公共空間中游戲的力量

利亞納·勒費(fèi)夫爾/Liane Lefaivre

黃華青 譯/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

公共空間中游戲的力量

利亞納·勒費(fèi)夫爾/Liane Lefaivre

黃華青 譯/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

“我并不是想要在文化的各種理論中定義游戲的位置，而是想要確定文化本身究竟在何種程度上包含游戲的特質(zhì)?！薄s翰·赫伊津哈，《游戲的人》[1]

自從阿爾多·凡·艾克在1946年以一個(gè)叛逆“憤怒青年”的姿態(tài)闖入建筑學(xué)界，他的文章和宣言對(duì)建筑學(xué)思考的影響之大，恐怕很少有建筑師或評(píng)論家可望其項(xiàng)背。[2]他創(chuàng)造了很多重要的詞匯、口號(hào)和標(biāo)語，已融入到標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的建筑學(xué)語境之中。在他具有劃時(shí)代意義的、恒久的貢獻(xiàn)之中，包括對(duì)“空間”和“場(chǎng)所”的區(qū)分。[3]另外，他還將哲學(xué)家馬丁·布伯的哲學(xué)概念“之間”引入建筑學(xué)[4]。簡(jiǎn)單地說，場(chǎng)所就是“之間的場(chǎng)域”。當(dāng)他最初在建筑學(xué)和城市設(shè)計(jì)語境中，將空間和場(chǎng)所的區(qū)別理論化，這被看作是極具威脅的。一直以來，已有不少關(guān)于場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造的嘗試——主要來自于1960年代，例如簡(jiǎn)·雅各布斯這樣的平民論者、所謂的批判地域主義者、骯臟現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者等等——但阿爾多·凡·艾克的阿姆斯特丹游戲場(chǎng)仍然是最為成功的。背后的原因也不難理解。建筑的從業(yè)者無法察覺到這些特質(zhì)，是因?yàn)樗母拍钊绱藷o形、虛無縹緲。因此建筑學(xué)對(duì)它們的忽視也是令人震驚的。這些游戲場(chǎng)不僅是阿爾多·凡·艾克最重要的作品，而且也是對(duì)建筑學(xué)、城市主義乃至戰(zhàn)后藝術(shù)界最具原創(chuàng)性的貢獻(xiàn)之一，而且它的潛能遠(yuǎn)未得到充分挖掘。

在1950年代末到60年代，有一系列關(guān)于阿姆斯特丹游戲場(chǎng)的照片，捕捉到它們對(duì)阿姆斯特丹的影響力。這些照片的焦點(diǎn)并不在兒童的特寫，而更多關(guān)乎城市環(huán)境。它們有其獨(dú)一無二之處，是源自設(shè)計(jì)背后的概念，與阿爾多·凡·艾克的思考息息相關(guān)。他一直和負(fù)責(zé)這項(xiàng)建設(shè)的政府官員密切合作，改善阿姆斯特丹的游戲場(chǎng)。根本上，項(xiàng)目前后的對(duì)比展現(xiàn)了一種蛻變的本質(zhì)，也就是從所謂的城市“空間”向城市“場(chǎng)所”的蛻變。

要說有多少游戲場(chǎng)應(yīng)歸功于凡·艾克，仍然沒有定論。他自己估計(jì)，自從他1947年設(shè)計(jì)第一個(gè)柏特曼廣場(chǎng)游戲場(chǎng)以來，在阿姆斯特丹有700個(gè)游戲場(chǎng)是“按照我的設(shè)計(jì)建造的”1）[5-6]。然而，在查閱市政檔案庫之后發(fā)現(xiàn)，數(shù)量遠(yuǎn)比這更多。檔案材料中記錄，僅在1957-1959年間，在阿姆斯特丹城西的新郊區(qū)——古斯維爾德、斯洛特瓦爾特、斯洛特米爾——設(shè)計(jì)的游戲場(chǎng)，大多數(shù)是由政府按照凡·艾克的最初設(shè)計(jì)元素復(fù)制的，而由他親自設(shè)計(jì)的更細(xì)致的、獨(dú)一無二的、為場(chǎng)地量身定制的游戲場(chǎng)，也有約200個(gè)之多。那些他人模仿的游戲場(chǎng)算是凡·艾克的游戲場(chǎng)嗎？這取決于你如何定義它們。狹義地說，它們不是；廣義地說，它們是。實(shí)際上，從后一種定義來說，考慮到1947年以來游戲場(chǎng)在全荷蘭的大規(guī)模拓展，它的數(shù)目將不可估量。阿爾多·凡·艾克對(duì)荷蘭城市景觀的改變，比他自己意識(shí)到的程度還要高得多。

造反有理

亨利·列斐伏爾曾論述現(xiàn)代化進(jìn)程對(duì)傳統(tǒng)、歷史城市肌理帶來的壓迫2）。根據(jù)列斐伏爾的理論，20世紀(jì)早期見證了一個(gè)不斷加速的趨勢(shì)：場(chǎng)所發(fā)生解體，另一種全新的、匿名的、貧瘠的、技術(shù)主義的空間則以前所未有的速度出現(xiàn)。這種空間被維克多·布吉瓦稱作“理性發(fā)展”[7]，被勒·柯布西耶稱作“光輝城市”[8]，被路德維希·希爾塞姆稱作“大城市建筑”[9]，被科爾·范·伊斯特倫稱作“功能城市”3）[10]。

另一個(gè)二戰(zhàn)后影響了城市設(shè)計(jì)思想的重要轉(zhuǎn)變，是從國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)倡導(dǎo)的“自上而下”的城市設(shè)計(jì)方法，轉(zhuǎn)向一條“自下而上”“骯臟現(xiàn)實(shí)”“情境化”的路徑。第一個(gè)對(duì)國(guó)際建協(xié)式的城市規(guī)劃做出真正改變的——至少是一種補(bǔ)充——就是阿爾多·凡·艾克設(shè)計(jì)的游戲場(chǎng)[2]。除了凡·艾克之外的十人小組成員，都將追隨他的腳步。有兩個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)可以概括在第一個(gè)游戲場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)之后產(chǎn)生的城市設(shè)計(jì)方法的巨大差別：一個(gè)是1934年凡·伊斯特倫的阿姆斯特丹總體擴(kuò)建規(guī)劃（AUP），擁有統(tǒng)領(lǐng)一切的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化空間、嚴(yán)格僵化的街區(qū)；另一個(gè)在阿姆斯特丹的約爾丹街區(qū)肌理中嵌入的戰(zhàn)后游戲場(chǎng)。一個(gè)是服從“總平面”的設(shè)計(jì)策略；另一個(gè)可以稱作見縫插針的、多中心的策略。

凡·艾克為特定城市環(huán)境做適應(yīng)性設(shè)計(jì)、而不是采取預(yù)設(shè)條件設(shè)計(jì)的理念，和戰(zhàn)后很多其他領(lǐng)域有共通之處，例如，文學(xué)、電影、政治學(xué)、哲學(xué)和科學(xué)等。從普通語言哲學(xué)家、存在主義者、現(xiàn)象學(xué)家到數(shù)學(xué)家，其典型特征是反對(duì)先驗(yàn)的概念和抽象的形而上原則，盡管相互之間也存在意見的分歧，但卻保持同一共識(shí)：將要解決的問題放在真實(shí)的“境遇” “生活在其中的環(huán)境” “體驗(yàn)經(jīng)歷”“臨近文脈”、時(shí)代的“情境”精神中看待，尤其受到讓-保羅·薩特的存在主義理論的影響。凡·艾克對(duì)“空間”和“場(chǎng)所”的區(qū)分，可以看作是薩特關(guān)于“虛無”和“存在”的哲學(xué)理念在建筑學(xué)領(lǐng)域的呼應(yīng)[2，11]。自然，凡·艾克和薩特都反對(duì)宏大敘事、自上而下、權(quán)威體系。薩特認(rèn)為，這些理念都受制于一種“內(nèi)

"It was not my objective to define the place of play among other manifestations of culture, but rather to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play."

J. Huizinga, Homo Ludens[1]6

From the time Aldo van Eyck burst onto the scene as a rebellious "angry young man" in 1946, his writings and statements influenced architectural thinking to a degree that has rarely been surpassed by other architects and critics[2]. He coined many important phrases, catchwords and slogans that have passed into standard architectural discourse. Among his epoch-making and lasting contributions was the distinction between "space" and "place"[3]. Another was the importation into architecture of the philosophical term of "in between" that he borrowed from Martin Buber[4]. Simply put, place was the "realm of the in between." When he began to theorize about the space/place distinction in relation to architecture and urban design, it was perceived as extremely threatening. There have, of course, been examples of attempts at place-making – mostly from the 1960s, with populists like Jane Jacobs, with so-called critical Regionalists, and Dirty Realists – but Aldo van Eyck's Amsterdam playgrounds are among the most successful. The reason is understandable to some extent. The architectural profession was not capable of perceiving them because they were so immaterial, built out of thin air, as it were. This oversight by the profession is surprising. The playgrounds are not only Aldo van Eyck's most important works, but they were also one of the most original contributions to architecture, urbanism and art of the post-war period, and one whose potential has yet to be tapped.

A series of photographs of Amsterdam playgrounds, taken in the late 1950s and 1960s, captures the kind of impact they had in Amsterdam.Their focus was not close-up and engaged with actual children, but rather on the urban environment. But they do have a uniqueness, and it lies in the concept behind them that has everything to do with the thinking of Aldo van Eyck, who was working closely with the civil servants responsible for implementing the Amsterdam playgrounds, fundamentally, their before-and-after character illustrates the essence of the metamorphosis of what may be called urban "space" into urban "place".

Just how many playgrounds can be attributed to van Eyck is open to interpretation. He himself guessed that since 1947, when he built his first one on the Bertelmanplein, 700 "were carried out according to my designs" in Amsterdam1)[5-6]. A check in the municipal archives, however, reveals many more. Archival material documenting the playgrounds designed between 1957 and 1959 for the new western suburbs of Amsterdam – Geuseveld, Slotervaart and Slotermeer – points to mass production of playgrounds by civil servants based on van Eyck's initial design elements as opposed to the detailed, unique, in situ designs that characterise the approximately 200 playgrounds built up to that time. Are they van Eyck playgrounds? It depends on how you define them. In the narrow sense of the term, they are not; in the largest sense, they are. In fact, in this latter sense, given the superabundant spread of playgrounds all over the Netherlands since 1947, the number is myriad. Aldo van Eyck has changed the Dutch cityscape to a much higher degree than he ever knew.

Rebel with a cause

Henri Lefebvre wrote about the pressures that were brought to bear upon traditional, historically inherited urban fabric in the process of modernization2). According to Lefebvre, the early twentieth century saw a marked increase in the tendency toward the dissolution of these places and the unprecedented rise of a new, anonymous, sterile, technocratic alternative space that Victor Bourgeois referred to it as "rationelle Bebauungsweisen," (rational development)[7], Le Corbusier to "la Cité radieuse"[8]Ludwig Hilseimer to "Grosstadt Architektur"[9], and Cor van Eesteren to the "functionele stadt"3)[10].

1-3 荒涼的城市空間轉(zhuǎn)變成公共空間的三個(gè)例子，源自作者從阿姆斯特丹檔案中發(fā)現(xiàn)的照片/Three examples of the transformation of deserted urban space into public space from photographs discovered by Liane Lefaivre in the Amsterdam archives（?Amsterdam City Archives）

One more major change that affected the thinking about cities in the aftermath of the Second World War consisted in turning this "top-down" CIAM approach to urbanism on its head and adopting an approach that was "ground-up", "dirty real", "situational". The first real alternative, or at least complement, to CIAM-style urban planning was these playgrounds by Aldo van Eyck.[2]The other members of Team Ten besides van Eyck, were to follow in his footsteps. Two images sum up the difference in approach to the city that accompanied the design of the first playground: van Eesteren's General Expansion Plan of Amsterdam (AUP) of 1934, with its sweeping standardizing, regimenting blocks, and the insertion of some post-war playgrounds into the fabric of the Jordaan neighbourhood of Amsterdam.生的幻想”。因此，他鼓舞同代人、尤其是新的戰(zhàn)后一代，更積極地“介入世界”和它的獨(dú)特“處境”[11]。

戰(zhàn)后的叛逆一代塑造的不滿、傲慢的反英雄角色中，存在一種普遍態(tài)度，即反對(duì)傳統(tǒng)、因循守舊和文化價(jià)值的“騙局”，同時(shí)在不同國(guó)家有著個(gè)性化的表現(xiàn)：在英國(guó)是約翰·奧斯本的“憤怒青年”，在法國(guó)是阿爾伯特·加繆的“反抗者”，在美國(guó)則是尼古拉斯·雷的“無因的造反”[12-14]。

另一個(gè)與建筑學(xué)更接近，而且同樣反叛、反陳規(guī)、自下而上的思想，來自亨利·列斐伏爾的作品。列斐伏爾的《日常生活批判》與阿爾多·凡·艾克的第一個(gè)游戲場(chǎng)同樣誕生于1947年，感覺上與城市地理學(xué)家皮埃爾·亨利·康巴·德·洛伊的《巴黎和大巴黎地區(qū)》一書有很多共同點(diǎn)[15]。

不過，就其對(duì)自上而下和自下而上的結(jié)合，凡·艾克的游戲場(chǎng)或許最接近于諾伯特·維納的自動(dòng)化理論，即研究自調(diào)節(jié)有機(jī)體如何持續(xù)根據(jù)新的輸入信息而調(diào)節(jié)自身，通過反饋循環(huán)來從不斷變化發(fā)展的環(huán)境中“學(xué)習(xí)”，這個(gè)過程或許可稱作“往復(fù)調(diào)節(jié)”[16]。

見縫插針和骯臟現(xiàn)實(shí)的美學(xué)

這種自上而下和自下而上的思維方式之間的自動(dòng)往復(fù)調(diào)節(jié)，存在很多不同的側(cè)面。實(shí)際上，阿姆斯特丹游戲場(chǎng)獨(dú)一無二的地方在于，它們見縫插針地嵌入于地段的生活肌理之中。它們都為地段量身而制，在龐塔努斯街游戲場(chǎng)是不平衡和塊狀的，在海壩區(qū)游戲場(chǎng)是碎片化和扭曲的。

對(duì)于場(chǎng)所精神的表達(dá)，始終無法脫離實(shí)際形式的異形或粗糙。現(xiàn)實(shí)總是骯臟而混亂，至始至終都是一種“骯臟現(xiàn)實(shí)”。沙福茲伯里的安東尼勛爵在談到新的自然秩序、新的地形學(xué)地區(qū)主義時(shí)，曾感嘆：“偉大的場(chǎng)所精神啊，你無處不在。我不應(yīng)再壓抑內(nèi)心對(duì)自然之物的熱情，無論藝術(shù)或是自負(fù)之人都無法闖入這種原始的狀態(tài)，破壞它真實(shí)的秩序。甚至是粗獷的巖石、長(zhǎng)滿苔蘚的山洞、未經(jīng)雕琢的怪異洞穴、裂開的瀑布，所有這些荒野中駭人的優(yōu)雅魅力，都是自然更真實(shí)的表現(xiàn)。在那些試圖模仿自然的正統(tǒng)園林中，這些因素應(yīng)得到更加壯麗的使用和表達(dá)?！盵17]

這段話與凡·艾克在1951年9月5日寫給阿姆斯特丹公共事業(yè)部主管的信傳達(dá)出一樣的精神。在這封信中，他拒絕美化游戲場(chǎng)周邊裸露的防火墻，而將這種粗糙墻面的“雕塑性”現(xiàn)實(shí)稱作“積極”的一面予以展示[18]。距離他的家鄉(xiāng)更近的，是由阿斯葛·瓊、康斯坦特·紐文華、柯奈爾·貝佛魯和卡爾·阿佩爾等人組建的“眼鏡蛇畫派”。凡·艾克在戰(zhàn)后與這些藝術(shù)家走得很近。戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間，他在蘇黎世聯(lián)邦理工學(xué)院學(xué)習(xí)建筑，導(dǎo)師是卡羅拉·吉迪恩-維爾克——她是個(gè)有聲望的權(quán)威人物、當(dāng)時(shí)最偉大的藝術(shù)史學(xué)家和評(píng)論家之一，她將凡·艾克帶進(jìn)了前衛(wèi)藝術(shù)的世界[6]。有趣的是，當(dāng)他在1940年代末的戰(zhàn)后回到荷蘭，和他聯(lián)系最緊密的并不是建筑師，而是與他同一代的藝術(shù)家。眾所周知，凡·艾克和眼鏡蛇畫派的很多成員都是好朋友，而且在1949年，他們委托凡·艾克在阿姆斯特丹市立博物館策劃了名為“實(shí)驗(yàn)藝術(shù)”的著名展覽[19]。我們還沒有深入研究他的游戲場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)從這些藝術(shù)家中獲得的啟發(fā)。他為1947年國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)的布里奇沃特會(huì)議撰寫的文章，正表達(dá)了他當(dāng)時(shí)的思想狀態(tài)。那篇文章叫作“關(guān)于藝術(shù)關(guān)聯(lián)性與合作重要性的報(bào)告”[20]。

那個(gè)時(shí)代，藝術(shù)與建筑有很多的交叉。我們也可以看到阿爾多對(duì)眼鏡蛇畫派的主要人物之一康士坦特的影響[21]。至少在1945年迪克街游戲場(chǎng)的案例中，凡·艾克在設(shè)計(jì)游戲場(chǎng)的同時(shí)也創(chuàng)作了一幅藝術(shù)作品，貫徹了“實(shí)驗(yàn)藝術(shù)”展中的精神。與畢加索、加博、摩爾、查德金在鹿特丹創(chuàng)作的戰(zhàn)后公共雕塑不同——那些雕塑是只能遠(yuǎn)觀、與環(huán)境格格不入的紀(jì)念碑，而凡·艾克的游戲場(chǎng)則從它的環(huán)境文脈中“學(xué)習(xí)”。它是戰(zhàn)后最早的為特定地段設(shè)計(jì)的雕塑之一。在這個(gè)意義上，它與庫爾特·施威特的“梅爾茨谷倉”（1947）有驚人的相似之處——凡·艾克也與這位藝術(shù)家保持著通信[6]——這座雕塑嵌入泰恩河上的紐卡斯?fàn)柕囊粭潿F(xiàn)存的破敗建筑中，施威特自己曾于納粹德國(guó)統(tǒng)治期間在這里避難[2]52-54。另外，也值得將阿爾多的游戲場(chǎng)和《眼鏡蛇》雜志的第四期作對(duì)比。它和1949年秋在市立博物館的展覽有巧合之處，都以兒童為主題，例如柯奈爾的畫作“兒童游戲與大太陽”（1949）。還有一個(gè)主要的角色反轉(zhuǎn)，就是在“天真”、孩童般的“澀藝術(shù)”作品中，把兒童畫當(dāng)作成人的典范，例如讓·迪比費(fèi)、胡安·米羅和其他戰(zhàn)后表現(xiàn)主義畫家[22]?？邓固固卦鴮懙?，“兒童知道的原則，只有對(duì)生存的自發(fā)性體驗(yàn)；他們所具備的動(dòng)機(jī)，只有親自去嘗試?！?/p>

這使人聯(lián)想到由彼得·史密森、艾莉森·史密森和阿爾多·凡·艾克聯(lián)合編寫的出版物《十人小組初級(jí)讀本》（1961），就直接隱喻了兒童在小學(xué)學(xué)習(xí)閱讀的那類書籍，以及在當(dāng)時(shí)的表現(xiàn)主義畫家中普遍存在的對(duì)基本真相及原初價(jià)值的回歸。阿爾多·凡·艾克在某些游戲場(chǎng)的建筑效果圖中所使用的兒童蠟筆畫語匯，與眼鏡蛇畫派藝術(shù)也有共通之處。就像這些試圖模仿兒童繪畫風(fēng)格的藝術(shù)家一樣，凡·艾克將兒童蠟筆畫用在效果圖中，例如在海壩區(qū)游戲場(chǎng)的圖紙中就可以看到。

游戲的人

凡·艾克的游戲場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)也表達(dá)了一種深層次的文化延續(xù)性，是對(duì)荷蘭文化中“長(zhǎng)時(shí)段”概念的現(xiàn)代詮釋。正如西蒙·沙瑪所指出的，可識(shí)別的城市環(huán)境中表現(xiàn)出的“兒童游戲”，是一種至少可以追溯至16世紀(jì)荷蘭畫派的常用主題?！皼]有什么比荷蘭的繪畫、印刷甚至墻面瓷磚的主題，更能說明荷蘭文化對(duì)兒童和世界的特殊偏好了。有一系列關(guān)于兒童游戲的繪畫，其理念同樣是當(dāng)代對(duì)待兒童態(tài)度的One conforms to the strategy of the "master plan", the other is what could be called the strategy of the interstitial and the polycentric.

Van Eyck's idea of adapting design to a given urban setting, rather than working with a pre-conceived set of assumptions, has an equivalent in the way many other people dealt with their respective fields in the immediate post-war period, whether in literature, cinema, politics, philosophy, or science. Characteristically, reacting against a priori concepts and abstract principles of metaphysics, researchers as varied as philosophers of ordinary language, existentialists, phenomenologist, and mathematicians , whatever disagreements they had, shared one thing: they approached their problems as embedded in real "circumstances", "lived-in conditions", "experienced cases", "immediate contexts", "situational" spirit of the time, in particular the existentialist writings of Jean-Paul Sartre. Van Eyck's "space" and "place" distinction can be seen as a parallel in the field of architecture to Sartre's more philosophical categories of "Nothingness" and "Being"[2,11]. Naturally, both van Eyck and Sartre rebelled against the idea of grandiose, top-down, authoritative systems. For Sartre they suffered from the "illusion of immanence." Accordingly, he had challenged his contemporaries, in particular the new post-war generation, to become "engaged in the world" and in its unique "situations"[11].

The attitude predominant among the discontented, upstart anti-heroes of the generalised post-war rebellion against the traditional, conformist, "big bluff" cultural values personified in England by John Osborne's "angry young man," in France by Albert Camus's "homme révolté," and in the US by Nicholas Ray's "rebel without a cause"[12-14].

Closer to architecture, we find the same rebellious, non-conformist, ground-up thinking in the work of Henri Lefebvre. Lefebvre's Critique de la vie quotidienne came out in the same year as Aldo van Eyck's first playground, in 1947 and bears a remarkable similarity in feeling or the of urban geographer Pierre Henri Chombart de Lauwe's Paris et l'agglomération parisienne[15].

But perhaps what van Eyck's playgrounds come closest to, in the way they combine top-down and ground-up, was Norbert Wiener's cybernetic theory of self-regulating organisms constantly adjusting themselves in response to new inputs, "learning from" their evolving contexts through feedback loops, through what one might call a process of "inbetweening"[16].

Interstitial and dirty real aesthetics

There are many facets to this cybernetic inbetweening of top-down and ground-up thinking. Indeed, what is unique about the Amsterdam playgrounds that they are interstitial, inserted within the living fabric of the site. They are all site-specific, now lopsided and blob-like as in Pontanusstraat, now fractured and contorted as in the Zeedijk playground.

The search to express the genius loci is always associated with irregularity or roughness of real forms. Reality has always been dirty and messy; it has always been "dirty real". Anthony Shaftsbury. Speaking of the new natural order, the new topographic regionalism, he proclaimed: "Your genius, Genius of the Place, and the Great Genius have at least prevail'd. I shalt no longer resist the passion growing in me for things of a natural kind; whether neither Art, nor the Conceit of Man has spoiled their genuine order, by breaking in upon that primitive State. Even rude rocks, the mossy caverns, the irregular unwrought Grottos, and broken Falls of Waters, with all the horrid Grace of the Wilderness itself, as representing Nature more, will be the more engaging and appear with magnificence beyond the formal Mockery of Princely Gardens"[17].

This is the same spirit in which van Eyck wrote a letter to the Director of Public Works of Amsterdam dated September 5, 1951 where he declined to prettify the bare firewalls surrounding the playgrounds, preferring what he called the "positive" aspect of the "sculptural" reality of their roughness[18]. Much closer to home, however, is the COBRA group consisting of Asger Jorn, Constant Nieuwenhuys, Corneille Beverloo and Karel Appel among others. Van Eyck had particularly close ties with artists immediately after the war. He spent the war studying architecture at the ETH in Zurich and also under the aegis of a senior, authoritative figure, one of the greatest art historians and critics of the time, who introduced him to the world of avantgarde art, Carola Giedion-Welcker[6]. Interestingly, when he returned to the Netherlands after the war it was with artists of his generation, and not architects, that he formed the closest ties in the late 1940s. It is well known that van Eyck was a close friend of many members of the COBRA group of painters, and that they chose him to install a famous show of theirs at the Stedelijk Museum in 1949 called "Experimental Art"[19]. What has not been pointed out is the formal debt his playground designs owe to these artists. His contribution to a meeting of CIAM in Bridgewater in 1947 is revealing of his state of mind. It was entitled "A Report concerning the Interrelation of the Arts and the Importance of Cooperation"[20].

There was much cross-over between art and architecture at this time. That Aldo himself was an influence on one of the main figures of the group, Constant, is clear[21]. In at least one case, the Dijkstraat playground of 1945, van Eyck created a work of art and a playground simultaneously, in keeping with the spirit of the Experimental Art exhibition. As opposed to the post-war public sculptures in Rotterdam – by Picasso, Gabo, Moore or Zadkine – which were conceived as monuments to be looked at in isolation from their surroundings, the playground "learns" from its context. It is one of the first site-specific sculptures of the post war period. From this point of view it is more than coincidentally germane to Kurt Schwitters's Merzbarn (1947) – an artist with whom van Eyck kept up a correspondence[6]– a sculpture carved into an existing dilapidated building in Newcastleupon-Tyne where Schwitters had taken refuge from Nazi Germany[2]52-54. It is tempting to draw a parallel between Aldo's playgrounds and the fourth issue of the magazine COBRA. It coincided with the Stedelijk exhibition of Fall 1949 devoted to the theme of核心，包括‘繞路和引導(dǎo)、自由和服從、探險(xiǎn)和安全之間的永恒沖突’。不將兒童的游戲放置在想象的虛幻時(shí)空，而是放在有地形學(xué)意義的場(chǎng)所背景之中，周圍幾乎總是伴隨著某些公共建筑，可以看到市政廳或行會(huì)大廈。這些背景所喚起的市民和公共美德，就是撫養(yǎng)得當(dāng)?shù)膬和瘧?yīng)被引導(dǎo)的方向?！?/p>

正如沙瑪所指出的，這些圖像傳統(tǒng)中令人震驚的是，“公共空間中除了兒童之外，什么人都沒有?！盵23]這種繪畫傳統(tǒng)是荷蘭文化獨(dú)一無二的，有著很強(qiáng)的現(xiàn)實(shí)基礎(chǔ)。它對(duì)“游戲的人”的表達(dá)，并不只是為了游戲本身。就像赫伊津哈關(guān)于游戲的理論中所闡述的，它充斥著實(shí)踐性的目的。它反映出的愿景是將共和國(guó)價(jià)值觀早早灌輸給兒童，將他們帶入資產(chǎn)階級(jí)社會(huì)的現(xiàn)實(shí)世界。

科爾·范·伊斯特倫，游戲的人？提升城市密度的途徑

荷蘭獨(dú)特的兒童游戲傳統(tǒng)，也能夠解釋為何科爾·范·伊斯特倫受到以阿爾多·凡·艾克為代表的新一代建筑師思想的影響，要比國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)的任何老一輩更多。實(shí)際上，這位自上而下、功能主義的老派建筑師及城市規(guī)劃師，在他1934年的阿姆斯特丹擴(kuò)建規(guī)劃中還沒有設(shè)計(jì)任何游戲場(chǎng)，而后來卻成為一名全身心的、自下而上的情境主義者。他在1958年11月9日撰寫的紀(jì)要中，習(xí)慣性地、也可以說親切地將這種場(chǎng)地稱為“小朋友的小游戲場(chǎng)”，并積極將它嵌入像斯洛特米爾這樣的戰(zhàn)后項(xiàng)目中[24]。

作為戰(zhàn)后阿姆斯特丹城市發(fā)展的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，他激進(jìn)地改變了自己的設(shè)計(jì)方式，這直接受到阿姆斯特丹游戲場(chǎng)的影響，在最近一項(xiàng)對(duì)阿姆斯特丹市政檔案館的研究中也有所展現(xiàn)。雖然沒有拋棄自上而下的規(guī)劃理念，但他開始從現(xiàn)存城市肌理的遺留地、縫隙場(chǎng)所的特殊性和異規(guī)性中“學(xué)習(xí)”，并以此作為設(shè)計(jì)依據(jù)，而非予以拋棄。因此，正是在這時(shí)候，年輕建筑師在1947年為了應(yīng)對(duì)戰(zhàn)后滿目瘡痍的城市對(duì)游戲場(chǎng)的需求而提出的點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)設(shè)計(jì)策略，正式成為了官方政策，而這正是新的街區(qū)迅速建設(shè)的時(shí)代。新城鎮(zhèn)中每一個(gè)新建的街區(qū)，如果想要一個(gè)游戲場(chǎng)，就會(huì)得到一個(gè)。

頑皮的城市

就像眼鏡蛇畫派的畫家一樣，凡·艾克將孩童作為戰(zhàn)前“功能城市”思想的反面。對(duì)于他來說，童年就等同于頑皮。就像我們?cè)谇拔奶岬降钠渌枷胍粯?，凡·艾克提出的“頑皮城市”概念也是當(dāng)時(shí)倍受爭(zhēng)論的話題之一。在戰(zhàn)后的日常生活理論中，列斐伏爾使用了青年馬克思提出的異化概念，勾勒出“日常性”理論的框架，指向普通的、重復(fù)性生活的潛能，而非生產(chǎn)或消費(fèi)世界的相關(guān)物。列斐伏爾強(qiáng)調(diào)了所有人將城市作為娛樂和享受之地的“權(quán)利”，不受經(jīng)濟(jì)驅(qū)動(dòng)力的影響，而是一種他稱之為“節(jié)日”的場(chǎng)所。

阿爾多·凡·艾克的游戲場(chǎng)和約翰·赫伊津哈1938年的《游戲的人》都深信游戲的教化作用。阿姆斯特丹最早的游戲場(chǎng)常位于那些被驅(qū)逐的猶太人的住宅留下的空隙。面對(duì)這樣的事實(shí)，將這些空隙用生活填滿也是一種救贖的、治愈的行為，一種將被摧毀的社區(qū)關(guān)系重新編織起來的方式。他們的目的就是通過游戲的方式，提升或克服赫伊津哈所說的人們的“痛苦的”（或好戰(zhàn)的）傾向[1]90-106。

自下而上和自上而下——參與式城市主義

阿爾多·凡·艾克的游戲場(chǎng)產(chǎn)生于一種半秩序、半散漫、高度參與性的過程，其中包括了幾十年中很多人的努力。這或許可以稱作一個(gè)自動(dòng)的過程，既是自下而上，也是自上而下的，其中相互關(guān)聯(lián)的大量參與者扮演著同樣重要的角色，不可能將其彼此分離。阿爾多·凡·艾克只是最有名的一個(gè)而已。這個(gè)過程還包括，我們前面提到的科爾·凡·伊斯特倫、雅各布、穆爾德、阿姆斯特丹市民，以及公共事業(yè)部。這是一種復(fù)雜、互動(dòng)式、劇烈的大量巧合和連鎖反應(yīng)的集合。游戲場(chǎng)由城市塑造，也反過來塑造著城市。城市被看作一個(gè)臨時(shí)性現(xiàn)象，建筑師的介入行為也同樣如此。如今，這看似是個(gè)顯而易見的事實(shí)，但在國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)年代的思想中，重要的是“規(guī)劃”——一種大尺度的、功能性的、永恒的空間模式。然而對(duì)凡·艾克來說，游戲場(chǎng)這種空間介入的形式，只在它們需要的地方和時(shí)刻出現(xiàn)[25]。

多中心的網(wǎng)

游戲場(chǎng)最具原創(chuàng)性和深遠(yuǎn)意義的地方，是它們共同作用時(shí)形成的一種網(wǎng)狀特質(zhì)。它們就像是一片星云，一個(gè)由具體情境產(chǎn)生的單元——即游戲場(chǎng)——組成的體系，與時(shí)間、偶然性和環(huán)境緊密相關(guān)。將城市作為一個(gè)開放圖式的概念，再次引用1923年凡·杜伊斯堡和凡·伊斯特倫的風(fēng)格派理論來說，消解了“室內(nèi)和室外空間的二元對(duì)立”。或許更進(jìn)一步，它使人想起皮埃特·蒙德里安的畫作——凡·艾克將這位藝術(shù)家稱為“天使”[26]。實(shí)際上，當(dāng)我們把這700多個(gè)游戲場(chǎng)看作一個(gè)整體，它就像是蒙德里安的“星空”畫作——他堅(jiān)決取消了經(jīng)典的、封閉式的、單中心的古典構(gòu)圖，而采取一種開放的、反經(jīng)典的構(gòu)圖策略，建立在隨即散布的、多中心的點(diǎn)網(wǎng)之上。在凡·艾克的個(gè)人畫集中可以看到，他的“構(gòu)成4號(hào)”作品就模仿了蒙德里安的這種繪畫方式[27]。

這些游戲場(chǎng)從城市的裂縫和間隙之中產(chǎn)生，與現(xiàn)有的城市肌理疊加，也可以看作后來凱文·林奇稱之為“多中心網(wǎng)絡(luò)”的插縫式城市設(shè)計(jì)方法的先驅(qū)[28]。凡·艾克的“星空”城市，出現(xiàn)于很多空想式設(shè)計(jì)理念之前，例如，康斯坦特設(shè)計(jì)的“新巴比倫”、尤納·弗里德曼設(shè)計(jì)的“移動(dòng)城市”、沙德拉設(shè)計(jì)的柏林自由大學(xué)[2]118-141。從這個(gè)角度來看，凡·艾克在戰(zhàn)后阿姆斯特丹設(shè)計(jì)的這片游戲場(chǎng)“星空”，也是戰(zhàn)后城市設(shè)計(jì)最偉大的突破之一。（本文是即將出版的《為什么不讓游戲場(chǎng)構(gòu)成最好的公共空間》一書的內(nèi)容概要。）childhood, with paintings like Corneille's Les Jeux d'enfants et le grand soleil (1949). In a major role reversal, the child became a model for the adult in "naif", child-like Art Brut works by Jean Dubuffet and Joan Miró, and post-war expressionists[22]. Constant, for his part, wrote that "the child knows no other law than the spontaneous feeling of being alive and knows no other imperative than to act it out."

One cannot help thinking that the collective publication by Peter and Alison Smithson with Aldo van Eyck called Team Ten Primer (1961) was a direct allusion to the kind of book children learn to read from in primary school and germane to the return to basic truths and primitive values that one finds in the expressionist painters of the time. Aldo van Eyck's architectural renderings in children's crayons of some of the playgrounds share something else with COBRA art. Like these artists, who were trying to imitate children in their drawing style, van Eyck used children's crayons in his renderings of the playgrounds, as the drawings of Zeedijk, for example, reveal.

Homo Ludens

Van Eyck's playground scheme also expresses a deep-seated cultural continuity in an updated form "longue durée" in Dutch culture. As Simon Schama has pointed out, kinderspelen or "children's play," represented in readily recognizable urban settings, is a topos of Netherlandish painting that goes back at least to the sixteenth century. "Nothing illustrates the peculiar bias of the Netherlandish culture toward children and the world more graphically than the compendia they put into paint, print and even wall tiles. There was a kinderspelen series of pictures embodying "the perennial conflicts between diversion and instruction, between freedom and obedience, between exploration and safety that were at the heart of contemporary attitudes towards the child. By situating the games not in some imaginary vacuum of time and space but in topographically meaningful (…) settings, nearly always with some public building, a town hall or guildhall in view, they evoke the civic and public virtues to which the correctly brought-up child should be led."

What is striking about this representational tradition, as Schama again points out, is "the absence of any figures other than children from these public places"[23]. This tradition in painting, unique to Dutch culture, had a foundation in reality. It was not so much an expression of homo ludens for the sake of play alone. As in the case of Huizinga's theory of play, it filled a practical purpose. It reflected the wish to instil republican values into children from an early age and bring them into the fold of the reality of civic life in a bourgeois society.

Cor van Eesteren, Homo Ludens? One approach to urban density

This uniquely Dutch tradition of kinderspeel goes a long way towards explaining why Cor van Eesteren was influenced by the ideas of the new generation, particularly Aldo van Eyck, more deeply than any of the CIAM old guard. In fact, this old top-down, arch-functionalist architect and urban planner, who had made no provisions for playgrounds in his extension plan for Amsterdam of 1934, became a devoted ground-up situationist, actively dedicated to placing what he, in a memo dated November 9, 1958, idiomatically and, yes, tenderly called Kleuterspeelplaatsjes or "small playgrounds for the little kids" in his post-war projects like Slotermeer[24].

As head of city development for the city of Amsterdam after the war, he changed his approach radically, and this was directly because of the Amsterdam playgrounds, as recent research into newly discovered archives in the Amsterdam Municipal Archive has shown." Without abandoning the idea of top-down planning, he began to "learn" from the particularities and irregularities of leftover, interstitial places in the existing fabric of the city and to work with them rather than overlook them. Thus it was that what had begun as an ad-hoc response of a young architect to a perceived need on the part of a war torn city for playgrounds in 1947 became, by the time the new neighbourhoods went up, official policy. Every block in the new towns that wanted a playground was granted one.

Ludic city

Like the COBRA painters, van Eyck used the child as a foil to the pre-war idea of the "functional city." For him, childhood was equated with the ludic. As with the other ideas we have mentioned above, the idea of the ludic city projected by van Eyck was part of the debate of the time. In the post-war Theory of Everyday Life he had used the concept of alienation developed by the young Marx as a springboard to outline the theory of "everydayness," or le quotidien, the potential of the humble and repetitive aspects of life, as opposed to those related to the world of production or consumption. Lefebvre asserted the "right" of everyone to the city as a place of pleasure and enjoyment, independent of the imperatives of the economy, as a locus of what he called "festival."

Aldo van Eyck's playgrounds shared with Johann Huizingha's Homo Ludens of 1938 a profound belief in the civilizing function of play. The very first playgrounds were embedded very often in the voids of Amsterdam where the houses of deported Jews had stood. Filling them with life, in the face of these facts, was a redeeming, therapeutic act, a way of weaving together once more the fabric of a devastated neighbourhood. The intention was to sublimate or overcome what Huizinga had called people's"agonal" (or combative)tendencies through play[1]90-106.

Bottom-up and top-down, participatory Urbanism

Aldo van Eyck's playgrounds arose within a semihierarchical, semi-anarchic, highly participatory process involving many people over many decades. It was what might be called a cybernetic process, ground-up, top-down, inter-relating a mass of agents, each playing an equally crucial role, impossible to disentangle from one another. Aldo van Eyck is simply the most well-known. Also involved in the process were, as we have seen Cor van Eesteren, Jacoba Mulder, the citizens of Amsterdam, and the Public Works Department. It is complex, interactive, seething mass of coincidences and chain reactions. The playgrounds were shaped by the city but they also shaped the city. The city was seen as a temporary phenomenon. So were the various interventions of the architect within it. Today this seems an obvious fact, but within the universe of CIAM thinking, what was important was the "plan", a large-scale,functional, timeless spatial pattern. For van Eyck, on the other hand, the playgrounds were actions in space occurring where and when they were needed.[25]

Polycentric net

The most original and significant aspect of the playgrounds is the net-like or web-like quality they assume when taken as a whole. They are conceived as a constellation, a scheme made up of situationally arising units – the playgrounds – bound to time, accident and circumstance. The idea of the city as an open-ended pattern removes "the duality of interior and exterior space," to quote van Doesburg and van Eesteren's 1923 text on De Stijl once again. Perhaps even more, it recalls a work by Piet Mondrian, an artist whom van Eyck referred to as "an angel"[26]. Indeed, when taken as a whole, the over seven hundred playgrounds can be seen as resembling Mondrian's so-called Starry Sky paintings, in which the artist decidedly moved away from the classical, closed, monocentric composition towards an open, anti-classical compositional strategy based on a randomly distributed, polycentric galaxy of nodal points, as he did also in his composition no. 4, a painting that closely resembles a Mondrian painting in van Eyck's personal collection[27].

Emerging in the cracks and interstices of the city and overlaid upon the existing urban fabric, the playgrounds are also forerunners of the interstitial approach to the city that Kevin Lynch was later to refer to as a "polycentric net"[28]. Van Eyck's "starry sky" city precedes the visionary schemes by Constant's New Babylon Yona Friedman's Mobile City, Shadrach Free University of Berlin.[2]118-141From this point of view too, then, van Eyck's design for this "starry sky" of playgrounds in post-war Amsterdam was one of the great breakthroughs of post-war urban planning.( This article is a summary of a forthcoming book entitled "Why don't Playgrounds Make the Best Public Spaces".)

注釋/Notes

1）1980年，弗朗西斯·斯特勞文，凡·艾克和工程部門不同員工的作品總計(jì)730個(gè)。/In 1980, Francis Strauven, van Eyck and different employees of the department of public works counted 730 of them.

2） 兩種空間類型的差異在列斐伏爾的著作《空間的生產(chǎn)》中有所描述。/The distinction between two types of space is presented by Lefebvre in La Production de l'Espace, Paris, 1974.

3） “功能城市”是1933年雅典國(guó)際建協(xié)第4次會(huì)議上的官方術(shù)語。/The "functional city" was the official term of the fourth congress of CIAM in Athens in 1933.

/References

[1] Johan Huizinga. Homo Ludens (First published in Dutch 1938) New York, 1955: 6.

[2] L.Lefaivre and A.Tzonis. Aldo van Eyck, Humanist Rebel: Inbetweening in a Postwar World, Rotterdam, 1999.

[3] A.van Eyck. Architecture of Dogon. Architectural Forum, Sept. 1961, 1961:121.

[4] A. van Eyck. Whatever Space and Time mean, Place and Occasion mean more. Forum, 1960-60: 121.

[5] Vincent Ligtelijn (ed.) Aldo van Eyck Werken, Bussum, 1999: 68.

[6] Francis Strauven, Aldo van Eyck. The Shape of Relativity , Amsterdam, 1998: 132-143.

[7] Victor Bourgeois. La Cite Moderne. Berchem-Bruxelles, 1922.

[8] Le Corbusier. La Cité Radieuse, Paris, 1921.

[9] L. Hilberseimer. Grosstadt Architectur , Stuttgart 1927.

[10] Annales Techniques. Organe officiel de la Chambre Technique de Grèce, 2. October 1933: 44-45, 1127-

[11] Jean Paul Sartre. L'Etre et le néant, Paris, 1943; Lefaivre and Tzonis, Op. Cit, 1999.

[12] John Osborne. Look Back in Anger, London, 1956.

[13] Albert Camus, L'Homme revolté, Paris, 1951.

[14] Nicolas Ray, Rebel without a cause, 1955.

[15] Pierre-Henri Chombart de Lauwe. Paris et l'agglomération parisienne, Paris 1952.

[16] Norbert Wiener. Cybernetics. Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Cambridge, MA, 1948.

[17] Anthony Ashley Cooper. Third Earl of Shaftsbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, Indianapolis, New York, 1964; First publ. 1711, vol. II, Part III, section II.

[18] Letter of Aldo van Eyck to the Director of Public Works, 27 august 1951. Amsterdam City Archives, 5213 inv. 2160, no 60.

[19] Willem Stokvis. COBRA, Geschiedenis, voorspeel en betekenis van een beweging in de kunst van na de tweede wereloorlog. Amsterdam, 1980.

[20] Comment of Aldo van Eyck on the sixth CIAM meeting at Bridgewater in 1947.

[21] Mark Wigley, Constant's New Babylon, Cambridge, MA 1999.

[22] M. Thévoz, Art Brut, New York, 1995.

[23] S. Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, New York, 1987, p. 495.

[24] Amsterdam City Archives 5213, 736.

[25] John Voelcker, CIAM 10. Dubrovnik 1956, Architect's Yearbook, 6, 1956.

[26] Aldo van Eyck, Toespraak bij de uitreiking van de Sikkensprijs, 1962; A. van Eyck, Niet om het leven. Van en over Aldo van Eyck, Amsterdam, 1986: 34-35.

[27] E.A. Carmean, Mondrian. The Diamond Compositions , Washington, 1979: 25-27.

[28] K. Lynch. The Pattern of the Metropolis// Daedalus, winter, 1961: 79-98.

The Power of Play in Public Space

維也納應(yīng)用藝術(shù)大學(xué)教授

2016-11-04