This special issue journal brings together, for the first time, articles that study the didactic landscape as an artefact from broad spatial perspectives with a particular emphasis on the nineteenth-century to the present. The collection originated with a group of design historians who have a common interest in exploring meaning in the design of institutional landscapes. The essays examine how the parks or gardens of institutions express and reinforce their function and agendas. By its very definition, an institution has power over the spaces it inhabits and expresses distinct messages to the users of those spaces—it is a didactic space. The six articles define and explore a typology of institutional gardens and designed landscapes, conceived and designed with agendas, explicit or implicit, to advise, educate or moralise. Scholarship on the designs of institutional spaces is chiefly centred on architecture and has overlooked the role of the garden or landscape in the functioning and experience of the institution. A spatial understanding of an institutional building has enabled a study of institutional power and politics. A study of the institutional garden and landscape expands this knowledge to include the role of nature and the outdoors in its design and uses. While the genealogy of institutional landscapes with their functional and metaphorical allusions to divine order and political power has been traced to antiquity, the institutional landscape, a didactic space, which became more visible and diverse with the growth of social and political institutions such as museums, asylums and factories in the nineteenth century, has not so far been examined comparatively and culturally. These essays contribute to the scholarly literature investigating meaning in landscape and garden design which has proliferated since the 1980s, stimulated by a body of work within cultural and historical geography, landscape archaeology and history. The collection also responds to more recent research from a variety of disciplines, which has extended knowledge of nonelite gardens as ‘sites of cultural contact’. Within this scholarship of multiple perspectives, debates about the relationships between landscape, power and politics loom large, for as Gailing and Leibenath have recently argued, citing Kenneth Olwig, a landscape does not just express a polity’s values, conventions, customs and practices, but above all it is an expression of hegemonic power. Readers of these essays will be very familiar with examples of those in power using landscape design to impose their authority—from the processional routes of antiquity to Louis XIV’s gardens at Versailles, to General Motors' corporate landscape in Detroit. These heroic didactic landscapes are outspoken in communicating their power. To understand the more nuanced layers of meaning contained within the institutional gardens and parks discussed in this special issue, the authors have found not only Michel Foucault’s work on institutional power helpful, but also his theory of gardens as ‘heterotopias’. Foucault’s ideas on heterotopia, discussed in a lecture in 1967 and finally published in 1984 shortly after his death, have been enthusiastically embraced by scholars interested in the contradictions inherent in the spaces of institutions. However, his notion of a garden as ‘a sort of happy universalising heterotopia since the beginnings of antiquity’ has been less explored. Two of the essays presented here have linked the idea of didactic to Foucault’s idea of the garden as a heterotopia, to understand our underlying and time-honoured responses to the particular ways that design, objects and planting ‘superimpose meanings’. Marc Trieb in his essay ‘Must Landscapes Mean’ (1995) identifies five ‘roughly framed’ approaches to landscape design, meaning and significance

中文翻译：

---

教学景观

这本特刊首次汇集了从广阔的空间角度研究作为人工制品的教学景观的文章，特别强调了 19 世纪至今。该系列起源于一群设计历史学家，他们对探索制度景观设计的意义有着共同的兴趣。这些文章考察了机构的公园或花园如何表达和强化它们的功能和议程。根据其定义，一个机构对其居住的空间拥有权力，并向这些空间的用户表达不同的信息——它是一个教学空间。这六篇文章定义和探索了机构花园和设计景观的类型学，构思和设计有明确或隐含的议程，以提供建议、教育或道德。关于机构空间设计的学术研究主要集中在建筑上，而忽略了花园或景观在机构功能和体验中的作用。对制度建筑的空间理解使我们能够研究制度权力和政治。对机构花园和景观的研究扩展了这一知识，包括自然和户外在其设计和使用中的作用。虽然制度景观的谱系及其对神圣秩序和政治权力的功能性和隐喻性暗示可以追溯到古代，但制度景观是一个教学空间，随着博物馆等社会和政治机构的发展变得更加明显和多样化，十九世纪的庇护所和工厂，到目前为止还没有进行比较和文化研究。这些论文为研究景观和园林设计意义的学术文献做出了贡献，自 1980 年代以来，受到文化和历史地理学、景观考古学和历史领域的一系列工作的刺激，该文献激增。该系列还响应了来自各种学科的最新研究，这些研究扩展了非精英花园作为“文化接触场所”的知识。在这种多视角的学术研究中，关于景观、权力和政治之间关系的争论愈演愈烈，因为正如 Gailing 和 Leibenath 最近引用 Kenneth Olwig 所说，景观不仅表达了一个政体的价值观、惯例、习俗和实践，而且最重要的是，它是霸权的体现。这些文章的读者将非常熟悉当权者使用景观设计来强加他们的权威的例子——从古代的游行路线到路易十四在凡尔赛的花园，再到通用汽车在底特律的企业景观。这些英勇的说教风景在传达他们的力量时直言不讳。为了理解本期特刊中讨论的制度花园和公园中包含的更微妙的含义层次，作者发现不仅米歇尔福柯关于制度权力的工作有帮助，而且他的花园理论也被认为是“异托邦”。福柯在 1967 年的一次演讲中讨论并最终于 1984 年在他去世后不久发表的异托邦思想受到对制度空间内在矛盾感兴趣的学者的热烈欢迎。然而，他将花园视为“自古代开始以来一种快乐的普遍化的异托邦”的概念很少被探索。这里展示的两篇文章将说教的思想与福柯将花园视为异托邦的思想联系起来，以了解我们对设计、对象和种植“叠加意义”的特定方式的潜在和历史悠久的反应。Marc Trieb 在他的论文“Must Landscapes Mean”（1995 年）中确定了景观设计、意义和意义的五种“大致框架”方法 了解我们对设计、对象和种植“叠加意义”的特定方式的潜在和历史悠久的反应。Marc Trieb 在他的论文“Must Landscapes Mean”（1995 年）中确定了景观设计、意义和意义的五种“大致框架”方法 了解我们对设计、对象和种植“叠加意义”的特定方式的潜在和历史悠久的反应。Marc Trieb 在他的论文“Must Landscapes Mean”（1995 年）中确定了景观设计、意义和意义的五种“大致框架”方法