BIG!

鮑里斯·布勒曼·延森/Boris Brorman Jensen

項琳斐 譯/Translated by XIANG Linfei

BIG也許是丹麥第一家真正“全球本土化”的建筑事務(wù)所，既扎根在哥本哈根，又無疑置身于特殊的文化和政治背景下，它也是丹麥最具全球影響的建筑事務(wù)所。自有丹麥以來，丹麥建筑師與國界之外的世界就在相互影響。我想提及最近的兩位民族英雄式的人物：阿納·雅各布森和約翰·伍重。 雅各布森因其“丹麥設(shè)計”而享譽全球，丹麥人普遍認為，“丹麥設(shè)計”對國際風(fēng)格作出了真正的“丹麥”詮釋。設(shè)計了悉尼重要地標的伍重，一生大部分時間在國外度過，他被丹麥的文化部奉為“批判性地域主義”創(chuàng)始人之一，闡釋出丹麥建筑的精髓。

BIG的“態(tài)度”有些許不同。他們當然也同其他建筑事務(wù)所一樣，應(yīng)對同樣的當代條件，像許多其他“注重實效的建筑師”一樣，善于挑戰(zhàn)非常理性高效的建筑行業(yè)。另一方面，BIG既未被視為對當今國際潮流的最新最重要的丹麥解讀者，也并非復(fù)興老牌“丹麥設(shè)計”的一個新品牌。我認為，他們是第一次真正成功地對模糊不清的文化邊界中新的后民族身份作出（丹麥）解讀的代表之一。他們最好的幾個項目，明顯借鑒了伍重、雅各布森和其他的丹麥建筑偶像。BIG在哥本哈根一地審視世界，不帶所謂的“鄉(xiāng)愁”。

新建成的上海世博會丹麥館，是探索用建筑語言充分表達超越“民族”身份的范例。展館主題“夢想城市”，用安徒生的遺產(chǎn)及其來自19世紀末的浪漫主義情懷，展現(xiàn)了斯堪的納維亞的幸福生活。不要以為這只是BIG為了向丹麥人民推銷方案而略施小伎。全球化無疑向丹麥身份的構(gòu)想提出挑戰(zhàn)，將小美人魚——我們最神圣的國家象征——搬到中國2010世博會的決定是在國家議會上討論通過的，之后，BIG才獲準允許讓她第一次踏上旅途走出丹麥國門。有些政客仍然認為這樣的做法褻瀆了國家的完整性。我認為，BIG為世界建筑舞臺貢獻了一種新的文化類型——不以任何夸張的民族符號融入特定的文脈。BIG的許多項目被貼上追求轟動效應(yīng)的結(jié)構(gòu)表現(xiàn)主義的標簽。但是，BIG無意樹立紀念碑。

在我看來，BIG重要的貢獻之一是，以新的后民族身份為當代建筑定位作出的成熟審慎的嘗試。更重要的是，他們這樣做的同時，并未向包含一切的中立的政治行為妥協(xié)。□

BIG is maybe the first Danish architectural office to be truly ‘glocal’ in the sense of being both anchored in Copenhagen and clearly rooted in a particular cultural and political context－and at the same time being the most globally acting architectural office in Denmark. Danish architects have of course been both influenced by and influencing the world outside of their national borders as long as there has been something called Denmark. Let me just mention two of the most recent national heroes: Arne Jacobsen and J?rn Utzon. Jacobsen is both internationally known for their‘Danish Design’and nationally respected for their truly‘Danish’interpretations of the international style. Utzon who created Sydney’s outstanding landmark and lived most of his life outside Denmark is canonized by our Cultural Ministry as one of the founding fathers of the so-called‘critical regionalism’defining the very essence of Danish architecture.

BIG’s ‘a(chǎn)ttitude’is somehow different. BIG is of course operating within the same set of contemporary conditions as any other architectural offices, and like many other‘pragmatic architects’very good at challenging the highly rationalized cost effective building industry. BIG is on the other hand neither regarded as new great national interpreters of current international fluctuations nor a new brand for the revival of the ageing brand of Danish Design. I see them as one of the first real successful (Danish) exponents for a new post-national identity operating within a new set of blurred cultural boundaries. Several of their best projects are explicit referring to Utzon, Jacobsen and other national architectural icons. BIG admits seeing the world from a Copenhagen point of view－and doing so without becoming‘homesick’.

The newly completed Danish Pavilion in Shanghai is a good example of this search for an adequate architectural expression of an identity transgressing ‘the national’. The pavilion’s scheme of ‘Welfairytales’ combines explicit Scandinavian Welfare Statements with the legacy of H.C. Andersen and his aura of national romanticism from the late nineteen-century. Don't be fooled into thinking that it was an easy gimmick for BIG to propose this scheme to the Danish people. Globalization has certainly challenged the very idea of being Danish. The decision to move the Little Mermaid－our most sacred national symbol －to China for the Expo 2010 was debated in the halls of the National Parliament before BIG was given the permission to take her on her first journey ever outside of Danish borders. Some politicians still believe we have violated our national integrity by doing so! I think BIG is offering the global architectural scene a new cultural breed that’s rooted in a particular context without claiming any inflated national trademark. Many of BIG’s projects can be seen and labeled as some kind of structural expressionism reaching out for something spectacular. But BIG does not mean monumentality.

One of BIG’s main contributions is in my view this deliberate effort to position contemporary architecture within a new post-national identity. And most important－they are doing so without ending up in an uncommitted all-inclusive political act of compromise.□