Transcending the residence as an object of ownership
翻译：Edie 原文：坂本一成 《住宅——日常的诗学》第二章 家型
当“事物”是“使用物”时，也可被认为是“所有物”。在《物体系》（System of Objects）中，鲍德里亚（Baudrillard）指出物品具有两大属性：使用性和所有性。由此可见，住宅必然是“使用物”，也是“所有物”。如果我们以这种角度研究现在的住宅，可以发现我国的住宅特定已经从“传统社会的空间环境”演变为“使用物”，一个明确的“所有物”。
1. The residence from "space" to "object"
The "residence", as a space that has been obtain for dwelling, and by the application of a certain dense meaning, is a spatial environment that is unified with the dwellers themselves. It might be said, then, that "residence" is the architectural side of the "house". However, the residence, in addition to providing the "spatial environment" that enfolds the person who dwells in it, is also, with respect to that same person, a "thing", or a possession. The "residence" then is a "space" and a "thing" from the point of view of the resident.
The reason for speaking this way is because it can be thought that, to the people who have come to live there, the "residence as a house" is "spatial environment" itself, and an extended environment of the body, and it is not necessarily given that it will be taken as an "object"--especially when considering the residences of our country's traditional society, the rural house (kinoko minka). This is probably expressing the primitive form of our "lived home" (after Eugene Minkowski's Lived Time). However, our society has come to know the rationalism of modern thought, and based on the body's exposure to it, or based on the body's shock, to the extend that we take things actively as objects, we also realize the "residence" as a "thing" as well.
From the perspective of use, or "the ease of use of a residence" (the way programmatic design approaches it), then the residence is no longer taken as an environment that is enclosing and is systematically unified, but is now taken as "something for use".
However, the "thing"--while being a "thing" as an "object for use" -- is also positioned as an "object of possession". In the System of Objects, Baudrillard points out that within objects there are the two functions: use and possession. It follows that there must be "a residence as an object of use" and " a residence as an object of possession". If one then investigates residences up to recent times with such a perspective, it can be understood that the residence of our country have changed their character from "a spatial environment as a system within traditional society", to " an object for use", to a definite " object for possession ".
2. The residence as an "object of possession"
"In the same manner that 'an object for use' is based on its value for use, 'an object for possession' is based on its semiotic or symbolic value." --Baudrillard
The more importance a culture placed on the semiotic or symbolic value of a "thing", the more that "thing" becomes an object of consumption. But before entering into that discussion, what carries the semiotic, symbolic function of the "thing" is the form of that "thing" as a thing. When the form of the machine becomes a form as a functional sign (kinousei kigoutai), that form does not become an issue: the form of "the residence as a spatial environment or as a thing that is an object of use" is nothing more than its form as a functional sign. However, the more the residence is positioned as "an object of possession", the more it composes a semiotic form that can carry "image". (For example, the form that leads to the desired lifestyle that, once attained, will ensure happiness".)
These days, almost all polls are looking for a residence that is an "object of possession " in accord with semiotic, symbolic value that in the past could be attained only by a particular class. The residence as a semiotic form, then, has indeed existed in the past; its popularization and entrenchment within the culture, however, are extremely recent.
--This change in the urban residence from a rental form to an owner form is not solely dependent on economic phenomenon, it is from the objectification of the house and its commodification is from the objectification as well --
3. The realization of "house as image" is kitsch
In the same manner that a "thing" requires semiotic or symbolic form when it becomes the object of possession, the "house as possession" requires a form that is definite and specific to that house. That the general population is increasingly caught up in form indicates that they have been carried into the world of the "image" and have begun to play there. It then follows that many of our actions are constructed based on the importance of image.
For example, at this level, rather than living because the act of living is possible, we can live because it is that "living should be"; and we don't build in order to live, but we build in order to establish the image of living. We belong, then, not within the active sense of living willfully, but in the more passive mode of living in the image.
The current image of residence as a possession--as a place one should dwell--has in itself become the house of dwelling. The present day residence is not the result of the image of actively dwelling in the residence that is a place to dwell, but is the residence built as the image of the house itself. It is sufficient to take as an extreme example of this development the objects that are speculative houses, the house commodified. One reason for the irony of these residences is that they are not a residence in reality, but rather the realization of the "house as image". For example, while not an example of speculative houses, or the commodified houses, the houses of the compensation village (in the new housing district, Rokkasho, Aomori) are all stylish palaces that are the result of the realization of the "palace of the image". Or again, the form of speculative homes of small scale independent builders is, in the end, connected to that palace image. Or, with the commodified houses of the large scale builders, as can be seen by looking at them with a little care, even if it is not the "palace of the image", one should see it is nothing more than the "western house of the image". In the end, this is no different from the selling of a package of the happy image of a new lifestyle, and no different from fabrication and sale of the "palace of the image".
These are not the images of real dwelling, they are merely the realization of the "image of the house". And that is the illusion of the house, the palace, the western home, that , like the amusement park that fulfills the dreams of children, or the sightseeing district that promises fun and fulfills the hopes of people, it entertains and gives an enjoyable happy feeling. This is the kitsch of the residence. The "house as image" can be nothing more than kitsch.
4. Out of the "system of the society of mass consumption and its structure"
However, this "talk of the illusionary house" is not just with respect to commodified houses, or speculative houses. Isn't it true that houses designed by architects often participate as much in the "house as image"? No, rather, it can be said that the architect who has encouraged the "house as an object of use and possession" has played the roll of affirmation. This is the front line of the construction of a foundation, a substructure of the popularity of commodified houses within the consumer society of today.
What can we take as our attitude or method with respect to the social condition of making a "things" of the residence that are the architectural aspect of the house, as well as consumption of these things as signs that are its precursor?
"The house as image" perhaps can be said to upfield the hopes of many people, and has largely achieved normalcy in today's society. However, the simple pursuit of such a thing responds to the unrelenting desire of consumer society for products with their unlimited appeal, ultimately fixing the "house as image", and disposing of the free "dwelling". The residence as "house as image" is the residence devoured by the beast of consumption. Paradoxically, what at first glance seems to be a variety of images in speculative homes, commodified homes, or the Rokkasho homes, is surprising poor and only has a simple image. That can be said to be what forms the poor scenery of the new residential development that surrounds us.
Given that, it might be wondered if it is possible to escape from construction for consumption. Let us deny the consumer society, and deny the "house as image" that is built there as kitsch. However, this becomes a refusal of mass society itself, and renders architecture nothing more than a special art that is out of its time and restricted to a closed and reactionary society. That in itself is nothing more than shutting itself off from the world. To think in this way means you can't deny or affirm the consumer society so stricter as reality. Then, if the mass society that supports it can't be denied, in the end, mustn't it have some relation to the "house as image". This is because to us, today is based on a societal condition that can't be established through the sweeping denial of the kitsch condition. That is because it holds the fundamentality and naive hope of "dwelling" to at least a small degree. It is not that I am stating that our direction is in the production of kitsch, but while including that, can be thought to mean we must consider the form of the system and construction of the mass society that is making our existence real.
In short, it is necessary to realize that "house as image" ultimately cannot build reality, nor can they be established as reality, then we must reality that only within the intentionality of the rule-breaking act against "house as image", can the establishment of the "image of dwelling", or the "intention of dwelling" occur. At the moment, I can only think that we must pursue a departure from this consciousness. (1981)
如有兴趣，可以添加微信公众号： 未冶设计 查看更多