WA｜阿那亞論壇：「建築：自每個人，為每個人」 ｜為人文，非文人｜張利
為人文，非文人
Humanists, Not Elitists
張利/ZHANG Li
把60餘位建築人聚集在一個距最近的大城市300km開外的度假社區能討論出點什麼呢？肯定是遠離那些天天充斥在我們周圍的「高深熱點」話題。如果天氣和社區的氛圍足夠幫忙的話，這甚至能指向近來出現的、建築人某種形式的自我救贖——建築與建築文化的去精英化。
全球化與國際都市文化的大潮在過去半個世紀把建築沖向了事實上的精英主義。在這一現象之後，有三股力量「功不可沒」：其一是建築教育。它基於20世紀、特別是1968年後的西方左派精英知識分子思潮，以西方中心城市和中心建築學院為源頭，由來自全球的建築學生（近20年來亞洲學生佔據極大的比重）攜載傳播至世界各地；其二是建築文化消費。曾經的CIAM野心勃勃的城市關注在後工業時期迅速被當代藝術玄思精妙的超智關注所代替，而在各大世界城市的建築展覽中，默認的目標也早已從以前的現實觀察、策略和干預方法轉變為意識喚醒、詮釋與價值觀樹立；其三是智能手機與社交媒體。小屏幕給予人們輕而易舉地濾除現實污穢、營造理想幻像、奪得最多讚譽的手段，因而也最大限度地放大了中產階級對優越感與精英化的渴望。
當然，對實際的脫離是任何精英化的永久的痛。建築精英化的直接結果自然也不例外：普通人生活的建成環境是不具備足夠的知性挑戰的，因而是不值得一提的。建築精英化也直接導致了中國當代建築中的兩個蹩腳現象。
第一是建築與建築人的自我邊緣化。建築精英化的原型來自西方的後工業早期（近期的西方已明顯再次重視建築的社會與環境影響），或說其大規模城市化以及戰後重建基本完成之後。此時的西方，除荷蘭和部分斯堪的納維亞國家保持了對以社會住宅為基礎的公民聚居形態的關注外，大部分轉向了對建築所傳遞的意識形態、特別是建築所承載的權力與價值的詮釋。把這樣一種原型轉譯到當代中國顯然不會是一種好的匹配。我們曾經的粗獷（暴）城市化結果正面臨艱難的梳理，同時還必須應對新的城市化進程。這個時候的精英化只能產生一個後果，即如果中國建築師不能解決當代中國社會需要建築師解決的問題，那麼中國社會會找到其他人來替代建築師解決這些問題。
第二是建築人的文人化。如果以西方20世紀以來的自由知識分子為參照，在中國的歷史上去尋找具備獨立意識與自省能力的對應人群的話，顯然啟於宋、盛於明、延於清及民國的文人是最合適的角色樣本。不僅如此，更為理想的是，文人甚至還為建築精英化提供了最合適的空間樣本：在自給的農耕環境中營造的私有自然——園林。然而，在這裡，無論是角色樣本還是空間樣本，其傳遞的定位信息與行為模式都是對普通社會的逃離和對可能參與的任何社會改良的放棄。對於文學、音樂與造型藝術等較少社會性與物質性依賴的領域而言，這種獨立的批判性可能恰恰是文明進程對藝術家的最大需求，因而是人文精神的合理延續。對建築而言，源於羅素所談及的「聚居空間對社會凝結力的不可磨滅的貢獻」，僅僅停留在批判本身可能是不能應對文明進程對建築師的需求的，因而「文人」的角色定義很可能反倒不是人文的。
我們欣喜地看到建築的去精英化在最近的中國建築界的抬頭，而更令人欣喜的是，開啟這一去精英化運動的，恰恰是很多業已被奉為「建築界精英」的建築人本身。一方面，在各類學術活動標題、即便是在以理論和評論為核心內容的學術活動標題中，類似 「日常」「普通人」「家」「住」等辭彙的出現頻率也大為增加，這不能不說是一種新的共識取向的開始。另一方面，在建築師與建築人的言論中，回到謙遜、回到對他人的關注正在呈現出一種穩定的湧現態勢。唐吉訶德式的意識形態鬥爭或史詩般的宏偉敘事讓位於普通人社會生活的點滴改良，一種平易的、親切的建築討論語境正在形成。
為此，我們在本期專輯中收錄了2017年阿那亞論壇上所有人的演講，希望能藉此嗅到一些出現在中國建築界的新的人文精神的信息。其實這次以「建築：自每個人，為每個人」為題的論壇只是更大層面上的、轉向中的中國建築討論的一點縮影。樂觀地說，也許我們正在目睹一個變化，即建築精英化在中國當代建築中的終結——當然，如果說 「終結」還為時過早，我們至少在目睹這一「終結」的開始。
What do you expect when 60+ architects and critics gather in a weekend seaside property, 300km away from the closest big city, and have meetings for two days? Not much perhaps. Common sense states that normally such a gathering is about a topic different than the hot ones you have in the cities. More interestingly, if the atmosphere of the setup is right and the weather helps, the topic may end up in a more significant emerging trend, in which architects try to make some sort of redemption by speaking out against the elitism of architecture.
It is an outcome of both globalisation and cosmopolitanism that architecture today has stepped into cultural elitism. There are three forces behind this. The first is architecture education. Sourcing from the thinking of western leftist intellectuals (particularly after 1968), and powered by major teaching institutes in major cities, the ideology is absorbed and then distributed by architecture students from all over the world. The second is the consuming of architecture culture. With the over-ambitious agenda of CIAM taken by the super-arduous approach of contemporary art, and the objective of observation and intervention being replaced by the raising of awareness and the broadcasting of values, architecture events and exhibitions are turning their backs on the day-to-day life of the world. The third is the prevailing of smart phones and social media. The small screen is a perfect media to filter out the dirty realities and to gather the biggest numbers of likes through ideally-looking images. No wonder that the typical middle-class desire of superiority and elitism is amplified by the small screens.
Disconnection with reality has long been the pain of any elitism. When it comes to architecture, it is no different. Any elitist architect won"t deem the daily life of an average person a worthy topic, unless there is some room for human sympathy to be exploited. In China, the elitism in architecture has two more awkward consequences.
The first is the self-marginalisation of architects in the society. The source model of architecture elitism comes from the early post-industrial time of western countries (actually the western countries are retaking social and environmental agendas in architecture today), when their urbanisation was nearly complete and the recovery from war was nearly over. Most countries, except Holland and some Scandinavian countries, no longer took a big interest in social housing and practical purpose for the public. They shifted to iconography and ideology, power and politics. Transplanting such a model to contemporary China is by no means a good one. The Chinese urbanisation is far from over, and the problems left by its immediate past are still crying out for corrections. Elitism at such a time can only end up in one phenomenon: if architects can"t help the society in the built environment, someone else will.
The second is the shifting of the persona of architect towards Wen Ren, a Chinese word defining the most liberal intellectuals of traditional China. It is true that if you look for the counterpart of modern western intellectuals in China, particularly given the required quality of independence, self-consciousness and reflective mindset, Wen Ren, or intellectual elites, are the perfect role models. What"s more, they"ve even provided some spatial models in those miniaturised, privatised natures in their gardens. Yet neither the role model nor the spatial model demonstrated any willingness to bother on the everyday life of normal people, or the improvement of it. In fact, the only thing these models encourage is to escape from the society as far as possible. While such an escape may work for writers, composers and painters, whose works are more or less independent critiques of the real life, it doesn"t work well for architects. Any building in human civilisation, due to its undeniable possible contribution to social coherence, can"t entirely sever its link with the society. Escaping and getting more elitist can only end up in a mode of architecture that is less human.
We feel happy to see some positive changes recently in Chinese architecture, not much, but clear. These changes signal a departure of Chinese architecture from elitism. Frequent appearance of words like "average citizen", "everyday life", and "household" in many high-level conferences are tangible proofs of a new consensus being formed. Big names in Chinese architecture starting to step away from epic narratives and focus on daily lives of normal people, and change their rhetoric to more intimate, humble tones is another promising observation. Who better to fight against architecture elitism than the established architects themselves?
We"ve collected the presentation of all the speakers in Aranya Forum 2017 in this edition. We would like to perceive the coming of new humanism in Chinese architecture. This forum, under the title "Architecture: from everyone, for everyone" is a snapshot of the shifting debate in Chinese architecture. In a typical optimistic way, we can say that Chinese architecture is witnessing the ending of elitism, or, at least, witnessing the beginning of the ending of elitism.
作者單位：清華大學建築學院/《世界建築》
全文刊載於《世界建築》201801期P8-9。轉載請註明出處。
簡訊
06
篇首
08 張利
為人文，非文人
阿那亞論壇：「建築：自每個人，為每個人」
10 常青
風土根與楚辭魂——汨羅屈子書院設計實驗
14 羅伯特·格林伍德
公共空間
20 國廣喬治
愛、敬、信——適應性建築和社會責任
27 李曉東
身份認同：自省的地域實踐
32 戴維·特羅丁
眾創眾享
「范」
36 學術主持：李翔寧
研討嘉賓：董功，賈蓮娜，魯安東，王碩，俞挺
「群」
48學術主持：馮路
研討嘉賓：李虎，劉珩，馬寅，張樺，張利
「家」
60學術主持：龍灝
研討嘉賓：鮑威，陳文賢，李振宇，宋昆，陶磊，張佳晶，周漸佳
「鄉」
76學術主持：周榕
研討嘉賓：何崴，國廣喬治，呂品晶，魏浩波 ，周凌
「技」
87學術主持：張昕
研討嘉賓：崔彤，高崧，胡錚，袁烽，臧峰
「憶」
100學術主持：黃居正
研討嘉賓：崔光海，丁沃沃，埃倫迪·布拉克斯塔·哈夫納，劉克成，湯樺，魏春雨
「城」
112學術主持：支文軍
研討嘉賓：郝琳，李少鋒，徐全勝，張路峰
「論」
122學術主持：青鋒
研討嘉賓：方振寧，馮路，葛明，李翔寧，魯安東，唐克揚，張昕楠，周榕
特別報道
140複雜工程建築策劃理論與關鍵技術及應用成果鑒定會召開
141和馬町
2017年深港城市建築雙城雙年展評論——以全球建築雙年展的迅速增長為背景
1452017深港雙年展「共生實驗室」：聚焦滿京華城市觀念第二季
改進建築60秒
146張路峰，龍灝
讀書
147蘇平，張淼
封底攝影：弗朗茨·林德茲巴徹爾
本期責編：項琳斐，王欣欣
TAG:世界建築 |