“那么，為什么是多西？”

[荷] 亞歷山大 · 佐尼斯 [荷]利亞納 · 勒費(fèi)夫爾 文 Written by Alexander Tzonis & Liane Lefaivre黃卿云 譯 Translated by Huang Qingyun

黃鳥在自己的樹上歌唱，使我的心喜舞。

我們兩人住在一個(gè)村子里，這是我們的一份快樂。

她心愛的一對小羊，到我園樹的蔭下吃草。

它們?nèi)糇哌M(jìn)我的麥地，我就把它們抱在臂里。

我們的村子名叫康遮那，人們管我們的小河叫安遮那。

我的名字村人都知道，她的名字是軟遮那。

羅賓德拉納特 · 泰戈?duì)?，《園丁集》，1913年

——冰心 譯

3月7日，一個(gè)令人欣喜的消息傳來，巴克里希納 · 多西獲得了今年的普利茲克建筑獎。這個(gè)消息提醒著我們，在當(dāng)下，即使積重難返的建筑偽繁榮正侵蝕著環(huán)境，并對社區(qū)、文化、社會多樣性及生態(tài)多樣性造成不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的破壞，卻仍然有一些人文主義建筑，存在于我們周圍。

作為建筑界的“諾貝爾獎”得獎人，多西呼吁建筑師放下對“個(gè)人”設(shè)計(jì)身份的癡迷，重新思考自己的職業(yè)能夠?yàn)樨毨У纳鐓^(qū)建設(shè)做些什么。他的閃光之處在于對“居者”心懷“同情”與“尊重”，并尋求與他們的“協(xié)作”。

雖然在演講中，多西的“居者”指的是印度地區(qū)的窮人，但是他傳遞的信息卻對全人類普遍適用。他的觀點(diǎn)也讓人回想起另一位重要的印度學(xué)者——經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家阿瑪?shù)賮喩ˋmartya Sen）在接受瑞典皇家科學(xué)院（Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences）頒發(fā)的諾貝爾和平獎時(shí)的講話中提到，“（需要）重塑重要經(jīng)濟(jì)問題討論的道德維度”。

阿瑪?shù)賮喩瓕⑹澜缟献钬毨У娜巳阂布{入視野，以“開放新領(lǐng)域”的方式重新定義了“經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)”。多西則將目光聚焦在那群“沒有土地、沒有住所、沒有工作的一無所有的人”，從而拓寬了“住房”的界限。他重新次定義了建筑師的角色，如他所言“（建筑師的工作包括）感知影響你的因素，以及內(nèi)心抑制不住的沖動……我們周圍的每一物體和自然本身——光線、天空、水和風(fēng)暴——所有一切……融合而成的交響”。最終，他堅(jiān)信“建筑并不僅僅是房子……建筑師還需要起到社會活動家的作用”。

除了成為一名創(chuàng)意的實(shí)踐者外，多西的身份還包括教師和機(jī)構(gòu)創(chuàng)始人。他是艾哈邁達(dá)巴德建筑學(xué)院的創(chuàng)始人（1962-1972年），學(xué)院規(guī)劃系的初創(chuàng)人（1972-1979年），環(huán)境規(guī)劃與技術(shù)中心的創(chuàng)立人和第一任主任。

1947年，多西在孟買開始了自己的建筑學(xué)習(xí)，同年，印度獨(dú)立建國。1954年，他環(huán)顧四周，企望在全新的社會環(huán)境中尋找到自己的定位。他說：“我想我應(yīng)該立下一個(gè)我將終生守護(hù)的誓言：為社會最底層的人提供適宜的居所?！贝送?，盡管他滿懷社會責(zé)任感，盡力迎合一個(gè)全新印度國家的需求，他依然感到，有必要放眼域外，去關(guān)注印度周圍國家已有的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，并將其重新利用。

20世紀(jì)50年代初，多西去到歐洲，并在一次會議期間遇到了勒 · 柯布西耶（Le Corbusier）。從1951年起，他就開始在勒 · 柯布西耶手下工作。工作是義務(wù)的，沒有酬勞。但這十二年的共事中，勒 · 柯布西耶所給予的，卻遠(yuǎn)非金錢可以衡量：他與多西在專業(yè)和私人層面都建立了深厚的友誼，并毫無保留地將自己僅有的情感與建筑信仰與多西一一分享。

1958年，在獎學(xué)金的支持下，多西游歷美國。他去拜訪了路易斯 · 康的作品——理查茲醫(yī)學(xué)研究大樓。多西崇拜這座建筑對磚材爐火純青的使用，這種方法與勒 · 柯布西耶使用的施工技術(shù)完全不同，可以作為磚材建造的替代選項(xiàng)。他在路易斯 · 康的辦公室第一次見到了康，這是一次非常愉快溫馨的相遇。交談后，路易斯 · 康請多西共赴晚餐。而多西則驚訝地發(fā)現(xiàn)，原來這么偉大的建筑師也需要向自己的秘書借錢吃飯。

圖1

圖2

圖3

圖4

圖5

圖6

圖7

圖8

圖9

圖10

圖11

圖12

圖13

圖14

圖1～圖7：阿冉亞低造價(jià)住宅，印多爾，印度，1989年

圖8～圖14：環(huán)境規(guī)劃與技術(shù)中心，（現(xiàn)CEPT大學(xué)），（多期工程）艾哈邁達(dá)巴德，印度，1966-2012年

The yellow bird sings in the tree and makes my heart dance with gladness.

We both live in the same village, and that is our one piece of joy.

Her pair of pet lambs come to graze in the shade of our garden trees.

If they stray into our barley field, I take them up in my arms.

The name of our village is Khanjanā,and Anjanā they call our river.

My name is known to all the village, and her name is Ranjanā.

Rabindranath Tagore, The Gardener 1913

That Balkrishna Doshi has won the Pritzker architectural prize on 7 March, is a most welcome recognition that there is still a humanist architecture today in the midst of a mostly oppressive architectural affluence that has brought environmental poverty and an irreversible destruction of community and cultural, social and ecological diversity.

Doshi, recipient of the so called ’Nobel prize’, of architecture, called on his profession to rethink the way it approaches building for the most impoverished communities and move away from their obsession on ‘the designer as individual’. His values were ‘collaboration’,‘compassion’, and ‘dignity’ ‘for those they house’.

In his speech Doshi was referring to India’s poor but the message was a universal addressing of humanity. His statement recalled the statement to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences that awarded the Nobel prize to another most important Indian, the economist Amartya Sen, for "restor(ing) an ethical dimension to the discussion of vital economic problems."

As Sen redefined ‘economics’ by‘open(ing) up new fields of study,’ including the poorest people of the world, Doshi‘opened’ the definition of ‘housing’studying ‘these people’ who ‘have nothing- no land, no place, no employment’. He redefined the role of the architect, as he outs it, ‘to include what affects you and what triggers in you a sense of being alive…every object around us, and nature itself—lights, sky, water and storm—everything…in a symphony.’ Ultimately, he believes that the ‘a(chǎn)rchitecture profession is not only the building itself… the role of the architect is also to be a social activist.’

Apart from being a creative practitioner,Doshi is a teacher and an institutional builder.He was the Founder Director of School of Architecture, Ahmedabad (1962-1972),first Founder Director of School of Planning(1972-1979), first Founder Dean of Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology(1972-1981).

He began studying architecture at Mumbai in 1947, the year India gained independence. In 1954, looking around to identify his place in this emerging novel world,he declared ‘It seems I should take an oath and remember it for my lifetime： to provide the lowest class with the proper dwelling’.On the other hand, although committed to social responsibility, serving the needs of the new India he felt the country had to master and re-use the experience of the world that surrounded it, including these countries that for years had exploited it.

By the beginning of the 1950s, Doshi went to Europe and during a conference,he met Le Corbusier. Le Corbusier offered him a job starting 1951, but no payment.However, for over twelve years, what he did offer him was a most important reward,his camaraderie professional and personal,sharing with him his wisdom, his sentiments and his belief in social architecture.

Later, in 1958, supported by a scholarship,Doshi travelled to US and visited Louis Kahn' s Richards Medical Building. In it, he admired the use of brick, so different from Le Corbusier' s use of materials, suggesting alternative construction techniques. He met Kahn in his office for the first time. It was a very warm encounter. Kahn invited him to dinner but Doshi noted to his surprise that the great architect had to borrow money from his secretary.

In 1960 and 1961, Doshi met Kahn again in Philadelphia, and their friendship deepened. In 1962 Doshi invited Kahn to design the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and Doshi became his assistant although they worked closely together as collaborators until Kahn' s death in 1974.

There is a false impression that what attracted Kahn and Doshi to each other outside of technical questions was the world of mysticism. They were, indeed, familiar with it within their own culture. In fact, it appears they talked about the depression, poverty, and probably about Kahn' s early commitment to social housing during the Roosevelt years.

圖15

圖16

圖17

在1960和1961年，多西又在美國費(fèi)城遇到了路易斯 · 康，這幾次見面加深了他們的友誼。1962年，多西邀請路易斯 ·康設(shè)計(jì)印度阿默達(dá)巴德管理學(xué)院，自己則出任他的助手。從那之后，他們一直密切合作，直到1974年路易斯 · 康去世。

人們總有一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的印象，那就是覺得，讓路易斯 · 康和多西互相吸引的，除了技術(shù)問題之外，是他們對神秘主義語境的興趣。他們確實(shí)分別在各自的文化語境中對此熟知。但事實(shí)上，他們討論過社會蕭條、貧困，還有路易斯 · 康早年在羅斯福時(shí)代時(shí)許下的對社會保障住房的豪言壯語。當(dāng)然，他們也討論桑魯卓和《一千零一夜》的故事。這部文學(xué)作品是多西介紹給路易斯 · 康的，而后者進(jìn)而對其陷入著迷。在筆者佐尼斯的自傳筆記里，寫道，彼時(shí)，自己在費(fèi)城遇到了路易斯 · 康，他倆的交流除了圍繞柏拉圖之外，主要都是關(guān)于這部偉大的文學(xué)作品的。

是什么，讓作為建筑師的多西和路易斯 · 康對這些神話故事里塑造的世界充滿好奇？是當(dāng)人們不為利益所驅(qū)動時(shí)，對生活樸素的熱愛、幸福的感受和交流的快感。這樣的世界，正是印度詩人兼哲學(xué)家，同時(shí)也是諾貝爾獎得主羅賓德拉納特 · 泰戈?duì)査瞥绾拖蛲摹６辔鞒砷L的年代，正是泰戈?duì)柺艿綐O度尊重的年代。他“國家普遍主義”的觀點(diǎn)，深厚的人文主義色彩與他那泛情的生活方式，都在文初引用的詩句中盡情展現(xiàn)。1967年，多西設(shè)計(jì)了位于艾哈邁達(dá)巴德的泰戈?duì)柤o(jì)念館。多西對路易斯 · 康產(chǎn)生的影響也是毋庸置疑的，比如，1959年，在他們第一次相遇一年后，路易斯 · 康就申請加入了費(fèi)城泰戈?duì)枀f(xié)會。

在20世紀(jì)80年代設(shè)計(jì)并建造的阿冉亞低成本住房，是多西最具代表性的重要作品之一（圖1，圖2）。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的服務(wù)群體是近80000名“一無所有”——“無土地、無職業(yè)、無住房”——的底層人民，和約6500戶中等收入住戶。按照多西的原則，他放棄了“集合”住宅的方法。阿冉

圖18

圖19

圖20

圖21

圖22

圖23

圖24

圖25

圖15～圖23：桑珈建筑師工作室，艾哈邁達(dá)巴德，印度，1980年

圖26

圖27

圖28

圖24，圖25：Vidhyadhar Nagar總體規(guī)劃與城市設(shè)計(jì)，齋浦爾，印度，1984年But they also talked about Scheherazade and the Tales of a Thousand and one Nights,a work of literature that Doshi introduced Kahn to and that Kahn subsequently became fascinated with. On an autobiographical note,about the same time Tzonis met Kahn for the first time in Philadelphia and a major part of their discussion, apart from Plato, was indeed about this great literary work.

What attracted Doshi and Kahn as architects to the world of these stories was the archaic, pre-market attachment to the love of life, the feeling of happiness and dialogue,when people celebrate their life beyond profit.This was a world espoused by the great Indian poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore, also a Nobel Laureate. Of course, Doshi was brought up in a society in which Tagore was held in the greatest esteem, because of his ‘nationaluniversalism’, his deep humanism and his panerotic approach to existence—all apparent in the poem quoted above. In 1967, Doshi got to build the Tagore Memorial Hall in Ahmedabad.Another mark of Doshi' s influence on Kahn was that in 1959 Kahn joined the Tagore Society of Philadelphia, in the year following their first encounter.

One of the most significant and most representative works by Doshi was the Aranya Low-Cost Housing (designed and built during the 1980s) project for a staggering 80,000 people, mostly for ‘people have nothing -no land, no place, no employment’ but also for about 6,500 middle-income residences.Following his principles Doshi did not design an aggregation of ‘houses’. The word Aranya refers to a world embedded, not cut off from nature. It is an ecology enabling privacy through inward-looking clusters together with dialogue,sharing, cooperation through common open spaces, paths, and parks.

Despite the difference in scale and program we find the same design principles,the same attitude towards nature and community in Doshi' s earlier institutional projects such the Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT University)(Ahmedabad, 1966-2012), in his own studio in Ahmedabad, (1980) or in the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore (1992),in his own Kamala house (Kamala is his wife' s name) and in Amdavad Ni Gufa (Ahmedabad,1994), ‘a(chǎn)s in tales’‘cave like’ ferro-cement art gallery, featuring art works of Maqbool Fida Husain .

The Chinese public is familiar with Doshi's work. The most important presentation of the past 60 years of his work took place at the Power Station of Art Museum in Shanghai in 2017. The title was 'Celebrating Habitat： ‘The Real, the Virtual and the Imaginary'. What could Doshi say to the Chinese? What could he say to the rest of the world outside India? Like every part of the world, China is unique, what was then the relevance of Doshi to China?

Doshi did not argue in favor of using architecture as the symbolic expression of this uniqueness. Rather, he thought and thinks that there may be other values apart from symbolism, higher standing up in terms of architectural priorities. This is illustrated in an incident described in a recent book (You say to brick： the life of Louis Kahn, 2017),by Wendy Lesser. It relates how Safdie, as a student working for Kahn in the late fifties,asked him why he does not take architecture‘out of the Stone Age.’ In other words, why he does not apply highly industrialized construction methods instead of sticking with bricks. Kahn's answer had little to do with the problem of identity or so called ‘nationalist consciousness.’It was pragmatic： ‘You have to work with what people have’ he said. In the last analysis he was arguing for a kind of regional realism rather than for fake regionalism.

A similar argument can be repeated about Doshi' s ‘low-cost’ building solutions.In the 1960s, Doshi reused material from constructions sites. Aldo van Eyck in the early 1950s and Wang Shu, later, did the same. He also employed limited space configurations respecting tight sites. These decisions grew out of the constraints of the region of India.But they are not an expression of mentality or of India' s poverty. They are an expression of a spirit of rational realism whereby, as Doshi says himself, ‘a(chǎn) truly sustainable city is a city where the least human energy and time is spent in getting things done, not for profit but for the ‘people (to) have time for reflection and…… once again act like human beings, not the robots they have been forced to become.’ This view is eminently true for India and it is also true for the world,including China.

圖29： 設(shè)計(jì)靈感源自1987年普利茲克建筑獎得主丹下健三先生所設(shè)計(jì)的倉敷市政大廳

圖30

圖31

圖32

圖33

圖34

圖35

圖36

圖37

圖38

圖39

圖40

圖26～圖28：印度管理學(xué)院班加羅爾分校，（多期工程），班加羅爾，印度，1977-1992年

圖29～圖34：印度學(xué)研究所，艾哈邁達(dá)巴德，印度，1962年

圖35～圖37：Premabhai 大廳，艾哈邁達(dá)巴德，印度，1976年

圖38～圖40：卡瑪拉家宅，艾哈邁達(dá)巴德，印度，1963年亞（Aranya）這個(gè)詞在印度語中，代表著一個(gè)與自然融為一體的世界。多西也試圖創(chuàng)造一種生態(tài)，在其間，既有內(nèi)向的集合保證住戶隱私，也有開放的公共空間、小徑和公園為居者提供對話、共享和協(xié)作的場所。

盡管在項(xiàng)目規(guī)模和類型上各不相同，但我們?nèi)匀豢梢栽诙辔鞴ぷ魇业脑S多設(shè)計(jì)作品中——例如位于艾哈邁達(dá)巴德的建筑學(xué)院環(huán)境規(guī)劃與技術(shù)中心大學(xué)CEPT（1966-2012）、他的桑珈工作室在班加羅爾的印度管理學(xué)院（1992）；他以夫人名字命名的自宅——卡瑪拉家宅；在艾哈邁達(dá)巴德的洞穴畫廊（1994），一座如“故事般”似“洞穴樣”的，展出馬克布勒 · 菲達(dá) · 侯賽因（Maqbool Fida Husain）作品的水泥藝術(shù)畫廊——找到相同的設(shè)計(jì)原則和對多西自然與社區(qū)不變的態(tài)度。

中國公眾對多西的作品應(yīng)該并不陌生，2017年，由發(fā)電廠改建的上海當(dāng)代藝術(shù)博物館，推出了“棲居的慶典：真實(shí)· 虛擬 · 想象——巴克里希納 · 多西建筑回顧展”。展覽展出了過去60年多西的眾多代表性作品。多西想對中國觀眾們說些什么？又或者說，多西能對印度以外的世界說些什么？中國，同世界的每一個(gè)角落一樣，獨(dú)一無二。那么，多西和中國之間又有怎樣的關(guān)聯(lián)？

多西并不是那種將建筑作為某種獨(dú)特性的象征物來表達(dá)的建筑師。相反，他在思索，并始終相信，在象征性之外，建筑可以有更高的追求。在最近出版的圖書《與磚對話：路易斯 · 康的一生》中，作者溫蒂 · 萊塞描述了薩弗迪（Safdie）與五十多歲的路易斯 · 康之間的對話。彼時(shí)，正在路易斯 · 康手下工作的薩弗迪問自己的老師，為何不干脆造“石器時(shí)代”建筑算了？換句話說，他是想問，為什么不采用高度工業(yè)化的建筑方法，而偏偏選擇用磚？路易斯 · 康的回答出乎意料地與“認(rèn)同感”或“民族意識”不太相關(guān)，而是樸素務(wù)實(shí)的。他說：“你必須用人們手上擁有的材料設(shè)計(jì)?！痹诼芬姿?· 康職業(yè)生涯的后期，他的立場更多的是一種尊重地域的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義，而不是“偽地域主義”。

在多西的“低成本”建筑方案中，我們可以看到類似的立場。20世紀(jì)60年代，多西會從建筑工地中回收建材。比他早期的阿爾多 · 凡 · 艾克和后來的王澍亦是如此。他用緊湊的空間配置回應(yīng)局促的場地。這些方法都與印度當(dāng)?shù)氐闹萍s條件相對應(yīng)，但并不著意表現(xiàn)印度人的心態(tài)或是地區(qū)的貧困，而是希望展現(xiàn)一種理性的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義精神。正如多西所言，“一座真正可持續(xù)發(fā)展的城市，應(yīng)該是人們用最少的力氣和最短的時(shí)間去搞定事情。這么做不是為了獲取利益，而是為了讓人們有時(shí)間進(jìn)行‘人類的’思考與行動，而不是成為效率奴隸下的機(jī)器人?！边@個(gè)觀點(diǎn)在印度行之有效，而且放之四海而皆準(zhǔn)，包括中國。

圖41

圖42

圖43

圖44

圖45

圖46

圖47

圖片來源

圖4、圖6 John Paniker攝

圖11、圖21、圖23、圖41、圖43 李之吉攝

圖40 由A+U提供

剩余圖片照片由VSF提供

感謝凱悅基金會和吉林建筑大學(xué)李之吉教授對本文圖片收集工作的支持。

圖41～圖45：艾哈邁達(dá)巴德洞穴畫廊，艾哈邁達(dá)巴德，印度，1994年

圖46,圖47：人壽保險(xiǎn)公司混合收入住房，艾哈邁達(dá)巴德，印度，1973年