自然—设计之本.doc

Nature: the Source of all design 自然—设计之本
by Dan Kiley
Landscape Architecture – January 1963

Ideally the living environment should be designed by one all-encompassing mind to insure wholeness and rich total development. In fact, the greatest works probably have been done this way, i.e., da Vinci, Michelangelo, Le Notre, Wright, and that greatest living architect, Le Corbusier.

理想上的景观住宅，应全神贯注地设计，以确保整体发展丰富且全面性。事实上，过去的顶尖作品就是这麼產生的，例如说达文西、米开朗基罗、雷诺特瑞(1613~1700，法国庭园设计师，凡尔赛宫大庭园的设计者)、莱特，以及现存伟大建筑师—柯布(柯比意)。

Lacking this ideal, the next best way would be to form alliances – landscape-interior-acoustical- structural, etc. – so sympathetic that ultimate possibilities in design would be realized. In this way an even higher total result might be achieved.
依循此理念，第二步是”结合”—景观(室外)-室内-吸音(隔音)-结构，等等……--故综合性的设计终得以实现。以这种方进行，再复杂的设计也能够达成。

Today there are few who understand this. Even those great architects of the International Movement limited themselves to a few sophisticated machine specialties, ignoring the great possibilities of the landscape (except as decoration). Even while they were preaching collaboration, they were limiting it to certain fields. This had a narrowing effect and is evident in the work accomplished. There is no work today that flourishes and flowers into its total possibility through understanding of all possibility in man and nature.

今天，只有少数人了解这件事，即使是International Movement裡不错的建筑师们；把自己侷限成老练而熟练的设计机器，而忽视景观的可能性(只把景观作為点缀装饰的手法)。他们一边宣导著合作，却侷限在某些特定领域中，当作品完成时，呈现出的是狭隘的成果。今日，再丰富完整的作品也没有能够完全了解囊括所有人类自然的能性。

When I was at Harvard in 1936, I found my only satisfying course was Music І. For design encouragement and inspiration, I had to turn to the Orient, studying in detail the house and garden of the Japanese. I read recently that some are only now discovering these sources. I found that it was the house and not the garden that satisfied my thirst for organization and discipline in the arrangement of space. The garden discipline held down – rather than freed – however beautiful it was in composition and textural detail. This is just the opposite of what it should be. Space organization should be a freeing process, a release of the spirit through the simplification of organization in continuity.

1936年，我在哈佛的时候，我发现唯一喜欢的课程是”音乐”。受到设计的鼓励啟发，我转往东方学习日本的房舍与庭园细部。最近我才发现某些事物的源头，根源并不是那满足我渴求，组织、控制得宜的庭院空间，问题来自房子。这种庭园不是练习自由抒放，而是严谨内敛；使它產生美感的则是”组成”与”质感细部”。这些正好跟它所呈现在我们印象中的相反(日本庭园呈现的气质总让我们忽略它是因严谨才有此风味)。组织一个空间应是个紓放的过程，藉由简单化的结构，一连串释放空间精神。

I am sorry to say that even today most of the modern architectural pioneers still think of the landscape design as a form of decoration to enhance or disguise their buildings rather than a part of the total process of environmental design.

很遗憾地我得说，即使到了今日，大部分的现代建筑的先锋们仍把景观当做美化或遮掩他们建筑缺陷的装饰品，从不视為是整体规划程序的一部分。

Landscape design, as in building design, is the organization of space to satisfy certain human functions. It is, as in building design, based on utility to accommodate human function and requirement to some physical site. How sensitive, humble, open, and broad, in other words cultured, one is to this possibility, will be the measure of richness, delight, and comfort that will be realized there from.

景观设计，跟建筑设计一样，是用来满足人类确切需求的组织化空间。而它确实是的！就像建筑物设计，基於实用，方便人类物质上的需求与要求。敏感、谦卑、开放、包容，换句话说就是”素养”：一切都具有可能性，它(素养)能用来评断丰富程度、於月程度、舒适程度，并了解源由。

Our aim should not be architecture, landscape architecture, design. These names can be applied only after the fact. Only if the building problem is approached with an open mind (without the preconception of form) and its functions and requirements are solved in the simplest of terms out of nature and the result be elegant might it qualify as architecture. We are too soon architects and never whole men.

我们不应该把眼界只侷限在”建筑”或”景观建筑”设计，这些名称只有在事件成立之后才能下定义。只有用开放的心胸/眼界触碰这些建筑议题(抛弃预设立场吧!)，并用最简单的、出自於自然的条件符合其机能与要求，结出美好的成果才配称的上是”建筑”。我们常常太急於architect(做设计)却忘了whole men(大局)?。

The result of all this has been a thinner and thinner building technique, a paler and paler two-dimensional result based on the application of colored-tape techniques – witness Park Avenue . In the landscape, it is seen as pattern (without space) – curves, kidneys, diamonds – all ideas without content, without a broad base coming from life. We are still concerned with form rather than process. We are not searching for form; forms are results of the nature of process. Are we not rather searching for our relationship to the universe as we grow in all our faculties, a continuing process of development?
这样的结果呈现出的是愈来愈薄弱的建筑技术；一个薄弱的2D成品与色带(colored-tape)技术有绝对的关系—证据是公园巷(Park Avenue)。在景观上，它像是”图案”(没有空间可言)—曲线、肾形、菱形；所有想法无内涵，没有生活经验為基础。我们仍旧看重”形”胜於”过程”、”手法”。我们真正寻求的，不是塑出的样貌。样貌决定於自然的过程。难道我们不愿探寻与我们息息相关的环境诚如我们琢磨技法，视其為精进的的过程之一吗?

In projecting a design, one is stating one’s position, describing one’s philosophy, explaining one’s values; therefore it must be more than skin deep to be true. It must suggest all that is possible, at that time, in knowledge, awareness, sensitivity, and in clarity. It should shoot straight for the broad principle, the natural and compelling relationships, and not be side-tracked by superficial detail and novelty. If the result is very simple, unadorned simplicity, why not? There is still room for a design of the simplest nature. Who has designed the perfect square building, or courtyard, or garden? Why this scramble for detail and “warmth,” now, by way of Grillo? Does it not show up a weakness, that there has been ignorance as to the true nature of design? Does it not show that these designers have been concerned with externals and not with that thrilling understanding of space in continuity that has come from the cultured enlightenment of our day?

规划一项设计，它(设计本身)陈述自己被作成这样的理由、描述被设计成这样的观点以及它本身的价值；因此它必须非常精準(得比表面功夫更準确才行！) 它必须暗示各种可能性，到那时，脑、心、潜意识都能了解(心神领会)。设定準则--準确、直接，关系—自然、强势；不要从旁门左道，用肤浅、新奇唬拢过去。就算结果是简单、朴素无装饰的，就让它简单朴素吧！有何不可？”简单自然设计”还有很多空间(没有太多缀饰而留下许多空间，或是指存活的餘地?老凯利在玩一语双关?)，有谁能曾设计出完美的广场或庭园?為何这股气焰嚣张地染指细部以及温馨， 现在顺道提及Grillo?(不懂这一句)它没有表现的气若游丝就像老早被遗忘的真正的自然设计吗?它没有表现出符合被设计者关心/期许的外表，而非那令人兴奋感知的延续空间，那来自我们文化开明的世代的空间?

Specifically, in landscape design, one does not copy nature but tries to understand underlying process or workings of nature – it is all there. Man as part of nature, not man and nature. Urban man is man as part of nature too. There is no seeking an urban quality. It will be urban if it is there. It will be detailed and warm – if it is there – in the people. It can never be if it is applied as detail and warmth.

明显地，景观设计，并非抄袭自然，而是企图了解”自然”基本的过程与运作—它就在身边。人类视同自然的一部份，不是”人”和”自然”。都市裡的人也是自然的一部份。不需寻找”都市”痕跡，它会在它应该存在的地方。它会是细腻而温暖的—如果它存在某处—那是在人群之中。若利欲薰心，它可能根本就不曾存在过。
In my own work I always am excited with the idea of man as clearly recognizable in nature – projecting his designs in clear strength and letting the natural landscape lap its shores, or modifying and breaking it up until total assimilation has taken place.

在我的工作上，我总是兴奋於”人类视同於/即自然”这种想法—清楚强烈地投射出其设计，而且用自然的景观叠出其形貌或更正打碎它直到完全同化。

I am delighted and amazed when I set a little bit of geometry in space and see it develop and grow and seek its infinite relationships outward to the universe or rather with the universe. I am truly pleased when I see how simple things can get – when I see simple diagrams in a complex program of building requirements, when the simple diagram points the way to the total disposition of elements. And yet, though of a simple nature, infinite variety develops because of the detailed human requirement that obtrudes and expresses itself.

当我佈置了一些几何形而且看著它”变化”(它会发展、成长)，然后找它向外发展的无限可能或仅是与世界的关连性；我真是欣喜若狂。看著简单的东西能演变到什麼地步真的很令我兴趣盎然—例如一套复杂的整建规划中的简单图表；当简单的图表点出所有元素的佈置处理。然而，虽然是个简单自然(生态，我指的是平衡的/具备一切的环境)，却因有—人类，这项细部元素的推动说明，使它(此设计/自然/环境)有无限种变化可能。

In a constant search for these delights, I have found that I crave the thoughts of all the wise men who have pointed out – pointed the way for a rich life. And that the living of this life is the all important end. Not Design.

长久以来寻找这种快乐，我发现我所渴求的这种想法早已有智者提出了—通往富足生命之路。这种生机盎然的生命力才是一切最终的结尾，不是设计！