Proper Understanding of Landscape Architecture Precedents for Knowledge Production

A proper understanding of precedents in architectural design as a common practice, suffers from the taboo of “imitation”, on the one hand, and, is also accused of “heresy”, on the other hand. In this regard, three issues have been studied until now: “Extracting the backgrounds of applied knowledge”, “Defining the proper understanding of precedents” and “Clarifying the difference between an educational or a research-based case study”.
What still requires further research for defining the “proper understanding of landscape architecture precedents” is the inevitability of interpretation due to the role of humans as a “subject” in landscape architecture. So the question here is what effect does the inevitability of interpretation have on the meaning and method of proper understanding of landscape architectural background knowledge? This study aims to reduce the theoretical difficulties that could impair the ability of knowledge production in this field of study. To do this, the concept of “knowledge production” is first thoroughly examined, then, “the conditions of precedents as a
source of knowledge” together with the “researcher`s conditions as an intervening subject” are determined as the main components of “understanding” in a theoretical framework. Finally, the standing point of landscape architecture is explained in comparison with this framework. The results show that to produce knowledge in landscape architecture, in addition to four common forms of understanding/perception in the field of architecture including “Irregular”, “Superficial”, “Deep” and “Structural”, which have already been determined in previous architectural research, another level should also be considered that is generally known as “Continuous” understanding. By focusing on this level of understanding and using the two techniques of “Triangulation” and “Crystallization”, it can open up new horizons in landscape architecture to address issues with multiple interpretations of subjectivity and to validate the findings.