Objective  Due to its complex historical confrontations and realistic conditions, landscape architecture criticism hasn’t been theoretically constructed systematically. Given this, the research aims to establish a research framework for landscape architecture criticism in order to provoke further academic discussions and reflections.

Methods  The research explores the establishment of the aforesaid framework from the five aspects of ontology, axiology, epistemology, methodology and subjectivism, to reconstruct the theoretical discourse of landscape architecture criticism. In addition, the research makes a comprehensive review on relevant literature to provide reference for subsequent research. Based on this, the research argues that such factors as the pervasive misunderstanding of the terminology “criticism”, the historical association of criticism with art and architecture as an affiliated branch of the latter, other disciplinary restrictions on landscape discourse, the flexible and unstable scale of landscape and the estrangement of landscape architects away from social intellectuals jointly lead to the deficiency of landscape architecture criticism.

Results  1) In the aspect of ontology, the research constructs the definition, content, thinking mode, category, procedure, and function of landscape architecture criticism. Before elucidating the definition of landscape architecture criticism, the research advocates that it is crucial to distinguish their specific connotations of critical thinking, critical theory and criticism. Three keywords “critical thinking” “evaluative judgment” and “valuable” can help comprehend the definition of landscape architecture criticism. Specifically, landscape architecture criticism is essentially a reasonable objective judgment on landscape projects based on critical thinking involving skepticalness, reflection and speculation, the results of which are of particular value typically. Based on the classification standard considering both knowledge type and design intention, landscape architecture criticism may be divided into the five categories of descriptive comment, authentic explanation, analyzed interpretation, constructed hermeneutics and paradigmatic truth, which share different contents and goals in terms of knowledge recreation and reproduction. In order to manipulate the procedural operation of criticism on a particular landscape project, the research proposes to contemplate the original designed landscape with non-presupposed tuition, to categorize the existing documents with a scientific mindset, to analyze the particularity and difference by virtue of close reading on both space experience and visual materials, to reinterpret those identified traces from a new theoretical dimension with appropriate concepts, and to reposition the project’s significance in its historical context. 2) In the aspect of axiology, the research discusses multiple values of landscape architecture criticism such as the disciplinary, social, environmental, and cultural values. Specifically, as to the disciplinary value, landscape architecture criticism can not only enhance core knowledge about the designed landscape, but also improve interdisciplinary communication; as to the social value, criticism can play a positive role in all such aspects as neighborhood, public health, safety, welfare and economy; as to the environmental value, criticism and help cultivate civil consciousness on land ethics, and dramatically promote sustainable development, climate change response and biodiversity conservation; as to the cultural value, criticism can help enhance aesthetic emotions, protect a variety of heritage, and shape national identity. 3) In the aspect of epistemology, the research explains a correlational but discriminative relationship between such elements as landscape design, history, theory and criticism. Specifically, the research argues that the connective and complementary relationship between the aforesaid elements is the fundamental principle for comprehension of the essence of landscape architecture criticism. There are four kinds of relationships between criticism and history: history serves as the referential frame for criticism; history underlies criticism; history motivates criticism; history itself is a kind of criticism. The relationship between theory and criticism can be divided into the following three levels: philosophical and cultural concepts beyond landscape architecture can offer theoretical pivots for criticism; concepts in landscape architecture also can provide pivots for criticism; criticism can help develop new theoretical concepts although it is not easy. Besides, it is necessary to employ the concepts of “parallax” and “dynamics” to understand criticism. Specifically, “parallax” means there are always different insights to operate criticism from infinite perspectives while “dynamics” means that criticism is a constantly changing and self-evolving process. 4) In the aspect of methodology, the research reconstructs the concept of “Shanshui Zhi Jing”as the core critique method for landscape architecture based on humanism, pragmaticism and design sciences. The aforesaid concept can be translated and incorporated into the phase of constructing artistic conception of Chinese mountain and water. The introduction of the “Shanshui Zhi Jing” concept into the core methodology for landscape architecture criticism is for the sake of disciplinary autonomy. “Shanshui” (mountain and water) in Chinese refers to natural landscape shaped in high-dimensional space and time, which makes landscape construction different from painting or poem composing, Jing (artistic conception) is a kind of transcendental emotion in cultural domain that distinguishes landscape design from urban or architectural design, and construction indicates an action of place-making that makes landscape architecture different from cultural geography or other relevant disciplines. Furthermore, the research proposes that the connotation of “Shanshui Zhi Jing” reside in the vitalism with potential to benefit other disciplines. 5) In the aspect of subjectivism, the research expounds the professional qualities of critics, such as the ability to make criticism from a detached position beyond the limitation of utilitarianism. In addition, landscape architecture criticism should also include design projects and various representations to incite creative thoughts.

Conclusion  The research framework mentioned above may help develop landscape architecture criticism into a subdiscipline of landscape architecture that is of important academic, educational and professional significance.