鮮艷色彩的平民主義與精英主義

張利

鮮艷色彩的平民主義與精英主義

張利

什么是好的色彩？在人類的文明史上，我們明顯地看到兩種截然相反的取向：更多的色彩是更好的色彩，更少的色彩是更好的色彩。當(dāng)然，這里的多或少不僅指色相的多少，也同樣指色彩飽和度的高低。一般情況下，我們會(huì)把前一種取向與人類初始時(shí)期的樸素沖動(dòng)聯(lián)系在一起，因而為了強(qiáng)調(diào)教育與文化所帶來的啟蒙，我們會(huì)用后一種取向代表一種更為“文明”、更經(jīng)“教化”的色彩價(jià)值觀：西方基督教文化中的“色彩恐懼癥”，中國傳統(tǒng)宋明建筑裝飾相對(duì)于清朝彩畫的氣定神閑，直至20世紀(jì)后期至今無處不在的“博物館白”與“建筑師黑”，對(duì)色彩的謹(jǐn)慎已經(jīng)深深地融入了中產(chǎn)階級(jí)自我懷疑的焦慮之中。

有趣的是，在全球化的今天，當(dāng)“無色彩是最好的色彩”隨世界各地城市的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)化而無處不在時(shí)，我們又不得不借助另一種色彩價(jià)值觀來再次實(shí)現(xiàn)與公眾共識(shí)劃清界限。因而鮮艷的色彩被再次重視，原始的沖動(dòng)再次成為 “返璞歸真”、教化之再教化的升華途徑。這一實(shí)際上是源于知識(shí)性的文化批判的動(dòng)向，帶有一種故意混淆階層的企圖：表面上它以“返璞歸真”提示其“平民主義”的社會(huì)關(guān)懷，深層中它則很可能是對(duì)不再具備識(shí)別性的過去的精英主義標(biāo)識(shí)的更新，是事實(shí)上的升級(jí)版本的“精英主義”。正是“平民主義”與“精英主義”的彼此糾纏，造就了當(dāng)代建筑中鮮艷色彩空間的復(fù)雜圖景。

當(dāng)代建筑對(duì)鮮艷色彩的最常見使用是用強(qiáng)烈色彩的二維化對(duì)三維空間進(jìn)行某種程度的消解，從而實(shí)現(xiàn)一種源于平民傳統(tǒng)，卻帶有不確定性與抽象性的建筑方法。視覺上，它會(huì)讓人想起文丘里在后現(xiàn)代主義建筑時(shí)期所提出的“向拉斯韋加斯學(xué)習(xí)”的廣告化，但在實(shí)質(zhì)上根本不同。墨西哥帕丘卡斯的拉斯帕爾米塔斯社區(qū)能夠在當(dāng)代成為與希臘的圣托里尼風(fēng)格對(duì)立的旅游目的地，完全因?yàn)槠溆伤朽徖飰γ孢B成的巨幅彩繪，有趣的是這一彩繪并不關(guān)注傳達(dá)具體的意義，而是僅僅關(guān)注對(duì)社區(qū)房屋聚落體量感的消除。類似的，在當(dāng)代城市中大量使用的涂鴉墻面，比如在奧斯陸，也是對(duì)相對(duì)混亂的城市界面進(jìn)行抽象簡化的非常有效的手段。

鮮艷的色彩在當(dāng)代建筑中有時(shí)被直接當(dāng)作建筑材料來使用，醒目色彩的交替被用來解決以前需要依靠材料的交替來解決的問題，這也是一種源于平民化傳統(tǒng)的抽象。這種鮮艷色彩的“材料性”最集中體現(xiàn)在對(duì)尺度的表達(dá)。當(dāng)建筑項(xiàng)目本身的預(yù)算并不充裕，而建筑師又不想放棄在城市中建立明確的尺度立場的機(jī)會(huì)時(shí)，這種色彩“材料”的使用就顯得尤為有效了。如果沒有作為材料的色彩，本期所收錄的阿姆斯特丹-贊丹酒店不可能達(dá)到其現(xiàn)在與周邊街區(qū)詼諧的尺度對(duì)話。類似的情況也出現(xiàn)在維也納布琛大街的社會(huì)住宅中。不過色彩“材料”并不局限于低造價(jià)項(xiàng)目之中，事實(shí)上，本期所收錄的阿姆斯特丹香奈爾水晶屋從任何角度講都是高造價(jià)的項(xiàng)目，也正是充裕的投資使作為實(shí)際材料的玻璃磚營造了作為虛擬材料的整個(gè)墻面的漸變色彩，而且建筑對(duì)色彩的表達(dá)也不再限于反射色彩，而是有了折射、透射等多種方式。

鮮艷的色彩當(dāng)然可以在當(dāng)代建筑中直接被用來表達(dá)價(jià)值觀，而且往往因其引人注目的配色方案而戲劇性地加大表達(dá)的強(qiáng)度。它不再拘于平民傳統(tǒng)，而是帶有明白無誤的社會(huì)評(píng)論屬性。這其中，以鮮艷色彩所表達(dá)的最“安全”的價(jià)值觀是關(guān)于社會(huì)的未來——兒童或少年的——人們一般不會(huì)對(duì)彩虹配色空間與兒童生活的聯(lián)系產(chǎn)生太多的懷疑，無論這種表達(dá)是相對(duì)克制的，比如本期收錄的索易兒童成長中心；還是聲嘶力竭的，比如本期收錄的南洋小學(xué)擴(kuò)建項(xiàng)目。如果說少兒空間的彩虹母題已是司空見慣了的話，那么依賴單一鮮艷色彩所形成的巨石式的超現(xiàn)實(shí)空間則無疑先天擁有了尖銳的社會(huì)批判性格。純度極高的螢光色彩出現(xiàn)在某一建成空間的所有大小界面，這本身就是與人們的空間經(jīng)驗(yàn)極度相悖的，也恰恰是促使人們?cè)诳臻g中思考的動(dòng)力：從思考企業(yè)的行為模式，如本期收錄的北攬府MK-CK5生產(chǎn)辦公樓，到思考公共空間與私有空間、自然與人工之間的定義與聯(lián)系，如鹿特丹的黃色步行橋和本期收錄的林茨黃屋等。

Te Populism and Elitism of Vibrant Colours

ZHANG Li

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院 /《世界建筑》 收稿日期：2016-07-10

What is good colour？ In the story of human civilisation we see two opposing trends: more is better； less is better. Of course the "more or less" here refers not only to the number of colours， but also the level of saturation. Usually， we would tend to associate the "more" camp with the basic impulses of primitive societies while regarding the "less" camp as the product of education and enlightenment. Evidence of this attitude can be found throughout the last millennium， from the "chromaphobia" of Christianity， to the serenity of the Song-Ming Chinese Art when compared to the vulgarity of Qing Art， to the ubiquitous "Museum White" and "Architect Black" in recent decades. It is fair to say that the caution towards the use of vibrant colours has already been deeply embedded in the self-doubting anxiety of the new middle class.

Ironically， in the globalised world of the 21st century， after "zero colour is the best colour" has become the new middle class norm， something new about colour has to be set up again to distinguish the views of the elites from those of the average public. Tis something new once again is the re-valuing of vibrant colours， in which primitive impulses have become a means of returning to the origin， a re-education of the educated. Being an intellectual move in cultural criticism， this re-valuing of vibrancy is determined to blend class implications. On the surface it is apparently populism， deep inside it is an upgraded elitism. And it is the blend of populism and elitism that has made the complex panorama of vibrant colours in architecture today.

Te 2D-ness of vibrant colour compositions can be used to dissolve the 3D-ness of architecture spaces， ending up with an approach that combines both popular tradition and contemporary ambiguity and abstraction. Visually it may look like Venturi's "learning from Las Vegas" type of consumerism； philosophically it is a totally diferent beast than Venturi's. Te giant mural in Las Palmitas in Mexico shows a convincing example. It is rightly the ultra-vibrant meaning-free mural that overrides the clustered volumes of the neighbourhood houses， making the whole area a worthy tourist destination that is the antithesis of Santorini. Similarly， the use of giant grafti in urban interfaces， such as the generic street walls in Oslo， is a widely adopted approach in the making of some 2D order out the 3D mess.

Very often， we see vibrant colours in architecture taking the role of materials. The joint of colours are used to provide solutions that are usually done through the joint of materials. There is an intention to achieve popular abstraction here. It is best when used to present a statement in building scale. In projects of modest budgets where architects insist on providing gestures about scale， vibrant colours can be efficient assets. Without them， Hotel Amsterdam-Zaandam wouldn't have spoken so well and so humorously to its context. Similar things can be said on the apartment buildings in Buchengasse Vienna. But the use of vibrant colours as materials doesn't only apply to low-budget projects. The Chanel Crystal Houses are by no means a low-budget project， yet its use of glass bricks and the capitalisation on their colourful optical distortions are the key to the success of the whole facade as one gradient-colour-fll.

Vibrant colours can be used in direct presentation of ideology. More vibrant the colours are， the stronger the voice will be. Being a means of delivering straight-forward social criticism，there is no more need of limiting to popular tradition. Te safest ideological use of vibrant colours is the connection to the very youthful. Very few people would question the association of rainbow colours and the spaces in kindergartens and primary schools， no matter this association is expressed with constraint，like in Soyoo Joyful Growth Center， or by exhausting the highest pitch possible， like in Nanyang Primary School Extension. If rainbow colours and youthful spaces is a common motif， the monolithic use of single ultra-vibrant primary colour throughout a building， and the surreal contrast between the building and its context， is anything but common. It bears unmistakable critical identity. Te counter-intuitive existence of a single bright colour creeping over all surfaces of a building is itself a drive to refection. It can be a refection on patterns of economic production， like the MK-CK5 Ofce Building； it can also be a refection about publicprivate， inside-outside and natural-artifcial， like the Footbridge in Rotterdam， or the Yellow House in Linz.