长谷川豪对谈:东工大建筑师谱系

El Croquis 191 Go Hasegawa

A Conversation with Go Hasegawa:GENEALOGY

建筑总是凝结着不同的时间。在你的工作和研究中,这似乎尤其正确:地点的时间,设计师的时间,使用者的时间,建筑的时间,前辈的时间。你可能会把自己置身于东京工业大学的一系列教师和建筑师之中,从冢本由晴到坂本一成、筱原一男、清家清,甚至谷口吉郎。就目前的建筑教学而言,你认为欧洲和日本有什么不同之处?

直到最近,从2012年到2014年,我在瑞士门德里西奥建筑学院教书,我才开始意识到日本教育的特殊性。与欧洲教育中以学生个人和项目为中心的设计工作室传统相比,我们在工作室系统中的教育更强烈地受到学校,它独特的结构和节奏的影响。

在日本,学生选择并归属于一个特定的工作室。在那里,学生有一张桌子,为他的教授的建筑或研究和建筑项目工作两到三年。这个工作室可以比作一间私人办公室。这就是为什么教授和学生之间的关系要比欧洲强,在欧洲,学生可以每学期更换自己的工作室。

我曾就读于东京工业大学,回顾过去,确实可以发现两代人之间存在某种连续性。从谷口,清家清,到坂本一成,冢本由晴,发现一个反复出现的主题。在东京工业大学,人们对私人住宅一直有着一种特殊的兴趣,因为它是由居住者的特殊生活所塑造的。因此类型学在设计和研究中一直扮演着重要的角色。另一个密切相关的主题是建筑的自治。纯粹的建筑学。

你认为在东京工业大学的建筑教学中会有不同的系谱吗?在这种情况下,他们之间有哪些不同的关注点?

谷口吉郎可以被认为是日本最早的现代主义者之一,关注空间及其比例的问题。在清家清的建筑中,人们可以看到将现代语言与匿名的日本住宅融合的野心。对于他的水平住宅来说尤其如此。

筱原一男研究形态的问题,即形态与生命相互作用的方式,就像化学反应一样。许多欧洲人常常把他的建筑缩减到纯粹的形式尺度。但他房子是生活的图解,而不只是比例协调的空间或结构练习。他对城市,尤其是东京的研究方向同样影响深远。他关于混乱是城市之美的理论深深影响了年轻一代的日本建筑师。

坂本一成的发展方向更难描述,因为他主要设计的都是很普通的房子,挑战建筑的几何秩序与现实的日常生活及其相关关系。坂本在某种程度上将自己定位于筱原的对立面,我认为他在日常生活中对新现实的处理方式激励了包括妹岛和世在内的年轻建筑师。

最后,冢本由晴通过他所谓的“行为学”,研究了人、物甚至自然的行为是如何塑造我们的建筑环境的。冢本提出了一种新的建筑整体形式。生活和建筑是一体的。这里的生活,我指的是居民的生活,还有景观、太阳、邻里……总之,整个环境。

Architecture always condenses different times. This seems particularly true in your work and research: the time of the place, the time of the designer, the time of the user, the time of the building, the time of the ancestors. You might place yourself in a succession of teachers and architects at the Tokyo Institute of Technology [Tokyo Tech], going from Yoshiharu Tsukamoto to Kazunari Sakamoto, Kazuo Shinohara, Kiyoshi Seike, and even Yoshiro Taniguchi. What differences do you find between Europe and Japan as far as current teaching of architecture is concerned?

I became conscious of the particularity of Japanese education only very recently through my teaching at the Accademia di Architettura in Mendrisio, Switzerland, from 2012 to 2014. It seems that in comparison with the design studio tradition in European education, which is centered on the individual student and his individual project, our education in a laboratory system is much more strongly shaped by the school, its peculiar structure and rhythm.

In Japan the student chooses and then belongs to a particular laboratory. There the student has a desk and works for two or three years on the building or research and building projects of his professor. The laboratory can be compared to a private office. That is why the relationship between a professor and his students is stronger than it is in Europe, where a student can change his studio every semester.

I studied at Tokyo Tech, and indeed looking back one can find a certain continuity between the generations. From Taniguchi, Seike, Shinohara, and Sakamoto to Tsukamoto, one finds recurrent themes. At Tokyo Tech there has always been a special interest in the private house as shaped by the peculiar life of its inhabitants. Typology therefore has always played a strong role in the design and research. Another but closely related topic is the understanding of architecture as an autonomous discipline. Pure Architecture.

Do you think there are different genealogies in architecture teaching at Tokyo Tech?

In that case, which are the different concerns between them? Taniguchi can be considered one of the first modernist in Japan, concerned with the problem of space and its proportions. In Seike’s architecture, one can see the ambition to fuse the modern language with the anonymous Japanese house. This is particularly true for his horizontal houses.

Shinohara investigates questions of form, the way in which form, as in a chemical reaction, interacts with life. Many Europeans often reduce his architecture to its pure formal dimension. But his houses are formal diagrams of life and not just well-proportioned spatial or structural exercises. Similarly influential was his approach to the city, especially Tokyo. His theory about chaos as a beauty in the city highly influenced the younger generation of Japanese architects.

Sakamoto’s approach is more difficult to describe because he mostly deals with the architecture of the ordinary, challenging the geometrical order of architecture with the reality of ordinary life and its relative relationships. Sakamoto positioned himself somehow in opposition to Shinohara, and I think his approach to the new reality in ordinary life inspired young architects, including Sejima.

Tsukamoto finally, through his so-called ‘behaviorology’, investigates how the behavior of people, things or even nature has shaped our built environment. Tsukamoto proposes a new form of totality in architecture. Life and architecture are one. And by life I mean the life of the inhabitants, and also the landscape, the sun, the neighborhood… in sum the whole environment.

目录