inter-war years in Germany (1918–1933). However, it might be about time to synthesise the insights won in biographical research projects into a ‘critical history of modern landscape architecture’.

The paradoxon of a ‘green’ modernism

‘Nature’ is a term, that gains its meaning in great parts from the context it stands in. It is thus virtually impossible to use on its own. For example, ‘the human nature’ can mean completely different things. Either it could stand for the ‘immoral’ human instincts as contrasting the ‘good’ civilised human, or it could mean the exact opposite if one believes in the theory of the ‘noble savage’ as the natural human unspoilt by civilisation. The signifying context always depends on the mindset of the person under consideration.

Today, ‘the natural’ is usually seen as a kind of antithesis to the modernist view of the world with its celebration of technology and of human control over nature. In this regard, research on modernism holds one central pitfall for our profession. A modernist designer’s mindset is often defined by a rejection of ‘nature’, which to the modernists seemed to have represented irrationality, hierarchies, and barbarism. According to this definition of modernism, their proponents strove for the opposite of ‘nature’: the rational, the egalitarian, and the controlled. For example, Adolf Loos famously saw the roots of architectural ornament (which he rejected) in the ‘barbarian’ human nature. This dualism, which has dominated the discussion, is most commonly connected with another dualism on a formal level: the view of geometric form as expression of a progressive mind, morally superior to organic form and plasticity. In this context, some scholars see organic form as sign for a romantic, anti-modernist standing. A form of landscape architecture that completely rejects the organic is difficult to imagine. Nonetheless these prominent views have a point, and they can hardly be avoided in the discussion about modernism in landscape architecture.

The German situation

As the previous lines already suggest, the term ‘modernism’ is more ambiguous as one might think. The 19th and 20th centuries have been called the ‘age of ideologies’ (Bracher 1982). For Germany this has a special meaning, and there is a particular reason for why modernism has hardly been looked at in research before the 1980s: the profession’s far-reaching interconnection with the National-Socialist regime of 1933–1945. Generally speaking, until the student revolts in the late 1960s it was a taboo to ask questions about the Nazi times.

The first full university course for landscape architecture was installed in 1929 at Berlin Agricultural College, which in 1934 was incorporated into the Berlin University. This meant that the beginning of the academic tradition was soon influenced by the fascist Blood-and-Soil (Blut-und-Boden) ideology. Up until the 1960s known Nazi followers like Gustav Allinger (1891–1974), Alwin Seifert (1890–1972) or Friedrich Heinrich Wiepking-Jürgensmann (1891–1973) were celebrated personalities holding central academic posts. As long as they were alive nobody dared to research their past. Only in the 1980s it became widely known for example, above all thanks to the efforts of Gert Gröning and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, that Wiepking, professor in Berlin during all the Third Reich, was involved in redesigning the occupied territories in Poland and Russia and that he had promoted the Nazi ideology by writing aggressively völkish (racist) pamphlets.

Concerning design, in Germany of course we are confronted with the special situation that under the Hitler dictatorship much of modernist art was officially dismissed as degenerate (completely different to the situation under Italian fascism). On the other hand it has also been presented evidence for modernist aspects and aesthetics that were accepted within, and part of, the Nazi’s world. As early as in 1984, Jeffrey Herf in his book ‘Reactionary Modernism’ formulated the thesis that the ‘reactionary Modernists’ shifted technological innovation and modernism into the cultural sphere, thus being in the position to embrace technological modernism ‘without adopting a rationalist word view in politics and culture’ (p. 40). Several historians have since referred to this topic.

Modernist designers usually saw their work as contributions beneficial to society in general, and therefore questions about the relations between fascism, modernism, and social progressiveness hold some relevance. Consequently, the garden historian can only profit from a look at the current state of the discussion in the humanities.

Integrating the Humanities and designerly knowledge

In the humanities (Art History, History, Cultural Studies, etc.) modernism has been seen as a more and more complex, contradictory, and simply heterogeneous affair than what the earlier post-modernist critics saw in it. In this respect, garden historiography has to move on from the search for the one modernist style to the actual question of which modernism it is dealing with in each specific case. From that standing point it is essential that the discussion of a work look at ideological influences on, and biographical determinations of an apparent style. From this perspective biographical research is still of great importance and stylistic classifications become less significant. The historiography of modernist art shows that a specific style is no proof for a certain ideological standing. In contemporary art theory the term ‘style’ has lost momentum.

Landscape architecture is a design profession and as such partly subjected to categories of Art Theory and Art History. In conducting historical research, landscape architects need to develop more naturalness in dealing with methodologies from these other fields. A great share of garden-historical research is actually realised by art historians, who are much more accustomed to the necessary writing skills and generally have a considerable methodological head start. On the other hand, landscape architects have the advantage of understanding better the creative motivations and the epistemological qualities of design, i.e. the implicit knowledge contained in a designed artefact (compare for example the writings of Nigel Cross or Bryan Lawson). They also have a better understanding of space, e.g. the effect of different materials on spatial quality or the guidance of movement through spatial means. It could therefore be very conducive if practitioners brought in their knowledge of the design process into historical research on garden modernism.

A holistic perspective

Questions of form are of course central in a profession concerned with design, but there seem to be a number of other useful, non-formal references for the evaluation of a modernist garden. One of the points of reference most scholars probably agree on is the expression of reformist thinking as related to the social housing reform and the reform park movement (‘Volkspark’ in Germany). Regarding the private garden, another topos is the ‘outside living room’, a functionally organised space with a focus on physical and psychological well-being, connecting inside and outside. Then, on an art theoretical level, for example the materialism of proponents of the 19th century reform of the applied arts such as A.W.N. Pugin or Gottfried Semper and of the Arts and Crafts Movement is still championed by the promoters of modernist design. Both questions of ideology and of aesthetics are facets of historical research in any design discipline. The evaluation of the progressiveness of a modernist landscape architect should take into account all different aspects mentioned above: the form accomplished as well as the functional intention as well as the ideology of the designer him- or herself.

Postmodernism has brought about some insights now almost universally acknowledged amongst historians. This is first of all the comprehension of all documents’ relativity and of our limitations in knowing ‘what actually happened’ in the past. Beside this, researching the modern heritage of our profession it is crucial not to deny the complexity of the biographical and historical context. Accepting it brings us much closer to the thinking of these men and women.

About the Author:

From October 2010 to October 2012, Lars was scientific assistant at the Chair of Project Design of Prof. Jürgen Weidinger. Here he occupied himself above all with design theory, supervising design studios and theses and giving seminars on early 20th century history.

Lars completed his studies at TU Berlin at the end of 2003 with a Master thesis (Diplomarbeit) about ornamental qualities as carrier of meaning in landscape architecture. He has worked in different landscape architecture offices in Berlin, Lisbon and Sheffield, above all in the areas design, visualization and tender project design. In recent years Lars’ focus has shifted towards the history of the profession and to design theory.

In October 2006 Lars was awarded a scholarship for graduates by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), which he used to start a PhD thesis at the University of Sheffield (UK). Under supervision of Dr. Jan Woudstra and Prof. Dr. Peter Blundell Jones, he researches about Hermann Mattern (1902-1971) and German landscape architecture Modernism.