‘Science’ and ‘Art’ in landscape architecture knowledge production

Sanda Lenzholzer
Landscape Architecture group, Wageningen University

P.O. box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

[email protected]

Abstract: Within landscape architecture, two main approaches exist in the discipline- one art and one
science related approach. Much criticism arose on outdoor space design that relies on either ‘art’ or
‘science’ approaches. This caused avoidance and underuse of many outdoor spaces. At the basis are two
problems. Firstly, landscape architecture is not an art and not a science. Because of this misconception,
there is a problem of epistemological kind, resulting in a lack of suitable methods to produce design
knowledge. To overcome the epistemological problem of divergent knowledge claims in art
(constructivist) and science (positivist) I suggest a pragmatic epistemological approach that combines the
different ways of knowledge production. Based on this, suitable research methods need to be developed,
mainly employing ‘research through design’ methods. These epistemological and methodological topics
need to be studied in depth and eventually taught in landscape architecture schools. Application of such
integrated design knowledge in practical landscape architecture projects will help to create outdoor
environments that do not suffer the shortcomings of ‘landscape architecture as art’ or ‘landscape
architecture as science’.

Keywords: Landscape Architecture, Science, Art, Epistemology, Knowledge production

and do not support human use and appropriation.

1 Introduction of the problem This leads to underuse- an effect that we especially
Within landscape architecture, the roles of art and cannot afford in the ever growing urban environments
science and their repercussions on both, the (Lenzholzer 2008). Typical problems arising from this
production of new disciplinary knowledge and underuse in urban landscapes, for instance, are a lack
education, were repeatedly addressed (Baines and of social control, decline of real estate values in
Hooftman 1994, Crewe and Forsyth 2003). Some neighbourhoods and on the larger scale ‘cities of long
discussions revolve around landscape architecture ways’ (causing air pollution and excessive CO2
being either art (Treib 1993, Weilacher 1999) or production).
science(MacHarg 1969, Rose 1939). Interestingly, also On first sight, such problems seem to be solvable
in the call for contributions to this conference by landscape architecture with either aesthetically
‘Landscape and Imagination’, landscape architecture is appealing ‘artistic’ design or with good civil
seen as an art. engineering solutions (e.g. water, climate, traffic).
The attitudes amongst professionals about However, already in the past, the separate solution
landscape architecture being either an art or a science approaches- the ‘artistic’ and the engineering,
have brought about designed environments that show approaches alone applied by landscape architects have
manifold problems. I will sketch these problems first. shown to be insufficient.
Then I will elaborate on the underlying theoretical and The ‘artistic’ solution approaches have been
epistemological problems. criticized for several reasons. Often, these solutions
were considered a mere ‘aesthetization’ of outdoor
1.1 Practical problems spaces. Also terms such as ‘window- dressing’, ‘face-
Currently, many outdoor environments in cities and lifting’ or ‘Verhübschung’ frequently occurred in these
landscapes are designed in ways that are unattractive criticisms. These approaches led to the design of
spaces that people sometimes did not ‘dare’ to use
because they were too neat or too sleek. Another Icon’ (example, see fig. 1) that was designed to be
‘artistic’ approach in the design of outdoor spaces lead looked at, but not to be used (de Josselin de Jong
to places that were a ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ or ‘Design 2004, Hajer and Reijndorp 2001, Kesser 1984,
Schneider 2003). Such environments were often
criticized as mere self-fulfilment or ‘ego-tripping’ of
the designers without showing respect to the users.
The roots of these approaches are generally
situated in a tradition of educating landscape
architects in schools with a Beaux Arts background
(Treib 1993). In these schools, the inspiration of
landscape architecture design was mainly derived from
the visual arts such as painting, sculpture and later also
land art (Weilacher 1999). Within this context, the
young landscape architects are educated as ‘artists’
that design from their own personal vision on the
world.
The ‘civil engineering’ solution approaches have
also been widely criticized for even longer times. The
idea of landscape architecture as engineering relies on
a positivistic concept- the idea that the environment
consists of purely physical entities with functional
relations. The most prominent outcome of this
approach, being modernist, functionalistic landscape
and urban design, is inspired by the idea of the
environment as a machine and as a product of rational
engineering. Consequently, functionalistic,
mechanistic spaces in cities and landscapes are
designed (example, see fig. 2). This has led to severe
Fig. 1: Example of a‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ public space, criticism amongst the public who often perceives
Diagonal Mar Park, Barcelona 1 these spaces to be sterile, inhuman and ‘unexciting’
(Ellin 1996, Marshall 2009). The roots of such
1http://www.google.nl/imgres?q=schouwburg+Almere&u approaches are mostly found in schools that have a
m=1&hl=en&biw=1152&bih=596&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&t background in technical and natural sciences and
bnid=UatJIhhAspyzVM:&imgrefurl=http://straatkaart.nl/ young designers perceive themselves predominantly as
1315TJ-Traverse/media_fotos/kunstencentrum-kunstlinie- ‘engineers’.
schouwburg-almere-
A9u/&docid=Y6rEUqK69SLxYM&imgurl=http://static.p
anoramio.com/photos/original/12473349.jpg&w=3648&h
=2432&ei=IHSeULKyCrCA0AXmzYC4DA&zoom=1&ia
ct=hc&vpx=563&vpy=188&dur=4776&hovh=183&hovw
=275&tx=144&ty=117&sig=114559843143843349604&pa
ge=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=215&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:
429,r:2,s:0,i:76
2http://www.google.nl/imgres?q=park+Barcelona+miralle
s&um=1&hl=en&biw=1152&bih=596&tbs=isz:l&tbm=is
ch&tbnid=p3Fpyfqk21XuSM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flic
kriver.com/photos/roryrory/3313653205/&docid=VIXP9
fGdZR4O8M&imgurl=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3149 Fig. 2: Example of functionalist sterile public space, Theatre
/3313653205_c4a10c3ba8_o.jpg&w=960&h=1280&ei=_3 square Almere 2
SeUOLxCYfV0QWAw4HwDA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=
402&sig=114559843143843349604&page=4&tbnh=137&t Unfortunately, these separate approaches
bnw=107&start=59&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:55,s:20,i:299 continuously show a ‘pendulum movement’ in their
&tx=58&ty=100 application. In the Netherlands, but also in other
countries, this has manifested very clearly in landscape Although there are important commonalities
architecture. The first beginnings of landscape design between landscape architecture and art, and landscape
at the end of the 19th century were influenced by the architecture and science, the misconceptions that
Beaux Arts and soon replaced with the first landscape architecture is art or is science lead to
functionalist, modernist approaches. These fell into epistemological conflicts. Whereas art is situated in a
disgrace and in the 1980s the artistic and in the 1990s constructivist knowledge claim (Leavy 2008, Sullivan
a revival of the modernistic movement took place 2010), science is situated in a positivist knowledge
(Lenzholzer 2008). Such ‘pendulum movements’ are claim (Creswell 2009). The position of landscape
detrimental to the design of outdoor environments, architecture, however, was never clearly defined.
because all the related problems are only partly solved,
and especially rather replaced by new problems.
An analysis of the criticisms on the two design
approaches basically often reveal the solutions already.
The criticisms are about a lack of something- of
‘incomprehensibility’, ‘usability’, of ‘excitement’ and
‘humanness’. All of them are lacks of properties that
can be fulfilled by using a combination of the two
approaches because they complement each other. An
‘artistic’ approach can enhance the excitement,
aesthetic and sensory qualities and a ‘scientific’
approach the usability, order and comprehensibility.
The general solution to such rather practical issue
seems thus clear: an integration of the two landscape
architecture design approaches of ‘art’ and ‘science’. Fig. 3 Overview of problems

1.2 Theoretical problems Consequently, most landscape architecture schools

Consequently, one could argue that the solution do not have a critical stance towards their
simply lies in integrating the artist and the scientist in epistemological context. This can be noticed in the
the person of the landscape architect. But this is a nonexistence of discussions on this in the disciplinary
clear misconception- a landscape architect is neither literature. As an effect, the landscape architecture
an artist nor a scientist. schools do not discuss their knowledge claims and
Artists work in a different context where they are within the knowledge claim, the way how their
commonly free to choose their concepts and ideas, disciplinary body of knowledge is produced. There is
their methods, ways of representation and execution. no discourse on the question if the knowledge claims
They are often not obliged to serve a community or from art or science are appropriate to the
commissioner. Landscape architects, in contrast to interdisciplinary nature of landscape architecture and
that, cannot operate freely. They are bound to a its knowledge production. As an effect of this
programme, a site, a community and commissioners. ‘vacuum’, many landscape architecture schools do not
They do not have ‘artistic freedom’. Therefore, the actively participate in the production of new academic
claim in the call for this conference ‘Landscape and knowledge. This leads to a fundamental problem at
Imagination’ (call section 5), that landscape the core of the discipline of landscape architecture: a
architecture is art, is questionable. Nevertheless, there lack of methods to produce new landscape
are also important commonalities that support the architectural knowledge (Deming and Swaffield 2011,
integration of art into landscape architecture methods Lenzholzer et al. 2011, see fig. 3).
(see section 2.2)
Scientists work on describing the world’s
phenomena and sometimes try to simulate or predict 2 Proposal for integrated knowledge
the behaviours of these phenomena. Landscape
architecture, however, is not about describing the production through designing
world phenomena, but about planning and making
new phenomena in the environment. But also here, 2.1 Integration via a pragmatic knowledge
important commonalities exist that support the claim
integration of science into landscape architecture In order to stimulate more active knowledge
methods (see section 2.3) production in landscape architecture, firstly, the two
separate knowledge claims that many schools work in, Such artistic methods can help to find new problems
should be integrated into a ‘pragmatic’ knowledge for landscape architects, and also help to come up
claim (Creswell 2009) knowledge claim. Within such a with original and innovative solutions. Such methods
pragmatic knowledge claim researching landscape are thus specifically valuable in the phases of research
architects need to look into a broader variety of through designing when problems, concepts, ideas
epistemological positions and the related research need to be identified and new and original form needs
methods and evaluation criteria. This way, they can to be generated.
find the knowledge claims that suit their research
topics and related questions best.
Many of these research questions relate to the 2.2 Meaning of scientific research methods
processes or outcome of design activity: design As opposed to the arts, most sciences are descriptive
products, either site related or more generic and thus do not generate new forms or artefacts. But
prototypes or design guidelines. To generate such within the engineering sciences, such creation of
design knowledge, the active employment of designing forms and artefacts is actually the case and therefore,
in the research process is necessary (Lenzholzer 2010, these sciences can provide useful research methods
p.111-120). for landscape architecture.
Therefore I suggest the use methods of ‘research In the engineering sciences a positivist knowledge
through designing’ whose suitability and usefulness claim is prominent, which is reflected in the writings
has recently gained first attention within landscape of important engineering theorists (Simon 1996, Eder
architecture academia (Duchhart 2011, Jonge 2009, 1995, Hubka and Eder 1987). Mostly, hypothetico-
Lenzholzer 2010, Lenzholzer et al. 2011). To define deductive methods are used. These methods normally
such research through designing methods for consist of several steps. Initially, this encompasses
landscape architecture, it is useful to turn to the generating a design- either in 1:1 mock- ups,
disciplines of art and of sciences (and their respective prototypes, in scale models or as a virtual model. The
knowledge claims constructivism and positivism) to design acts as a hypothesis or conjecture which is
examine related methods in these contexts. subjected to testing (Zeisel 2006). The tests can
consist of using the prototypes or mock- ups in
2.2 Meaning of research through experimental setups. Typical examples are, for
artistic methods instance, the testing of materials by exposing them to
Within the arts the writings of Donald Schön on certain outdoor environments or by testing car,
“knowing in action” and “reflection in action” (Schön airplane or building models in wind tunnels. Recently,
1987) were important to shape the ideas what research the trends in testing methods have shifted towards
through artistic activities can be. Schön significantly computer simulations where numerical data are
inspired artists and art theorists. Eventually frequently translated into visual representations. The
Christopher Frayling suggested that many artists and tests results are mostly evaluated with quantitative
designers do “research through art and design” criteria. Such research through designing processes are
(Frayling 1993) to generate new knowledge. Later, not only common in academia, but also in research
others refined these ideas and gave many different and development departments in industry (Breen
examples of how art practice can contribute to the
2002).
generation of new knowledge (Sullivan 2010), (Leavy
The process of designing in engineering often has
2008), (Gray and Malins 2004). They all emphasized
that research through artistic practice is based on a sequence of designing, testing, evaluating, refining/
formulating questions that are relevant for knowledge adapting the design and submitting the design to
production in the field, by identifying suitable practice another circle of testing. Such processes are normally
based methods and finding answers or drawing clear repeated until a ‘satisficing’ result is achieved.
conclusions. Especially the ‘generative strength’ of art ‘Satisficing’ means that- given the context of many
practice contributing to knowledge innovation, constraints- for a design, a design can never be
through the generation of forms and artefacts was optimal for all aspects, and can only be optimized for
pointed out as opposed to more descriptive or the aspect tested to a certain extent (Simon 1996).
analytical types of research (Barrett 2006). But also the These science- inspired hypothetico- deductive
ability to identify and formulate new problems seems methods in engineering science predominantly
special for artists (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi 1976). provide numerical and rather objective information
This continuous quest for original form and with a focus on testing measurable parameters such as
innovation in ‘artistic research’ can be useful for functionality.
research through designing in landscape architecture. The important qualities of these methods for
research through designing in landscape architecture approaches and the functionality of engineering
lie in the objectiveness of testing and evaluating. approaches.
These scientific methods can greatly enhance the This will make outdoor spaces more attractive and
validity and reliability (and thus also credibility) of the used. This way, the unnecessary waste of space in
new knowledge about artefacts or designed space. cities and landscapes can be put to a halt. In the
Such methods including scientific physical or virtual example of the design of urban landscapes, this will
simulations can be used to test landscape architectural contribute to solve the problems mentioned earlier:
design proposals. These methods can- apart from making outdoor spaces more safe and preventing
testing designs for real sites- also be used to test economic losses in real estate due keeping the
prototypes of spatial models that can then serve as environment attractive. And last but not least, an
generalizable design guidelines. intensely used city is a city of ‘short ways’ that creates
less motorized traffic and diminishes problems like
pollution and CO2 production. So, attractive and well
3 CONCLUSION used space eventually contributes to a more
The qualities of art and engineering science methods sustainable environment.
in research through designing are thus But this requires major changes in landscape
complementary. To understand these qualities and architecture research and education in the first place-
their respective approaches, it is important to an exciting challenge for landscape architecture
understand the major epistemological and educators.
methodological differences for researching landscape
architects.
Therefore, the knowledge claims and their R EFERENCES:
respective methods and how to combine them in a Baines B, Hooftman E, 1994. Learning where to draw
pragmatic approach have to be taught to the new the line: landscape architecture at Edinburgh
generation of researching landscape architects. College of Art/Heriot Watt University. Landscape
In research through designing processes with a Urban Plan 30(3):179-185.
pragmatic approach, the methods from art and science Barrett E, 2006. Foucault's 'What is an Author':
can be used in certain phases of the research through towards a critical discourse of practice as research.
designing process so that they complement each Working Papers in Art and Design (4).
other. For instance, the generative strength of artistic Breen J, 2002. Design driven research. In: de Jong T
ideas can help to invent new possible landscapes. M and van der Voordt DJM. (eds), Ways to study
These can then be tested with the rigid methods of a and research urban, architectural and technical
scientific approach, for instance on their functionality. design. University Press, Delft, Delft pp. 137-146.
Subsequently, the best solutions can then be evaluated Creswell JW, 2009. Research design : qualitative,
and adjusted according to aesthetic parameters with quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage,
artistic methods. And possibly the outcome will Los Angeles, CA.
Crewe K, Forsyth A, 2003. LandSCAPES: A
undergo a new round of further development and
Typology of Approaches to Landscape
testing.
Architecture. Landscape Journal 22(1):17.
However, to make such research methods de Josselin de Jong F, 2004. External space is given
‘teachable’, a lot of research still needs to be done and botox treatment. In: Harsema H (ed), Landscape
especially educational experiments with research architecture and town planning yearbook 01-03.
through designing on MSc and PhD level need to be Thoth, Bussum, pp. 148-157.
conducted. Deming EM, Swaffield S, 2011. Landscape
Eventually, when such combined methods have Architecture Research, Inquiry, Strategy, Design.
been developed, these methods will produce more John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , New Jersey.
integrated design knowledge that can then be Duchhart I, 2011. Annotated Bibliography on
disseminated. This will thus firstly happen in 'Research by design' (Ontwerpend Onderzoek).
education and will later hopefully be translated into Wageningen University, Wageningen.
design practice by a new generation of landscape Eder WE, 1995. Viewpoint Engineering design - art,
architects. science and relationships. Design Studies
When this translation into built environments has 16(1):117-127.
taken place, outdoor spaces can be designed in a way Ellin N, 1996. Postmodern Urbanism. Princeton
that combines the good qualities of each approach- architectural press, New York.
the originality and sensory appeal of artistic Frayling C, 1993. Research in Art and Design. Royal
 College of Art Research Papers 1(1):5. CELA conference. Los Angeles.
Getzels JW, Csikszentmihalyi M, 1976. The creative MacHarg IL, 1969. Design with nature. Natural
vision: a longitudinal study of problem finding in History Press, New York.
art. Wiley, New York. Marshall S, 2009. Cities design & evolution.
Gray C, Malins J, 2004. Visualizing research: a guide Routledge, London.
to the research process in art and design. Ashgate, Rose JC, 1939. Why not try science? In: Treib M (ed),
Aldershot. Modern Landscape Architecture: A critical review.
Hajer M, Reijndorp A, 2001. In search of new public MIT Press, Cambridge MA. pp. 76-82.
domain : analysis and strategy. NAi Publishers, Schneider J, 2003. Barcelona Plätze [BArcelona
Rotterdam. Squares]. In: Selle K (ed), Was ist los mit dem
Hubka V, Eder EW, 1987. A scientific approach to öffentlichen Raum? [What's going on with public
engineering design. Design Studies 8(3):123-137. space?], AGB Bericht. Dortmunder Vertrieb für
Jonge J de, 2009. Landscape architecture between Bau- und Planungsliteratur, Dortmund.
politics and science: an integrative perspective on Schön DA, 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner.
landscape planning and design in the network Jossey- Bass/ Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
society. PhD thesis Wageningen University. Simon HA, 1996. The sciences of the artificial. The
Kesser C, 1984. Plätze- Zeichen der Gemeinschaft. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[Urban squares- signifiers of community]. Sullivan G, 2010. Art practice as research: inquiry in
Archithese 4(24). visual arts. SAGE, Los Angeles.
Leavy P, 2008. Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Treib M, 1993. Axioms for a modern landscpae
Research Practice. Guilford Press, New York. architecture. In: Treib M. (ed), Modern Landscape
Lenzholzer S, 2008. A city is not a building- Architecture: A critical review. MIT Press,
architectural concepts for public square design in Cambridge MA, pp. 36- 67.
Dutch urban climate contexts. JoLA (5):44-55. Weilacher U, 1999. Between landscape architecture
Lenzholzer S, 2010. Designing atmospheres: research and land art. Birkhäuser, Basel.
and design for thermal comfort in Dutch urban Zeisel J, 2006. Inquiry by design :
squares. PhD thesis Wageningen University. environment/behavior/neuroscience in
Lenzholzer S, Poerschke U, Staub A, Pihlak M, architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning.
Cooper J, 2011. Research through designing? , W.W. Norton & Company, New York.