Humphry Repton。革命时代的景观设计

IF 0.1 3区 艺术学 0 ARCHITECTURE STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF GARDENS & DESIGNED LANDSCAPES Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/14601176.2021.1982568
John Dixon Hunt
{"title":"Humphry Repton。革命时代的景观设计","authors":"John Dixon Hunt","doi":"10.1080/14601176.2021.1982568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This book’s first chapter in called ‘Introducing Humphry Repton’, which is a slight surprise, until some reader gets into it and realizes, first, how much Repton differed from his (perhaps more famous) predecessor — ‘Capability’ Brown — and then is faced with Tom Williamson’s question, ‘Why another Book on Repton?” He acknowledges, rightly, two of the most recent and crucial books by Stephen Daniels (1999) and Alain Rogger (2007), but then in later chapters enlarges upon that introductory one by explaining how his own approach adds substantial and extremely welcome insights and directions. Those chapters focus on the shape of Repon’s career, the working methods of his business, central notions of ‘Character’ and ‘Appropriation’, an emphasis in ‘Domesticity’ and ‘Cheerfulness’, and finally on the influence of contemporaries and social change that shaped his style. Even for those who know Repton may find the Introduction, and its ‘Epilogue: Repton’s Legacy’, useful ways to enter into this book. They bracket an authoritative and often fresh examination of his career and its contributions to national landscape history (and, briefly, to that legacy in the USA). If individual aspects of his proposals did not achieve wide acceptance, it was nonetheless that his ‘overall style’ was well suited to the needs of contemporary society, to which he brought ‘hard work’ and exceptional intelligence. He began his professional practice at a point when attitudes and approaches to landscape were ‘particularly suited to the times’ and to his abilities. Yet, as the ‘Epilogue’ argues, his work ‘in many respects did not fully emerge until the twentieth century’ — Williamson notes Denys Lasdun’s perception that his influence was apparent in Williamson’s own campus at the University of East Anglia. (One wonders whether that Reptonian influence and emphasis might tempt Williamson into undertaking another book that studies this legacy). It is a daunting book to review, in part because Williamson largely refuses to contribute to the standard and often too generalized narrative of 18century English gardening; to this he brings a widely researched enquiry into actual sites, either in the Red Books or into whatever original designs have survived: hence an image of Sheringham Hall, designed by the Repton father and son in 1820, or the remains of a grotto or ‘Souterrein’ that remains in an educational establishment at Ashridge. One of Williamson’s more useful remarks is to note that we cannot take refuge in our usual safe havens. He cautions on several occasions against taking on too readily connections between Repton’s style and his clients, for example, or against ‘oversimplified stories’ and approaches that are too closely focused on one approach. So while he properly praises Daniel’s approach from ‘historical and geographical geography’, or Rogger’s art historical discussion of the Red Books (notably their concern with representation and Repton’s concern with what he wanted to promote — his ‘discourses’), Williamson wants to build upon and extend their contributions. Repton himself noted that — it is the concluding sentence in Williamson’s book — ‘It is rather upon my opinions in writing, than on the partial and imperfect manner in which my plans have sometimes been executed, that I wish my Fame to be established’. That his actual work is sometimes hard to identify, in part because he worked early on landscapes that Brown had originally designed and later on small villas where its gardens no longer","PeriodicalId":53992,"journal":{"name":"STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF GARDENS & DESIGNED LANDSCAPES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Humphry Repton. Landscape Design in an Age of Revolution\",\"authors\":\"John Dixon Hunt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14601176.2021.1982568\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This book’s first chapter in called ‘Introducing Humphry Repton’, which is a slight surprise, until some reader gets into it and realizes, first, how much Repton differed from his (perhaps more famous) predecessor — ‘Capability’ Brown — and then is faced with Tom Williamson’s question, ‘Why another Book on Repton?” He acknowledges, rightly, two of the most recent and crucial books by Stephen Daniels (1999) and Alain Rogger (2007), but then in later chapters enlarges upon that introductory one by explaining how his own approach adds substantial and extremely welcome insights and directions. Those chapters focus on the shape of Repon’s career, the working methods of his business, central notions of ‘Character’ and ‘Appropriation’, an emphasis in ‘Domesticity’ and ‘Cheerfulness’, and finally on the influence of contemporaries and social change that shaped his style. Even for those who know Repton may find the Introduction, and its ‘Epilogue: Repton’s Legacy’, useful ways to enter into this book. They bracket an authoritative and often fresh examination of his career and its contributions to national landscape history (and, briefly, to that legacy in the USA). If individual aspects of his proposals did not achieve wide acceptance, it was nonetheless that his ‘overall style’ was well suited to the needs of contemporary society, to which he brought ‘hard work’ and exceptional intelligence. He began his professional practice at a point when attitudes and approaches to landscape were ‘particularly suited to the times’ and to his abilities. Yet, as the ‘Epilogue’ argues, his work ‘in many respects did not fully emerge until the twentieth century’ — Williamson notes Denys Lasdun’s perception that his influence was apparent in Williamson’s own campus at the University of East Anglia. (One wonders whether that Reptonian influence and emphasis might tempt Williamson into undertaking another book that studies this legacy). It is a daunting book to review, in part because Williamson largely refuses to contribute to the standard and often too generalized narrative of 18century English gardening; to this he brings a widely researched enquiry into actual sites, either in the Red Books or into whatever original designs have survived: hence an image of Sheringham Hall, designed by the Repton father and son in 1820, or the remains of a grotto or ‘Souterrein’ that remains in an educational establishment at Ashridge. One of Williamson’s more useful remarks is to note that we cannot take refuge in our usual safe havens. He cautions on several occasions against taking on too readily connections between Repton’s style and his clients, for example, or against ‘oversimplified stories’ and approaches that are too closely focused on one approach. So while he properly praises Daniel’s approach from ‘historical and geographical geography’, or Rogger’s art historical discussion of the Red Books (notably their concern with representation and Repton’s concern with what he wanted to promote — his ‘discourses’), Williamson wants to build upon and extend their contributions. Repton himself noted that — it is the concluding sentence in Williamson’s book — ‘It is rather upon my opinions in writing, than on the partial and imperfect manner in which my plans have sometimes been executed, that I wish my Fame to be established’. That his actual work is sometimes hard to identify, in part because he worked early on landscapes that Brown had originally designed and later on small villas where its gardens no longer\",\"PeriodicalId\":53992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF GARDENS & DESIGNED LANDSCAPES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF GARDENS & DESIGNED LANDSCAPES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14601176.2021.1982568\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF GARDENS & DESIGNED LANDSCAPES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14601176.2021.1982568","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这本书的第一章叫做“介绍Humphry Repton”,这是一个小小的惊喜,直到一些读者进入其中,意识到,首先,雷普顿与他的(也许更著名的)前任“Capability”Brown有多大的不同,然后面临着Tom Williamson的问题,“为什么要再写一本关于雷普顿的书?”他正确地承认了斯蒂芬·丹尼尔斯(1999年)和阿兰·罗格(2007年)的两本最新和最重要的书,但在随后的章节中,他解释了自己的方法如何增加了实质性的、非常受欢迎的见解和方向,从而扩大了这本介绍性的书。这些章节聚焦于雷彭的职业生涯形态、他的商业工作方法、“性格”和“挪用”的核心概念、对“家庭性”和“快乐”的强调,以及最终塑造他风格的同时代人和社会变革的影响。即使是那些了解雷普顿的人,也可能会发现《引言》及其“结语:雷普顿的遗产”是进入这本书的有用方式。他们对他的职业生涯及其对国家景观史的贡献(以及对美国遗产的贡献)进行了权威且经常是全新的审视。如果说他的建议的各个方面没有得到广泛接受,那就是他的“整体风格”非常适合当代社会的需求,他为当代社会带来了“辛勤的工作”和非凡的智慧。他在对景观的态度和方法“特别适合时代”和他的能力的时候开始了他的专业实践。然而,正如《后记》所说,他的作品“在许多方面直到20世纪才完全出现”——威廉姆森指出,丹尼斯·拉斯顿认为他的影响在威廉姆森自己的东安格利亚大学校园里是显而易见的。(人们想知道,雷普顿的影响和强调是否会诱使威廉姆森写下另一本研究这一遗产的书)。这是一本令人生畏的书,部分原因是威廉姆森在很大程度上拒绝为18世纪英国园艺的标准叙事做出贡献,而且往往过于笼统;为此,他对红皮书中的实际遗址或现存的任何原始设计进行了广泛的研究:因此,雷普顿父子于1820年设计了谢林厄姆大厅的图像,或者阿什里奇一所教育机构中的石窟或“苏特林”的遗迹。威廉姆森的一句更有用的话是,我们不能在我们通常的避风港避难。例如,他曾多次警告不要在雷普顿的风格和他的客户之间建立太容易的联系,也不要“过于简单化的故事”和过于专注于一种方法的方法。因此,尽管他恰当地赞扬了丹尼尔从“历史和地理地理”出发的方法,或罗杰对红皮书的艺术历史讨论(尤其是他们对表现的关注,以及雷普顿对他想要推广的东西——他的“话语”的关注),但威廉姆森希望在他们的贡献基础上再接再厉。雷普顿本人指出——这是威廉姆森书中的最后一句话——“我希望我的名声能够建立起来,与其说是基于我的书面意见,不如说是基于有时我的计划执行的不完整和不完美的方式”。他的实际工作有时很难确定,部分原因是他早期从事布朗最初设计的景观设计,后来又从事花园不再的小别墅设计
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Humphry Repton. Landscape Design in an Age of Revolution
This book’s first chapter in called ‘Introducing Humphry Repton’, which is a slight surprise, until some reader gets into it and realizes, first, how much Repton differed from his (perhaps more famous) predecessor — ‘Capability’ Brown — and then is faced with Tom Williamson’s question, ‘Why another Book on Repton?” He acknowledges, rightly, two of the most recent and crucial books by Stephen Daniels (1999) and Alain Rogger (2007), but then in later chapters enlarges upon that introductory one by explaining how his own approach adds substantial and extremely welcome insights and directions. Those chapters focus on the shape of Repon’s career, the working methods of his business, central notions of ‘Character’ and ‘Appropriation’, an emphasis in ‘Domesticity’ and ‘Cheerfulness’, and finally on the influence of contemporaries and social change that shaped his style. Even for those who know Repton may find the Introduction, and its ‘Epilogue: Repton’s Legacy’, useful ways to enter into this book. They bracket an authoritative and often fresh examination of his career and its contributions to national landscape history (and, briefly, to that legacy in the USA). If individual aspects of his proposals did not achieve wide acceptance, it was nonetheless that his ‘overall style’ was well suited to the needs of contemporary society, to which he brought ‘hard work’ and exceptional intelligence. He began his professional practice at a point when attitudes and approaches to landscape were ‘particularly suited to the times’ and to his abilities. Yet, as the ‘Epilogue’ argues, his work ‘in many respects did not fully emerge until the twentieth century’ — Williamson notes Denys Lasdun’s perception that his influence was apparent in Williamson’s own campus at the University of East Anglia. (One wonders whether that Reptonian influence and emphasis might tempt Williamson into undertaking another book that studies this legacy). It is a daunting book to review, in part because Williamson largely refuses to contribute to the standard and often too generalized narrative of 18century English gardening; to this he brings a widely researched enquiry into actual sites, either in the Red Books or into whatever original designs have survived: hence an image of Sheringham Hall, designed by the Repton father and son in 1820, or the remains of a grotto or ‘Souterrein’ that remains in an educational establishment at Ashridge. One of Williamson’s more useful remarks is to note that we cannot take refuge in our usual safe havens. He cautions on several occasions against taking on too readily connections between Repton’s style and his clients, for example, or against ‘oversimplified stories’ and approaches that are too closely focused on one approach. So while he properly praises Daniel’s approach from ‘historical and geographical geography’, or Rogger’s art historical discussion of the Red Books (notably their concern with representation and Repton’s concern with what he wanted to promote — his ‘discourses’), Williamson wants to build upon and extend their contributions. Repton himself noted that — it is the concluding sentence in Williamson’s book — ‘It is rather upon my opinions in writing, than on the partial and imperfect manner in which my plans have sometimes been executed, that I wish my Fame to be established’. That his actual work is sometimes hard to identify, in part because he worked early on landscapes that Brown had originally designed and later on small villas where its gardens no longer
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes addresses itself to readers with a serious interest in the subject, and is now established as the main place in which to publish scholarly work on all aspects of garden history. The journal"s main emphasis is on detailed and documentary analysis of specific sites in all parts of the world, with focus on both design and reception. The journal is also specifically interested in garden and landscape history as part of wider contexts such as social and cultural history and geography, aesthetics, technology, (most obviously horticulture), presentation and conservation.
期刊最新文献
Philosophy of gardening and a sense for scents. An environmental ethics perspective Making the scent of the perfumer’s garden: imperial and common plague remedies used during the Antonine Plague (approx. 165–190 CE) Gardens as spaces of physical and mental well-being in ancient literature Garden Cities of yesterday, roots of urban sustainability? Radical histories of times of revolution and their legacies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1