采訪：魏方 翻譯：常湘琦 校對：李世葵

烏多 維拉赫是德國慕尼黑工業(yè)大學(xué)（Technical University of Munich, TUM） 風(fēng)景園林和工業(yè)景觀專業(yè)教授，也是一位風(fēng)景園林師。早期他接受過園藝景觀方面的培訓(xùn)，曾就讀于加州州立理工大學(xué)波莫納分校、慕尼黑工業(yè)大學(xué)，并在蘇黎世理工大學(xué)完成博士論文。他曾在卡爾斯魯厄大學(xué)任研究助理和講師，于2002年任漢諾威大學(xué)的風(fēng)景園林教授，并于 2006—2008年任該學(xué)校建筑與景觀學(xué)院院長，自2009年起任教慕尼黑工業(yè)大學(xué)。他曾受邀參與在北京林業(yè)大學(xué)舉行的2019世界風(fēng)景園林師高峰講壇?！讹L(fēng)景園林》雜志社有幸對烏多 維拉赫教授進行了專訪，以下是采訪全文。

LAJ：《風(fēng)景園林》雜志

Weilacher：烏多 維拉赫

LAJ：謝謝您愿意接受采訪。我們很榮幸邀請您并和您有思想上的互動。首先，您能談?wù)勛约旱慕逃尘耙约斑x擇風(fēng)景園林作為職業(yè)的原因嗎？您在工業(yè)景觀領(lǐng)域具有很強的影響力，為什么選擇聚焦這個問題？

Weilacher：我的風(fēng)景園林之路其實有點復(fù)雜。小時候，我在“普法爾茨森林”（德語：Pf?lzerwald，圖1）長大，這里是德國最大的森林之一。我樂于置身森林，在這里，我度過了很多歡樂時光——徒步旅行、玩?！?dāng)然也努力地幫助和支持伐木工人。所以，我的初心是成為一名林業(yè)官員，一名為州林業(yè)局工作的護林員，但并未如愿。當(dāng)時的德國，每個18歲的男孩都必須服兵役，但我的內(nèi)心對此十分抗拒，我拒絕服兵役，因此，我選了可以替代兵役的文職服務(wù)工作——在德國紅十字會擔(dān)任緊急醫(yī)療助理，對我而言，這是一個艱難的挑戰(zhàn)。從事緊急救援服務(wù)輪班工作2年后，我發(fā)現(xiàn)由于自己內(nèi)心拒服兵役，實際上是不可能成為某個州的護林員，因此，我不得不尋找別的與大自然有聯(lián)系并為社會服務(wù)的工作。

1普法爾茨森林面積約1 770 km2 ，是德國最大的森林地區(qū)之一，覆蓋著松木、山毛櫸、云杉和橡樹The Palatinate Forest (Pf?lzerwald), covering an area of about 1,770 square kilometres, is one of the largest forest areas in Germany, covered mostly by stands of pine, beech, spruce and oak trees

2 在德國魯爾區(qū)，只有少數(shù)幾個工業(yè)基地仍然活躍，比如博特羅的焦化廠。這個地區(qū)的居民花了很長一段時間才把這些景色視為“景觀”O(jiān)nly a few industrial sites in the German Ruhr area are still active like the coking plant Prosper in Bottrop. It took the inhabitants of the region quite a while to accept these sceneries as “l(fā)andscape”

3 藝術(shù)家?？?穆特（Heike Mutter）和烏爾里希 根斯 （Ulrich Genth）在杜伊斯堡市附近設(shè)置的近20 m高的藝術(shù)裝置“老虎與烏龜”（Tiger & Turtle），在很大程度上為現(xiàn)有環(huán)境創(chuàng)造了不同的視角Art installations like the accessible 20 metres high Tiger & Turtle near the city of Duisburg by the artists Heike Mutter und Ulrich Genth helped a lot to create a different view on the existing environment

4 如今，從117 m高的曾經(jīng)的“奧伯豪森貯氣罐”的頂部俯瞰工業(yè)魯爾區(qū)，雖然改變了很多，卻從未丟失其面貌Today the former industrial Ruhr area, here seen from the top of the 117 metres high former gas holder Gasometer Oberhausen, has changed its face a lot without losing its face

最終，基于對為人類和自然創(chuàng)造良好生活環(huán)境的濃厚興趣，我決意成為一名園藝師并接受專業(yè)的訓(xùn)練。當(dāng)我還是學(xué)徒時，一所專業(yè)學(xué)校的老師注意到了我的天賦并鼓勵我申請大學(xué)的風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)進行學(xué)習(xí)。作為普通工人家庭的孩子，我真的覺得自己資質(zhì)還不足以接受大學(xué)的教育。盡管如此，我還是決心一試，并向慕尼黑工業(yè)大學(xué)提交了申請。最終我被錄取，并于1986年開始在TUM弗賴辛校區(qū)（Freising-Weihenstephan campus of TUM）學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)景園林。學(xué)習(xí)之初，我的老師當(dāng)中影響力最大就是彼得 拉茨（Peter Latz）。1983年，他被任命為TUM教授，當(dāng)時他致力于廢棄工業(yè)景觀尤其是魯爾區(qū)（Ruhr area， 圖2～4）的改造，那里曾是德國實力最雄厚的工業(yè)區(qū)，20世紀(jì)70年代末一場嚴(yán)重的鋼鐵危機后，德國許多大型鋼廠關(guān)閉，而重新定位這些大型棕地成了一項巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。

因此，如果你問我是如何進入風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計領(lǐng)域，尤其是與工業(yè)環(huán)境打交道，這就是我的方式。作為彼得 拉茨的學(xué)生，我們進行了多次實地考察，并在魯爾區(qū)實踐了許多設(shè)計項目，我著迷于景觀可以呈現(xiàn)多樣的形式和形狀的想法。在第一學(xué)期，我對景觀到底是什么有著天真的理解：我堅信它們應(yīng)是美麗、和平且綠意盎然的，有草地、大樹和潺潺流淌的河流等。彼得 拉茨、瑞士風(fēng)景園林師迪爾特 基納斯特（Dieter Kienast）以及許多當(dāng)代藝術(shù)家讓我明白迷人的景觀是可以與刻板印象大相徑庭的，工業(yè)景觀所具有的獨特美學(xué)特征與我所持的陳腐觀念完全不同。我開始認(rèn)識到，從風(fēng)景中抹去所有工業(yè)遺跡并不總有意義，這樣做反而毀掉了該地的身份特點。真正的挑戰(zhàn)是要改變?nèi)藗冃闹械木坝^圖像，創(chuàng)造一種不同的景觀文化共識。

LAJ：看來，跟隨彼得 拉茨學(xué)習(xí)改變了您對景觀與風(fēng)景園林的看法。

Weilacher：的確如此。他帶我們游覽荒廢的工業(yè)區(qū)，棕地所具有的神秘、古老工業(yè)廢墟戲劇性的美學(xué)品質(zhì)極為吸引我。我被教導(dǎo)用一種不同的方式看待這些景觀，我無法想象德國阿爾卑斯俱樂部（德語：Deutscher Alpenverein）最主要的活動內(nèi)容是在北杜伊斯堡工業(yè)廢墟上訓(xùn)練他們的成員以攀登阿爾卑斯山——這里曾是一家距離阿爾卑斯山 600多km遠的鋼鐵廠，對于攀巖者來說，鋼鐵廠以前的工業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)是一種完全不同的景致，而我被這種創(chuàng)造性重釋舊結(jié)構(gòu)的想法所吸引（圖5）。另外，從生態(tài)學(xué)的角度看，我們已經(jīng)投入了大量寶貴的資源來建造復(fù)雜的工業(yè)景觀，因此拋棄現(xiàn)存設(shè)施毫無意義；而從歷史的角度看，抹去在此工作的人們的記憶并摧毀地方身份認(rèn)同并非良策。因此，有大量理由讓這些廢棄的場地以某種方式繼續(xù)存在或被適當(dāng)再利用。這種思維方式在20世紀(jì)80年代初相當(dāng)不尋常，傳統(tǒng)的策略是清除所有痕跡并借停產(chǎn)閑置之由徹底摧毀這些工業(yè)“機器”。我們必須了解的是，即使場地原有的目標(biāo)用途喪失，它對社會的作用仍是十分寶貴的。

LAJ：今天，考慮將工業(yè)設(shè)備進行保留已經(jīng)成為常識，但在那時候是很具有創(chuàng)造性的。

5 在杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園的舊混凝土墻頂上，攀巖者豎立的山頂十字架上刻有“蒙特 蒂索”字樣，清楚地顯示了改造的成功The summit cross erected by rock climbers on top of the old concrete wall in the Landscape Park Duisburg North inscribed “Monte Thysso” is a clear indication for a successful transformation

6 不同變體的“花園”。這里所謂的用廢金屬建造的郊區(qū)花園在杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園中發(fā)揮著重要作用，它幫助人們改變其感知方式“Gardens” in many variations, here the so-called Suburban Garden built with scrap metal, play an important role in the Landscape Park Duisburg North, helping people to change their perception

Weilacher：其實即便是今天，對許多市民來說，要理解為何保留舊工業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)并非易事，同時我們還必須小心，不要把生活環(huán)境完全博物館化，景觀并非博物館，試圖保護所有遺存意味著我們改變環(huán)境的能力將備受限制。此外，我們還須關(guān)注一個事實，即維護老工業(yè)遺跡需要大量的資源、時間和金錢。在德國，一些社區(qū)會花費大量資金維護工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)，但這仍不可能讓所有的廢墟保持活力，事實上，這在任何地方都是不必要且不合理的。彼得 拉茨所提倡的新策略并非將棕地視為博物館，而是對其進行重新詮釋以獲新生，為了達到這一目的，有必要重新調(diào)整人們對景觀的感知方式，這是一個非常高明的方法（圖6）。

當(dāng)然，在德國也有受到法律保護的工業(yè)遺址，比如收錄在聯(lián)合國教科文組織（UNESCO）世界遺產(chǎn)名錄里的，位于沃爾克林根市附近的沃爾克林根鋼鐵廠（德語：Vólklinger Hütte）。人們無權(quán)改變這個工業(yè)區(qū)的任何東西，這意味著工業(yè)景觀將得到很好的保護，雖然某種程度上原本的工業(yè)景象已不復(fù)存在。這種保護在特殊情況下仍是有意義的，但只有不斷變化的景觀才是活的景觀，而活的景觀就不會淪為博物館。

LAJ：您出版了許多著作，比如1999年的《風(fēng)景園林與大地藝術(shù)》（Between Landscape Architecture and Land Art ），2005年的《在花園里：當(dāng)代歐洲風(fēng)景園林概況》(In Gardens: Profiles of Contemporary European Landscape Architecture)，2008年的《景觀文法：彼得 拉茨與合伙人的景觀建筑》(Syntax of Landscape: The Landscape Architecture of Peter Latz and Partners)，以及近年來許多有關(guān)生態(tài)和綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的文章。是什么引導(dǎo)您改變您的研究興趣？

Weilacher：我是個好奇心很重的人，我對許多不同的主題和問題感興趣。對此，有些人會抨擊我并忽略了我的關(guān)注點，他們想知道我的“標(biāo)簽”到底是什么，但老實說，我的“標(biāo)簽”是“沒有標(biāo)簽”。

舉個例子，當(dāng)我還是一個青年學(xué)生的時候，我對當(dāng)代藝術(shù)和風(fēng)景畫非常感興趣。在20世紀(jì)80年代初，每個人都試圖說服我們——解決景觀問題的唯一途徑是技術(shù)式的方法，我和我的同學(xué)們對這種片面看待風(fēng)景園林的方式相當(dāng)沮喪。時至今日，我所擔(dān)心的是我們又隨波逐流向同一個方向——對景觀的研究有點過于注重景觀技術(shù)和定量環(huán)境科學(xué)。

年輕的時候，我接觸到了大地藝術(shù)并為之著迷，因為這是一種別具一格且更具創(chuàng)造性地應(yīng)對自然和景觀的方式。藝術(shù)家們用鼓舞人心的方式探討風(fēng)景——以一種獨特的方式詮釋它。對我而言，這就如同發(fā)現(xiàn)了一種新的語言，我突然注意到在景觀中有著我從未見過的特質(zhì)。藝術(shù)家們以全新的方式探索景觀，他們也改變了我們對工業(yè)景觀的看法。20世紀(jì)60年代，美國藝術(shù)家羅伯特 史密森（Robert Smithson）是第一批以不同眼光看待工業(yè)景觀的藝術(shù)家。而在德國，貝恩德 貝歇爾（Bernd Becher）和希拉 貝歇爾（Hilla Becher）夫婦借助攝影創(chuàng)造了一種獨特的工業(yè)景觀新視角——早在20世紀(jì)70年代，德國重工業(yè)危機時，他們就開始通過拍攝工業(yè)遺址來展示這些奇特景觀的美麗。我認(rèn)為藝術(shù)為探索新的景觀維度提供了強而有力的方法，而大地藝術(shù)尤其迷人，這就是為什么我獲得了大地藝術(shù)和當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)的文憑，我很想了解以藝術(shù)應(yīng)對景觀和專業(yè)的風(fēng)景園林方法之間的區(qū)別。我基于自己的畢業(yè)論文進行修改并出版了第一本書《風(fēng)景園林與大地藝術(shù)》。1993年在慕尼黑工業(yè)大學(xué)完成這篇論文后，我聯(lián)系了13家出版社，問他們是否有興趣出版我的作品，12家出版商拒絕了我，理由是我的作品并不聚焦，介于藝術(shù)與風(fēng)景園林之間。只有一位來自瑞士Birkhauser出版社的老師注意到了作品的價值，并給我機會將我的畢業(yè)論文編纂成書。時至今日，這本書可能仍是我最成功的一本。

在瑞士著名的日報機構(gòu)《新蘇黎世報》（Neue Züricher Zeitung, NZZ） 工作了幾年后，我出版了書籍《在花園里：當(dāng)代歐洲風(fēng)景園林概況》。出版商邀請我為他們的NZZ Folio月刊寫一些關(guān)于當(dāng)代園林建筑的短文，對當(dāng)代園林建筑一直抱以的濃厚興趣促使我十分樂意地接受了這項任務(wù)——我的好奇心與對環(huán)境可持續(xù)設(shè)計的熱情致使我在研究和出版方面產(chǎn)生了興趣上的變化。景觀實在太復(fù)雜，不能管中窺豹，我們需要有更廣闊的視角——把地球作為一個有機體看待。對我而言，這些原因促成了我自由選擇關(guān)注的焦點——大地藝術(shù)、風(fēng)景園林史、當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林或工業(yè)景觀改造。在我看來，這些話題為我們更好地理解生活環(huán)境的現(xiàn)實復(fù)雜性添磚加瓦。

LAJ：《風(fēng)景園林和大地藝術(shù)》這本書改變了人們看待藝術(shù)介入改變景觀的方式，您是否認(rèn)為這是風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域的一項重要運 動呢？

Weilacher：如果是這樣的話，那真的很棒，但我從未想過引發(fā)何種運動。我寫這本書是因為我的好奇心以及我想與其他我覺得有趣的人分享我的見解，我急于更好地理解藝術(shù)之于景觀的真正價值。一般而言，我寫書的初衷是為自己厘清復(fù)雜的問題，并試圖盡量簡明扼要地傳達我的發(fā)現(xiàn)。如果其他人也對我的研究結(jié)論感興趣的話，我會很開心，因為創(chuàng)造和分享知識對于文化進步和社會發(fā)展很重要。

例如，我為2019年在北京林業(yè)大學(xué)舉行的主題為“韌性景觀”的會議（2019世界風(fēng)景園林師高峰講壇）所準(zhǔn)備的演講：“多孔性：城市生態(tài)系統(tǒng)架構(gòu)原理”（Porosity — A Structural Principle of Urban Ecosystems），這是我之前從沒演講過的題目，我專門為這次會議進行了準(zhǔn)備。我不是這個課題的專家，所以我很好奇“多孔性”在風(fēng)景園林中到底為何意，因此我對這個問題做了深入的研究，試圖了解“多孔性”作為一個概念對我們行業(yè)的真正影響潛力——多孔性”只是一個新的流行詞還是蘊含了重要的知識？我在大學(xué)也是如此教授：我試圖用最簡單的方式向我的學(xué)生解釋復(fù)雜的問題。因為在現(xiàn)實生活中，任務(wù)本身會趨于復(fù)雜，與其用過于復(fù)雜的解釋迷惑學(xué)生，不如讓他們理解簡單的基本關(guān)聯(lián)，我試著讓他們有實踐行動的能力。此外，在我的出版物中，我也遵循這些原則。

LAJ：在處理工業(yè)景觀時，貝爾納 拉敘斯（Bernard Lassus）的“最小干預(yù)”、彼得 拉茨的“文化循環(huán)”以及詹姆斯 科納（James Corner）和艾莉森 希爾祺（Alison B. Hirsch）的“深描”（thick descriptions）等設(shè)計理念有多重要？在我看來，他們都是把新舊因素、歷史和現(xiàn)狀結(jié)合、組織起來。您怎么認(rèn)為？

Weilacher：我想你基本上已經(jīng)回答了這個問題，因為你提及的這些同行普遍認(rèn)可這種新舊結(jié)合的價值觀念，這正是我們在改造棕地時所踐行的。時至今日，我們并未發(fā)明任何全新的東西，而是在已有事物上建立新事物，沒有“空白”景觀一說，所謂“空白”的背后都有經(jīng)濟、生態(tài)和社會存在。人類世（Anthropocene），人類的時代，現(xiàn)在已再無未涉足的景觀——人類影響了一切，因此，我們?nèi)绾螌ΥF(xiàn)存事物成為一個非常根本的問題。

每一種文化都建立在過去的基礎(chǔ)上，針對現(xiàn)存之物如何融入未來之發(fā)展，拉敘斯、拉茨、科納、希爾祺等眾多知名專家提出了不同的解決方法，于我而言，這些方法就像用來分析和組織復(fù)雜性的不同工具。亞伯拉罕 馬斯洛（Abraham Maslow）的“工具法則”（Law of the Instrument）告訴我們對于那些手中唯一的工具就是錘子的人，每個問題都如同釘子。也就是說，如果理論是一個強大的工具箱，而你的工具箱里僅有一個工具，那么你很可能總以同樣的方式處理每一個問題。

在許多情況下，這并不會帶來好的結(jié)果。所以，工具箱中有許多不同的工具至關(guān)重要。有時，學(xué)生認(rèn)為一個設(shè)計問題只有一個特定的分析或設(shè)計“工具”，顯然這種想法有失偏頗——每一個問題都可以用許多不同的“工具”解決，而設(shè)計師選擇使用哪項工具至關(guān)重要。

我欣賞貝爾納 拉敘斯的方法，因為他教會了我們在景觀當(dāng)中如何利用最小干預(yù)獲得巨大改變，即僅通過添加一小條新信息就改變?nèi)藗儗坝^的解讀。例如，我們不必為創(chuàng)造新的事物而徹底摧毀一個廢棄的工業(yè)景觀，有時，適時適地地添加一點新的元素便足以引發(fā)對既定環(huán)境完全不同的理解。最小干預(yù)旨在以人的感知與使用者腦中的景觀為目標(biāo)。

7 這座種植有黃楊（Buxus sempervirens）和繡球（Hydrangea macrophylla）的花園被置于一個舊的工業(yè)混凝土倉內(nèi)。其設(shè)計的靈感來自意大利著名的文藝復(fù)興花園。在工業(yè)背景下，它講述了一個新的故事This boxwood and hydrangea garden, planted in an old industrial concrete container, was inspired by famous Renaissance gardens from Italy. Presented in an industrial context, it tells a new story

例如，彼得 拉茨使用最小干預(yù)的方法在一家廢棄鋼鐵廠的舊工業(yè)設(shè)施里設(shè)置了一個小型樹籬花園（圖7）。拉茨在杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園這片占地約230 hm2、在德國足以被稱為大型公園的場地上使用最小干預(yù)的措施改變了人們對棕地的看法，如那個珍貴的樹籬花園。最小干預(yù)是一個非常有趣且強大的“工具”，當(dāng)然，為了弄清現(xiàn)有問題，第一步肯定是做好場地分析，然后再決定最小干預(yù)法是否為解決現(xiàn)有問題的正確方法。

彼得 拉茨提出的文化循環(huán)是一個能有效保持場地身份的“工具”。借此，我們不會破壞場地上現(xiàn)有事物的信息，許多以前工業(yè)地上的建筑元素，只要我們不將其粉碎成小塊，便仍有訴說的可能。例如，通過混凝土碾磨機回收混凝土墻時，我們從中獲得了碎石，但這個碎石不會再講述這個場地的故事。文化循環(huán)讓我們可以重新利用大塊混凝土元素，讓這些砌塊繼續(xù)訴說它們的故事。這是一個維持原有場地身份的敘事方法，該方法深刻理解景觀、嘗試解釋各層次的含義并將新舊融合。

9 羅德爾景觀事務(wù)所成功地將現(xiàn)有的交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施融入這塊毗鄰市中心的公園設(shè)計中，從而讓人們享受到精心培植土地所帶的質(zhì)樸之感Loidl Landscape Architects managed successfully to incorporate existing traffic infrastructure into the park design, and people enjoy the cultivated roughness of the location near the city centre

10 在柏林的居民密集區(qū)，軌道公園的巨大開放空間是一個奢侈品，不過度設(shè)計這個區(qū)域而讓人們自由使用場地顯得尤其重要In the urban density of Berlin, the vast open spaces in the Park am Gleisdreieck are a real luxury, and it was important not to over-design the area but give people a chance to use it freely

LAJ：您認(rèn)為公眾對改造后景觀元素的感知和專業(yè)人士的認(rèn)知有何不同？一位設(shè)計師在從專業(yè)視角對廢棄景觀進行改造時，應(yīng)該如何將公眾的感知和觀念納入設(shè)計過程？

Weilacher：當(dāng)然，我們必須考慮人們的感知，因為風(fēng)景園林師的職責(zé)即為人設(shè)計。一個經(jīng)過設(shè)計的景觀只有在人們真正接受并欣賞的情況下才能長存。如果你設(shè)計人們不欣賞的景觀，可能會遭遇很多蓄意破壞；如果人們喜歡他們的生活環(huán)境，便不必花很多錢來維護，因為人們會更悉心地對待他們的景觀。可持續(xù)的風(fēng)景園林必須與人們的感受、意見和思想緊密相連。公眾的感受和專業(yè)人士的看法有什么不同嗎？結(jié)果是肯定的，因為設(shè)計師受過專業(yè)的教育，擁有專業(yè)的感知過濾器。事實上，每個人都有由教育與以往經(jīng)歷共同構(gòu)成的不同的感知過濾器。感知實際上是一種發(fā)生于人頭腦中的創(chuàng)造性行為，今天我對工業(yè)景觀的看法與我在青年學(xué)生時期是不一樣的。我被教導(dǎo)要以不同的眼光看待棕地，但一般公眾對這些地區(qū)仍保有非常傳統(tǒng)的看法，這對風(fēng)景園林來說是個挑戰(zhàn)，因為我們必須花費相當(dāng)多的時間來理解人們的看法，并試圖找到能與這種看法建立聯(lián)系的方式。

LAJ：是的，所以了解公眾對改造景觀的感知是具有價值的。

Weilacher：我認(rèn)為這不僅值得嘗試，而且是絕對有必要的。每一位優(yōu)秀的風(fēng)景園林師都必須認(rèn)真考慮人們的行為、思想和愿望，盡管在某些情況下，一些著名的設(shè)計師有時會表現(xiàn)出忽視他人意見的傾向并獲得成功。我不認(rèn)為自己只是一名為藝術(shù)而藝術(shù)的風(fēng)景園林師，我欣賞那些創(chuàng)作出對人類社會有價值且產(chǎn)生現(xiàn)實利益的景觀項目的設(shè)計師。使一個項目登上一本光鮮的風(fēng)景雜志封面并不重要，重要的是要為人們的生活創(chuàng)造一些有價值的東西。

LAJ：但是不同的人會有不同的感受與認(rèn)知，將所有這些信息不經(jīng)取舍地納入設(shè)計過程確實具有一定難度。

Weilacher：沒錯。這就是為什么德國的公共項目有時需要很多年才能實現(xiàn)的原因之一。比如柏林一個名為“軌道公園”（Park am Gleisdreieck，圖8～10）的原鐵路車場的改造項目開始于1974年，直至2011年公園一期才對公眾開放，這個奇妙的26 hm2的公共公園由柏林的羅德爾景觀事務(wù)所（Loidl Landscape Architects）設(shè)計，設(shè)計師的目標(biāo)是讓這個新公園盡其可能地為社區(qū)服務(wù)。不同年齡、宗教和文化背景的人使用公園的同時，也參與著公園的設(shè)計，其參與過程花費了大量時間——市民們被邀請參加工作坊、展覽和研討會等，以確保他們的想法被完全納入設(shè)計過程中。一般來說，你需要耐心地聽他們講一段時間，直到逐漸明白什么會打動他們。在我看來，一個民主的規(guī)劃體系要想讓公眾項目得到妥善的完成并獲得認(rèn)可并無捷徑，如果你試圖加快規(guī)劃進程，就很有可能失去人們的認(rèn)可和支持。

這在歐洲是一項艱巨的挑戰(zhàn)，因為我們地區(qū)的一些環(huán)境問題需要盡快地得到解決——全球氣候變化并不會等我們。在緊急情況下，時間是一個非常關(guān)鍵的因素，而同時全球環(huán)境狀況日益嚴(yán)重。

有時候，德國的規(guī)劃過程實在太慢，但最終它總是表明真正可持續(xù)的項目往往需要大量時間才能按照人們接受和支持的方向發(fā)展。在某種程度上，中國的發(fā)展速度，比如在公共交通向更環(huán)保的系統(tǒng)轉(zhuǎn)變方面，給我留下了深刻的印象。在德國，這種變化則需要很多年的時間——相比被迫做出改變，人們要希望被說服以采取必要的措施。

要真正說服別人需要很多時間。

LAJ：在您最近的風(fēng)景園林方面的出版物中，經(jīng)常提到人類世，討論人造元素和自然元素之間的關(guān)系。您還引用約翰 布林克霍夫 杰克遜（J. B. Jackson）的話：“景觀并不只是自然風(fēng)景，而是一個合成的空間，一個疊加在大地表面的人造系統(tǒng)空間?！盵1]您是如何將這一概念融入目前的教學(xué)和研究中？

Weilacher：當(dāng)我第一次看到約翰 布林克霍夫 杰克遜這一前沿定義時，我震驚于景觀不是關(guān)于自然而是關(guān)于人造空間系統(tǒng)的說法。在對這個概念做了更多研究后，我開始明白這是一個非常高明的定義景觀的方法。首先，如果我們接受景觀的這個定義，那么就不必再問風(fēng)景園林師是否應(yīng)該設(shè)計城市、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、森林或田野，這并不重要，因為如果我們接受了景觀是一個人造空間系統(tǒng)，那么我們就要對所有方面負(fù)責(zé)。這個定義需要一個非常廣泛的整體性理解，并可釋放巨大潛力。如果有人問我為什么一個風(fēng)景園林師會談?wù)摮鞘谢?、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施規(guī)劃或農(nóng)業(yè)系統(tǒng)，我會指出一個事實：于我而言，這些系統(tǒng)只是景觀被理解為復(fù)雜空間系統(tǒng)的不同變體?；谶@一定義，我覺得應(yīng)取消那些對風(fēng)景園林職業(yè)的傳統(tǒng)理解，諸如過于關(guān)注綠地、花園和公園的設(shè)計。

在德國，很長一段時間里，我們在風(fēng)景園林方面的工作都是基于對景觀的一個非常浪漫的定義：景觀是原始的。但我們從彼得 拉茨那里了解到，景觀也可以是棕地；我們從迪爾特 基納斯特那里了解到，城市之自然不僅是綠色也可以是灰色的。過分專注于對自然和景觀的傳統(tǒng)理解會限制我們的視野以至于忽視我們必須面對的真正挑戰(zhàn)，人們很難接受工業(yè)景觀作為景觀就是因為他們太過執(zhí)著于傳統(tǒng)的景觀定義?！白匀弧币彩且粋€有著廣泛含義而很難深入理解的術(shù)語，以至于我們在使用這個術(shù)語時總要解釋我們真正的用意。我的一位朋友兼同事表示：術(shù)語就像手電筒可以照亮世界，當(dāng)我們使用它，它亦會突顯我們思維中的特定方面，所以，如果你用錯了手電筒，你將看不到我們這個世界足夠或具體的方面。一個好的術(shù)語能夠幫助我們理解生活中非常重要的方面，這就是為什么反復(fù)討論和質(zhì)疑“景觀”或“自然”的含義對我來說如此重要。

現(xiàn)如今，我們談?wù)摿撕芏嚓P(guān)于人類世、人類的時代，這個術(shù)語要求新的思維概念。我堅信作為風(fēng)景園林師，我們一直知道自己所處的環(huán)境深受人類影響，但我在過去幾年中了解到這種思維方式對于其他許多行業(yè)是嶄新的，以至于改變了跨學(xué)科合作的基礎(chǔ)。這就是為什么德國的風(fēng)景園林學(xué)教授正在集中精力研究這方面的問題。正如我所說，我是個充滿好奇心的人，我想知道人類世的意識在多大程度上會改變我們的行業(yè)。

LAJ：那么，人類世的設(shè)計與風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計中的結(jié)構(gòu)主義方法有什么關(guān)系呢？

Weilacher：我不知道你對結(jié)構(gòu)主義有多熟悉，但最重要的一點是：風(fēng)景園林是一種語言，我們用它與人們就全球生活環(huán)境的質(zhì)量進行非語言交流。法國哲學(xué)家吉爾 德勒茲（Gilles Deleuze）指出語言之外沒有任何結(jié)構(gòu)，因此結(jié)構(gòu)在風(fēng)景園林中也起著至關(guān)重要的作用。

新生入學(xué)時，我總是提醒他們不僅僅是在學(xué)習(xí)如何設(shè)計空間或如何種植樹木、樹籬和花卉等，更是在學(xué)習(xí)一種新的語言——風(fēng)景園林語言。每一種語言都有某種結(jié)構(gòu)和一系列的關(guān)系，在這些關(guān)系中，單個的詞可以改變而敘述的意義基本保持不變。任何學(xué)過外語的人都知道光靠詞匯是不行的，我們需要學(xué)習(xí)如何把單個詞匯連接起來形成一個句子，而連接的規(guī)則反映了句子的結(jié)構(gòu)。每種語言都有一個特定的隱藏結(jié)構(gòu)，漢語的結(jié)構(gòu)與德語或英語的結(jié)構(gòu)有很大的不同，如果我們承認(rèn)風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計是一種非文字式語言，那么就必須有一種結(jié)構(gòu)以適當(dāng)?shù)姆绞竭B接所有的設(shè)計元素。學(xué)生要學(xué)習(xí)如何在特定的文化、生態(tài)或經(jīng)濟背景下，組合設(shè)計要素以創(chuàng)造意義。如果你創(chuàng)作一個風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計項目，你必須關(guān)注上下文，因為它不僅關(guān)乎運用什么設(shè)計語言，且受制于原址上存在一段以自身敘事結(jié)構(gòu)闡述的歷史。你需要弄明白這2種結(jié)構(gòu)——現(xiàn)存的和新設(shè)計的是否兼容。

LAJ：您最近也提到，都市有機體中的多孔性需要結(jié)構(gòu)支撐。

Weilacher：沒錯。在這里，我想談到一位非常重要的國際風(fēng)景園林師俞孔堅，他的海綿城市理念真的很有價值，不僅是對中國有價值，比如聯(lián)系到海綿城市理念，探討多孔性就應(yīng)該建立在探討物質(zhì)結(jié)構(gòu)的基礎(chǔ)上。景觀結(jié)構(gòu)既是物質(zhì)實體，也是概念對象。通過不同的溝通形成了結(jié)構(gòu)——諸如物質(zhì)、信息和能量的傳播與交流，因此視覺聯(lián)系也在景觀中發(fā)揮重要作用，通過建立交流紐帶從而形成結(jié)構(gòu)。

LAJ：非常感謝您接受本次采訪！

Weilacher：不客氣。我很榮幸。

圖片來源：

圖1～10由Udo Weilacher提供。

錄音整理：朱藝寧

（編輯/王一蘭）

Udo Weilacher is a professor of Landscape Architecture and Industrial Landscape at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), and also a landscape designer. He has received a gardening and landscaping training in the early stage. He studied at TUM and California State Polytechnic University Pomona/Los Angeles, and did his doctorate with distinction at ETH Zurich. Prof. Weilacher used to be a research fellow and lecturer at the University of Karlsruhe and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich. He was an appointed professor of landscape architecture and design at the University of Hanover in 2002. He served as the dean of the Faculty of Architecture and Landscape Sciences from 2006 to 2008. In 2009, he accepted the position of full professor at TUM. He was invited to participate in the 2019 International Landscape Architecture Symposium held at Beijing Forestry University.Landscape ArchitectureJournal Periodical Office has the honor to interview Professor Udo Weilacher. The following is the full text of the interview.

LAJ: Landscape Architecture Journal

Weilacher: Udo Weilacher

LAJ: Thank you for being willing to do this interview. We are honoured to have you here and be inspired by your thoughts. First of all, could you please talk a little bit about your education and why you choose landscape architecture as your profession. You are very influential in the field of industrial landscape, so why did you decide to make so many efforts on this subject?

Weilacher:My pathway to landscape architecture was actually a bit complicated. As a young boy I grew up in the “Palatinate Forest” (German: Pf?lzerwald, Fig. 1), which is one of the largest forests in Germany. I loved to be in the forest and I spent a lot of time there hiking and playing, but also working hard supporting the lumbermen. So, my initial wish was to become a forest officer, a ranger working for the state forestry administration, but this did not work out. In Germany at that time, every boy at the age of 18 had to do his military service, but as a conscientious objector I refused to do this. So, I did an alternative civilian service and worked as an emergency medical assistant at the German Red Cross, which was a tough challenge for me. After two years of shift work at the emergency rescue service, I had to find out that it was virtually impossible to become a state forest officer as a conscientious objector. So, I had to find another way to work with nature and for society.

Finally, I decided to pursue professional training as a landscape gardener because I was always very much interested in creating good living conditions for man and nature. When I was a gardener apprentice, a teacher at the professional school noticed my talent and encouraged me to apply for a landscape architecture study at university. Coming from a rather simple worker's family I really thought I would not be smart enough for a university education. Nevertheless, I decided to give it a try and applied at the Technical University of Munich. I was accepted and in 1986 started to study landscape architecture on the Freising-Weihenstephan campus of TUM. One of my most influential teachers right from the beginning was Peter Latz. He was appointed as professor at the TUM in 1983 and at that time worked a lot on the transformation of derelict industrial landscapes especially in the Ruhr area (Fig. 2-4), which was once the most powerful industrial region in Germany. After a severe steel crisis in the late 1970s many big steel mills were shut down in Germany and it was a challenge to requalify the huge brownfield sites.

So, if you ask how I got into landscape design, especially dealing with industrial environments, this was my way. As students of Peter Latz, we went on many field trips and worked on many design projects in the Ruhr region. I became fascinated with the idea that landscape can take on many different forms and shapes. As a first semester student I had a very naive understanding of what landscapes are all about. I was convinced they should be beautiful, peaceful and green with meadows, big trees, flowing rivers and so on. It was Peter Latz, and later also the Swiss landscape architect Dieter Kienast as well as many contemporary artists, who taught me that fascinating landscapes can look much different from the stereotypical images in my mind. I learned that industrial landscapes are characterized by distinctive aesthetics, completely different from my clichéd ideas. I began to understand that it does not always make sense to erase all remains of the industrial history from the landscape and, by doing that, destroy the identity of the place. The real challenge was to change the image of landscape in people's minds and create a different kind of landscape cultural understanding.

LAJ: Studying with Peter Latz changed the way you are thinking of landscape and landscape architecture.

Weilacher:Absolutely. He took us on excursions to derelict industrial areas and it was the mystery of these brownfields, the dramatic aesthetic quality of old industrial ruins, that immediately fascinated me. I was taught that there is a different way to look at these landscapes and I could have never imagined that the largest section of the German Alpine Club (German: Deutscher Alpenverein) would train their members in alpine climbing in the industrial ruins of Duisburg-North, a former steel mill and more than 600 kilometres away from the Alps. For the climbers, the former industrial structure of the steel mill is a completely different kind of scenic landscape and I was fascinated by the idea to creatively reinterpret the old structures (Fig. 5). Also, from an ecological point of view it simply doesn't make sense to dump existing infrastructure, because so many valuable resources were invested to construct the complex industrial landscapes. From a historical point of view, it was not a good idea to erase the memory of the people who worked there and destroy the identity of the place. So there are many good reasons for keeping these derelict sites somehow alive or reuse them appropriately. This way of thinking was rather unusual in the early 1980s. The conventional strategy was to clear all traces of the past and destroy the industrial “machine” completely, because it did not work anymore and lost its primary purpose. What we had to learn was that even if the purpose of a site was lost, the function for the society was still very valuable.

LAJ: Today it is common sense for us trying to keep the machines, but at that time, it was a creative movement.

Weilacher:But even today for many citizens, it's not so easy to comprehend why to keep old industrial structures, and we also have to be careful not to totally turn our living environment into a museum. Landscape is not a museum and we simply cannot protect each and every single derelict industrial site because this would limit the capacity for change in our environment. In addition, we should keep an eye on the fact that the maintenance of old industrial monuments takes a lot of resources, time and money. The responsible communities in Germany are paying quite a lot of money to maintain their industrial heritage, but it is not possible to keep all ruins alive and, in fact, it's not necessary or reasonable everywhere. The new strategy that Peter Latz promoted was not to keep the brownfields as museums but to reinterpret them and fill them with new life. In order to achieve that, it was necessary to recalibrate peoples' way of perceiving the landscape. That was a really intelligent approach (Fig. 6).

Of course, we also have industrial sites in Germany which are protected by law such as the V?lklingen Ironworks (German: V?lklinger Hütte), a UNESCO world heritage site near the city of V?lklingen. You are not allowed to change anything in this industrial area, which means that this landscape is well preserved, but in a way not alive any longer. In exceptional cases, this protection makes sense, but only a changing landscape is a living landscape and a living landscape can hardly be a museum.

LAJ: You produced so many publications, like Between Landscape Architecture and Land Art in 1999, In Gardens: Profiles of Contemporary European Landscape Architecture in 2005, Syntax of Landscape: the landscape architecture of Peter Latz and Partners in 2008, and many interesting articles on ecology and green infrastructure in recent years. What guides your changing research interest?

Weilacher:You know, I am a very curious person. I am interested in many different themes and questions. Some people criticize that and they miss my focus and want to know exactly what my “trademark” is. But honestly my trademark is that I don't have a trademark.

For example, I was extremely interested in contemporary art and landscape when I was a young student. At that time, in the early 1980s everybody was trying to convince us that the only possible solutions for landscape problems are technological solutions. My fellow students and I got very frustrated with this one-sided way of looking at landscape architecture. And I am afraid that we are currently drifting into the same direction again, looking at landscape a bit too much focused on landscape technology and quantitative environmental science.

When I discovered Land Art as a young student, I was fascinated because I found a different and much more creative approach to nature and landscape. Artists have such an inspiring way of talking about landscape, interpreting it in a unique manner. For me this was like the discovery of a new language and I suddenly noticed qualities in landscape that I had never seen before. The artists explored landscape in completely new ways, and they were also the ones who changed our view on industrial landscapes. Among the first artists who developed a different look on industrial landscapes was the American conceptual artist Robert Smithson in the 1960s. In Germany, it was a very important couple of photographers who coined a distinctive new view on industrial landscapes: Bernd and Hilla Becher. Back in the 1970s, when a crisis hit the German heavy industries, they began to photograph industrial sites, showing the beauty of these peculiar landscapes. Art I think offers very powerful methods to explore new dimensions of landscape, and Land Art was for me especially fascinating. That is why I obtained my diploma in Land Art and contemporary landscape architecture. I was curious to understand the difference between the artistic approach to landscape and the professional landscape architectural approach. The first book that I published,Between Landscape Architecture and Land Art,was actually my revised final thesis. After finishing my thesis at the TU Munich in 1993, I contacted thirteen publishers and asked them if they would be interested in publishing my work. Twelve publishers refused, because my work was too much “in between” — neither focused on art nor on landscape architecture only. Only one lector from Birkhauser publisher in Switzerland noticed the value of my work and offered me the chance to elaborate on my diploma thesis into a book. Until today, this publication is probably still my most successful one.

The bookIn Gardens. Profiles of Contemporary European Landscape Architecturewas developed after I had worked several years for the “Neue Züricher Zeitung” (NZZ), a renowned Swiss daily newspaper. The publishers invited me to write short essays about contemporary garden architecture for their monthly magazine, theNZZ Folio. Since I was always interested in contemporary garden architecture, I enjoyed that task. So again — what guides my changing interest in research and publishing is my curiosity and my enthusiasm for all different aspects concerning the sustainable design of our living environment. Landscape is simply too complex to concentrate only on single elements and aspects. We need to develop a broader understanding of earth as a living organism. That's why it is important for me to freely choose the focus of my attention — land art, history of landscape architecture, contemporary landscape architecture or the transformation of industrial landscapes. From my point of view, all these themes carry important building blocks for a better understanding of the real complexity of our living environment.

LAJ: The book Between Landscape Architecture and Land Art changed the way people see artistic interventions in landscape. Don't you think this is an important movement for landscape architecture?

Weilacher:If so, it would be fascinating, but it was never my aim to start some kind of movement. I wrote this book because — as I said — I was curious and I wanted to share my insights with other interested people. I was anxious to better understand the true value of artistic approaches to landscape. Generally, I am writing books primarily to clarify complex questions for myself and I try to communicate my findings as simply as possible. It would really make me happy if this should also be interesting for other people, because creating and sharing knowledge is important for the cultural progress and the survival of our society.

For example, my lecture about “Porosity — A Structural Principle of Urban Ecosystems” that I prepared for the “Resilient Landscape” conference 2019 at the Beijing Forestry University is a lecture I never presented before. I prepared it specifically for this conference and, since I am not really an expert on this subject, I was curious to find out what “porosity” in landscape architecture really means. That's why I did intensive research on this issue, trying to understand what the true potential of “porosity” as a concept might be for our profession. Is “porosity” just a new buzzword or does it convey an important knowledge? That's also how I teach at university. I try to explain complex issues in the most simple way to my students, because in the reality of life the tasks will get complicated by themselves. Rather than disorienting students with far too complicated explanations, it's better for them to understand simple basic correlations. I try to give them a capability to act. Also, in my publications I try to respect these simple principles.

LAJ: When dealing with industrial landscapes, how important are the design concepts “minimal intervention” by Bernard Lassus, “cultural recycling” by Peter Latz, and “thick descriptions” by James Corner and Alison B. Hirsch? From my point of view they are all trying to combine and organize the old and the new, the historical elements and the current situation. Do you agree with this?

Weilacher:I think you almost answered the question yourself, because you pointed out that all mentioned colleagues generally believe in the value of combining the old with the new. That's exactly what we are trying to do when working on the transformation of brownfields. Today, we are not inventing anything completely new, but we always build on top of something that's already existing. There is no such thing as a “blank” landscape. There is always an economical, ecological or social context. In the Anthropocene, the age of humans, there is no untouched landscape anymore — mankind influenced everything. That's why the question of how do we deal with the existing is a very fundamental one.

Every culture is based on something that existed before. Lassus, Latz, Corner, Hirsch and many other renowned experts developed different approaches to the solution of the same question on how to integrate the existing into the future development. To me, these approaches are like different tools that you can use in order to analyse the complexity of the world or synthesize the complexity of a design. The “Law of the Instrument” by Abraham Maslow says that for someone who's only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Which means, that if you have only one tool in your toolbox — and theory is a powerful toolbox — it is most likely that you will treat every problem always in the same way.

In many cases this will not lead to good results. So, it is important to have many different tools in your toolbox. Sometimes students think there's only one specific analysis or design tool for one design question but that's wrong. Each given problem can be solved with many different tools, and it's essentially the choice of the designer which tool to use.

I appreciate the approach by Bernard Lassus, because he taught us how to make great changes in a landscape with only very minimal interventions. It's about changing the reading of a landscape just by adding a small new piece of new information. For example, we don't have to destroy a derelict industrial landscape completely to create something new. Sometimes it's simply enough to add a little new element in the right place at the right time and this immediately sparks off a completely different understanding of a given environment. The minimal intervention aims at the perception of people, at the image of landscape in the head of the user.

When Peter Latz, for example, installed a small hedge garden in an old industrial bunker of a derelict steel mill, he used the minimal intervention method (Fig. 7). Landscape Park Duisburg Nord has a size of approximately 230 hectares, and in Germany we call this a large park. With his minimal interventions like that little precious hedge garden, Latz changed the perception of the brownfield. The minimal intervention is a very interesting and powerful tool, but of course you must first always perform a good site analysis in order to clearly identify the existing problem. Then you can decide if minimal intervention is the right method to solve the given problem.

Cultural recycling, a tool proposed by Peter Latz, is also very useful in order to keep the identity of a landscape. In this case you do not destroy the information of the existing material on the site. Many existing building elements on a former industrial site can only speak if you don't grind them into small pieces. For example, when conventionally recycling a concrete wall by dumping the material in a concrete mill, you get gravel out of it. But this gravel is not telling the story of the site anymore. For cultural recycling you would reuse big elements of concrete, allowing them to still tell their stories. That's also a good method, a narrative approach for keeping the identity of a place, if needed. It's about getting a deep understanding of the landscape, trying to explain the layers of meaning, combining the old with the new.

LAJ: Do you think that there is a difference between the public perception of transformed landscape elements and the professional approach to transformation? How shall a designer take the public perception and conception into account when professionally redesign a derelict landscape?

Weilacher:Of course, we have to take people's perception into account, because we are designing for the people as that is our duty as landscape architects. A designed landscape can only survive in the long term if people really accept and appreciate it. If you design landscapes that people do not appreciate, you will probably see a lot of vandalism and destruction. If people like their living environment, you will not have to spend a lot of money for maintenance because people will treat “their” landscape more carefully. Sustainable landscape architecture has to be closely connected to people's feelings, opinions and thoughts. Is there a difference between what the public feels and what the professionals see in designs? Yes, of course, because we have been educated professionally and, therefore, we have our professional filter of perception. Actually, each individual has a different filter of perception, formed by education and previous experiences. Therefore, perception is already a creative act, happening in our minds. I am looking at industrial landscapes not in the same way today compared to when I was a young student. I was taught to look at brownfields differently, but the general public still has a very much traditional view on these areas. That's a challenge in landscape architecture, because we have to spend a lot of time to understand peoples' perceptions, trying to figure out how to relate to this kind of perception.

LAJ: Right, so it's worth trying to find out how the public feels about transformed landscapes.

Weilacher:I think it's not only worth trying, it's absolutely necessary. Every good landscape architect has to take peoples' behaviour, their thoughts and wishes seriously into consideration. Very famous designers sometimes show a tendency to ignore people's opinions and in some instances they are very successful with this attitude. But I don't understand myself as a landscape architect who simply creates art for art's sake. I appreciate landscape architects who are creating projects that have a meaning and a true benefit for our human society. It should not be important to get a project on the cover of a glossy landscape magazine but to create something valuable for peoples' lives.

LAJ: But different people have different thoughts and it's difficult to take all this information into consideration.

Weilacher:That's right. This is one of the reasons why public projects in Germany sometimes take many years before they are realized. For example, the transformation process of a former railway yard in Berlin for the so-called “Park am Gleisdreieck” (Fig. 8-10) started in 1974 and the first part of the park was opened in 2011. It is a fantastic 26 hectares public park, designed by Loidl Landscape Architects in Berlin, which is used by many people of all ages, religions and cultural backgrounds. Especially the participation process took a lot of time. The citizens were invited to public workshops, exhibitions, discussions and so on in order to make sure that their ideas are thoroughly included in the design process. The aim of the designers was that the new park serves the community as successfully as possible. These participation processes take a lot of time. Normally you simply have to listen patiently to the people for quite a while until you gradually understand what moves them. From my point of view there is no fast way in a democratic planning system to get public projects done properly and accepted by the users. If you try to speed up the planning process, you are running a high risk of losing the acceptance and the support of the people.

That's a real challenge in Europe, because some environmental problems in our region should be solved a lot faster — global climate change is not waiting for us. In case of emergency, time is a very crucial factor, and our global environmental condition is getting more and more serious.

Sometimes, planning processes in Germany are simply too slow, but in the end it always shows that really sustainable projects need a lot of time to be developed in way that people accept and support the result. In a way I am really impressed by the speed of development in China, for example when it comes to necessary changes in public transportation towards more environmentally friendly systems. In Germany, these kinds of changes take many years because people don't want to be forced to make changes, but instead they want to be convinced to take the necessary measures.

To really convince people takes a lot of time.

LAJ: In your recent publications on landscape architecture you are referring frequently to the Anthropocene, discussing the relationship between manmade elements and natural elements. You also regularly quote J. B. Jackson: “Landscape is not a natural feature, but a synthetic space, a manmade system spaces superimposed on the face of the land”[1]. How do you integrate this concept into your current teaching and research?

Weilacher:When I came across this cuttingedge definition by J. B. Jackson for the first time, I was shocked by the statement that landscape is not about nature but about manmade spatial systems. Doing more research about this concept, I began to understand that this is a very intelligent way of defining landscape for several reasons. First, if you accept this definition of landscape, it's not necessary anymore to ask whether landscape architects should design cities, infrastructure, forests or fields. It simply doesn't matter, because if we accept that landscape is a manmade system of spaces, we are suddenly responsible for all of these aspects. This definition is asking for a very broad holistic understanding and opens up a huge potential. If people ask me, why a landscape architect talks about urbanism, infrastructure planning or agricultural systems, I simply point out the fact, that for me all these systems are just different variations of landscape — understood as a complex system of spaces. Due to this definition I feel legitimized to doing away with the traditional understanding of our profession that focused too much on the design of green spaces, gardens and parks.

In Germany we based our work in landscape architecture for a very long time on a very romantic definition of landscape. Landscape was something untouched and pristine. But we learned from Peter Latz that landscape is also brownfields. We learned from Dieter Kienast, that the nature of the city is not only green but grey. Being focused too much on a traditional understanding of nature and landscape limits your view and you might overlook the real challenges we have to take on. People had a big problem to accept industrial landscapes as landscapes, because they were too much fixed on a traditional definition of what landscape was all about. “Nature” is also such a very difficult term with a wide range of meaning, and we always have to explain what we really mean when we use this term. A friend and good colleague of mine stated that terms are like flashlights with which we illuminate the world. If we use them, they highlight specific aspects in our thinking. So, if you use the “wrong” flashlight, you will not see enough or only very specific aspects of our world. A good term is helping you to understand very important aspects of life. That's why repeatedly discussing and questioning the meaning of “l(fā)andscape” or “nature” is so important for me.

These days we talk a lot about the Anthropocene, the age of man, and it's said that this term asks for new concepts of thinking. But I am convinced that as landscape architects we always knew that we are working in an environment that is very much influenced by man. But I learned in the last years, that for many other professions this way of thinking is new, and it changes our basis for interdisciplinary cooperation. That's why we, the professors of landscape architecture in Germany, are concentrating in our current research on that aspect. As I said, I am curious and I would like to understand to what extent the awareness of the Anthropocene will change our profession.

LAJ: So what is the relationship between designing in the Anthropocene and the structuralistic approach in landscape architecture.

Weilacher:I don't know how familiar you are with structuralism, but the most important aspect is that landscape architecture is a language in which we communicate non-verbally with people about the quality of our global living environment. The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze pointed out that there are no structures outside that which is language, and therefore structure also plays an essential role in landscape architecture.

When our new students arrive at university I always remind them that they are not simply learning how to design spaces, or how to plant trees, hedges, flowers and so on, but they are learning a new language — the language of landscape and landscape architecture. Every language has some kind of structure, a set of relationships, in which the single words can change, but in such a way that the meaning of a narration will basically remain. Anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows that you cannot do a lot with vocabulary alone. You need to learn how to connect the single words in order to formulate a sentence, and the rules of connection reflect the structure. There is a specific hidden structure in every language. The structure of the Chinese language is very different from the structure of German or English. So again, if we accept that landscape design is a nonverbal language, then there has to be a structure that connects all design elements in an appropriate way. Students need to learn how to combine landscape elements, given a specific cultural, ecological or economical context, in order to create meaning. If you create a landscape design project, you always have to keep an eye on the context, not only with regard to the design vocabulary you use but also because there is always an existing story out there with its own narrative structure. You need to find out whether these two structures, the existing one and the new one, are compatible.

LAJ: You said recently that there is no porosity without structure in the urban fabric.

Weilacher:That's right. Yu Kongjian is a very important international landscape architect and his idea of the sponge city is really valuable, not only in China. The discussions about porosity, for example in connection with the idea of the sponge city, should be based on the discussion about structures. The structure of landscape is not just something physical but also something conceptual. Structure is established by communication — communication of matter, information and energy. Therefore, visual connections for example can play an important role in the landscape, establishing communicative links and therefore structure.

LAJ: Thank you so much for this interview!

Weilacher:You're welcome. It was a pleasure.

Sources of Figures:

Fig.1-10 ? Udo Weilacher.

Recording Collector: ZHU Yining