探求景觀的人文真實(shí)

什么是真實(shí)的世界？通過(guò)怎樣的途徑才能認(rèn)識(shí)這個(gè)真實(shí)的世界？這兩個(gè)本體論、認(rèn)識(shí)論問(wèn)題一直伴隨在人類認(rèn)識(shí)世界、改造世界的過(guò)程之中。同樣地，在觀照眼前紛繁復(fù)雜、形態(tài)各異的自然和人文景觀時(shí)，我們也會(huì)問(wèn)，除了視覺(jué)表象，還有什么是這些景觀的真實(shí)本質(zhì)？特別是對(duì)存在于異文化之中的景觀，我們獲得的視覺(jué)意象、科學(xué)解釋，是否就是異文化族群腦海之中的真實(shí)意象？如果不是的話，那怎樣才能認(rèn)識(shí)并盡可能準(zhǔn)確地轉(zhuǎn)述這種帶有文化映射的景觀的真實(shí)意象？

回顧對(duì)景觀本質(zhì)的探求過(guò)程，最初被接受的景觀真實(shí)是從視覺(jué)景象中抽象出的風(fēng)景美。人們認(rèn)為，通過(guò)個(gè)體觀察和抽象概括的、能夠被認(rèn)識(shí)的視覺(jué)美感是真實(shí)存在的，且是眼前景象的真實(shí)升華?；诖?，中國(guó)古人早在《詩(shī)經(jīng)》《楚辭》之中便有對(duì)風(fēng)景美的稱頌，且在魏晉至唐宋時(shí)期（220—1279年），便將認(rèn)識(shí)到的這種風(fēng)景美嫻熟地描繪在山水畫、山水游記之中，而這種山水審美也綿延至今，成為中華文化的重要組成部分。在西方，《荷馬史詩(shī)》、希伯來(lái)文《圣經(jīng)·舊約》等也均有關(guān)于風(fēng)景的描寫。在宗教神學(xué)主導(dǎo)精神生活的中世紀(jì)結(jié)束之后，文藝復(fù)興的巨匠們方才重拾對(duì)世俗美的追求。及至16—17世紀(jì)尼德蘭革命，新興起的浪漫主義運(yùn)動(dòng)啟發(fā)了人們對(duì)田園風(fēng)景美的欣賞，通過(guò)景深構(gòu)圖方法，風(fēng)景繪畫派畫師將所認(rèn)識(shí)到的風(fēng)景美，以更加立體和真實(shí)的方式展示給世人。

19世紀(jì)中期，全球性殖民擴(kuò)張帶來(lái)的地理空間、認(rèn)知視野的極速拓展終于促成了現(xiàn)代自然、人文學(xué)科體系的建立。在當(dāng)時(shí)的科學(xué)主義影響下，人們普遍認(rèn)為在事物表象之下，存在著另一種抽象的規(guī)律性真實(shí)。在此背景下，人們對(duì)于眼前景象的認(rèn)知，不再滿足于對(duì)其美感進(jìn)行摹寫，轉(zhuǎn)而訴諸于基于地理學(xué)、地質(zhì)學(xué)、地貌學(xué)等科學(xué)視角，用抽象規(guī)律來(lái)解釋眼前景象的成因、分布與演進(jìn)等自然與文化現(xiàn)象。由此，具有視覺(jué)景深繪畫意義的“景觀”（荷蘭語(yǔ)：landschap）和社會(huì)系統(tǒng)意義的“景觀”（荷蘭語(yǔ)：landskab，德語(yǔ)：landschaft）被雜糅在一起引入地理學(xué)，成了科學(xué)視野下的研究對(duì)象。在蘊(yùn)含美學(xué)、情感映射的“風(fēng)景”（法語(yǔ)：paysage）之外，增加了以獲得抽象性普遍規(guī)律為主要目標(biāo)的“景觀”（英語(yǔ)：landscape）。景觀研究的學(xué)者相信，這些經(jīng)抽象歸納、演繹而得到的景觀規(guī)律超越了人的主觀影響，是隱藏在視覺(jué)背后、更能反映景觀本質(zhì)的抽象性真實(shí)。

然而，20世紀(jì)70年代以來(lái)，越來(lái)越多的學(xué)者認(rèn)識(shí)到，對(duì)存在于具體時(shí)空之中，凝結(jié)著特定族群強(qiáng)烈地方情感、族群文化投射的景觀，其蘊(yùn)含的象征意義和情感價(jià)值很難通過(guò)普遍性規(guī)律進(jìn)行解釋。譬如，對(duì)于生活在澳大利亞的土著阿南古人而言，世界遺產(chǎn)烏盧魯巨巖是“大地之母”，巨巖周邊灌木叢中安息著該部落祖先靈魂，他們反對(duì)紛至沓來(lái)的游客，因這是對(duì)先祖安息地的打擾，在阿南古人看來(lái)，具有強(qiáng)烈人文色彩的景觀真實(shí)遠(yuǎn)勝烏盧魯巨巖地質(zhì)學(xué)、地貌學(xué)上的科學(xué)性規(guī)律的真實(shí)。類似案例說(shuō)明，在具體族群的腦海之中，存在著一種蘊(yùn)含具體族群情感投射、地方文化、精神信仰的景觀真實(shí)，這便是“景觀的人文真實(shí)”。這種“景觀的人文真實(shí)”不容易用地形地貌、生態(tài)植被、空間結(jié)構(gòu)、聚落形態(tài)等進(jìn)行解釋；同時(shí)，它又是如此的鮮活生動(dòng)、引人入勝，吸引著無(wú)數(shù)優(yōu)秀的風(fēng)景園林師、建筑師、規(guī)劃師力求貼合這些地方“文脈”，在設(shè)計(jì)中喚起當(dāng)?shù)刈迦呵楦猩系墓缠Q。那么，“景觀的人文真實(shí)”需要怎樣的途徑才能認(rèn)識(shí)？有無(wú)成熟的解析方法？

人類學(xué)，作為一門研究“人類文化”的學(xué)科，近期被頻頻提及，進(jìn)入我們的視野。現(xiàn)代人類學(xué)發(fā)端于19世紀(jì)中葉，經(jīng)過(guò)幾代學(xué)者的努力，已經(jīng)建立起了一套解釋人類文化現(xiàn)象的理論框架與研究方法體系，并持續(xù)發(fā)展。20世紀(jì)90年代，人類學(xué)學(xué)者開(kāi)始將“景觀”作為研究對(duì)象，從“空間”（space）與“地方”（place）的視角解析景觀反映的地方文化與族群意識(shí)，因此便出現(xiàn)了“景觀人類學(xué)”這一新的交叉研究領(lǐng)域?！熬坝^人類學(xué)”學(xué)科交叉不應(yīng)是人類學(xué)的單向拓展，景觀研究者也可借鑒人類學(xué)的視野與研究范式，用以探求與具體族群文化和情感映射相關(guān)的景觀的人文真實(shí)。當(dāng)今，地理學(xué)、人類學(xué)等學(xué)科仍在發(fā)展，各自學(xué)科內(nèi)新的研究視野與學(xué)術(shù)范式也在相繼出現(xiàn)，如新文化地理學(xué)對(duì)文化被“物化”的批判，新文化人類學(xué)對(duì)“主客位”二分法的反思等，這既為跨學(xué)科研究提供契機(jī)，同時(shí)也帶來(lái)巨大挑戰(zhàn)。對(duì)于存在明確認(rèn)知客體、實(shí)踐對(duì)象的人居環(huán)境各學(xué)科，應(yīng)當(dāng)積極探討如何立足自身學(xué)科特點(diǎn)，批判性地借鑒相關(guān)學(xué)科研究范式，建立自身基于人文主義視野的景觀研究學(xué)術(shù)框架，這也是本專題更加明確地倡導(dǎo)“景觀人類學(xué)”這一研究領(lǐng)域的初衷。希望將景觀人類學(xué)作為一把開(kāi)啟景觀人文真實(shí)世界的鑰匙，在學(xué)科間的交流碰撞中，豐富對(duì)景觀更多維度內(nèi)涵的認(rèn)知。

Seeking the Humanistic Reality of the Landscape

What is the real world? Through what way can we know this real world? These two ontological and epistemological questions have always accompanied the process of human’s understanding and transformation of the world. In the same way, when looking at the diverse and complex natural and humanistic landscapes in front of us, we would also ask that what is the real essence of these landscapes behind the visual appearance? Especially for the landscapes that exist in foreign cultures, are the visual images and scientific explanations we get the real images in the minds of foreign cultural communities? If not, then how can we recognize,and as accurately as possible, relay the true imagery of such culturally mapped landscapes?

Looking back at the search for the nature of landscape, the first accepted reality of landscape was the abstraction of landscape beauty from visual scenery. It is believed that the visual beauty that can be recognized through individual observation and abstract generalization is real, and is the real sublimation of the immediate scene. For this reason, the ancient Chinese celebrated scenic beauty as early as inThe Book of SongsandThe Songs of Chu. From the Wei and Jin dynasties to the Tang and Song dynasties (220—1279),this recognized scenic beauty was skillfully depicted in landscape paintings and landscape travelogues, and this landscape aesthetic has continued to these day, becoming an important component of Chinese culture. In the West, landscapes are also depicted in theHomeric HymnsandThe Bible: Old Testamentin Hebrew. It was only after the end of the Middle Ages, when religious theology dominated spiritual life, that the giants of the Renaissance returned to the pursuit of secular beauty. In the 16th and 17th centuries,the Netherlandish Revolution and the newly emerging Romantic movement inspired people to appreciate the beauty of idyllic landscapes. Through the depth-of-field composition method,landscape painters presented the perceived beauty of the landscape to the world in a more three-dimensional and realistic way.

In the mid-19th century, the global colonial expansion brought about an extremely rapid expansion of geographic space and cognitive horizons that finally led to the establishment of the modern system of nature and humanities. Under the influence of scientism at that time, it was widely believed that beneath the appearance of things, there existed another abstract and regular reality. In this context, people were no longer satisfied with copying the beauty of the scene in front of them, but resorted to the scientific perspective of geography, geology and geomorphology to explain the causes,distribution and evolution of the scene in front of them, and other natural and cultural phenomena by abstract laws. As a result,“l(fā)andscape” (in Dutch: landschap) in the sense of visual depth of field and “l(fā)andscape” (in Dutch: landskab, in German: landschaft) in the sense of social system were mixed together and introduced into Geography and became an object of study in a scientific perspective.In addition to “scenery” (in French: paysage), which contains aesthetic and emotional mapping, “l(fā)andscape” was added with the main goal of obtaining abstract universal laws. Scholars of landscape studies believe that these laws of landscape obtained through abstraction and deduction transcend the subjective influence of human beings and are abstract realities that are hidden behind visuals and reflect the essence of the landscape in a better way.

However, since the 1970s, an increasing number of scholars have realized that the symbolic meaning and emotional value of landscapes that exist in concrete space and time, and are embedded with strong local emotions and cultural projections of specific communities, are difficult to be explained by universal laws. For example, for the indigenous Anangu people living in Australia, the World Heritage Ayers Rock is the “Mother Earth”, and the ancestral spirits of the tribe rest in the bush around the rock, they oppose the pouring in of tourists to the rock because it is a disturbance to the ancestral resting place. In the opinion of Anangu people, the reality of the landscape with a strong human dimension is far more important than the reality of the scientific laws of geology and geomorphology of Ayers Rock. These cases show that in the minds of specific communities, there exists a landscape reality that contains the emotional projection, local culture, and spiritual beliefs of their communities, which is the “humanistic reality of the landscape”.This “humanistic reality of the landscape” cannot be easily explained by topography, ecological vegetation, spatial structure,and settlement form. At the same time, it is so vivid and attractive that it attracts countless excellent landscape architects, architects and planners who seek to fit the “cultural lineage” of these places, in a bid to evoke the emotional resonance of local communities in their designs. So, what are the ways to recognize the “humanistic reality of the landscape”? Is there a mature method of analysis?

Anthropology, as a discipline that studies “human culture”,has recently been frequently mentioned and thus entered our vision. Modern anthropology began in the mid-19th century.Through the efforts of several generations of scholars, a system of theoretical frameworks and research methods for explaining human cultural phenomena has been established and continues to prosper.In the 1990s, anthropologists began to use “l(fā)andscape” as an object of study, analyzing local culture and community consciousness reflected in landscape from the perspectives of “space” and“place”, thus spawning a new intersectional research field of “the anthropology of landscape”.

The interdisciplinary intersection of “the anthropology of landscape” should not be a one-way expansion of anthropology.Landscape researchers can also draw on the vision and research paradigm of anthropology to explore the humanistic reality of landscapes related to the cultural and emotional mapping of specific communities. Nowadays, geography and anthropology are still in prosperity, and new research insights and academic paradigms are emerging in succession in their respective disciplines. For example,the critique of the new cultural geography on the “objectification”of culture and the reflection of the new cultural anthropology on the “subject-object” dichotomy both provide an opportunity for interdisciplinary research, but at the same time poses a great challenge. For each discipline of human habitat environment,which has clear cognitive objects and practical objects, we should actively explore how to base on the characteristics of our own disciplines, critically draw on the research paradigms of related disciplines, and build our own academic framework of landscape research based on humanist vision. This is the initial purpose of this topic to advocate the research field of “the anthropology of landscape” more explicitly. We hope to use landscape anthropology as a key to unlock the real world of landscape humanism, and to enrich the knowledge of landscape in more dimensions through interdisciplinary exchanges and collisions.

Acquiring editor of the current issue: XU Tong

January 17th , 2021