成長的煩惱
——從威尼斯建筑雙年展的主題展看轉(zhuǎn)型中的建筑學(xué)

張利/ZHANG Li

如果說在當(dāng)今的時代各個古老的學(xué)科正在經(jīng)歷新的成長煩惱，那么建筑學(xué)肯定是位列其中的。技術(shù)的戲劇性進(jìn)步導(dǎo)致生活方式的劇變，氣候與環(huán)境的全球挑戰(zhàn)導(dǎo)致關(guān)鍵設(shè)計問題域的徹底更新，這些都再次把現(xiàn)存的建筑學(xué)體系推向了生存危機(jī)之中。

所幸的是，這種學(xué)科體系的生存危機(jī)在建筑學(xué)發(fā)展歷史上是出現(xiàn)過的。一個多世紀(jì)以前，工業(yè)革命就帶給建筑學(xué)同樣的沖擊，也曾經(jīng)造就了我們熟悉的建筑學(xué)范式的大挪移——從完全的藝術(shù)人文體系轉(zhuǎn)向部分實證的技術(shù)與藝術(shù)融合體系，直至20世紀(jì)中后期。在歷經(jīng)了對CIAM現(xiàn)代功能城市的反思、對“解題”（problem-solving）式設(shè)計假說的質(zhì)疑后，建筑學(xué)在20世紀(jì)末實現(xiàn)了與激進(jìn)的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的匯合，其范式回歸到了藝術(shù)人文體系。不過，正所謂“三十年河?xùn)|，三十年河西”——事實上還不到30年——現(xiàn)在，建筑學(xué)又到了技術(shù)與現(xiàn)實驅(qū)動下的大轉(zhuǎn)型期。

這一轉(zhuǎn)型以超過人們預(yù)期的速度滲透到建筑學(xué)的各個角落，直至威尼斯國際建筑雙年展這一預(yù)示建筑學(xué)走勢的標(biāo)識性事件。哈希姆·薩基斯在2019年為第17屆威尼斯建筑雙年展提出“我們將如何共同生活”的主題。這一主題平易近人，一改威雙前衛(wèi)激進(jìn)的傳統(tǒng)，迅速引起學(xué)界的積極反響，從一定程度上反映了國際上對建筑學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)型的共同期待。2020年新冠疫情的世界范圍蔓延掀起建筑學(xué)對自身范式進(jìn)行反思的浪潮、2021年COP 26前后的全球討論促使建筑學(xué)思考應(yīng)該以何種方式貢獻(xiàn)于氣候變化應(yīng)對及碳中和大計，這些都使學(xué)界對建筑學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)型的態(tài)度由期待變?yōu)樨叫琛Ｈ藗兊难酃庾匀灰矔劢沟?021年夏天面世的威尼斯國際建筑雙年展軍械庫主題展上，試圖從中看到建筑學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)型的端倪。

然而讓人略感遺憾的是，此次威雙主題展參展作品仍然或多或少地呈現(xiàn)著一種“意識”與“干預(yù)”（或“說”與“做”）之間的反差，也提示我們此次的建筑學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)型絕非一種當(dāng)機(jī)立斷式的速成，而會是一種漫長的、伴隨著無限煩惱的成長。從這些展品中我們看到，不論是問題的定義還是方法的采用，現(xiàn)有建筑學(xué)都在試圖進(jìn)行某種程度的自我革新；但同時我們也看到，囿于現(xiàn)有建筑學(xué)知識體系的局限，很多情況下，人們不得不沿用過去的工具來試圖解決現(xiàn)在乃至未來的問題，數(shù)十年來形成的建筑學(xué)舒適區(qū)域的慣性是依然存在的。其中，最明顯的是以視覺吸引為目的的形式與以社會生活為指向的內(nèi)容之間的距離。比如，黑曜石美妙的晶體陣列對于激發(fā)對殖民歷史的反思很可能是無助的，因為對這些巖石所直觀承載的地質(zhì)學(xué)歷史而言，殖民史只不過是曇花一瞬；類似的，婆娑蔓延的有機(jī)形態(tài)裝置對疫情之下的公共空間屬性探尋來說恐怕也是力不從心的，因為對詩性自然空間的普遍性渴望在此既不能傳遞疫情下公共空間的特殊需求，也不能提供任何關(guān)于疫情下維系公共生活的哪怕是嘗試性的建議。

這就把我們引向了另外的惱人問題：在當(dāng)前的建筑學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)型背景下，純粹概念化的、敘事化的方案呈現(xiàn)究竟還有沒有意義？在揭示我們學(xué)科發(fā)展動態(tài)的展覽中，我們是需要更多供人把玩、思考的盆景，還是供人體驗、測試的可復(fù)制應(yīng)用場景？如果再把問題問得大一些，當(dāng)我們的共識是通過設(shè)計來改變生活時，這種改變的力量是更多來自于主觀的哲學(xué)詮釋與思辨，還是客觀的科學(xué)量度、糾錯與證明？□

Architecture is definitely among the list of ancient professions having new growing pains. The advancements of technologies have produced upheavals of life styles. The global climate change has caused overhauls of the body of knowledge in the discipline. Needless to say, architecture, for yet another time, is facing existential crisis.

Fortunately, architecture has survived previous existential crises. About a century ago, the challenge to architecture brought by industrial revolution was equally huge. It did end up in a complete paradigm shift, from a pure system of liberal art to a hybrid system of art and technology. It was in the middle of the 20th century though, that a widely accepted rebellion against the CIAM functional city doctrines and a rethinking of the legitimacy of "problem-solving" design methodology put architecture back on the track of pure art. Several decades later, at the moment, we are witnessing another paradigm shift towards technology, social life and sustainability.

The new context of digital age means that when a paradigm shift takes place, it goes faster and further. This time, it is clearly seen in the very heart of the artistic scene of architecture: Venice Biennale. Hashim Sarkis'How will we live togethergenerated a mass appeal which the previous elite Biennales hadn't. All of a sudden, it became a beckon of new architecture paradigm, and a signal of new architectural consensus. What Sarkis and his colleagues hadn't planned was the pandemic in 2020, which pushed the Biennale back for an entire year and ironically strengthened the power of the theme. COP26 in 2021 and Carbon Net Zero added to the relevance of the theme even more. Everyone in the architecture world was looking seriously at the opening of this Biennale in May 2021, anticipating for some urgently needed answers, or at least some hints to answers, to the global questions.

It was proved to be a towering demand to the main exhibition at Arsenale, a demand not completely satisfied by the supply. Works in the main exhibition carry the familiar discrepancy betweenawarenessandintervention, which may signify that the current paradigm shift in architecture, faster than before as it may be, would still be a lengthy and painful one. Growing pains are inevitable. While facets of attempts of new definitions and new solutions are indeed found in all of them, so are obstinacies. Thanks to the comfort zone of the architecture discourse over the past few decades, traditional tools/methods are used to solve new problems. Visual attraction is still dominant, no matter how far away it is from the problem it tries to render. For example, using the matrix of obsidian to interpret the agonies of the colonial time might not elicit much resonance, since the colossal geological history of the beautiful rocks dwarfs the colonial history to a mere moment in time. Similarly, using the pseudo-organic clouds to depict public space under Covid might be confusing, because neither the peculiarities of living under Covid nor the particular hardship of facilitating public life in the real space with the virus going around can be represented by the seemingly common, generic, albeit good-looking geometry.

That ambiguity, or somewhat slight lack of coherence, leads us to more haunting questions: how much longer shall the pure conceptual or theatrical architecture be relevant in this time of rapidly changing life? In the architecture exhibitions that are yet to come, are we still expecting ideological setups that are meant to provoke and to be disputed upon, or applicable scenes that are meant to be tried, experienced, and tested? Or, if we dare to ask a bigger question, when the current consensus is design bringing change to everyone's life, should this change be powered by traditional subjective narratives and interpretations, or by the new objective data, adaptation and test runs? □