建筑中的音樂·音樂中的建筑

邁克爾·貝內(nèi)迪克特/Michael Benedikt尚晉 譯/Translated by SHANG Jin

?

建筑中的音樂·音樂中的建筑

邁克爾·貝內(nèi)迪克特/Michael Benedikt
尚晉 譯/Translated by SHANG Jin

摘要：藝術(shù)現(xiàn)代性的一大特征是對其自身載體特性的自覺。這種自覺趨于將永遠(yuǎn)“前衛(wèi)”的智力藝術(shù)與社會階層路線的大眾和經(jīng)典藝術(shù)區(qū)分開。但藝術(shù)會像物種一樣進(jìn)化，過去100年中音樂的進(jìn)化在速度和多樣性上均勝于建筑。建筑若要更多地向音樂學(xué)習(xí)，就不能只是對二者在結(jié)構(gòu)和心理上的相似性進(jìn)行不時的反思，或是為音樂創(chuàng)造美妙的建筑以及為建筑創(chuàng)造音樂。它必須革新建筑創(chuàng)作、“分配”和回報的基本方式——使之進(jìn)化。它還必須找到新的、而非諷刺的手法來復(fù)興與融合自身的經(jīng)典傳統(tǒng)，就像新音樂那樣。

Abstract:One of the hallmarks of modernity in arts is a selfconscious interest in the nature of their own media. This interest has tended to separate intellectual art, forever "avantgarde", from both popular and classical art, along social class lines. But arts evolve rather like species do, and music has evolved much faster and more richly than architecture has over the last hundred years. If architecture is to learn more from music, it will have to do more than occasionally re fl ect on the structural and psychological similarities between them or make nice buildings for music and music for buildings. It will have to update-evolve-the very way architecture is produced, "distributed", and paid for. And it will have to fi nd new, non-ironic ways to refresh and incorporate its own classical traditions, just as New Music has.

關(guān)鍵詞：建筑，音樂，進(jìn)化

Keywords:architecture, music, evolution

Music in Architecture · Architecture in Music

音樂與建筑之間存在著諸多相似性：二者都是超越生存底線的文化表達(dá)；二者都可劃分為從民俗到先鋒的流派，以及各種時代風(fēng)格；二者都有各自的調(diào)色板（一種是聲音或者“聲音材料”，一種是有形材料）；二者都表現(xiàn)出有規(guī)律的重復(fù)的結(jié)構(gòu)（韻律、序列、樂句、模數(shù)等）。此外，二者都需要極具才華而富有活力的個人——作曲家和設(shè)計大師——他們先從模仿先前的大師開始，而后走上自己的道路。建筑與音樂最后必須在現(xiàn)實世界中實現(xiàn)：演奏、建造、聆聽、居住。樂譜與建筑圖紙可以進(jìn)行說明，但并不是全部。

音樂與建筑之間的區(qū)別也同樣明顯，而這就意味著把音樂和建筑相提并論的人必須更深入、更犀利，而不只是列出它們的相似性——這種相似性只會說明比喻是不著邊際的，卻不涉及這兩種藝術(shù)本身。

古巴比倫人看到了建筑與音樂之間的關(guān)聯(lián)，古希臘人也是。畢達(dá)哥拉斯（顯然是從巴比倫人那里）學(xué)到了繃緊的弦長與撥動它時發(fā)出音高之間的關(guān)系，此外還有弦長與和聲之間的比例（擊棒、木琴或拇指琴以及排笛等管樂亦然）。這種關(guān)系對他們而言根本不是比喻。在巴比倫人和希臘人看來，這是對現(xiàn)實本身的探索，一條從客觀幾何與數(shù)字游戲通向?qū)γ赖闹苯?、直觀的感知。到了公元1世紀(jì)，維特魯威指出，所有建筑師都應(yīng)該研習(xí)音樂“以掌握標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的數(shù)學(xué)關(guān)系”[1]（據(jù)筆者所知，他沒有提倡作曲家學(xué)習(xí)建筑）。1835年，歌德將建筑描述為“凝固的音樂”則是更具浪漫色彩的一筆。這不僅指出了這兩種藝術(shù)的形式或數(shù)學(xué)基礎(chǔ)，更點明了二者的情感力1）。這種雙重特征大致對應(yīng)著二者的社會階層：較高的階層“懂得數(shù)學(xué)”并能感受到更細(xì)膩的情感；較低的階層不懂?dāng)?shù)學(xué)，只能感受粗疏的情感。

有些東西是永恒的。

當(dāng)然，現(xiàn)代音樂與現(xiàn)代建筑更關(guān)注自身的形式與有形的可能性——即他們的“數(shù)學(xué)”——而不是常人的感情（當(dāng)然，如果后者成為一個副產(chǎn)品也不錯）。關(guān)注自身的媒介和方法成為進(jìn)步的現(xiàn)代性的標(biāo)志。在其先鋒的前沿，中產(chǎn)階級會質(zhì)問：“嗯，但這是音樂么？”“嗯，但這是繪畫么？”“嗯，但這是建筑么？”而這會成為一種榮譽(yù)的標(biāo)簽。在很大程度上，今天還是這樣。雖然 “參數(shù)化建筑”像20世紀(jì)中葉的“嚴(yán)肅音樂”一樣——抽象、陶醉、渴求新感受，以摒棄流行性為動機(jī)——但作曲家固有的材料是聲音，建筑師固有的材料是空間，這種觀念并沒有被大多數(shù)人拋棄。

除建筑之外的所有藝術(shù)都已前進(jìn)，就連嚴(yán)肅音樂都已前進(jìn)（但并不是沒有作曲家依舊自詡“音樂藝術(shù)家”）。前進(jìn)到了哪里？到了對政治、關(guān)系、比喻、歷史和情感現(xiàn)實的興趣，到了對粗糙、人的表演和工藝以及前現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)的興趣——其意義單元絕不是簡單的物理單元（空間、時間、質(zhì)量、運動、振動等），也不是唯我論現(xiàn)象學(xué)（我時刻的見聞、質(zhì)樸、孤獨）。若要了解我所謂的21世紀(jì)的古典音樂（有時被稱為新音樂），可以聽一聽約翰·亞當(dāng)斯、邁克爾·托克、康倫·南卡羅、保羅·德雷舍、費爾南多·奧特羅、安娜·克萊因、埃里克·惠特克、奧斯瓦爾多·戈利約夫、伊?！じダ椎吕锟恕じ窳趾腿~夫根尼·沙拉特等人的作品。這是當(dāng)下數(shù)十位從傳統(tǒng)（非）音調(diào)和形式中找到新生命的作曲家的一部分2）。在“嚴(yán)肅建筑”的世界中，這個名單就沒那么容易列了。我們可以列上王澍和斯韋勒·芬恩么？當(dāng)然，不能列SANAA或是BIG，他們在現(xiàn)代主義的兩個極端上更進(jìn)一步：一邊是純粹的極簡主義，另一邊是超現(xiàn)實的功能主義。也不能列1970-1980年代的后現(xiàn)代主義者。

那么，新的音樂給建筑傳遞了什么信息？我相信：波普不是曾經(jīng)時髦而今陳腐的“試驗”現(xiàn)代主義的唯一替代品。極度懸挑、玻璃墻、技術(shù)狂、無窮的“模糊內(nèi)外邊界”（就好像這是一種不證自明的偉大成就）或是將建筑放入地下，仿佛羞于露面的藏在地毯底下——如今都已毫無新意，脫離了生活。其中的矛盾在于，每位運用這些手法的建筑師都希望自己住在19世紀(jì)的巴黎或是略加修整的古老鄉(xiāng)村別墅（當(dāng)然實際上要比這好得多）。

幸運的是，音樂和建筑都在進(jìn)化，即便速度不同。進(jìn)化有兩個過程：變異的繁殖和選擇?！胺敝场笔悄７略缙谧髌?，“變異”指不完美的模仿（原因多種多樣，包括刻意的不同）?！斑x擇”指通過判斷讓某些內(nèi)容不再繁殖，要么因為它們在得到機(jī)會之前就滅絕（或被毀掉，或被遺忘），要么因為它們過于復(fù)雜，要求大量細(xì)致準(zhǔn)確的“文字工作”而難以推進(jìn)或完成。一切藝術(shù)形式、風(fēng)格、流派和思想都有這樣兩個過程，盡管人類是選擇者，而“繁殖”更像復(fù)制。不過，成功的藝術(shù)形式、風(fēng)格、流派和思想不斷增多、繁衍（繁衍的確是生物學(xué)上“成功”的定義），而不成功的就不會繁衍，或只是在特定、有限的環(huán)境中或生態(tài)位上少量繁衍。嚴(yán)肅音樂的世界與嚴(yán)肅建筑的世界（比如這種雜志中的）只是兩種這樣的生態(tài)位。在這里，就像生態(tài)位中的動物一樣，健康（更多的生存機(jī)會）和富有魅力（更多的繁殖機(jī)會）就是一切3）。在建筑上能成功的，就像在音樂中一樣，是在某些技術(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)生態(tài)位上能夠生存的，以及被認(rèn)為是可繁殖的（“我們可以創(chuàng)造出這樣的建筑”“我們可以創(chuàng)造出這樣的音樂，并備受歡迎”），而且的確如此。

如今，經(jīng)過幾代的進(jìn)化就會呈現(xiàn)個體或種類的復(fù)雜性，包括（文化）專業(yè)化和（生物）種別化。這種趨勢是由繁殖成功本身驅(qū)動的。畢竟，某個領(lǐng)域越是擁擠，就越難在競爭中取勝。關(guān)注細(xì)節(jié)、刻苦努力、更好的社會組織、運氣和個人創(chuàng)造力愈發(fā)重要……直到出現(xiàn)新的技術(shù)或理念（或DNA變化），讓藝術(shù)與人的生存或繁殖突然變得更加容易。重置！游戲又開始了。這就發(fā)生在1920年的建筑上，功能主義意識形態(tài)逐漸剝除精妙，使混凝土框架和幕墻工藝變得更快速、更廉價。低效花哨的新古典主義再見！小巷和人行道再見！

對于1950年代的音樂，（帶電子擴(kuò)音的）搖滾讓人不再需要多年的音樂訓(xùn)練和教育。任何4個少年都能組成樂隊，讓5000年歷史的音樂社會化步入新的紀(jì)元。錄音、收音機(jī)和高保真音樂史無前例地進(jìn)入家庭。有了數(shù)字合成音樂、iTunes和耳機(jī)，全新的音樂獲取、策劃和消費隨即出現(xiàn)。隨著技術(shù)的普遍和唾手可得的目標(biāo)得以實現(xiàn)，競爭又重新出現(xiàn)，進(jìn)化繼續(xù)。今天，從氛圍音樂到柴迪科舞曲，各個音樂類型的頂級藝術(shù)家必須掌握的音樂、制作和商務(wù)的復(fù)雜性都是50年前不可想象的。

與此同時，建筑發(fā)生了什么？它改善、發(fā)展、進(jìn)化了嗎？它分化成數(shù)百個類別，每個都需要專業(yè)的創(chuàng)作技術(shù)與選擇的眼光，并與過去的模式有機(jī)地連接起來了嗎？是的，但沒有這么多。不考慮計算機(jī)，全球大量出現(xiàn)的建筑一目了然：體形巨大、毫無特色、快速建成的各種實用建筑——酒店、公寓樓、倉庫、辦公樓——矗立在堅硬的高速公路之間，千篇一律。雷姆·庫哈斯所謂的建筑助興音樂、偽劣品、垃圾空間，背后是一堆陳舊的建筑思想。

為什么？建筑師不用爭奪開明的客戶么？建筑不用爭奪買家、租戶和攝影師么？如果需要，他們的技藝為何沒有根本性的提升——進(jìn)化——就像音樂、電影、汽車、照相機(jī)和計算機(jī)那樣？主要的原因在于：無法取悅或吸引或滿足聽眾的音樂很快就會消逝，不留遺跡、沒有消耗，也不占用空間。建筑不是這樣。建筑用戶更替的速度遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)慢于從零開始建造一棟建筑的速度。結(jié)果，平庸和低劣的建筑得以保留?？梢钥隙ǖ氖牵鼈儗ψ鈶舻奈υ谙陆?，入住率降低。沒有人在維護(hù)它們（于是傾頹得更快），甚至無人居住，但它們不會立刻被拆除并進(jìn)行更新。相反，它們的形象得以生根，經(jīng)濟(jì)和心理的壓抑影響著周圍的街區(qū)。這些建筑僅因創(chuàng)造足夠的收入就會存在……但它們依然被復(fù)制。為什么？某種意義上是因為人們對它們根本就沒有什么期望，因而使問題延續(xù)：選擇的壓力根本不存在。相反，陳舊糟糕的音樂很快就會被新穎優(yōu)美的音樂取代，甚至根本無人演奏。結(jié)果，音樂的創(chuàng)作永無止境，類型不斷增多，專業(yè)水準(zhǔn)持續(xù)提高4）。

要在建筑領(lǐng)域里激發(fā)出音樂領(lǐng)域一般的活力，需要模仿音樂領(lǐng)域里的經(jīng)濟(jì)生態(tài)。這最突出地體現(xiàn)在世博會和奧運會的建筑上。在這里，昂貴、富有創(chuàng)造力、短暫、被賦予“登月”般競爭使命的建筑最能展現(xiàn)可以繁衍的類型——前提是建筑一旦被遺忘或拋棄，就即刻拆除。

筆者還難以觸及音樂與建筑在經(jīng)濟(jì)條件上的差別。這種差別很深。要從總體上改變建筑——加速它的進(jìn)化、專業(yè)化、精細(xì)化，以及對人的努力和關(guān)注的回報——我們必須改變它運行的經(jīng)濟(jì)條件。這就意味著改變標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的“建筑師——業(yè)主”的雇傭制；這就意味著改變建筑的資金、房地產(chǎn)關(guān)系、施工方法、市場營銷，甚至是建筑的“分布”——或是我們對此的概念。建筑在能被體驗的地方是無處不在的，而不只是在它的地塊上。因此，幾乎每座建筑都是一種“公共產(chǎn)品”，就像經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家所說的，可以得到應(yīng)有的補(bǔ)助。在建筑不屬于公共產(chǎn)品的地方，自動化的射頻識別（RFID）微支付系統(tǒng)就會針對個人收費。加在一起，只靠這兩種方式就能帶來藝術(shù)的革命，讓建筑師贏得永恒的榮譽(yù)、而不是一次性的設(shè)計費5）。這和音樂一樣。

經(jīng)濟(jì)就講到這里。2013年，在編輯出版《18中心：建筑中的音樂·音樂中的建筑》之前，我正在策劃“建筑中的音樂·音樂中的建筑研討會”以及奧斯?。ā笆澜绗F(xiàn)場音樂之都”）的系列演出。那時我常被問到為什么不把整個活動命名為“聲音與空間”（或“空間中的聲音·聲音中的空間”）?！帮@然，”人們說，“‘聲音與空間’具有更多可能性?！碑?dāng)然這是更現(xiàn)代的概念，也會吸引更多的人。就在那時，我開始看到將建筑與音樂進(jìn)行比較的價值和局限，這種比較太抽象了。音樂不只是聲音——而是比聲音更有趣。同樣的，建筑也不只是房子——而是比房子更有趣。這就是我的信念，也是我要探索的：在今天，將音樂與建筑這兩種直觀上相關(guān)的藝術(shù)進(jìn)行比較，想象它們的相似性，以及還有什么“更多”的價值。所以，2010年9月美國建筑與設(shè)計中心發(fā)布了兩個活動：一是征集論文，以新的視角觀察建筑與音樂的古老關(guān)系，而不轉(zhuǎn)移到“空間”與“聲音”的討論上（或至少意識到其中的差異以及更高的追求）；二是同時發(fā)起建筑師與兩類作曲家的現(xiàn)場合作：（1）為呼應(yīng)室內(nèi)或室外、現(xiàn)狀或改造的特定建成環(huán)境，或在其中進(jìn)行現(xiàn)場演出譜寫的音樂（這一類叫“建筑中的音樂”）；（2）“利用”建筑譜寫的音樂，即把建筑作為某種意義上的樂譜，或相反地，用聽到的或演奏的音樂、音樂理論或樂譜創(chuàng)作的建筑。這第二類叫做“音樂中的建筑”，其理念在于音樂蘊含或隱含于某種建筑作品或建筑體驗中，反之亦然：建筑內(nèi)在于某種音樂作品中，在我們聆聽時形成于腦海中。所以，研討會和專著的標(biāo)題有點復(fù)雜且?guī)в嘘庩栆馕丁?8中心：建筑中的音樂·音樂中的建筑》。論文以通常的形式出版；現(xiàn)場合作分別在德州大學(xué)奧斯汀分校的6個場地（由組織者選出）上進(jìn)行演出。

這兩個活動從世界各地收集到了80多個方案。由6個評委組成的評委會選出19篇論文進(jìn)行演講和發(fā)表，8場合作進(jìn)行布場和現(xiàn)場演出6）。此外還委托了3個項目：作曲家和表演家埃倫·富爾曼的《彼端之畫》，由她本人用長弦樂器根據(jù)其比例在建筑與規(guī)劃圖書館的巴特爾廳（由卡斯·吉爾伯特設(shè)計）閱覽室中布場后演出；作曲家保羅·德雷舍和建筑師邁克爾·貝內(nèi)迪克特（與建筑師邁克爾·羅通迪和科爾曼·科克爾合作）為南希·李與佩里·巴斯的音樂廳舞臺創(chuàng)作的《低、近、廣》；“線上線”打擊樂和米漢/珀金斯二重唱以及蒂莫西·布里奧尼斯設(shè)置了6個擴(kuò)展鼓組，以便在戈德史密斯廳的哈爾與伊登箱庭院（由保羅·克雷設(shè)計）演奏伊阿尼斯·澤納基斯的杰作Persephassa（1969）。它們都在德州大學(xué)奧斯汀分校里上演7）。

所有演講和演出都在2011年10月19-22日的“建筑中的音樂·音樂中的建筑研討會”中進(jìn)行8）。不少參與者也出現(xiàn)在本期《世界建筑》雜志中。

敬請欣賞！□

注釋：

1）根據(jù)《大英百科全書》，歌德事實上抄襲了謝林于1805年（比其早25年）出版的《藝術(shù)哲學(xué)》。謝林寫道，建筑“是空間中的音樂，就仿佛凝固的音樂”。顯然謝林引用了他妻子索菲的話。

2）這是一個很長的名單，讀者可以在iTunes上或用Google查詢。與約翰·亞當(dāng)斯的訪談值得一聽，其背景可見這篇文章http://www.npr.org/player/ embed/450560466/455432749。在“替代搖滾”的世界可以加上接受傳統(tǒng)訓(xùn)練的埃米·紐伯格和沙拉·沃登（比如，《我最閃亮的鉆石》）以及勞里·安德森。

3）喬治·米勒的《交配思維》以及丹尼斯·達(dá)頓的《藝術(shù)與進(jìn)化》在這一點上頗具說服力。

4）有人認(rèn)為，世界上大多數(shù)商業(yè)流行音樂并不比建成的商業(yè)建筑好。二者都充斥著陳舊的手法，對平庸的法式、唯利是圖的海量復(fù)制。只需聽聽收音機(jī)就會明白。我要說：有道理。但截然不同的地方在于：人可以不聽平庸的流行音樂，但不得不看平庸的建筑和乏味的景觀。收音機(jī)和耳機(jī)很容易關(guān)掉，或選擇其他的。要從單方面選擇住在優(yōu)美的建筑中或在它的周圍要困難、而且昂貴得多。我還要說（但不指望所有人接受，所以很難量化），從總體上看大多數(shù)流行音樂——從音樂創(chuàng)作到錄制——通過收音機(jī)體現(xiàn)的創(chuàng)作價值超過了（建成的）普通建筑的設(shè)計和施工所體現(xiàn)的創(chuàng)作價值。

5）關(guān)于建筑重新形成價值并重新進(jìn)入市場的方式，參見“建筑的價值”http://mbenedikt.com/coda.pdf（未發(fā)表稿，2003）。

6）6位評委是：建筑學(xué)院的邁克爾·貝內(nèi)迪克特、卡爾·馬修斯和達(dá)內(nèi)爾·布里斯科教授；巴特勒音樂學(xué)院的葉夫根尼·沙拉特、格倫·錢德勒和愛德華·皮爾索爾教授；以及奧斯汀新音樂合作社主任、作曲家特拉維斯·韋勒。

7）《彼端之畫》也由新音樂合作社音樂家的一個四重唱組合在特拉維斯·韋勒的指揮下演出。《低、近、廣》由12位音樂家組合在音樂導(dǎo)演斯科特·漢娜的指揮下演出。所有演出的人員表在http:// soa.utexas.edu/files/caad/MIA-AIM_Performance_ Program.pdf。

8）獲取活動的概述，包括視頻以及上述演出及其他，請訪問http://soa.utexas.edu/caad/mia-aim了解這部專著的更多信息，請訪問http://soa.utexas.edu/ publications/center-18-music-architecture%E2%80%9 4architecture-music。

Certain parallels between music and architecture leap out: both are cultural expressions that exceed minima having to do with survival; both can be categorized into genres from folk to avant-garde, as well as into stylistic time periods; both have palettes （one of sounds or "sonic materials", and one of physical materials）; and both manifest regular, repeating structures （rhythms, sequences, phrases, modules, and so forth）. Additionally, both depend extraordinarily on talented and energetic individuals-composer and designer virtuosos-who show the way, first by emulating earlier virtuosos and then by branching off. And finally, architecture and music must ultimately be performed in the real world: played, built, listened to, and lived in. Musical scores and architectural drawings are indicative, but not enough.

The differences between music and architecture are equally obvious, however, which means that writers who would address music and architecture together must offer something deeper, something edgier and more useful than the lists of parallels-parallels whose existence might say more about the permissiveness of metaphorical language than about either art.

The ancient Babylonians drew parallels between architecture and music, as did the ancient Greeks when Pythagoras learned （from the Babylonians, apparently） about the correspondence of the physical length of a taut string to its tonal pitch when plucked, as well as the correspondence of dimensional ratios of string lengths to tonal harmonies. （The same applies to struck bars, as with a xylophones or thumb harps, and to wind instruments like pan pipes.） This correspondence was to them anything but metaphorical. To the Babylonians and Greeks it seemed to be a discovery about reality itself, guaranteeing a route from objective geometry and the play of numbers to the immediate and intuitive perception of beauty. By the first century, CE, Vitruvius could opine that all architects should study music "in order to have grasp of canonical and mathematical relations."[1]（As far as I know, he did not advocate that composers should study architecture.） In 1835, Goethe's characterization of architecture as "frozen music" took a more romantic turn. It pointed not only to both arts' formal/mathematical underpinnings but also to their appeal to emotions1）. This dual nature mapped roughly onto social class in both cases: the higher classes "knew the math" and felt the finer sentiments; the lower classes knew no math and so felt only the rougher sentiments.

Some things never change.

Certainly, modern music and modern architecture were more interested in their own formal and material possibilities-in their "math"-than in appealing to ordinary people's affections and emotions. （Of course, if the latter was achieved as a by-product, that was fi ne.） Preoccupation with its own media and methods became the mark of progressive modernity. At its avant-garde edges, comments from the bourgoisie like "yes, but is it music？" "yes, but is it painting？" "yes, but is it architecture？" became badges of honor. And so, to a greater extent, it remains today. With "parametric architecture" as with "serious music" through the mid-twentieth century-abstract, heady, hungry for new perceptual e ff ects, and spurning popularity as a motive-the notion that the proper material of composers is sound, and the proper material of architects is space, has yet to lose its appeal to many.

Alas, all of the arts but architecture have moved on. Even serious music has moved on （not that there aren't composers who see still themselves as "sound artists"）. Moved on to what？ To an interest in political, relational, figurative, historical, and emotional realities, to an interest in roughness, human performance and craft, and pre-modern art whose meaningful units were never the simple units of physics （space, time, mass, motion, vibration, etc.） or solipsistic phenomenology （what I see and hear, raw, alone, moment to moment）. To hear examples of what I mean in the world of twentyfirst-century, classical music （sometimes called New Music）, one might listen to composers such as John Adams, Michael Torke, Conlon Nancarrow, Paul Dresher, Fernando Otero, Anna Clyne, Eric Whitacre, Osvaldo Golijov, Ethan Frederick Greene, and Yevgeniy Sharlat. These are among scores of composers today finding new life in traditional （a）tonalities and forms2）. In the world of "serious architecture" the list is harder to make. Shall we list Wang Shu and Sverre Fenn？ Certainly not SANAA or BIG who are extending modernism's original poles even farther apart: purist minimalism on the one hand, and surreal functionalism on the other. And not the Postmoderns of the seventies and eighties.

What, then, is the message from newer New Music to architecture？ I believe this: that pop is not the only alternative to sleek, now stale, "experimental" modernism. Extreme cantilevers, walls of glass, techno-fetishism, the constant "blurring of the boundary between inside and out" （as though this were a self-evident good and a major achievement）and/or pushing buildings into the ground, hiding under carpets as though embarrassed to exist, are clichés now, disconnected from life. The irony is that every architect doing these things wishes he or she lived （though well-off, of course） in nineteenthcentury Paris or an old country villa, lightly re-done.

Luckily, both music and architecture evolve, if at different speeds. Evolution consists of two processes: reproduction-with-variation, and selection. "Reproduction" means copying older works, "with variation", means doing so imperfectly （for any number of reasons, including intentionally）. "Selection" means the application of judgment to descendants so that some do not get to reproduce again, either because they die （or are destroyed, or are ignored） before they get the chance, or because they are too complex, require too much, narrowlycorrect "paperwork" to get it on or get completed. Art forms, styles, genres, and ideas are all subject to this two- step process, even though humans are the agents that select them and "reproduction" is more like copying. The more successful art forms, styles, genres, and ideas, anyway, multiply and proliferate （indeed proliferation is the very definition of "success" in biological terms）, while the less successful ones do not, or thrive only in small numbers in special, limited environments, or niches. The world of serious music and the world ofserious architecture （such as appears in magazines like this） are just two such niches. Here, as with animals in ecological niches, health （enhanced chance of survival） and sexiness （enhanced chance of reproduction） are everything3）. What succeeds in architecture, then, as in music, is （a） what survives in some techno-economic niche, and （b） what is thought reproducible （"we can make buildings like this" "we can make music like this, and people will want more of it"）, and is.

Now, over many generations of evolution there is a general trend to individual or genre complexity, including specialization （in culture） and speciation （in biology）. The trend is driven by reproductive success itself. The more crowded the field, after all, the harder it is to beat the competition. Attention to detail, intensity of e ff ort, better social organization, luck, and individual creativity start to count for more and more until a new technology or ideology （or DNA trick） comes along that suddenly makes survival and/or reproduction easier to secure for both the art and for actual people. Reset！And the game begins again. This happened in architecture around 1920 with the introduction of reinforced concrete frame construction and curtain wall （faster, cheaper）, aided by the subtletystripping ideology of functionalism. Goodbye ine ffi cient and fussy neoclassicism！ Goodbye alleys and sidewalks.

In music around the 1950s, rock and roll （with electrified amplification） made years of musical training and education unnecessary. Any four teenagers could have a band, and the fi ve-thousandyear-old business of music-aided-socialization entered a new era. With records, radio, and "hifi", music entered the home as never before. With digital music synthesis, iTunes, and earbuds, a whole new regime of music availability, curating, and consumption has emerged. As technologies permeated and the low-hanging fruit was consumed, competition returned and evolution continued. Today, top performers of every musical genre, from ambient to zydeco, must master musical, production, and business complexities unknown fi fty years ago.

What happened to architecture over roughly the same time period？ Did it improve/develop/evolve？Did it branch into hundreds of genres, each requiring specialized skill to produce and connoisseurship to select, linked organically to past modes？ Yes, but not as much. Computers notwithstanding, what proliferated instead can be seen world over: gigantic, anonymous, rapidly-erected, pragmatic blocks of whatever-hotels, apartment buildings, warehouses, offices-set among gritty freeways, all looking the same: architectural Muzak, schlock, or junkspace, as Rem Koolhaas calls it, driven by a handful of tiring architectural ideas.

Why？ Do architects not compete for wellendowed clients？ Do buildings not compete for buyers, renters, and photographers？ And if so, why has their artistry not radically increasedevolved-as music's has, and movies, cars, cameras, and computers have too？ Here is the main reason: pieces of music that fail to entertain or engage or satisfy quickly disappear, without residue or blemish or taking up space. Buildings do not. The rate at which buildings are replaced is a fraction of the rate at which they are built from scratch. As a result, mediocre and bad buildings persist. To be sure, their power to command rent diminishes, and their occupancy rates go down. They stop being maintained （which accelerates their decline）; they are even abandoned, but they are not quickly removed and replaced. Rather, their landscapes are allowed to go to seed, and economic and psychological depression is allowed to set in for blocks around. These buildings need only make enough money to survive…and still they are replicated. Why？ In part because people have such low expectations of them in the first place, which in turn perpetuates the problem: selective pressure is all but absent. By contrast, old and bad music is quickly replaced by newer and better music. Or not performed at all. As a result, musical invention is constant, genres proliferate, and connoisseurship thrives4）.

To stimulate anything like music's dynamism in architecture would require simulating music's economic ecology. This happens, most closely in the case of architecture at World Expositions and the Olympic Games. Here, expensive, creative, shortlived, and competitively commissioned "moon shot" buildings come closest to demonstrating what kinds of architectures would proliferate if buildings were as frequently removed as they are forgiven for not working.

I have hardly scratched the surface of how the economic conditions of music and the economic conditions of architecture differ. These differences run deep. To change architecture in general-to speed its evolution, specialization, elaboration, and capacity to reward human e ff ort and attention-we must change the economic conditions under which it operates. That means changing standard architectowner contracts; it means changing architecture's finance, real estate connection, construction methods, marketing, and even, in a sense, architecture's "distribution"-or our concept of it. A building is everywhere it can be experienced from, after all, and not just on its plot. As a result, almost every building is a "public good," as economists like to say, and could be subsidized to the extent that it is. And where buildings are not public goods, automated RFID micropayment systems could allow admission to be individually charged. Taken together, these two arrangements alone would revolutionize the art, as would architects being paid royalties in perpetuity rather than one-time fees5）. Rather like music.

Enough about economics. While editing the book CENTER 18: Music in Architecture· Architecture in Music in 2013 and, before that, while planning the Music in Architecture · Architecture in Music Symposium and performance series in Austin （the "live music capital of the world"）, I was often asked why we did not name the whole a ff air Sound and Space （or Sound in Space？ Space in Sound）."Surely", people said, "‘sound and space' left more possibilities open." Surely it was the more modern conception, and would get more people involved. It was then that I began to see the value, but also the limitations, of comparisons of architecture to music that were too abstract. Music is more than sound—more, even, than interesting sound. In just the same way, architecture is more than buildingmore, even, than interesting building. This was my conviction, and this was the quest: to explore what that "more" was today by imagining that it was the same, or at least comparable, for the intuitivelyrelated arts of music and architecture.

So two calls went out in September of 2010 from the Center for American Architecture and Design: a call for papers that would take a new look at architecture's age-old relationship to music without devolving to discussions "space" and "sound" （or at least aware of the difference and desirous of the higher）, and simultaneously, a call for live collaborations between architects and composers in two categories: （1） music composed for live performance in, and in response to, specific built environments, indoors or out-, found or adjusted （this category was called Music in Architecture）, and （2）music composed "from" architecture, i.e. from using architecture as a score in some way, or conversely, architectural designs derived from music heard, music played, music theory, or musical scores. This second category was called Architecture in Music, on the notion that music was somehow buried or encoded in certain kinds or works of architecture or architectural experience, and vice versa: that architecture was inherent in certain kinds and pieces of music, conjured up in our minds as we listened. Hence the somewhat dizzying, yin-yang title of the symposium and the book: CENTER 18: Music In Architecture· Architecture In Music. Papers were presented and published in the usual way; collaborations were installed and performed in real time at one of six sites （chosen by the organizers） on The University of Texas at Austin's campus.

Both calls received over eighty proposals each from around the world. A jury of six judges asked nineteen papers to go forward to presentation and publication, and eight collaborations to go forward to realization in installation and live performance6）. In addition, three works were commissioned: Tracings by composer and performer Ellen Fullman, performed by her on The Long String Instrument, which was installed in the reading room of the Architecture and Planning Library in Battle Hall （designed by Cass Gilbert） and based on its proportions; Low, Close, Vast, by composer Paul Dresher and architect Michael Benedikt （with the collaboration of architects Michael Rotondi and Coleman Coker） for the stage of the Nancy Lee and Perry R. Bass Concert Hall; and a performance, by line upon line percussion and the Meehan/Perkins Duo with Timothy Briones, of Iannis Xenakis's masterpiece, Persephassa （1969） for six expanded drum sets, in the Hal and Eden Box Courtyard of Goldsmith Hall （designed by Paul Cret）, all on The University of Texas at Austin campus7）.

All presentations and performances were given from October 19-22, 2011 at the Music in Architecture · Architecture in Music Symposium8）. Several of the contributors also contributed to this issue of World Architecture Magazine.

Enjoy.□

Notes:

1） According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Goethe was in fact appropriating Friedrich von Schelling, in Philosophie der Kunst published in 1805, i.e., twentyfive years earlier. Architecture, wrote Schelling, "is music in space, as it were, frozen music." Apparently, too, Schelling was quoting his wife, Sophie.

2） This is a long list, which the reader can investigate on iTunes, or with Google. This interview with John Adams is worth listening to in the context of this article: http:// www.npr.org/player/embed/450560466/455432749. Closer to the "alternative rock" world one can add classically trained Amy X. Neuberg and Shara Worden （as My Brightest Diamond） and of course, Laurie Anderson.

3） George Miller's The Mating Mind as well as Dennis Dutton's Art and Evolution are convincing on this point.

4） Some would argue that most of the commercial pop music produced in the world is no better than the bulk of commercial architecture built. Cliches abound in both, the cynical reproduction of banal formulas, in oceanic quantities. Just listen to the radio. I would say: you have a point. But here is the critical di ff erence: you don't have to listen to banal pop music the way you have to live among banal and buildings and neglected landscapes. Radios and headsets can be turned o ff easily, or selected amongst. It is much harder, and far more expensive, to select-to choose-unilaterally to live in and around fi ne architecture. I would also opine （but not expect everyone to agree, so hard is it to quantify） that in general the production values-from musicianship to recording-of most pop music that makes it to the radio exceeds the production values brought to the design and construction of quotidian buildings （that get built）.

5） For more on the ways architecture could re-value and re-market itself see "The Value of Architecture", at http://mbenedikt.com/coda.pdf （unpublished manuscript, 2003）.

6） The six judges were: Professors Michael Benedikt, Carl Matthews, and Danelle Briscoe of the School of Architecture, Professors Yevgeniy Sharlat, Glenn Chandler, and Edward Pearsall of the Butler School of Music, and Travis Weller, composer, and Director of the New Music Co-op in Austin.

7） Tracings was also performed by a quartet of New Music Co-op musicians with, and under the direction of, Travis Weller. Low, Close, Vast was performed by an ensemble of twelve musicians under the direction of Music Director Scott Hanna. Full personnel and credits for all performances can be found at http://soa.utexas. edu/ fi les/caad/MIA-AIM_Performance_Program.pdf. 8） You can get an overview of the events, including videos of the above and the many other performances, by visiting http://soa.utexas.edu/caad/mia-aim. More about the book can be found at http://soa.utexas.edu/ publications/center-18-music-architecture%E2%80%9 4architecture-music

參考文獻(xiàn)/Reference:

[1] Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. Ingrid, D. Rowland, and Thomas, Noble Howe, trans.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

收稿日期：2015-12-18

作者簡介：德州大學(xué)奧斯汀分校建筑學(xué)院聯(lián)合會（ACSA）特聘建筑學(xué)教授，哈爾·博克斯（Hal Box）城市研究主席