库哈斯对展示本质的“反思”——THE SOCLE AND THE VITRINE
Fondazione Prada, Milan
Garage Museum of Contemporary Art, Moscow
2015年,OMA完成了两个旧建筑改造成博物馆的项目,一个在莫斯科(Garage Museum of Contemporary Art),一个在米兰(Fondazione Prada)。这两个项目在旧建筑改造方面都大大吸引了眼球,但两个项目实际都对现代博物馆展示的本质进行了反思。莫斯科Garage反思了博物馆展厅常用的白色背景墙面,米兰Fondazione Prada则反思了展品本身。未冶(Visonary Experiment Workshop)有幸参观了实际项目,并找到库哈斯关于Fondazione Prada在米兰和威尼斯展览设计的文章,将其翻译与大家分享。这个反思可以说是延续库哈斯策展2014年威尼斯建筑双年展Fundamentals主题的一个实际操作。
基座和玻璃柜 The Socle and the Vitrine
雷姆·库哈斯 Rem Koolhaas
翻译:Edie 原文出自:Serial / Portable Classic. The Greek Canon and its Mutations p.199-204
Statues line the House of the Vestal Virgins on Pedestals in the Atrium Vestae, Roman Forum
Young Bird, 1928 By Constantin Brancusi on a teo -part Pedestal of Limestone and Oak, MOMA
20个世纪以来,从没有人质疑过古典雕塑与其基座那显而易见的共存事实......
事实上,古典雕塑一直免于现代主义对其基座的质疑和重新定义——像Constantin Brancusi将雕塑和基座极度融为一体,或像Alexander Calder和Richard Serra通过内部支撑使得作品直接立于大地上。
也许这唯一的“更新”——可能等同于“白色盒子”的空间剥离——是去除平又正交的底座所有的细节和意向——建立一个有效将艺术品和语境完全分离的现代装置,这已经是现代艺术体系长久以来的野心。
可能这将我们与远古——带着永恒的光环——相隔的千年,有助于重新彻底再定义我们与古老文物的关系,这不仅仅是反思......
很幸运接受过古典教育,在对古代的大量阅读和持续增加的关注下,我从来没想到自己会反思雕塑和基座那自古以来的永恒关系。
The apparent symbiosis between classical sculpture and the pedestal has not been questioned for over 20 centuries now…
In fact, classical sculpture has remained exempt from modernism’s questioning and redefinition of the socle — such as Brancusi’s extreme integration of sculpture and pedestal, or the incorporation of internal supports that enabled works to establish a direct relationship with the ground (Calder, Serra).
Maybe the only “renewal”—perhaps equivalent of the spatial stripping of the ‘white cube’—is the plain orthogonal plinth stripped of any detail or iconography— a modernist device to establish an efficient and total separation between context and work of art, which has been the long standing ambition of the modern art system.
Perhaps the millennia that now separates us from antiquity—its very aura of eternity — contribute to a sense that our possible relationship with its artifacts has been defined once and for all, and is beyond rethinking…
Blessed with a classical education, and through voracious reading and a constantly growing preoccupation with antiquity, it never occurred to me that I might ever be in a position to act on the seemingly permanent relationship between sculpture and pedestal as established since antiquity.
古典雕塑
雕像和雕塑的区别是什么呢?如果它是本质的话,为什么它没有在相应的讨论或分类中发挥作用呢?
仔细看看,在这个问题上,经典的基座很明显强化了具体雕像描绘的静止感,垂直的,柱形的,直立的,一个抬起的手臂,最多是一个或者致敬或者祝福的模糊手势。但对于很多表现运动的雕塑来说,经典的基座并未起到加强,貌似加强,但其实是减弱的。雕塑必然是一个明显动作瞬时的定格——向前,向一侧,或甚至向后——但这动作是被基座否定的,破坏的,泄气的,流产的,甚至相矛盾的。对于大多数雕塑来说,将之与大地分开的基座破坏了作品的活力,并颠覆或减弱了作品本身的涵义。
对一个静止的雕塑,基座表达着庄严的认可;对于运动的雕塑,基座犯了不必要的过错:雕塑暗示还有更多的生命,但基座却表示这是最后终结的动作。
将雕塑与它们的支撑物分开,并想象他们只是站着,大跨步,摔倒,垂死——在地上——每个作品都具有表现力和瞬间性,只是因为他们的“表演”被赋予了更多的空间,而不是被囚禁在小小的象棋盘上。
显然,基座是个性化的。它意味着动作,主动或交流的结束。它表明了对其和雕塑的关联完全不在乎。它引导了注意力的分配,强化了正面,弱化了背面,忽视了侧面,拒绝了斜面——导致一个可能360度的定格只剩下那不足的60度——而且它允许雕塑一字排开,沿墙布置或者在走廊里随意摆放的荒谬行为。
像蝴蝶标本上的刺针,基座是古典雕塑上的停滞状态——它固定了它,显然是永远的,所以它可以在专家不受外界干扰的区域内,进行操作,分类,鉴定和试验,并且不对艺术家和公众开放。
再进一步观察,古典雕塑和古典基座的关系甚至更令人担忧——大理石雕塑几乎总是站在一块又小又奇怪又不明确的石块上——形状常常结合雕塑的印记,有时候可能和脚融为一体,常常依靠在一个树干状的装置上,它将雕塑运动产生的作用力通过一个结构复杂的连接部分引导到基座上——例如一个骑马的雕塑下面三只脚,靠着一根光秃秃的树干。
我们介入的目的是在基座和单一玻璃柜层面上进行创新,设想基座不再是一个支撑受力点,而是一个平面,我们希望释放那些古典雕塑至今仍被固定的基座吸收和损耗的活力。创造了一个拥有这些更大基座平面的景观后,我们希望在观众和展品之间精心策划一个更亲密的,更富意味的邂逅——几乎是平等的。
将雕塑的全部底座下降到我们将“基座”放大后的区域内,我们能在雕塑所站立的位置做些许细微的变化和改动,这样焦点就全集中在作品上,避免落在结构部分。
一旦基座消失,雕塑就解放了 As soon as the Socle Disappears, the Sculpture are Released
Rendering of the Hall of the galatian in Palazzo Nuovo, Rome, With Statues Exhibited without Pedestals
CLASSICAL STATUE
What is the difference between statue and sculpture? Is it fundamental, and if so, why does it not play a role in its discussion or classification?
Looking precisely, and at this issue only, the classical socle clearly reinforces the stasis depicted by certain statues… vertical, columnar, erect, one arm raised, at most, in a vague gesture of greeting or blessing. But for any sculptures that depict movement, the classical pedestal is not a reinforcement, a plausible extension, but an inhibition. The sculpture is inevitably a freeze frame of a moment of evident movement — forwards, sideways, or even backwards — but that movement is denied, sabotaged, deflated, aborted, and even contradicted by the pedestal. For many sculptures, the separation from the ground that the socle performs kills the energy of the work and subverts or undermines its meaning.
For a statue in repose, the socle works as a dignified confirmation; for the sculpture that “moves,” the socle becomes an unwanted corrective: the sculpture suggests there will be further life, but the socle guarantees this is the final position.
Separating sculptures from their supports and imagining them simply standing, striding, falling, dying — on the ground — each work gains in eloquence and immediacy, simply because their ‘drama’ is allocated more space, not condemned to unfold on the scale of a chess board.
Obviously, the socle individualizes. It implies the end of movement, initiative, or communication. It suggests complete indifference to relationships. A socle implies a frontal perception; it dictates the distribution of attention, privileges the front, discourages the back, ignores the sides, denies the oblique — so that of a possible 360 degrees of exposure only a meager 60 degrees remain — and it permits the absurdity of aligning “rows” of sculptures, ranged along the wall or the insulting but common arrangement of sculptures in a corridor.
What the pinprick is for the butterfly, the socle is for the animation of classical sculpture — it fixes it, apparently forever, so it can undergo the operations, classifications, judgments and tests that are the hermetic domain of the expert… inaccessible to both artist and public.
On closer inspection, the relationship between classical sculpture and classic socle is even more fraught — the marble statue almost always stands on a small weirdly undefined clump — often shaped to absorb the sculpture’s combined imprint, which may consist of the feet, often leaning on a trunk-like device that channels the forces generated by the sculptures’ movement into a structurally complex connection back to the socle — e.g. an equestrian statue resting on three feet, leaning against a leafless tree trunk.
The ambition of our intervention is to innovate on the level of the pedestal and single vitrine. By imagining the pedestal not as a support point, but as a plane, we want to release the energies of classical sculpture that have until now been drained and absorbed by its unavoidable fixation on the pedestal. By creating a landscape of these larger pedestal planes, we wanted to orchestrate a more intimate and meaningful encounter between the viewer and object — almost as equals.
By sinking the entire base of the sculpture into the enlarged territory of our extended “socle,” we can make the tenuous patches on which most sculptures stand, disappear, so the focus is entirely directed to the work, and away from how it acts as structure.
Serial Classic, Fondazione Prada, Milan
米兰 “Serial Classic"展
我们基于对基座存在的怀疑,而设置的一个与古典世界全新关系的假设,在米兰展览设计中得以试验,室内深色石膏地板成为了展示的模块。
用亚克力板将石膏板升高或降低,这样创造了一个展示景观,在其中每个雕塑都得到了延伸,可以成组布置,形成相关关联,或成系列......游客在这个景观中游走,雕塑脆弱的一面也因为这个环境的布置而得到了重视。
Serial Classic, Fondazione Prada, Milan
“SERIAL CLASSIC” – MILAN
The Milan exhibition design tests the hypothesis that we can establish a new relationship with the classical world by questioning the inevitability of the pedestal… The dark travertine floorplates of the room ( × cm) become the module
of display.
Lifting and lowering the travertine on acrylic slabs creates a display landscape in which the territory of each sculpture is extended, groupings can be formed, relationships suggested, sequences implied… The visitors move through the landscape, the fragility of the sculptures is respected by the shaping of the terrain…
展示的展示 Display of Display, Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg
玻璃柜
就像基座一样,玻璃柜是专家一个独特,无可争议的领域——而不是博物馆布展者的动态工具。在玻璃柜里,我们容忍缺乏理性的组合,归类,大小不合,奇怪和混乱的标签系统,多余而无价值的信息——粘土烧制的锅,公元前11世纪到6世纪之间。玻璃展柜的基本矛盾是,它允许大量的易碎文物或碎片的拼接——尤其成系列——但玻璃展柜的环境却拒绝相同易碎文物的个性。玻璃展柜成为了一个数量与分类的工具,非常适合硬币和戒指,但对小雕塑,比如埃及的圣甲虫(Egyptian scarabs),早已是个问题了。
像基座一样,玻璃柜特别展示文物的正面,而丧失了其明显的三维特征。然而当基座限制了每个独立作品的相互联系时,玻璃柜却恰恰相反:它很自然地勉强那些掠夺的文物在一起表现其共存性和活力。
在圣彼得堡东宫正在进行的一个展览项目中,基于东宫从沙皇经苏联到现在,拥有的大量玻璃框展品,我们设计了“展示的展示”。很多早期的玻璃柜本身就是华丽的艺术品——选择它们的内容来增强整体的价值,有时候依据现在很大程度失去的那些小型纪念碑性艺术。
在屈服于20世纪趋于中性的渴望之前,玻璃柜变得更科学,更易分类,其展示也变得更矩阵更成系列。在目前的条件下,玻璃柜不再被定义为一个可以添加的装置.....除非有一个能减弱这些它们理应保护的作品的影响力的东西存在。
我理想中的玻璃柜是一个亚克力材料的实心体块,其中的艺术品看起来像是熔在其中。亚克力保护了作品,准确说是保存了它们......亚克力具有从多个角度折射光线的特性,使视角更丰富——正面,侧面,顶面都可以在立体化视角中呈现——同时聚焦其品质,还原曾被玻璃柜妥协的框景,物质性,尺度感和集体性。
将玻璃框转变成一个物体,而不是一件家具后,它得以释放并解放成为一个展览场面调度中完全成熟的部分。
在我们最终制作的版本中,亚克力板为每一个展品形成了一个特别的建筑,一个可以引入特别的,不期而遇的光学效果,这是我们在高价值文物过度保护的环境下营造的一个欢迎的惊喜。
展示的展示,Display of Display, Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg
书房作为家具 The Studiolo as Furniture
The Farnese Wooden Cabinet (c.1578) by Flaminio Boulanger. Ecoien, Musee National de la Reinassance
书房作为房间 The Studiolo as Room
The Studiolo of Federico da Montefeltro with the Illustrious Men Portraits. Urbino, Palazzo Ducale, Exhibition "Lo Studiolo del Duca" (2015)
THE VITRINE
Like the socle, the vitrine is a device that we have allowed to become the unique, undisputed territory of the specialist — rather than a dynamic tool for the museographer. In the vitrine, we tolerate absurd compositions, groupings, scale conflicts, awkward and disturbing labeling systems, redundant, trivial information — “pot-fired clay, between 11th and 6th century B.C.”. The fundamental paradox of the vitrine is that it permits the assembly of numbers of vulnerable, fragile objects or fragments — typically in series –that the environment of the vitrine then denies the individuality of the same fragile and vulnerable objects. The vitrine becomes a tool of quantities and classification, ideal for coins and rings, but already problematic for small sculptures like Egyptian scarabs.
Like the pedestal, the vitrine privileges the frontal view of objects at the expense of their obvious three-dimensionality. But where the socle precludes relationships between individual works, the vitrine does the opposite: it casually imposes coexistence between artifacts that are robbed, by the vitrine, of their vitality.
In an ongoing exhibition project for the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, we have worked on a “Display of Displays,” based on the full inventory of the Hermitage’s vitrines, from the Tsar’s to the Soviets, to the present. Early vitrines are very often superb works of art themselves — their contents chosen to enhance the aura of the whole, sometimes according to a now largely lost art of miniature monumentality.
Vitrines then became more scientific and categorical, their displays more like matrixes or series, before succumbing to a twentieth century aspiration of neutrality. In its current condition, the vitrine is not interpreted as a device that can add… only as a necessary evil that can diminish the impact of the works they are supposed to protect…
My ideal vitrine would be a solid block of acrylic in which the artwork has seemingly been cast, forever, completely absorbing it... The acrylic protects the work, it actually preserves it… The properties of the acrylic fracture the light in many directions, multiplying views—front, side and top visible in one “cubistic” view—and at the same time focusing its qualities, restoring an immediacy that the frame, materiality, scale and collectivism of the vitrine typically compromise.
By turning the vitrine into an object, not into a piece of furniture, it is released to become emancipated as a fully-fledged part of an exhibition mise-en-scène.
In the version we eventually produced, the acrylic plates form a particular architecture for each of the objects, an architecture that introduces special, unpredictable optical effects that we consider a welcome surprise in the typically over-controlled environment of high value objects…
Portable Classic, Fondazione Prada, Venice
威尼斯 “Portable Classic"展
在威尼斯,Ca’ Corner酒店单独的房间,被缩减到文艺复兴书房的大小,从而最大化将注意力集中在文艺复兴时期失去的文物复制品上......书房是用现代材料搭建而成,充分利用聚碳酸酯板过滤豪华宫殿过强的图像性,以及利用亚克力的清晰度和反射性去突显玻璃柜中的文物。
Portable Classic, Fondazione Prada, Venice
“PORTABLE CLASSIC” – VENICE
In Venice, the individual rooms of Ca’ Corner are reduced to the scale of the Renaissance studiolo for greater concentration on the Renaissance’s reduced copies of antiquity… The studiolos are constructed in contemporary materials, exploiting the capacity of polycarbonate to filter the strong iconography of the Palazzo, and the clarity and reflectivity of acrylic to highlight the objects in the vitrines…
所有翻译文字版权归属“未冶设计”,配图由译者完成,部分出自OMA和网络,未经授权,不得转载
如有兴趣,可以添加微信公众号: 未冶设计 查看更多 |
翻译的太粗糙了!
> 我来回应