META-工作室脱散的轨迹——对当代中国建筑师思考与实践发展脉络的另一种描述
RAVELING TRAJECTORY An Alternative Depiction of the Discourse of Contemporary Chinese Architects’ Thinking and Practicing
本文中文版本及english synopsis发表于《时代建筑》2012年第4期 “承上启下：50年代生中国建筑师”中作为综述文章对50、60、70年代生建筑师群体研究的方法和视角进行论述。
摘要：
文章尝试从部分20世纪50至70年代生当代中国建筑师实践策略和思考关注点的转变中寻觅线索轨迹。分析他们受到“现代性”话语体系的影响，同时检视他们在中国城市发展现状这一特定语境下的身份定义，进而尝试对当代中国建筑师思考与实践发展脉络进行描述。这一描述不是从作品的结果出发作总结性的判断，而是通过抽取不同建筑师的策略关注点和关键话语，进一步对贯穿不同时间段、没有因果关系的多重线索进行重新梳理和联结，对还原一个未曾明确的当代中国建筑话语体系给出研究建议。这一新的话语体系或许可以提供一种不同于西方现代性的“脱散的轨迹”，从而见证多条线索在当代中国的某种不期而至的交汇或离散。
关键词：
策略；关注点；身份定义；关键词语；轨迹；话语体系
前言
把20世纪50至70年代这三个十年间出生的建筑师放在一起会得到怎样的图景？他们各不相同的出发点、态度、目标、策略……任何想对这些进行总结的尝试所得到的答案都一定是混乱的。那么该如何进行评价? 对建筑师进行身份定义（identity definition），一方面需要观察他们在特定条件下通过具体实践体现的自我表达，另一方面需要在更广的维度上评价其思考与实践在建筑学整体话语体系（discourse）内所处的位置。
自50年代生建筑师从1995年前后进行独立实践开始，当代中国涌现出的建筑师大多需要在实践的同时不断进行自我定义（self-definition），即对其出发点、参照系以及作品所引申的理念进行不厌其烦的详尽阐述。这种自我定义在一定程度上的确为前途未卜的中国建筑指出了方向，但其本质上是一种自我引证，因此是特例的、主观的，通常带有某种程度上的“神秘性”（mystification）[1]，无法作为整体解读中国建筑师群体的基础。而由于体制上与经济上的放开，在过去的20年里中国建筑师进行了大量实践。面对如此多的挑战，建筑师不可能完全引用同一条真理，于是在实践的过程中逐渐建立起属于个体的关键话语（keypoints）体系——这就加大了对更大范围的话语体系进行梳理的可能。因此，本文通过对较为熟悉的建筑师的实践策略及关注话题中体现出的关键词语进行无序的抽取，并对贯穿不同时间段的多重线索重新进行梳理和联结，试探性地对描绘一条通向新的话语体系的轨迹给出研究建议。
1 “实验/先锋建筑”之结束
可以认为，对当代中国建筑的讨论始于20世纪90年代中后期。这一时期的“实验/先锋建筑”（Experimental/Pioneering Architecture）及其代表建筑师——张永和（50年代生）、刘家琨（50年代生）、王澍（60年代生）、马清运（60年代生）等，使当代中国建筑受到来自专业和大众媒体越来越多的关注，而1999年的“中国青年建筑师实验性作品展”以及2001年柏林的“土木”中国青年建筑师展，引发的讨论更是达到了前所未有的高度。
然而究竟什么是“实验建筑”或“先锋建筑”？彭怒和支文军曾在《中国当代实验性建筑的拼图：从理论话语到实践策略》中提到“它……向建筑的主流学术意识形态挑战，与主流设计实践相对抗。它反对已经被接受的、成为习惯的建筑价值观而表现为一种革命和创新的精神”[2]。“实验”这个词本身似乎带有一种价值判断：“实验”即是对现实的批判性实验，是因为要对我们所处的社会整体状态进行抵抗而产生的。因而这种批判性实验首先需要明确一个边缘化的立场，然后站在自设的立场去质疑、对抗其他。而我们所谓的“先锋”（pioneering）这个词则更是表达上述立场所具有的“姿态”（gesture），与西方建筑话语体系里面的“avant-garde”所指不同。
这一时期开始出现的独立工作室便是对所谓体制内的集体建筑实践的一种批判，他们的作品也都流露出一种对主流意识形态的批判态度。就像刘家琨在他的《我在西部做建筑》[3]里写到的，设计罗中立、何多苓工作室的整个过程伴随着与设计院体制的决裂。这一时期的张永和通过文字和实践反对鲍扎（Beaux-arts）式的以平面与立体构成作为基础内容的“美术建筑”，而提出关注建造和空间的“基本建筑”。同时代开始建筑实践的王澍、马清运，他们的一系列探索与旧有美学传统之间的摩擦、抵抗、颠覆，形成了当代中国建筑师最初的身份特征。
“实验/先锋建筑”是新体系的开始，然而作为关键话语，它的指向却并不清晰。因此在这里需要指明的是，除了不约而同地表达出一种打破原有运行框架的倾向外，这些建筑师各自的关注点及设计策略的微妙不同使得他们后来的实践表现出了巨大差异（这一点会在后面详述）。而无论叫“实验建筑”还是“先锋建筑”，所指向的笼统性评价都无法对这种微妙的差异进行精确的描述。除了强调与主流话语的差异，我们并不知道“实验/先锋建筑”到底包含多少在更广泛的当代语境下独特的实质性批判，又包含多少具有发展潜力的新内容，这种空泛常常使我们陷入对自身评价体系的一种“失语”状态。
随着中国经济与体制的飞速发展，当独立实践和主流实践产生了很大的交集，而“实验”所包含的对意识形态的批判性被日益扩大的消费文化削弱时，在这种全球化影响下的大众文化中又衍生出了包含各种不同程度的批判性与实验性的建筑，我们真的感觉到，“实验/先锋建筑”这一使命应该已经结束了，而现在是否能够提出一些实在的新问题？
2 重新发问
今天的建筑学，已经逐渐从完全自主（autonomous）的学科转变为具有文化、经济等多重属性的混合体。在建筑应对当代社会挑战的过程中，许多以前看似无法解决的问题都有了新的应对策略。而这些新应对方式的基础，是源于少数人对“建筑”这一学科的重新发问，并重新定义与此相连的一系列关系网络。这里所谓的“重新发问”，包括对建筑师这一职业身份的质疑，对实践方式的质疑，以及对建筑学本身含义的质疑，更在于以巧妙的策略化解创造出的新问题。不同时期的建筑师，都在以自己的方式重新定义这种可能性，而这之中，多以50年代生建筑师为主要代表。
张永和在中国开展建筑实践后不久就创办了北京大学建筑学研究中心（图1），开始追问如何在中国的语境下重新看待建筑教育的问题。在《对建筑教育三个问题的思考》[4]中，他同时将对于传统“美术建筑”的批判以及如何将建筑设计作为研究计划介入社会实践注入到建筑教育的思维体系中，并在此基础上通过跨学科的研究机制，建立起研究室和工作室并行的“双向”建筑教学结构体系。而且，基于这一经历，他进一步拓展对建筑教育的涉入，2005年出任美国麻省理工学院建筑系主任。而同一时期，张永和作为威尼斯双年展中国馆的策展人，深圳/香港双年展的策展人，及至成为2012年普利兹克奖的评委，更是以自身经历作为一个研究计划，实践他所提倡的“教学和研究应领先于社会实践并推动社会实践”，证实“建筑师”的思考角度如何拓展到各种社会领域，并与“教育家”、“社会活动家”成为不可分割的跨界身份组合。
图1
同时代的刘家琨，也从早期的“低技策略”——清楚地贴近现实的处理方式，逐渐发展出一种在项目前期积极介入策划和运作的策略，或者说是一种新的介乎于甲乙方之间的身份，使得建筑师个人对于设计的阐释更能驾轻就熟地实现对有关建筑的各种资源——土地、资金、开发方式、公众影响等的有效利用，从而重新定义建筑的社会性。对这些问题的思考，充分体现在他的成都“蓝顶实践”计划（图2）以及与“成都双年展”的合作中。
图2
即使在对待“传统的现代性表达”这一建筑界讨论已久的话题上，王澍也同样作出了新的阐发。他在哈佛大学设计研究生院所做的讲座《自然形态的几何和叙事》（Geometry and Narrative of Natural Form）[5]中讲到《千里江山图》（图3）时提出：从自然地理形态中，涌现出一个庞大的景观－建筑系统（landscape-architectural system），这一系统覆盖了整个中国的地表尺度，同时又渗透到日常生活的细节中。这一系统在过去曾延续了几千年，但现在却已失去，所以作为一种反问，王澍的中国美院象山校区（图4）以及宁波博物馆都是试图重新建立一种作为景观体系的一部分的建筑，甚至城市也是景观的自然延伸，而非将建筑视为一个个独立的物体。可以认为，他这种跨越尺度的对于建筑－景观－城市的理解，与查尔斯•瓦尔德海姆（Charles Waldheim）和穆赫辛•穆斯塔法维（Mohsen Mostafavi）近年提倡的“景观都市学”（landscape urbanism）[6]是殊途同归的。
图3
图4
“重新发问”不光对于建筑学本身，对于整个当代设计思想体系都是至关重要的。在随后几代建筑师身上，这似乎成为一种必须完成的“任务”，变得更加自然和公开化。马清运在一次与贝尔特•德•穆尤克（Bert de Muynck）的访谈中提到，“设计将变成一种重新建立关系网络的过程”（design turns into a process of building or re-inventing a network of relations）[7]，并且在新的关系中，设计不再被视为一种“实践”（practice），因为“实践”本身已包含过多如规范、技术水平、职业道德等的既有约束；而进一步将设计视为一种“经营”（business）, 可以跨越学科，跨越血统，将想法与资本连接在一起，发掘将潜在价值最大化的可能。正是基于这样的理解，他率领马达思班（MADAs.p.a.m）不遗余力地在跨越教育、商贸、时尚、艺术、展览及视觉策略等领域进行“设发商”（designoloper）式的经营。
不仅马清运于玉川酒庄，梁井宇（60年代生）于大声展（图5）、王晖（60年代生）于时尚设计展、张轲（70年代生）于米兰家具展（图6），以及新生代建筑师车飞（70年代生）于产品设计（图7）、王振飞（70年代生）于电子艺术节（图8）等，他们近年在设计跨界上所做出的尝试都为重新定义建筑师的当代身份标明了新的可能。
图5
图6
图7
图8
3 发展：从地域性到特定性
自从弗兰姆普敦（Kenneth Frampton）发表《通向批判的地域主义：作为抵抗的建筑学之六要点》（Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six points for An Architecture of Resistance）[8]以来，“批判的地域主义”成为中国建筑理论界最常被引用的参照系之一。对这个关键词所涉及的代表性个案在此不再赘述，这里想谈的是这种意识形态的源头——地域性在中国建筑师关注及策略中的转变。槙文彦在一篇题为《地域性与主体性》的文章中提到：“建筑……有一个形成地域性的历史过程。要在地域扎根，其主体性的形成必须控制时间，使变化过程相对平缓才有可能……（例如日本）对于外来的意识形态，经过时间的推移……以自己特有的方式，采取一种特异的摄取方式加以吸收，并使之成为自己的一部分……结局是收敛为普遍的地域文化的感性。”[9]
中国建筑的地域性在几千年的时间尺度内体现为一种长时间沉积而成的文化纽带，这种地域性与具有很强传继性的中国文人认知世界的方式，以及官场、礼教、宗教等设定的社会规范是一体的。但自从20世纪60年代以来，中国已经逐渐失去了这种很强的文化联结，传统的生活方式以及建造方式被打断，仅以一些物件或民居的方式得以继存。因而提到“地域性”时，很大程度上是指对于一种已然失去的中国传统文化或民居聚落形式的复兴。
在这一前提下，对于王澍建筑的解读，必须回溯到他这样一种对中国传统文化的深厚浸润以及强烈联结的基础上，才能理解什么是他所引用的中国山水画的意境，才能理解他为什么花十年的时间与地方工匠学习营造技术，才能理解他为什么执着地在建筑中运用回收的砖、瓦以及原木、夯土等传统的建筑构件和工艺（图9），从而达到对“地域性”的总体表达。从这种角度来看，王澍的实践试图在失去历史的城市里，挖掘出埋藏在历史断层下的“城市中的幽灵”（ghosts in the city） [10]。与他同时代的一些建筑师，如刘克成（60年代生）（图10）、王路（60年代生）（图11）、魏春雨（60年代生）（图12），都以各自的作品深入探讨了这种对“地域性”的当代表达。
图9
图10
图11
图12
然而在中国，尤其是新千年之后，时间和空间都被剧烈压缩，“地域性”赖以形成的相对平缓的变化过程不复存在，新的文化纽带似乎刚刚建立起一个立足点，但转瞬间就沦为商业化背景下的消费品，失去成为文化的积淀。在这种条件下，又该如何理解和建立“新的地域性”？ 也许可以换个视角来审视这一问题。
标准营造的四川青城山石头院是一个颇有意味的案例。“石头院”从外面看上去像一个具有完整体量的现代房子（图13），除了立面采用本地常见的一种青灰色砂岩，没有其他任何有关地域性的暗示。建筑最有意趣之处在于木作的屋顶：由于每个窄院平面形状不同，又都有两三个或长或方的天井，如果通过设计解决屋顶结构将极为复杂——而事实上这些屋顶并非建筑师“设计”出来的，建造现场请来了精通当地传统木结构的老工匠负责屋顶构造，建筑师只对他提出了“木结构盖在周边砌好的石墙上，并且空间需要无柱”的要求。最终实现的结果完全符合要求，屋顶看上去又像是自然长出的（图14）。这一案例恰好描述了一种观察“新的地域性”的特定角度，即在现代建造的精确逻辑内设置特定框架，允许地方工艺或材料在此框架内自行解决问题，从而完成设计中的特定表达。
图13
图14
这种对待新地域性的更极端的态度体现在另一个石头房子——马清运的“玉山石柴”上。虽然拥有这样一个充分引发人们对传统意境的想象的名字，但正如他自己所说，“永远不要相信传统留给你的……它只给你留下了一个最可能突破的界限。”[11]800多年来这个村里的人都不用石头盖房子，然而河里无数的卵石的确是最经济实用的材料。用这些石头盖的房子完全能适应大西北干燥的气候，并且散发出符合黄土高原氛围的山野气息（图15），为之后如玉川酒庄等一系列商业运作提供了良好的契机。这一反讽的策略，在充分利用当地的建筑材料、工匠、工艺，却不相信地域的普遍性的前提下，主张自我的特定表达才是唯一的定点，指向对传统“地域性”的颠覆。
图15
塞尔托（Michel de Certeau）在《日常生活的实践》一书中提出了在日常生活实践逻辑中的“非同一性主体”(non-identity)[12]。“非同一性”是指一种在传统哲学之外，具有异质性、不稳定的、转瞬即逝、又没有太多意义的主体。在本文探讨的语境下，笔者使用“特定性”（specificity）这一更易理解的词汇替代哲学上“非同一性”的所指。有意思的是，当没有国籍、没有地域特性的权利与商业资本取代了传统的意识形态，这种非同一性、特定性却在新的权利结构中超越了地域性，激活了差异生态，并为使自己能够更广泛、更长久地传播而进行着不间断的努力。
TAO•迹建筑事务所华黎（70年代生）近期的几个案例就体现出对这种特定性地域的关注。云南高黎贡手工造纸博物馆在回应这一地域强烈的场所感（图16）时关注的是建造逻辑，通过对当地气候、建造工艺以及合理利用资源的考察与分析，综合使用杉木、竹、火山石、手工纸等当地常用材料，完全使用本地工匠还原一个地域的建造逻辑。虽然逻辑上是忠实于本地的，但整个建筑呈现出的属性又处处透出与所谓传统的差异：立面表皮直拼的杉木板，整竹筒排列的屋面，各处不同的屋檐做法，外墙底部的镂空条石，甚至独特的开窗方式似乎都在诉说着完全不同的事实（图17）——这一事实并不是预设的，而是在熟悉的资源与建筑师的特定选择的碰撞中发展出了不同以往的结果。
图16
图17
如果说上述案例还包含有对本地意识形态的默认，那么在另一个案例——王晖（60年代生）的西藏阿里苹果小学（图18）中，地域性作为一种意识形态则几乎消失殆尽，对藏族文化或地域建造的研究最终都没有反映在建筑的形式上。事实上在海拔5000m的高原，最大限度地以低成本、低能耗利用当地资源即是本地的需求主体。因此防风、造价、材料的选用都成为建筑师选择对某一现实问题进行特定回应的源头。建筑师甚至承认学校布局的灵感与高原无关，而是来源于一次威尼斯之行中见到的运河上拥堵的船只。而我每一次看到阿里小学在高原戈壁上缓缓升高的挡风墙都会禁不住想起理查德•塞拉（Richard Serra）的景观装置作品——“shift”[13]（图19）。
图18
图19
可以认为，从“地域性”到“特定性”的发展属于当代中国建筑这一话语体系的转变，在当下以及可预见的将来，我们对“特定性”的喜好将胜过任何一种意识形态。
4 跃于两种尺度之间
如果抛去意识形态上的宣言，现代主义很重要的立足点之一就是与其所处的“前现代”（pre-modern) 周边状态之间的一种对比。随着现代主义向后发展，这种“对比”包含了越来越多层面的内容。对于当代建筑师来说，不管自觉与否，任何一个设计都不可能脱离城市观(urbanism)而开始。
建筑与城市的这种对比从勒•柯布西耶（Le Corbusier）的“光明城市”（La Ville Radiense）开始，经过盖里（Frank Ghery）的毕尔巴鄂古根海姆发扬光大，及至近期扎哈（Zaha Hadid）建成的意大利MAXXI国立21世纪艺术博物馆，其实本质上没有什么变化——它们都是在一种传统的城市观，而非现实的城市观作用之下产生的。即使我们对通过建筑塑造城市仍有信心，而实际上当前的情况是，建筑所处的情景、周边的城市基础设施与社会生活内容渗透到建筑当中，甚至超越了建筑。也即，建筑被其所处的城市所定义。
因此，一些拥有更多实践机会的建筑师开始选择一种更积极的方式介入城市。通过在多个项目之间布置贯穿其中的平行的概念线索，并进一步通过数条线索形成一个在城市与建筑之间操作的“场地”。实践力图将在两种尺度下同时进行的思考融为一体，并最终在“场地”中建立新的“城市vs.建筑”的关系。
崔愷（50年代生）作为国家级设计院的总建筑师，在诸多实际项目中体现出微妙的社会性批判态度，直面城市进程中产生的社会问题。他将建筑师在城市改造中的作用类比为骨科手术的进程，“对于不断出现的‘城市病’……（通过）一种见缝插针的状态，巧妙地替换原来的组织，植入新的机体”[14]，从而延续城市的肌理和文脉，以达到城市的合理更新。从这种审慎的态度出发，他又从城市现实中提炼出一系列关注点作为线索，如嵌入（embedding）、脉动（pulse）、活力（vitality）,通过各种类型的项目：德胜尚城、欧美同学会（图20）、昆山市民文化广场等，不断通过实践完善在城市与建筑之间对话的体系。
图20
URBANUS（60年代生）从最早的中文名“都市国际”改为“都市实践”，也正是希望明确这种“批判性城市介入”的实践策略。通过深入研究中国城市现实，从规划、社会学乃至人口统计学的角度为城市的改善和发展提供积极的方案。他们常常用“城市介入”（urban engagement）和“城市填空”（urban infill）[15]两条脉络来描述自己从两个方向进行实践的方式，前者更为积极主动地参与策划，后者则意味着需要发现机遇。而这两个词正好涵盖了URBANUS从对深圳城中村的研究（图21）开始，到大芬村美术馆的介入（图22），再到高速公路旁的土楼公舍（图23），这些项目在“城市vs.建筑”之间切入点的切换。
图21
图22
图23
5 鱼与熊掌可得兼
正如城市与建筑两个概念长久以来在认知上的对立一样，建筑的话语体系中还存在着很多对立冲突，比如上文提到过的地域与全球化，传统与创新，特殊与普遍，都市与乡村，极大与极小，职业与经营，等等。建筑师的立场通常意味着必须做出非黑即白的选择，而一连串的选择答案也就给定了建筑师所处的位置。在仔细审视当代中国建筑图景的演化脉络后，有趣的是我们发现存在一种在两极之间努力保持的精致平衡，这种平衡力图既从理论层面，又从实际操作的层面来消解传统概念上的种种二元对立，并以辨证的方式加以结合。
我们可以从一些建筑师对自己实践的描述中窥出端倪。马清运最近提出“农市主义”（Agri-Urbanism）这个词来定义自己在故乡蓝田开展的一系列运作（图24）。将高密度的都市化产生的想法与完全农业化的生产结合在一起，所生成的是一种既非城市又非农业的中间地带，这种中间地带的未来是无法估量的。标准营造的张轲对于在西藏的一系列建设项目，经常用“当代的思考，本地的建造”（contemporary thinking, local construction）来进行概括。这种在历史文化环境中的清醒思辨，使得标准营造能在西藏以一种“文化平视”的态度，消除了既有建造技术与新的空间形式的冲突，以及在藏区传统和现代观念之间的冲突。
图24
对于建筑中的“二元对立”（dichotomy），张雷（60年代生）持更明确的态度，甚至进一步将之作为设计的工具——裂开的缝之宅（slit house)（图25）想表达的就是混凝土作为粗糙的建筑结构材料，如何显现为与砖墙类似的表皮材质。原本对立或排斥的两极，在特定的条件之下得以共存，并由其张力激发出新的可能性。通过在简单的系统中引入看似对立的两面，并由此增加概念与空间的复杂性，同样的二元拆解在其新四军指挥部纪念馆———“历史”与“快感”并存，以及高淳砖屋（brick houses）（图26）——“当地普通人工艺”与“诗意的现代居住”并存之中体现得更加鲜明而丰富。
图25
图26
消解在二元对立中的挣扎，将建筑师从无数的选择题中解放出来，这样一来鱼与熊掌似乎终于可得而兼。这令建筑师自身身份的参照系得以转向更为多样（multiplicity）。像谢英俊（50年代生），朱竞翔（70年代生），都在震后乡村资源匮乏与高度技术集成、原始的施工工艺与全新的建造系统共存的情况下，找到了结合多样资源的新方法。朱竞翔的两间新芽小学（图27）其背后的运作都与对这一系列问题的思索有关联。建筑师成功地融合了香港的资金和技术信息、深圳的制造加工能力，解决了地方的社会需求 [15]。
图27
李晓东（60年代生）在最近的一次讲座中提到他的实践更类似于中医的“针灸”疗法：解决问题的方式并不是针对眼前的症状，而是通观整个系统的状况，在关键的“穴位”上施以适当的针刺，即通过一个点激活一个系统，探讨如何从调和系统的理念上把建筑的功能及其与周围环境的关系结合得更深入、更广泛。桥上书屋（图28）、篱苑图书馆（图29）之所以能够以不同寻常的、无法归类的建筑类型得到实现，完全取决于他的这种理解，他甚至不认为自己是一个“建筑师”——找寻赞助资金、确定项目功能、选址、设计、运用当地的材料和人工，甚至不避讳谈到该项目如何为当地旅游业创造收入——而是兼具多重身份的“建筑策划人”（archi-curator）。
图28
图29
这又让我想起今年在和来访的芬兰建筑师泰睦（Teemu Kurkela，2010年上海世博会芬兰馆设计者）一起开展工作坊时的谈话，笔者问了他一个问题：在有着强大现代建筑传统的芬兰，你如何看待建筑的未来，建筑的地域性与建筑师的主体性将如何影响设计？他的回答很有意思：无论从哲学上还是从实践上讲，我们希望都能做到！（From philosophical point of view, and practical too, we try to do both！）的确，在笔者这几年在美国与欧洲工作游历的经验中，人们思考最多的是如何能够面对更多的问题，理解更多的冲突，掌握甚至拥抱更多看似对立的方面；思考是否能够发展出包含多种可能性，把一切能量——历史的、当代的、地方的、全球的、纯手工的、可批量生产的等等，都积极地利用起来的新方式，同时又是未曾预料到的，超出任何预设公式的新策略。
结语
本文提及的建筑师（或公司团体）包括：
50年代生：张永和，刘家琨，崔愷，谢英俊；
60年代生：都市实践（刘晓都/孟岩/王辉），王澍，刘克成，王路，李晓东，
魏春雨，张雷，马清运，梁井宇，王晖；
70年代生：标准营造（张轲/张弘），华黎，朱竞翔，车飞，王振飞。
上述建筑师及其个案采取的不同设计策略，启发了我尝试对当代中国建筑师思考与实践发展脉络做出另一种描述。这一描述不从作品的时间顺序、因果关系出发作总结性的判断，而是从部分当代中国建筑师实践策略和思考关注点的转变中，试图寻觅轨迹线索，分析他们受到现代主义以来的理论思潮和建筑实践的影响，同时检视他们所受到的中国城市发展现状的影响。通过抽取不同建筑师关注点的定义和关键词，进一步在多条线索的发展网络中重新串联（trajectory）起这些关键词，并通过它们梳理还原一个未曾明确的话语体系（discourse）。这一新的话语体系或许可以提供一种不同于西方现代性的“脱散的轨迹”，从而见证多条线索在当代中国的某种不期而至的交汇或离散。
当然，建立话语体系并不是一篇文章可能达成的，各种可能的关键词以及能够找出的线索其实很多；而且事实上每个建筑师逐渐建立起的个体话语权之间，由于各自语境不同而存在一定程度的偏差。对于建立一个新的话语体系，笔者谨希望以上论述能够提供一些研究方法与建议。
注释和参考文献：
[1] 对此概念的精确定义参见罗兰•巴特1972年版的《神秘学》一书（Roland Barthes, Mythologies,Paladin, 1972）。
[2] 彭怒,支文军. 中国当代实验性建筑的拼图——从理论话语到实践策略[J]. 时代建筑，2002，(5)：20-25.
[3] 刘家琨. 我在西部做建筑[J]. 时代建筑，2006，(4)：45-47.
[4] 张永和. 对建筑教育三个问题的思考[J]. 时代建筑，2001， 增刊(S1)：40-42.
[5] 王澍. Geometry and Narrative of Natural Form. KenzoTange Lecture at GSD， 2012.
[6] 对此概念的延伸阅读参见Charles Waldheim. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.以及Mohsen Mostafavi. Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape. AA Publications, 2003.
[7] Bert de Muynck. Qingyun Ma: Architect in China[J]. VOLUME, 2006, Ubiquitous China (8).http://movingcities.org/interviews/qingyun-ma_volume.
[8] Kenneth Frampton. Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance. in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster, Bay Press, 1983.
[9] 槙文彦. 地域性与主体性[J]. 王炳麟，译. 世界建筑，1993，(1)：19-20.
[10] 对此概念的精确定义参见米歇尔•德•塞尔托1984年版的《日常生活实践》一书 （Michel de Certeau.The Practice of Everyday Life，University of California Press, 1984.）。
[11] 李军奇．马清运：解构建筑的建筑师[EB/OL]．南方周末电子报，http://www.infzm.com/content/5462.
[12] 对此概念的精确定义参见米歇尔•德•塞尔托1984年版的《日常生活实践》一书 （Michel de Certeau.The Practice of Everyday Life，University of California Press, 1984.）。
[13] Richard Serra. Shift. 1970-1972.Sculpture/Installation at King City, Ontario, Canada.
[14] 崔愷．“嵌”一种方法和态度[J]．城市环境设计，2012，(1+2)：122-126.
[15]URBANUS对这两个概念的定义参见:实践是我们批判的工具——访都市实践事务所合伙人刘晓都.畅言网，http://www.archcy.com/focus/haigui/d54d5caf7df6212c_p3，2011.
[16] 朱竞翔. 新芽学校的诞生[J]. 时代建筑，2011，(2)：46-53.
-2012年6月10日于北京
以下为英文全文_Full English Version
RAVELING TRAJECTORY
- An Alternative Depiction of the Discourse of Contemporary Chinese Architect’s Thinking and Practicing
ABSTRACT：
This essay investigates the shifting trajectories of the conceptual focuses and practicing strategies of the contemporary Chinese architects born from the 50s to 70s. Through analyzing the influence by the discourse of modernity, at the same time their identity definition under the specific context of current Chinese urban status, it tries to deliver an alternative depiction to the discourse of contemporary Chinese architect. Such depiction does not take any project as finished product for drawing conclusion, rather through extracting keypoints from architects’ focuses and tactics, further combing and recombining multiple trajectories which is neither sequential nor consequential, it develops a research proposal to reconstruct the contemporary Chinese architecture discourse that is still not clearly defined. The new discourse maybe differentiated from the western modernity as a“ raveling trajectory”, and demonstrates how multiple clues come to some unpredicted convergence or divergence in contemporary China.
KEYWORDS：
Strategy；Conceptual Focus；Identity Definition；Keypoint；Trajectory； Discourse
Prologue
What do you get when you put Chinese architects from 3 decades together (born from 50s to 70s)? Any attempt to clarify such scene will result in a mess. So how can we depict such a mess?
The identity definition of an architect requires on the one hand, close examination of one’s self-expression through practicing, on the other hand, it needs to be evaluated upon a broader sense of the current architecture discourse where one’s thinking and practicing can be placed. Since the first generation of architects after the cultural revolution (born in the 50s) started to practice independently in China around 1995, Chinese architects that emerged have been continuously self-defining their own stand point, theoretical framework and practicing philosophy. Such definition, however, is essentially subjective, idiosyncratic, self-referential, and usually contains certain “Mystification”, and therefore cannot lead to a big picture of the contemporary Chinese architecture scene.
This essay investigates the shifting trajectories of the conceptual focuses and practicing strategies of selected Chinese architects born from the 50s to 70s. Through extracting keypoints from their focuses and tactics, further combing and recombining multiple trajectories, it tries to deliver an alternative depiction of the discourse of contemporary Chinese architects.
1. Experimental/Pioneering Architecture is Over
The discussion of contemporary Chinese Architecture was initiated from the mid-late 90s, when Chang Yungho, Liu Jiakun, Wang Shu and Ma Qingyun started to practice under the name of “Experimental/Pioneering Architecture”. The 1999 UIA Exhibition “Experiment Works by Chinese Young Architects” and the 2001 Berlin " TU MU - Chinese Young Architects' Work Exhibition" had elevated the discussion to and unprecedented height.
But what exactly is “Experimental Architecture” or “Pioneering Architecture” in China? The word “experimental” entails certain value judgment: experiment is always a critique of the reality. It exists as a counter force to the prevailing ideology of society. Therefore such “experiment” always sets up a marginalized standpoint first, from where it questions and fights against the rest. What we call “Pioneering” is actually more about expressing the gesture of above mentioned “experiment”, and therefore should be differentiated from the “avant-garde” of the modern architecture discourse.
The independent design studio in the early period embodied such repudiation against the institutionalized “collective design approach”. Just as Liu Jiakun wrote in his My Architectural Practice in Western China, the entire design process of his early work – Luo Zhongli Studio and He Duoling Studio was coupled with a break with the existing system of Design Institute. In the same period of time, Chang Yungho, launched a campaign, both through writing and practicing, against the “Beaux-arts“ system that has been in control for the Chinese architecture education. He tried to establish a new “basic architecture” from construction and space, to replace the Beaux-arts architecture, which was primarily based on graphic and representation. Wang Shu and Ma Qingyun, who also started practicing at that time, epitomized the identity of early contemporary Chinese architects through a series of explorations that generated disruption and subversion against conventional aesthetic.
"Experimental/Pioneering Architecture” was the beginning of a new exploration, nevertheless, as a keypoint it is not clearly defined. As I would point out in greater detail later – other than the inclination they have all shared to break up with the existing framework, the subtle difference between their conceptual focuses has greatly diverged their practicing strategies afterwards. The discussion of “Experimental/Pioneering Architecture” remained too vague to describe the divergence precisely. We don’t know how much concrete criticism it contains in regard to the contemporary context in a broader sense, and how much new potential it could stimulate. Such vagueness has often driven us into a kind of “aphemia symptom” for our own architecture discourse.
With the accelerating development of economy and policies, lots of overlapping happens between mainstream and independent practice, and the ideological criticality carried by the form of experiment is badly impaired - the mass culture has fostered architecture that contains mix levels of experimentation and realism. Now it’s time to say, “Experimental/Pioneering Architecture” is over, what will be the new question then?
2. Re-invent the Question
Architecture today, has already shifted from an autonomous discipline to a multiple-attributed mixture. We need to come up with effective strategies to cope with formerly unresolvable problems, yet the foundation of any new strategy lies firstly in re-inventing the discipline, in order to reestablish a series of correlating networks. Such “re-inventing” including questioning the definition of the profession, the mode of practicing and the signification, per se, of architecture.
Chang Yung Ho founded the “Graduate Center of Architecture“ at Peking University shortly afterward his own practice settled in China, through which he posed new question for the architecture education. Besides the critique of “Beaux-arts” system he also demonstrated how design should be taken as research project that reflects social reality, and infuse parallel“ research laborarory”and “design studio” into the academic system. He then further developed the idea of crossbreed when he took the position of department head at MIT. Meanwhile, as curator for the 2005 Shenzhen & Hong Kong Bi-City Biennale, and for the 2008 Venice Biennale Chinese Pavilion, also as the jury for the 2012 Pritzker Prize, he presents himself as a strong demonstration for how the thinking of architect can extend to numerous social aspects, and create a multiple identity of “archi- academic-socio-curator”.
Even on the long-discussed topic of “modern expression of tradition”, Wang Shu has posed some new question there. In his recent lecture at GSD Geometry and Narrative of Natural Form, when talking about a Chinese painting” A Thousand Kilometers of Landscape”, he pointed out, from the coexistence of natural geography and artificial environment in Chinese tradition, it emerges an enormous landscape-architectural system. A system that covered the entire physical surface of China, and at the same time, infiltrate into the detail of everyday life, from a cup to a fence, to how you cultivate the land. A system that had last for thousands of years, but has been lost now. As a counter question, Wang Shu’s CAA Xiangshan Campus and Ningbo Museum try re-invent an architecture that is part of the landscape, but not as an object. To him, even the cities are part of a greater landscape, such understanding is not so different with the recent “landscape urbanism” discourse promoted by Charles Waldheim and Mohsen Mostafavi.
“Re-invent the question” is not just important to architecture; it is crucial to the entire conceptual framework. It becomes almost a “must” task for later generation of architects. As Ma Qingyun mentioned in his interview with Bert de Muynck, that “design turns into a process of building or re-inventing a network of relations, and in the new relations, design should not be dealt as a means of ‘practice’, because the word ‘practice’ has already been associated with certain perimeters - by code, by technology, by professional morality； rather we should think of design as ‘business’ , by which you can cross ideas, cross branding, cross breeding, really connecting, and look into new potentials for maximizing the hidden values of the world.” Following such direction, he successfully led MADA s.p.a.m across the field of education, commerce, fashion, art, exhibition, and visual strategy…from what he called a “designoloper” business model.
Not only as Ma Qingyun related to the Yuchuan Winery, but also as Liang Jingyu to the “Get It Louder” exhibition, Wang Hui to the “Fashion Design Show”,Zhang Ke to the “Milan Design Week”,and the new generation architect Che Fei to product design, and Wang Zhenfei to the “Shanghai eArts Festival”…they have all been trying to re-define the identity of contemporary Chinese architect.
3. From Regionalism to Specificity
Ever Since Kenneth Frampton’s essay Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six points for An Architecture of Resistance got translated into Chinese, “Critical Regionalism” has become the most cited theoretical reference in the Chinese architecture academia. I don’t want to repeat any so-called exemplary project here, rather, I would like to discuss the hypostasis of such concern of the regionalism, and how its understanding has shifted among Chinese architects. Fumihiko Maki once wrote in an article titled Regionalism and Identity, “Regionalism…requires a historical process to take shape. In order to get deeply rooted in the region, the forming of its identity has to control the timing, and it’s only possible when the change happens in a very gradual process…so the result is converged to a general sensibility of regional culture.”
The regionalism in China has emerged as a strong cultural tie stretched through a time-scale of thousands of years. Therefore, such regionalism is imbued with the heavy legacy of Chinese scholar’s vision of the ethics, regime, religious and social criteria. But since the 1960s, China has lost this strong cultural tie, and the traditional lifestyle and construction method is ruptured – the only leftovers are some ruined parts from what we called Local-style Dwellings. Matter-of-factly, when we refer to “regionalism” in China, much of what it means is reviving a lost tradition.
The reading of Wang Shu’s architecture, therefore, has to be traced back to his strong belief and deep immersion of the traditional Chinese culture, and only then can we understand what is the aura in the traditional Chinese painting that he is referring to, why he spent 10 years learning craftsmanship with the local workers, and why he insists on using the recycled bricks, tiles, natural wood and rammed earth – these parts and tectonics from the past. In this light, what Wang Shu attempts is to dig out the “ghosts in the city” under the palimpsest of a place that has lost its history. Other architect from the same period, like Liu Kecheng, Wang Lu, Wei chunyu, have all explored into the contemporary expression of such regionalism.
Since the new millennium, however, both time and space are been greatly compressed in China. The gradual depositing process for the regional culture to take shape is not possible – new cultural tie just seems to find a breed point, and in a flashing moment it dissolved into the commercial noises. In this situation, how we can find an approach for the “new regionalism” became a question.
Standardarchitecure’s Stone Courtyard in Sichuang is one example. The building from the outside reads as a clear modern volume, without any hint of regional elements except a local gray sandstone is applied on the façade. The intriguing part of the design lies in the introverted roofs. Because there are two square or rectangular light wells in each non-parallel and narrow courtyard, the design of the structure for the wooden roofs would be very complicated if carried in-house. Yet in the end, those roofs were not designed by the architects – they found skilled local craftsman to come up with the roofs by themselves. The architect had only given them certain requirement “to sit the wooden roofs on the stone walls, and leave the space with no columns”. The final result meets the architect’s desire completely, and the roofs look like just grown out naturally. In this case, we see a specific angle of observing the “new regionalism”, that is to setup a framework within the rigorous logic of modern construction, and allow local craftsmanship to improvise by itself, so as to deliver a specific expression in the overall design.
This attitude towards the new regionalism is shown in a more extreme manner in another stone house – Ma Qingyun’s Father’s house in Shanxi. As put by himself regarding this project, “never believe in the tradition…it only leaves you with a boundary to break.” This area is famous for cave-house, and nobody has built a stone house in 800 years. But the round stone on the river bank is indeed the perfect material – it is suitable for the northwest’s harsh and dry climate, its roughness goes well with the plateau environment, and it really sets “stone” for MADA s.p.a.m.’s future winery business in this region. This ironic strategy makes full use of the local material, labor and technique, yet does not believe in a local tradition at all. Through claiming the architect’s own specific demand, it points to a subversion of the traditional “regionalism”.
In his book The Practice of Everyday Life, Michel de Certeau brought up the concept of “non-identity” in the logic of everyday reality. “non-identity”refers to a philosophical entity that is conflicting, non-stable, heterogeneous, transitory, and staying out of the cultural norm. In the context of this article, I would like to use a more straightforward word “specificity” to substitute the philosophical term “non-identity”. The intriguing thing is that, after the non-territorial power and capital replaced the traditional territorial ideology, such specificity (or non-identity) has surpassed the regionalism, enabled the diversified ecology of being, and endeavored ceaselessly for a longer and broader influence.
Trace Architecture Office (TAO)’s recent case by Hua Li shows this specific concern. Yunnan Gaoligong Museum of Handcraft Paper chose to focus on the construction logic when responding to the strong Genius loci of this locale. Following a thorough analysis of local climate, building technique, and available resources, he proposed to apply local materials: fir, bamboo, lava stone, handcraft paper, and using local workers and techniques to restore a possible regional construction logic. Although the entire logic seems sticking to the locale, but the actual building shows a subtle kind of “otherness” in many aspects. Vertical fir panel on the façade, Bamboo array for the roof, different making of soffit, permeable lava stone as wall pedestal, and specific window openings, the combination of which tells a totally different story than the original one – the story is not pre-determined, but developed from the confrontation of familiar resources and the architect’s specific interpretation.
If the the above cases still relate to certain regionalism, in another case - The Tibet Ali Apple Elementary School, regionalism as an ideology has dissolved completely. None of the contents for Tibetan culture or local construction appears in the final form of the building. Actually, in the harsh Tibetan plateau above 5000m altitude, minimizing the consumption and maximizing the potential of local resources is the primary criteria. Therefore, material, cost, labor, and windbreak - reality has become the only stand point for the architect’s specific answer. Even the architect admitted that the plan scheme of the school was derived from the jamming boats in the canals of Venice, that has nothing to do with the high plateau culture. Yet every time I saw the windbreak walls raise gradually in the Gobi terrain, I always think of the Richard Serra’s shift.
4. Hopping between Two Scales
Regardless of all ideological manifestos, much of what Modernism has been relied on is the contrast with a pre-modern environment. With the development of post-modernity, such conflict has included more and more contents. But no matter consciously or not, in a contemporary setting, an architect cannot start designing without a proper understanding of urbanism.
The contrast between architecture and urbanism ever since Le Corbusier’s La Ville Radiense, through Ghery’s Bilbao Guggenheim, and quite recently Zaha’s Rome Maxxi – they are essentially working on the same traditional urbanism, but not on the current urbanism. Even we still have our faith in making a better city through architecture, but the reality is, the conditions that a building sits in, infiltrate the building and even succeed the building. In a word, architecture is defined by the urbanism in which it is located.
Therefore, architects with more projects to practice start to try engaging more with the city. Through laying down parallel conceptual threads in several urban projects, and further nesting the threads to establish a “field” of operation to allow both the architecture and urbanism working together, and finally re-establish the new relations for hopping between two different scales.
For instance, as the chief architect of national level design institute, Cui Kai shows a subtle attitude for social critique in many of his works, often confronting problems generated in the urbanization process. He compares the urban renovation as orthopedic surgery, stating “in response to recurring ‘urban symptoms’… through a careful pinning therapy, we can replace the previous tissue and embed new organism in.” thus so preserve the urban texture, and realize a more proper urban renewal. Based on this cautious operation, and through projects of all types, he then extract a series of keypoints - embedding, pulse, vitality and so on - as main plot to direct the dialogue between the city and his architecture.
URBANUS changes its Chinese name to a more active “urban practice”, in favor of clarifying the strategy of “critical urban engagement”. Such strategy is deeply rooted in the analysis of Chinese urban reality, and brings up proposals from not only the planning, but also the economical, sociological and demographic point of view. They have often describe their dual practicing tracks as “urban engagement”, which means a positive involvement with the early feasibility study; and “Urban infill” which looks for an opportunity to discover. The two keypoints indeed link the trajectory from URBANUS’ research on the Shenzhen “village in the city”, to the intervention in Dafen Museum, and then to the “Tulou Commune” next to a highway, from which we see a shifting strategy that tries to get the two scales working together.
5. Dialectic Dichotomy
Like architecture vs. urbanism, there are many other conceptual and perceptual conflicts exist in the architecture discourse, such as local vs. global, tradition vs. innovation, specificity vs. generalization, rural vs. urban, profession vs. business… Architects usually have to make a clear choice between the two poles, and hence arrive at a standpoint for themselves. However, what we are encountering in the evolution of the contemporary Chinese architectural scene is that, there is a continuous struggle for balancing between the two sides. From a philosophical point of view, but also from a very practical point of view, it tries to reconcile the binary conflicts, and recombine them in a form of dialectic dichotomy.
Such effort can be detected from some architects’ own words. Ma Qingyun has recently coined the term “Agri-Urbanism” to define a series of design-development he initiated in his hometown. “How hyper-urbanity can meet a completely rural idea. How ancient, hyper-classical Chinese forms should be dealt with today.” This approach attacks on a middle zone that is neither urban nor rural, but contains both - a middle zone that is of unprecedented potentials. Zhang Ke from standardarchitecture has recently summarized a series of projects they are doing in Tibet as “contemporary thinking, local construction”. Such sober dialectics provide him with an “equal attitude” in the extreme historical and cultural context, with which they are able to reconcile the opposition between existing building technique and new spatial formation, and the conflict between Tibetan tradition and modern ideology.
Regarding the dichotomy in architecture, Zhang Lei holds a more explicit position and even take it as a design tool. His Split House is a demonstration on how concrete, as a rough and mundane structural material, usually hided in the end, can appear as a refined surface texture. Originally conflicting polarization, now co-existing under specific settings, its tension can stimulate new potentials. Through introducing dichotomy into a simple system, it dramatically increases the conceptual and spatial complexity. Such dialectics is also underlined in his New 4th Army Jiangnan headquarters memorial – as “history vs. enjoyment”; and in Gaochun Brick Houses – as “local layman construction vs. modern poetic dwelling”.
To release architects from endless struggles in the dualities – so we can have both fish and bear's paw at the same time. Architect’s own practicing framework as such is also turned into multiplicity. Xie Yingjun and Zhu Jingxiang have both found new ways of integrate resources, in a time of post-earthquake condition, dealing with the co-existence of the lack of sufficient material vs. highly integrated technology, and primitive building technique vs. new construction system. Zhu Jingxiang New Bud Schools reflects the thinking behind the design scheme, as it successfully fuses the investment and technology from Honking with the manufacturing of Shenzhen, in serving the local demand.
Li Xuedong paralleled his practice with the Chinese “Acupuncture” therapy in one of his recent lectures, explaining that the way to solve a contemporary problem is not to deal with the obvious symptom, but rather to evaluate the entire system, then through proper acupuncture in the hinge point, it adjusts the whole system to be in line with its context in a deeper and broader manner. His Bridge School and Libyan Library have all present this unusual, uncategorical sophistication, thanks to his liberal understanding of the dialectics. He would even not consider himself as just an architect - fund raising, programming, finding site, designing, managing local worker and resources, and even discussing the potential tourism income with the locals - but is actively defining a new kind of “archi-curator” position.
It all reminds me of a conversation I had with Teemu Kurkela, when we were doing a workshop together. I asked, “with the strong modern architectural tradition in Finland, what’s your view of the future? Regional concern versus the individuality of architects, how would they affect design?” His answer is intriguing, “from philosophical point of view, and practical too, we try to do both!” Indeed, from my own experience in America and Europe, people are all thinking about how to understand the opposition, and develop an all-encompassing potential that can make use of all sorts of energy: historical, contemporary, local, global, handcrafted, mass-produced…and come up with unexpected strategies that go beyond any pre-determined formula.
Epilogue
The emerging evolution of the contemporary Chinese architectural scene we are encountering provides us with an opportunity to draw up a depiction for the trajectory of the current discourse. Such depiction does not take any project as finished product for drawing conclusion, rather through extracting keypoint from architects’ focuses and tactics, and through analyzing the influence by the discourse of modernity, at the same time their identity definition under the specific context of current Chinese urban status, it further recombines multiple trajectories which is neither sequential nor consequential, and develops a research proposal to reconstruct the contemporary Chinese architecture discourse that is still not clearly defined. The new discourse maybe differentiated from the discourse of modernity as a kind of“ raveling trajectory”, and demonstrates how multiple clues come to some unpredicted convergence or divergence in contemporary China.
Author:
Wang Shuo
Founding Principal of META-Project
M.Arch, Rice University
B.Arch, Tsinghua University
本文中文版本及english synopsis发表于《时代建筑》2012年第4期 “承上启下：50年代生中国建筑师”中作为综述文章对50、60、70年代生建筑师群体研究的方法和视角进行论述。
摘要：
文章尝试从部分20世纪50至70年代生当代中国建筑师实践策略和思考关注点的转变中寻觅线索轨迹。分析他们受到“现代性”话语体系的影响，同时检视他们在中国城市发展现状这一特定语境下的身份定义，进而尝试对当代中国建筑师思考与实践发展脉络进行描述。这一描述不是从作品的结果出发作总结性的判断，而是通过抽取不同建筑师的策略关注点和关键话语，进一步对贯穿不同时间段、没有因果关系的多重线索进行重新梳理和联结，对还原一个未曾明确的当代中国建筑话语体系给出研究建议。这一新的话语体系或许可以提供一种不同于西方现代性的“脱散的轨迹”，从而见证多条线索在当代中国的某种不期而至的交汇或离散。
关键词：
策略；关注点；身份定义；关键词语；轨迹；话语体系
前言
把20世纪50至70年代这三个十年间出生的建筑师放在一起会得到怎样的图景？他们各不相同的出发点、态度、目标、策略……任何想对这些进行总结的尝试所得到的答案都一定是混乱的。那么该如何进行评价? 对建筑师进行身份定义（identity definition），一方面需要观察他们在特定条件下通过具体实践体现的自我表达，另一方面需要在更广的维度上评价其思考与实践在建筑学整体话语体系（discourse）内所处的位置。
自50年代生建筑师从1995年前后进行独立实践开始，当代中国涌现出的建筑师大多需要在实践的同时不断进行自我定义（self-definition），即对其出发点、参照系以及作品所引申的理念进行不厌其烦的详尽阐述。这种自我定义在一定程度上的确为前途未卜的中国建筑指出了方向，但其本质上是一种自我引证，因此是特例的、主观的，通常带有某种程度上的“神秘性”（mystification）[1]，无法作为整体解读中国建筑师群体的基础。而由于体制上与经济上的放开，在过去的20年里中国建筑师进行了大量实践。面对如此多的挑战，建筑师不可能完全引用同一条真理，于是在实践的过程中逐渐建立起属于个体的关键话语（keypoints）体系——这就加大了对更大范围的话语体系进行梳理的可能。因此，本文通过对较为熟悉的建筑师的实践策略及关注话题中体现出的关键词语进行无序的抽取，并对贯穿不同时间段的多重线索重新进行梳理和联结，试探性地对描绘一条通向新的话语体系的轨迹给出研究建议。
1 “实验/先锋建筑”之结束
可以认为，对当代中国建筑的讨论始于20世纪90年代中后期。这一时期的“实验/先锋建筑”（Experimental/Pioneering Architecture）及其代表建筑师——张永和（50年代生）、刘家琨（50年代生）、王澍（60年代生）、马清运（60年代生）等，使当代中国建筑受到来自专业和大众媒体越来越多的关注，而1999年的“中国青年建筑师实验性作品展”以及2001年柏林的“土木”中国青年建筑师展，引发的讨论更是达到了前所未有的高度。
然而究竟什么是“实验建筑”或“先锋建筑”？彭怒和支文军曾在《中国当代实验性建筑的拼图：从理论话语到实践策略》中提到“它……向建筑的主流学术意识形态挑战，与主流设计实践相对抗。它反对已经被接受的、成为习惯的建筑价值观而表现为一种革命和创新的精神”[2]。“实验”这个词本身似乎带有一种价值判断：“实验”即是对现实的批判性实验，是因为要对我们所处的社会整体状态进行抵抗而产生的。因而这种批判性实验首先需要明确一个边缘化的立场，然后站在自设的立场去质疑、对抗其他。而我们所谓的“先锋”（pioneering）这个词则更是表达上述立场所具有的“姿态”（gesture），与西方建筑话语体系里面的“avant-garde”所指不同。
这一时期开始出现的独立工作室便是对所谓体制内的集体建筑实践的一种批判，他们的作品也都流露出一种对主流意识形态的批判态度。就像刘家琨在他的《我在西部做建筑》[3]里写到的，设计罗中立、何多苓工作室的整个过程伴随着与设计院体制的决裂。这一时期的张永和通过文字和实践反对鲍扎（Beaux-arts）式的以平面与立体构成作为基础内容的“美术建筑”，而提出关注建造和空间的“基本建筑”。同时代开始建筑实践的王澍、马清运，他们的一系列探索与旧有美学传统之间的摩擦、抵抗、颠覆，形成了当代中国建筑师最初的身份特征。
“实验/先锋建筑”是新体系的开始，然而作为关键话语，它的指向却并不清晰。因此在这里需要指明的是，除了不约而同地表达出一种打破原有运行框架的倾向外，这些建筑师各自的关注点及设计策略的微妙不同使得他们后来的实践表现出了巨大差异（这一点会在后面详述）。而无论叫“实验建筑”还是“先锋建筑”，所指向的笼统性评价都无法对这种微妙的差异进行精确的描述。除了强调与主流话语的差异，我们并不知道“实验/先锋建筑”到底包含多少在更广泛的当代语境下独特的实质性批判，又包含多少具有发展潜力的新内容，这种空泛常常使我们陷入对自身评价体系的一种“失语”状态。
随着中国经济与体制的飞速发展，当独立实践和主流实践产生了很大的交集，而“实验”所包含的对意识形态的批判性被日益扩大的消费文化削弱时，在这种全球化影响下的大众文化中又衍生出了包含各种不同程度的批判性与实验性的建筑，我们真的感觉到，“实验/先锋建筑”这一使命应该已经结束了，而现在是否能够提出一些实在的新问题？
2 重新发问
今天的建筑学，已经逐渐从完全自主（autonomous）的学科转变为具有文化、经济等多重属性的混合体。在建筑应对当代社会挑战的过程中，许多以前看似无法解决的问题都有了新的应对策略。而这些新应对方式的基础，是源于少数人对“建筑”这一学科的重新发问，并重新定义与此相连的一系列关系网络。这里所谓的“重新发问”，包括对建筑师这一职业身份的质疑，对实践方式的质疑，以及对建筑学本身含义的质疑，更在于以巧妙的策略化解创造出的新问题。不同时期的建筑师，都在以自己的方式重新定义这种可能性，而这之中，多以50年代生建筑师为主要代表。
张永和在中国开展建筑实践后不久就创办了北京大学建筑学研究中心（图1），开始追问如何在中国的语境下重新看待建筑教育的问题。在《对建筑教育三个问题的思考》[4]中，他同时将对于传统“美术建筑”的批判以及如何将建筑设计作为研究计划介入社会实践注入到建筑教育的思维体系中，并在此基础上通过跨学科的研究机制，建立起研究室和工作室并行的“双向”建筑教学结构体系。而且，基于这一经历，他进一步拓展对建筑教育的涉入，2005年出任美国麻省理工学院建筑系主任。而同一时期，张永和作为威尼斯双年展中国馆的策展人，深圳/香港双年展的策展人，及至成为2012年普利兹克奖的评委，更是以自身经历作为一个研究计划，实践他所提倡的“教学和研究应领先于社会实践并推动社会实践”，证实“建筑师”的思考角度如何拓展到各种社会领域，并与“教育家”、“社会活动家”成为不可分割的跨界身份组合。
 |
图1
同时代的刘家琨，也从早期的“低技策略”——清楚地贴近现实的处理方式，逐渐发展出一种在项目前期积极介入策划和运作的策略，或者说是一种新的介乎于甲乙方之间的身份，使得建筑师个人对于设计的阐释更能驾轻就熟地实现对有关建筑的各种资源——土地、资金、开发方式、公众影响等的有效利用，从而重新定义建筑的社会性。对这些问题的思考，充分体现在他的成都“蓝顶实践”计划（图2）以及与“成都双年展”的合作中。
 |
图2
即使在对待“传统的现代性表达”这一建筑界讨论已久的话题上，王澍也同样作出了新的阐发。他在哈佛大学设计研究生院所做的讲座《自然形态的几何和叙事》（Geometry and Narrative of Natural Form）[5]中讲到《千里江山图》（图3）时提出：从自然地理形态中，涌现出一个庞大的景观－建筑系统（landscape-architectural system），这一系统覆盖了整个中国的地表尺度，同时又渗透到日常生活的细节中。这一系统在过去曾延续了几千年，但现在却已失去，所以作为一种反问，王澍的中国美院象山校区（图4）以及宁波博物馆都是试图重新建立一种作为景观体系的一部分的建筑，甚至城市也是景观的自然延伸，而非将建筑视为一个个独立的物体。可以认为，他这种跨越尺度的对于建筑－景观－城市的理解，与查尔斯•瓦尔德海姆（Charles Waldheim）和穆赫辛•穆斯塔法维（Mohsen Mostafavi）近年提倡的“景观都市学”（landscape urbanism）[6]是殊途同归的。
 |
图3
 |
图4
“重新发问”不光对于建筑学本身，对于整个当代设计思想体系都是至关重要的。在随后几代建筑师身上，这似乎成为一种必须完成的“任务”，变得更加自然和公开化。马清运在一次与贝尔特•德•穆尤克（Bert de Muynck）的访谈中提到，“设计将变成一种重新建立关系网络的过程”（design turns into a process of building or re-inventing a network of relations）[7]，并且在新的关系中，设计不再被视为一种“实践”（practice），因为“实践”本身已包含过多如规范、技术水平、职业道德等的既有约束；而进一步将设计视为一种“经营”（business）, 可以跨越学科，跨越血统，将想法与资本连接在一起，发掘将潜在价值最大化的可能。正是基于这样的理解，他率领马达思班（MADAs.p.a.m）不遗余力地在跨越教育、商贸、时尚、艺术、展览及视觉策略等领域进行“设发商”（designoloper）式的经营。
不仅马清运于玉川酒庄，梁井宇（60年代生）于大声展（图5）、王晖（60年代生）于时尚设计展、张轲（70年代生）于米兰家具展（图6），以及新生代建筑师车飞（70年代生）于产品设计（图7）、王振飞（70年代生）于电子艺术节（图8）等，他们近年在设计跨界上所做出的尝试都为重新定义建筑师的当代身份标明了新的可能。
 |
图5
 |
图6
 |
图7
 |
图8
3 发展：从地域性到特定性
自从弗兰姆普敦（Kenneth Frampton）发表《通向批判的地域主义：作为抵抗的建筑学之六要点》（Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six points for An Architecture of Resistance）[8]以来，“批判的地域主义”成为中国建筑理论界最常被引用的参照系之一。对这个关键词所涉及的代表性个案在此不再赘述，这里想谈的是这种意识形态的源头——地域性在中国建筑师关注及策略中的转变。槙文彦在一篇题为《地域性与主体性》的文章中提到：“建筑……有一个形成地域性的历史过程。要在地域扎根，其主体性的形成必须控制时间，使变化过程相对平缓才有可能……（例如日本）对于外来的意识形态，经过时间的推移……以自己特有的方式，采取一种特异的摄取方式加以吸收，并使之成为自己的一部分……结局是收敛为普遍的地域文化的感性。”[9]
中国建筑的地域性在几千年的时间尺度内体现为一种长时间沉积而成的文化纽带，这种地域性与具有很强传继性的中国文人认知世界的方式，以及官场、礼教、宗教等设定的社会规范是一体的。但自从20世纪60年代以来，中国已经逐渐失去了这种很强的文化联结，传统的生活方式以及建造方式被打断，仅以一些物件或民居的方式得以继存。因而提到“地域性”时，很大程度上是指对于一种已然失去的中国传统文化或民居聚落形式的复兴。
在这一前提下，对于王澍建筑的解读，必须回溯到他这样一种对中国传统文化的深厚浸润以及强烈联结的基础上，才能理解什么是他所引用的中国山水画的意境，才能理解他为什么花十年的时间与地方工匠学习营造技术，才能理解他为什么执着地在建筑中运用回收的砖、瓦以及原木、夯土等传统的建筑构件和工艺（图9），从而达到对“地域性”的总体表达。从这种角度来看，王澍的实践试图在失去历史的城市里，挖掘出埋藏在历史断层下的“城市中的幽灵”（ghosts in the city） [10]。与他同时代的一些建筑师，如刘克成（60年代生）（图10）、王路（60年代生）（图11）、魏春雨（60年代生）（图12），都以各自的作品深入探讨了这种对“地域性”的当代表达。
 |
图9
 |
图10
 |
图11
 |
图12
然而在中国，尤其是新千年之后，时间和空间都被剧烈压缩，“地域性”赖以形成的相对平缓的变化过程不复存在，新的文化纽带似乎刚刚建立起一个立足点，但转瞬间就沦为商业化背景下的消费品，失去成为文化的积淀。在这种条件下，又该如何理解和建立“新的地域性”？ 也许可以换个视角来审视这一问题。
标准营造的四川青城山石头院是一个颇有意味的案例。“石头院”从外面看上去像一个具有完整体量的现代房子（图13），除了立面采用本地常见的一种青灰色砂岩，没有其他任何有关地域性的暗示。建筑最有意趣之处在于木作的屋顶：由于每个窄院平面形状不同，又都有两三个或长或方的天井，如果通过设计解决屋顶结构将极为复杂——而事实上这些屋顶并非建筑师“设计”出来的，建造现场请来了精通当地传统木结构的老工匠负责屋顶构造，建筑师只对他提出了“木结构盖在周边砌好的石墙上，并且空间需要无柱”的要求。最终实现的结果完全符合要求，屋顶看上去又像是自然长出的（图14）。这一案例恰好描述了一种观察“新的地域性”的特定角度，即在现代建造的精确逻辑内设置特定框架，允许地方工艺或材料在此框架内自行解决问题，从而完成设计中的特定表达。
 |
图13
 |
图14
这种对待新地域性的更极端的态度体现在另一个石头房子——马清运的“玉山石柴”上。虽然拥有这样一个充分引发人们对传统意境的想象的名字，但正如他自己所说，“永远不要相信传统留给你的……它只给你留下了一个最可能突破的界限。”[11]800多年来这个村里的人都不用石头盖房子，然而河里无数的卵石的确是最经济实用的材料。用这些石头盖的房子完全能适应大西北干燥的气候，并且散发出符合黄土高原氛围的山野气息（图15），为之后如玉川酒庄等一系列商业运作提供了良好的契机。这一反讽的策略，在充分利用当地的建筑材料、工匠、工艺，却不相信地域的普遍性的前提下，主张自我的特定表达才是唯一的定点，指向对传统“地域性”的颠覆。
 |
图15
塞尔托（Michel de Certeau）在《日常生活的实践》一书中提出了在日常生活实践逻辑中的“非同一性主体”(non-identity)[12]。“非同一性”是指一种在传统哲学之外，具有异质性、不稳定的、转瞬即逝、又没有太多意义的主体。在本文探讨的语境下，笔者使用“特定性”（specificity）这一更易理解的词汇替代哲学上“非同一性”的所指。有意思的是，当没有国籍、没有地域特性的权利与商业资本取代了传统的意识形态，这种非同一性、特定性却在新的权利结构中超越了地域性，激活了差异生态，并为使自己能够更广泛、更长久地传播而进行着不间断的努力。
TAO•迹建筑事务所华黎（70年代生）近期的几个案例就体现出对这种特定性地域的关注。云南高黎贡手工造纸博物馆在回应这一地域强烈的场所感（图16）时关注的是建造逻辑，通过对当地气候、建造工艺以及合理利用资源的考察与分析，综合使用杉木、竹、火山石、手工纸等当地常用材料，完全使用本地工匠还原一个地域的建造逻辑。虽然逻辑上是忠实于本地的，但整个建筑呈现出的属性又处处透出与所谓传统的差异：立面表皮直拼的杉木板，整竹筒排列的屋面，各处不同的屋檐做法，外墙底部的镂空条石，甚至独特的开窗方式似乎都在诉说着完全不同的事实（图17）——这一事实并不是预设的，而是在熟悉的资源与建筑师的特定选择的碰撞中发展出了不同以往的结果。
 |
图16
 |
图17
如果说上述案例还包含有对本地意识形态的默认，那么在另一个案例——王晖（60年代生）的西藏阿里苹果小学（图18）中，地域性作为一种意识形态则几乎消失殆尽，对藏族文化或地域建造的研究最终都没有反映在建筑的形式上。事实上在海拔5000m的高原，最大限度地以低成本、低能耗利用当地资源即是本地的需求主体。因此防风、造价、材料的选用都成为建筑师选择对某一现实问题进行特定回应的源头。建筑师甚至承认学校布局的灵感与高原无关，而是来源于一次威尼斯之行中见到的运河上拥堵的船只。而我每一次看到阿里小学在高原戈壁上缓缓升高的挡风墙都会禁不住想起理查德•塞拉（Richard Serra）的景观装置作品——“shift”[13]（图19）。
 |
图18
 |
图19
可以认为，从“地域性”到“特定性”的发展属于当代中国建筑这一话语体系的转变，在当下以及可预见的将来，我们对“特定性”的喜好将胜过任何一种意识形态。
4 跃于两种尺度之间
如果抛去意识形态上的宣言，现代主义很重要的立足点之一就是与其所处的“前现代”（pre-modern) 周边状态之间的一种对比。随着现代主义向后发展，这种“对比”包含了越来越多层面的内容。对于当代建筑师来说，不管自觉与否，任何一个设计都不可能脱离城市观(urbanism)而开始。
建筑与城市的这种对比从勒•柯布西耶（Le Corbusier）的“光明城市”（La Ville Radiense）开始，经过盖里（Frank Ghery）的毕尔巴鄂古根海姆发扬光大，及至近期扎哈（Zaha Hadid）建成的意大利MAXXI国立21世纪艺术博物馆，其实本质上没有什么变化——它们都是在一种传统的城市观，而非现实的城市观作用之下产生的。即使我们对通过建筑塑造城市仍有信心，而实际上当前的情况是，建筑所处的情景、周边的城市基础设施与社会生活内容渗透到建筑当中，甚至超越了建筑。也即，建筑被其所处的城市所定义。
因此，一些拥有更多实践机会的建筑师开始选择一种更积极的方式介入城市。通过在多个项目之间布置贯穿其中的平行的概念线索，并进一步通过数条线索形成一个在城市与建筑之间操作的“场地”。实践力图将在两种尺度下同时进行的思考融为一体，并最终在“场地”中建立新的“城市vs.建筑”的关系。
崔愷（50年代生）作为国家级设计院的总建筑师，在诸多实际项目中体现出微妙的社会性批判态度，直面城市进程中产生的社会问题。他将建筑师在城市改造中的作用类比为骨科手术的进程，“对于不断出现的‘城市病’……（通过）一种见缝插针的状态，巧妙地替换原来的组织，植入新的机体”[14]，从而延续城市的肌理和文脉，以达到城市的合理更新。从这种审慎的态度出发，他又从城市现实中提炼出一系列关注点作为线索，如嵌入（embedding）、脉动（pulse）、活力（vitality）,通过各种类型的项目：德胜尚城、欧美同学会（图20）、昆山市民文化广场等，不断通过实践完善在城市与建筑之间对话的体系。
 |
图20
URBANUS（60年代生）从最早的中文名“都市国际”改为“都市实践”，也正是希望明确这种“批判性城市介入”的实践策略。通过深入研究中国城市现实，从规划、社会学乃至人口统计学的角度为城市的改善和发展提供积极的方案。他们常常用“城市介入”（urban engagement）和“城市填空”（urban infill）[15]两条脉络来描述自己从两个方向进行实践的方式，前者更为积极主动地参与策划，后者则意味着需要发现机遇。而这两个词正好涵盖了URBANUS从对深圳城中村的研究（图21）开始，到大芬村美术馆的介入（图22），再到高速公路旁的土楼公舍（图23），这些项目在“城市vs.建筑”之间切入点的切换。
 |
图21
 |
图22
 |
图23
5 鱼与熊掌可得兼
正如城市与建筑两个概念长久以来在认知上的对立一样，建筑的话语体系中还存在着很多对立冲突，比如上文提到过的地域与全球化，传统与创新，特殊与普遍，都市与乡村，极大与极小，职业与经营，等等。建筑师的立场通常意味着必须做出非黑即白的选择，而一连串的选择答案也就给定了建筑师所处的位置。在仔细审视当代中国建筑图景的演化脉络后，有趣的是我们发现存在一种在两极之间努力保持的精致平衡，这种平衡力图既从理论层面，又从实际操作的层面来消解传统概念上的种种二元对立，并以辨证的方式加以结合。
我们可以从一些建筑师对自己实践的描述中窥出端倪。马清运最近提出“农市主义”（Agri-Urbanism）这个词来定义自己在故乡蓝田开展的一系列运作（图24）。将高密度的都市化产生的想法与完全农业化的生产结合在一起，所生成的是一种既非城市又非农业的中间地带，这种中间地带的未来是无法估量的。标准营造的张轲对于在西藏的一系列建设项目，经常用“当代的思考，本地的建造”（contemporary thinking, local construction）来进行概括。这种在历史文化环境中的清醒思辨，使得标准营造能在西藏以一种“文化平视”的态度，消除了既有建造技术与新的空间形式的冲突，以及在藏区传统和现代观念之间的冲突。
 |
图24
对于建筑中的“二元对立”（dichotomy），张雷（60年代生）持更明确的态度，甚至进一步将之作为设计的工具——裂开的缝之宅（slit house)（图25）想表达的就是混凝土作为粗糙的建筑结构材料，如何显现为与砖墙类似的表皮材质。原本对立或排斥的两极，在特定的条件之下得以共存，并由其张力激发出新的可能性。通过在简单的系统中引入看似对立的两面，并由此增加概念与空间的复杂性，同样的二元拆解在其新四军指挥部纪念馆———“历史”与“快感”并存，以及高淳砖屋（brick houses）（图26）——“当地普通人工艺”与“诗意的现代居住”并存之中体现得更加鲜明而丰富。
 |
图25
 |
图26
消解在二元对立中的挣扎，将建筑师从无数的选择题中解放出来，这样一来鱼与熊掌似乎终于可得而兼。这令建筑师自身身份的参照系得以转向更为多样（multiplicity）。像谢英俊（50年代生），朱竞翔（70年代生），都在震后乡村资源匮乏与高度技术集成、原始的施工工艺与全新的建造系统共存的情况下，找到了结合多样资源的新方法。朱竞翔的两间新芽小学（图27）其背后的运作都与对这一系列问题的思索有关联。建筑师成功地融合了香港的资金和技术信息、深圳的制造加工能力，解决了地方的社会需求 [15]。
 |
图27
李晓东（60年代生）在最近的一次讲座中提到他的实践更类似于中医的“针灸”疗法：解决问题的方式并不是针对眼前的症状，而是通观整个系统的状况，在关键的“穴位”上施以适当的针刺，即通过一个点激活一个系统，探讨如何从调和系统的理念上把建筑的功能及其与周围环境的关系结合得更深入、更广泛。桥上书屋（图28）、篱苑图书馆（图29）之所以能够以不同寻常的、无法归类的建筑类型得到实现，完全取决于他的这种理解，他甚至不认为自己是一个“建筑师”——找寻赞助资金、确定项目功能、选址、设计、运用当地的材料和人工，甚至不避讳谈到该项目如何为当地旅游业创造收入——而是兼具多重身份的“建筑策划人”（archi-curator）。
 |
图28
 |
图29
这又让我想起今年在和来访的芬兰建筑师泰睦（Teemu Kurkela，2010年上海世博会芬兰馆设计者）一起开展工作坊时的谈话，笔者问了他一个问题：在有着强大现代建筑传统的芬兰，你如何看待建筑的未来，建筑的地域性与建筑师的主体性将如何影响设计？他的回答很有意思：无论从哲学上还是从实践上讲，我们希望都能做到！（From philosophical point of view, and practical too, we try to do both！）的确，在笔者这几年在美国与欧洲工作游历的经验中，人们思考最多的是如何能够面对更多的问题，理解更多的冲突，掌握甚至拥抱更多看似对立的方面；思考是否能够发展出包含多种可能性，把一切能量——历史的、当代的、地方的、全球的、纯手工的、可批量生产的等等，都积极地利用起来的新方式，同时又是未曾预料到的，超出任何预设公式的新策略。
结语
本文提及的建筑师（或公司团体）包括：
50年代生：张永和，刘家琨，崔愷，谢英俊；
60年代生：都市实践（刘晓都/孟岩/王辉），王澍，刘克成，王路，李晓东，
魏春雨，张雷，马清运，梁井宇，王晖；
70年代生：标准营造（张轲/张弘），华黎，朱竞翔，车飞，王振飞。
上述建筑师及其个案采取的不同设计策略，启发了我尝试对当代中国建筑师思考与实践发展脉络做出另一种描述。这一描述不从作品的时间顺序、因果关系出发作总结性的判断，而是从部分当代中国建筑师实践策略和思考关注点的转变中，试图寻觅轨迹线索，分析他们受到现代主义以来的理论思潮和建筑实践的影响，同时检视他们所受到的中国城市发展现状的影响。通过抽取不同建筑师关注点的定义和关键词，进一步在多条线索的发展网络中重新串联（trajectory）起这些关键词，并通过它们梳理还原一个未曾明确的话语体系（discourse）。这一新的话语体系或许可以提供一种不同于西方现代性的“脱散的轨迹”，从而见证多条线索在当代中国的某种不期而至的交汇或离散。
当然，建立话语体系并不是一篇文章可能达成的，各种可能的关键词以及能够找出的线索其实很多；而且事实上每个建筑师逐渐建立起的个体话语权之间，由于各自语境不同而存在一定程度的偏差。对于建立一个新的话语体系，笔者谨希望以上论述能够提供一些研究方法与建议。
注释和参考文献：
[1] 对此概念的精确定义参见罗兰•巴特1972年版的《神秘学》一书（Roland Barthes, Mythologies,Paladin, 1972）。
[2] 彭怒,支文军. 中国当代实验性建筑的拼图——从理论话语到实践策略[J]. 时代建筑，2002，(5)：20-25.
[3] 刘家琨. 我在西部做建筑[J]. 时代建筑，2006，(4)：45-47.
[4] 张永和. 对建筑教育三个问题的思考[J]. 时代建筑，2001， 增刊(S1)：40-42.
[5] 王澍. Geometry and Narrative of Natural Form. KenzoTange Lecture at GSD， 2012.
[6] 对此概念的延伸阅读参见Charles Waldheim. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.以及Mohsen Mostafavi. Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape. AA Publications, 2003.
[7] Bert de Muynck. Qingyun Ma: Architect in China[J]. VOLUME, 2006, Ubiquitous China (8).http://movingcities.org/interviews/qingyun-ma_volume.
[8] Kenneth Frampton. Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance. in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster, Bay Press, 1983.
[9] 槙文彦. 地域性与主体性[J]. 王炳麟，译. 世界建筑，1993，(1)：19-20.
[10] 对此概念的精确定义参见米歇尔•德•塞尔托1984年版的《日常生活实践》一书 （Michel de Certeau.The Practice of Everyday Life，University of California Press, 1984.）。
[11] 李军奇．马清运：解构建筑的建筑师[EB/OL]．南方周末电子报，http://www.infzm.com/content/5462.
[12] 对此概念的精确定义参见米歇尔•德•塞尔托1984年版的《日常生活实践》一书 （Michel de Certeau.The Practice of Everyday Life，University of California Press, 1984.）。
[13] Richard Serra. Shift. 1970-1972.Sculpture/Installation at King City, Ontario, Canada.
[14] 崔愷．“嵌”一种方法和态度[J]．城市环境设计，2012，(1+2)：122-126.
[15]URBANUS对这两个概念的定义参见:实践是我们批判的工具——访都市实践事务所合伙人刘晓都.畅言网，http://www.archcy.com/focus/haigui/d54d5caf7df6212c_p3，2011.
[16] 朱竞翔. 新芽学校的诞生[J]. 时代建筑，2011，(2)：46-53.
-2012年6月10日于北京
以下为英文全文_Full English Version
RAVELING TRAJECTORY
- An Alternative Depiction of the Discourse of Contemporary Chinese Architect’s Thinking and Practicing
ABSTRACT：
This essay investigates the shifting trajectories of the conceptual focuses and practicing strategies of the contemporary Chinese architects born from the 50s to 70s. Through analyzing the influence by the discourse of modernity, at the same time their identity definition under the specific context of current Chinese urban status, it tries to deliver an alternative depiction to the discourse of contemporary Chinese architect. Such depiction does not take any project as finished product for drawing conclusion, rather through extracting keypoints from architects’ focuses and tactics, further combing and recombining multiple trajectories which is neither sequential nor consequential, it develops a research proposal to reconstruct the contemporary Chinese architecture discourse that is still not clearly defined. The new discourse maybe differentiated from the western modernity as a“ raveling trajectory”, and demonstrates how multiple clues come to some unpredicted convergence or divergence in contemporary China.
KEYWORDS：
Strategy；Conceptual Focus；Identity Definition；Keypoint；Trajectory； Discourse
Prologue
What do you get when you put Chinese architects from 3 decades together (born from 50s to 70s)? Any attempt to clarify such scene will result in a mess. So how can we depict such a mess?
The identity definition of an architect requires on the one hand, close examination of one’s self-expression through practicing, on the other hand, it needs to be evaluated upon a broader sense of the current architecture discourse where one’s thinking and practicing can be placed. Since the first generation of architects after the cultural revolution (born in the 50s) started to practice independently in China around 1995, Chinese architects that emerged have been continuously self-defining their own stand point, theoretical framework and practicing philosophy. Such definition, however, is essentially subjective, idiosyncratic, self-referential, and usually contains certain “Mystification”, and therefore cannot lead to a big picture of the contemporary Chinese architecture scene.
This essay investigates the shifting trajectories of the conceptual focuses and practicing strategies of selected Chinese architects born from the 50s to 70s. Through extracting keypoints from their focuses and tactics, further combing and recombining multiple trajectories, it tries to deliver an alternative depiction of the discourse of contemporary Chinese architects.
1. Experimental/Pioneering Architecture is Over
The discussion of contemporary Chinese Architecture was initiated from the mid-late 90s, when Chang Yungho, Liu Jiakun, Wang Shu and Ma Qingyun started to practice under the name of “Experimental/Pioneering Architecture”. The 1999 UIA Exhibition “Experiment Works by Chinese Young Architects” and the 2001 Berlin " TU MU - Chinese Young Architects' Work Exhibition" had elevated the discussion to and unprecedented height.
But what exactly is “Experimental Architecture” or “Pioneering Architecture” in China? The word “experimental” entails certain value judgment: experiment is always a critique of the reality. It exists as a counter force to the prevailing ideology of society. Therefore such “experiment” always sets up a marginalized standpoint first, from where it questions and fights against the rest. What we call “Pioneering” is actually more about expressing the gesture of above mentioned “experiment”, and therefore should be differentiated from the “avant-garde” of the modern architecture discourse.
The independent design studio in the early period embodied such repudiation against the institutionalized “collective design approach”. Just as Liu Jiakun wrote in his My Architectural Practice in Western China, the entire design process of his early work – Luo Zhongli Studio and He Duoling Studio was coupled with a break with the existing system of Design Institute. In the same period of time, Chang Yungho, launched a campaign, both through writing and practicing, against the “Beaux-arts“ system that has been in control for the Chinese architecture education. He tried to establish a new “basic architecture” from construction and space, to replace the Beaux-arts architecture, which was primarily based on graphic and representation. Wang Shu and Ma Qingyun, who also started practicing at that time, epitomized the identity of early contemporary Chinese architects through a series of explorations that generated disruption and subversion against conventional aesthetic.
"Experimental/Pioneering Architecture” was the beginning of a new exploration, nevertheless, as a keypoint it is not clearly defined. As I would point out in greater detail later – other than the inclination they have all shared to break up with the existing framework, the subtle difference between their conceptual focuses has greatly diverged their practicing strategies afterwards. The discussion of “Experimental/Pioneering Architecture” remained too vague to describe the divergence precisely. We don’t know how much concrete criticism it contains in regard to the contemporary context in a broader sense, and how much new potential it could stimulate. Such vagueness has often driven us into a kind of “aphemia symptom” for our own architecture discourse.
With the accelerating development of economy and policies, lots of overlapping happens between mainstream and independent practice, and the ideological criticality carried by the form of experiment is badly impaired - the mass culture has fostered architecture that contains mix levels of experimentation and realism. Now it’s time to say, “Experimental/Pioneering Architecture” is over, what will be the new question then?
2. Re-invent the Question
Architecture today, has already shifted from an autonomous discipline to a multiple-attributed mixture. We need to come up with effective strategies to cope with formerly unresolvable problems, yet the foundation of any new strategy lies firstly in re-inventing the discipline, in order to reestablish a series of correlating networks. Such “re-inventing” including questioning the definition of the profession, the mode of practicing and the signification, per se, of architecture.
Chang Yung Ho founded the “Graduate Center of Architecture“ at Peking University shortly afterward his own practice settled in China, through which he posed new question for the architecture education. Besides the critique of “Beaux-arts” system he also demonstrated how design should be taken as research project that reflects social reality, and infuse parallel“ research laborarory”and “design studio” into the academic system. He then further developed the idea of crossbreed when he took the position of department head at MIT. Meanwhile, as curator for the 2005 Shenzhen & Hong Kong Bi-City Biennale, and for the 2008 Venice Biennale Chinese Pavilion, also as the jury for the 2012 Pritzker Prize, he presents himself as a strong demonstration for how the thinking of architect can extend to numerous social aspects, and create a multiple identity of “archi- academic-socio-curator”.
Even on the long-discussed topic of “modern expression of tradition”, Wang Shu has posed some new question there. In his recent lecture at GSD Geometry and Narrative of Natural Form, when talking about a Chinese painting” A Thousand Kilometers of Landscape”, he pointed out, from the coexistence of natural geography and artificial environment in Chinese tradition, it emerges an enormous landscape-architectural system. A system that covered the entire physical surface of China, and at the same time, infiltrate into the detail of everyday life, from a cup to a fence, to how you cultivate the land. A system that had last for thousands of years, but has been lost now. As a counter question, Wang Shu’s CAA Xiangshan Campus and Ningbo Museum try re-invent an architecture that is part of the landscape, but not as an object. To him, even the cities are part of a greater landscape, such understanding is not so different with the recent “landscape urbanism” discourse promoted by Charles Waldheim and Mohsen Mostafavi.
“Re-invent the question” is not just important to architecture; it is crucial to the entire conceptual framework. It becomes almost a “must” task for later generation of architects. As Ma Qingyun mentioned in his interview with Bert de Muynck, that “design turns into a process of building or re-inventing a network of relations, and in the new relations, design should not be dealt as a means of ‘practice’, because the word ‘practice’ has already been associated with certain perimeters - by code, by technology, by professional morality； rather we should think of design as ‘business’ , by which you can cross ideas, cross branding, cross breeding, really connecting, and look into new potentials for maximizing the hidden values of the world.” Following such direction, he successfully led MADA s.p.a.m across the field of education, commerce, fashion, art, exhibition, and visual strategy…from what he called a “designoloper” business model.
Not only as Ma Qingyun related to the Yuchuan Winery, but also as Liang Jingyu to the “Get It Louder” exhibition, Wang Hui to the “Fashion Design Show”,Zhang Ke to the “Milan Design Week”,and the new generation architect Che Fei to product design, and Wang Zhenfei to the “Shanghai eArts Festival”…they have all been trying to re-define the identity of contemporary Chinese architect.
3. From Regionalism to Specificity
Ever Since Kenneth Frampton’s essay Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six points for An Architecture of Resistance got translated into Chinese, “Critical Regionalism” has become the most cited theoretical reference in the Chinese architecture academia. I don’t want to repeat any so-called exemplary project here, rather, I would like to discuss the hypostasis of such concern of the regionalism, and how its understanding has shifted among Chinese architects. Fumihiko Maki once wrote in an article titled Regionalism and Identity, “Regionalism…requires a historical process to take shape. In order to get deeply rooted in the region, the forming of its identity has to control the timing, and it’s only possible when the change happens in a very gradual process…so the result is converged to a general sensibility of regional culture.”
The regionalism in China has emerged as a strong cultural tie stretched through a time-scale of thousands of years. Therefore, such regionalism is imbued with the heavy legacy of Chinese scholar’s vision of the ethics, regime, religious and social criteria. But since the 1960s, China has lost this strong cultural tie, and the traditional lifestyle and construction method is ruptured – the only leftovers are some ruined parts from what we called Local-style Dwellings. Matter-of-factly, when we refer to “regionalism” in China, much of what it means is reviving a lost tradition.
The reading of Wang Shu’s architecture, therefore, has to be traced back to his strong belief and deep immersion of the traditional Chinese culture, and only then can we understand what is the aura in the traditional Chinese painting that he is referring to, why he spent 10 years learning craftsmanship with the local workers, and why he insists on using the recycled bricks, tiles, natural wood and rammed earth – these parts and tectonics from the past. In this light, what Wang Shu attempts is to dig out the “ghosts in the city” under the palimpsest of a place that has lost its history. Other architect from the same period, like Liu Kecheng, Wang Lu, Wei chunyu, have all explored into the contemporary expression of such regionalism.
Since the new millennium, however, both time and space are been greatly compressed in China. The gradual depositing process for the regional culture to take shape is not possible – new cultural tie just seems to find a breed point, and in a flashing moment it dissolved into the commercial noises. In this situation, how we can find an approach for the “new regionalism” became a question.
Standardarchitecure’s Stone Courtyard in Sichuang is one example. The building from the outside reads as a clear modern volume, without any hint of regional elements except a local gray sandstone is applied on the façade. The intriguing part of the design lies in the introverted roofs. Because there are two square or rectangular light wells in each non-parallel and narrow courtyard, the design of the structure for the wooden roofs would be very complicated if carried in-house. Yet in the end, those roofs were not designed by the architects – they found skilled local craftsman to come up with the roofs by themselves. The architect had only given them certain requirement “to sit the wooden roofs on the stone walls, and leave the space with no columns”. The final result meets the architect’s desire completely, and the roofs look like just grown out naturally. In this case, we see a specific angle of observing the “new regionalism”, that is to setup a framework within the rigorous logic of modern construction, and allow local craftsmanship to improvise by itself, so as to deliver a specific expression in the overall design.
This attitude towards the new regionalism is shown in a more extreme manner in another stone house – Ma Qingyun’s Father’s house in Shanxi. As put by himself regarding this project, “never believe in the tradition…it only leaves you with a boundary to break.” This area is famous for cave-house, and nobody has built a stone house in 800 years. But the round stone on the river bank is indeed the perfect material – it is suitable for the northwest’s harsh and dry climate, its roughness goes well with the plateau environment, and it really sets “stone” for MADA s.p.a.m.’s future winery business in this region. This ironic strategy makes full use of the local material, labor and technique, yet does not believe in a local tradition at all. Through claiming the architect’s own specific demand, it points to a subversion of the traditional “regionalism”.
In his book The Practice of Everyday Life, Michel de Certeau brought up the concept of “non-identity” in the logic of everyday reality. “non-identity”refers to a philosophical entity that is conflicting, non-stable, heterogeneous, transitory, and staying out of the cultural norm. In the context of this article, I would like to use a more straightforward word “specificity” to substitute the philosophical term “non-identity”. The intriguing thing is that, after the non-territorial power and capital replaced the traditional territorial ideology, such specificity (or non-identity) has surpassed the regionalism, enabled the diversified ecology of being, and endeavored ceaselessly for a longer and broader influence.
Trace Architecture Office (TAO)’s recent case by Hua Li shows this specific concern. Yunnan Gaoligong Museum of Handcraft Paper chose to focus on the construction logic when responding to the strong Genius loci of this locale. Following a thorough analysis of local climate, building technique, and available resources, he proposed to apply local materials: fir, bamboo, lava stone, handcraft paper, and using local workers and techniques to restore a possible regional construction logic. Although the entire logic seems sticking to the locale, but the actual building shows a subtle kind of “otherness” in many aspects. Vertical fir panel on the façade, Bamboo array for the roof, different making of soffit, permeable lava stone as wall pedestal, and specific window openings, the combination of which tells a totally different story than the original one – the story is not pre-determined, but developed from the confrontation of familiar resources and the architect’s specific interpretation.
If the the above cases still relate to certain regionalism, in another case - The Tibet Ali Apple Elementary School, regionalism as an ideology has dissolved completely. None of the contents for Tibetan culture or local construction appears in the final form of the building. Actually, in the harsh Tibetan plateau above 5000m altitude, minimizing the consumption and maximizing the potential of local resources is the primary criteria. Therefore, material, cost, labor, and windbreak - reality has become the only stand point for the architect’s specific answer. Even the architect admitted that the plan scheme of the school was derived from the jamming boats in the canals of Venice, that has nothing to do with the high plateau culture. Yet every time I saw the windbreak walls raise gradually in the Gobi terrain, I always think of the Richard Serra’s shift.
4. Hopping between Two Scales
Regardless of all ideological manifestos, much of what Modernism has been relied on is the contrast with a pre-modern environment. With the development of post-modernity, such conflict has included more and more contents. But no matter consciously or not, in a contemporary setting, an architect cannot start designing without a proper understanding of urbanism.
The contrast between architecture and urbanism ever since Le Corbusier’s La Ville Radiense, through Ghery’s Bilbao Guggenheim, and quite recently Zaha’s Rome Maxxi – they are essentially working on the same traditional urbanism, but not on the current urbanism. Even we still have our faith in making a better city through architecture, but the reality is, the conditions that a building sits in, infiltrate the building and even succeed the building. In a word, architecture is defined by the urbanism in which it is located.
Therefore, architects with more projects to practice start to try engaging more with the city. Through laying down parallel conceptual threads in several urban projects, and further nesting the threads to establish a “field” of operation to allow both the architecture and urbanism working together, and finally re-establish the new relations for hopping between two different scales.
For instance, as the chief architect of national level design institute, Cui Kai shows a subtle attitude for social critique in many of his works, often confronting problems generated in the urbanization process. He compares the urban renovation as orthopedic surgery, stating “in response to recurring ‘urban symptoms’… through a careful pinning therapy, we can replace the previous tissue and embed new organism in.” thus so preserve the urban texture, and realize a more proper urban renewal. Based on this cautious operation, and through projects of all types, he then extract a series of keypoints - embedding, pulse, vitality and so on - as main plot to direct the dialogue between the city and his architecture.
URBANUS changes its Chinese name to a more active “urban practice”, in favor of clarifying the strategy of “critical urban engagement”. Such strategy is deeply rooted in the analysis of Chinese urban reality, and brings up proposals from not only the planning, but also the economical, sociological and demographic point of view. They have often describe their dual practicing tracks as “urban engagement”, which means a positive involvement with the early feasibility study; and “Urban infill” which looks for an opportunity to discover. The two keypoints indeed link the trajectory from URBANUS’ research on the Shenzhen “village in the city”, to the intervention in Dafen Museum, and then to the “Tulou Commune” next to a highway, from which we see a shifting strategy that tries to get the two scales working together.
5. Dialectic Dichotomy
Like architecture vs. urbanism, there are many other conceptual and perceptual conflicts exist in the architecture discourse, such as local vs. global, tradition vs. innovation, specificity vs. generalization, rural vs. urban, profession vs. business… Architects usually have to make a clear choice between the two poles, and hence arrive at a standpoint for themselves. However, what we are encountering in the evolution of the contemporary Chinese architectural scene is that, there is a continuous struggle for balancing between the two sides. From a philosophical point of view, but also from a very practical point of view, it tries to reconcile the binary conflicts, and recombine them in a form of dialectic dichotomy.
Such effort can be detected from some architects’ own words. Ma Qingyun has recently coined the term “Agri-Urbanism” to define a series of design-development he initiated in his hometown. “How hyper-urbanity can meet a completely rural idea. How ancient, hyper-classical Chinese forms should be dealt with today.” This approach attacks on a middle zone that is neither urban nor rural, but contains both - a middle zone that is of unprecedented potentials. Zhang Ke from standardarchitecture has recently summarized a series of projects they are doing in Tibet as “contemporary thinking, local construction”. Such sober dialectics provide him with an “equal attitude” in the extreme historical and cultural context, with which they are able to reconcile the opposition between existing building technique and new spatial formation, and the conflict between Tibetan tradition and modern ideology.
Regarding the dichotomy in architecture, Zhang Lei holds a more explicit position and even take it as a design tool. His Split House is a demonstration on how concrete, as a rough and mundane structural material, usually hided in the end, can appear as a refined surface texture. Originally conflicting polarization, now co-existing under specific settings, its tension can stimulate new potentials. Through introducing dichotomy into a simple system, it dramatically increases the conceptual and spatial complexity. Such dialectics is also underlined in his New 4th Army Jiangnan headquarters memorial – as “history vs. enjoyment”; and in Gaochun Brick Houses – as “local layman construction vs. modern poetic dwelling”.
To release architects from endless struggles in the dualities – so we can have both fish and bear's paw at the same time. Architect’s own practicing framework as such is also turned into multiplicity. Xie Yingjun and Zhu Jingxiang have both found new ways of integrate resources, in a time of post-earthquake condition, dealing with the co-existence of the lack of sufficient material vs. highly integrated technology, and primitive building technique vs. new construction system. Zhu Jingxiang New Bud Schools reflects the thinking behind the design scheme, as it successfully fuses the investment and technology from Honking with the manufacturing of Shenzhen, in serving the local demand.
Li Xuedong paralleled his practice with the Chinese “Acupuncture” therapy in one of his recent lectures, explaining that the way to solve a contemporary problem is not to deal with the obvious symptom, but rather to evaluate the entire system, then through proper acupuncture in the hinge point, it adjusts the whole system to be in line with its context in a deeper and broader manner. His Bridge School and Libyan Library have all present this unusual, uncategorical sophistication, thanks to his liberal understanding of the dialectics. He would even not consider himself as just an architect - fund raising, programming, finding site, designing, managing local worker and resources, and even discussing the potential tourism income with the locals - but is actively defining a new kind of “archi-curator” position.
It all reminds me of a conversation I had with Teemu Kurkela, when we were doing a workshop together. I asked, “with the strong modern architectural tradition in Finland, what’s your view of the future? Regional concern versus the individuality of architects, how would they affect design?” His answer is intriguing, “from philosophical point of view, and practical too, we try to do both!” Indeed, from my own experience in America and Europe, people are all thinking about how to understand the opposition, and develop an all-encompassing potential that can make use of all sorts of energy: historical, contemporary, local, global, handcrafted, mass-produced…and come up with unexpected strategies that go beyond any pre-determined formula.
Epilogue
The emerging evolution of the contemporary Chinese architectural scene we are encountering provides us with an opportunity to draw up a depiction for the trajectory of the current discourse. Such depiction does not take any project as finished product for drawing conclusion, rather through extracting keypoint from architects’ focuses and tactics, and through analyzing the influence by the discourse of modernity, at the same time their identity definition under the specific context of current Chinese urban status, it further recombines multiple trajectories which is neither sequential nor consequential, and develops a research proposal to reconstruct the contemporary Chinese architecture discourse that is still not clearly defined. The new discourse maybe differentiated from the discourse of modernity as a kind of“ raveling trajectory”, and demonstrates how multiple clues come to some unpredicted convergence or divergence in contemporary China.
Author:
Wang Shuo
Founding Principal of META-Project
M.Arch, Rice University
B.Arch, Tsinghua University
这篇文章很像顾大庆那篇~
这个能不能算中国当代建筑简史？
> 我来回应