風景的建制及其問題

Institution of Landscape? Problems and investigations

風景是既定的還是變動不居的，是屬於自然的還是人工的？巧奪天工的人造風景隨著各種科技發展似乎讓風景無法抗拒地刻劃著人為的痕跡，或是相反地，就乾脆取代了自然風景。本文嘗試以「建制」一詞來指稱屬於既定的、人工的、可傳承的層面，因此追溯了現象學中胡塞爾與梅洛龐蒂關於建制概念的脈絡。藉此疏理，討論到風景的三種建制層面：意義、身體、物質。但三種建制呼應著風景的文化脈絡、認知基礎、組成結構。但透過建制，則是更深入地探索建制內部的崩解要素，這是從時間與空間所造成的差距所保存的。同時，風景建制的不穩定也就表現在風景的脆弱上，這反而能夠引導到當代問題化策略。風景的體驗要求更深刻的思維，而風景思維則可以採用問題化的方式，讓風景呼喚出更敏銳的存在經驗。

Is landscape established or changing, natural or artificial? In fact, the artificial landscape, accompanying the well-developed human technology, leaves no space for natural landscape to resist on the human characteristics, or even replaces the natural one. This paper follows the context of the concept “institution” given by Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty in order to designate three levels of institution of landscape: meaning, body, and matter. These three levels correspond subsequently to the cultural context, epistemic foundation, and constituent structure of landscape. Through the discourse on the institution, one can detect the destructive factor immanent in the landscape, conserved by the differentiation made by space and time. The instability of landscape is thus expressed in its fragility, which can lead to a strategy of problematisaion in contemporary times. The experience of landscape requires a more profound thinking, but the thinking of landscape can become problematic in so far the landscape calls out some more sensitive experiences.