长谷川豪对谈:建筑教育

El Croquis 191 Go Hasegawa

A Conversation with Go Hasegawa:EDUCATION

冢本由晴是你在东工大的主要老师,对吗?

是的。我在冢本工作室工作了三年。在那里,我参与了一些研究项目,比如“东京制造”(Made in Tokyo),这些项目深刻地塑造了我对这个城市的看法。

一般对建筑的理解都集中在作者式建筑上,冢本却能够揭示日常建筑的品质和特殊性及其特定的背景。在接下来的研究中,我们研究了东京最小的房子。虽然人们根本不会注意到这些房子,但它们通常非常具体和令人愉快。

与伯纳德·鲁道夫斯基(《没有建筑师的建筑》作者)不同的是,这些匿名的建筑从未被理解为与设计建筑相反的项目。相反,研究它们是为了更好地理解建筑的条件和工具。

你为什么在东工大学习?

也许是因为我父亲是一名机械工程师。我还清楚地记得他周末在我们家的客厅里画轮船的涡轮机——涡轮机通常比我现在建的房子要大得多。他的画只有我们桌子那么大,这使他能够控制巨大的物体。这种从一艘船到一幅画的比例变换,在我还是个孩子的时候就深深吸引了我。也许我在不知不觉中学会了尺度的概念。总之,在进入东工大之前,我对建筑的理解相当幼稚,仅限于我所知道的:我成长的房子,用木材,由当地木匠设计和建造。

正如你所说,日本的教育是非常具体的,因为学生们经常在老师的项目上进行合作。你在学生时代为犬吠工作室工作过。这些协作是如何工作的?

我只知道东工大工作室的制度,它要追溯到筱原一男。据我所知,当他有一个新的项目时,学生们会详细阐述不同的建议,他会定期对这些建议进行评论。有一天,他终于完成了一个初步的方案,但他继续与学生辩论。坂本一成也做过类似的工作,但他从不画草图,只是每天与学生讨论,评论他们的方案,直到设计被澄清。我相信这对学生来说是一个非常富有成效的方法。冢本由晴也有类似的工作方式。

但“东京制造”是研究,而不是设计项目。

是的,但是,如你所知,Bow-Wow的研究不仅仅是研究。他们对这座城市及其常见建筑的解读极富创意。这已经是一个项目了,这意味着我们曾经用类似的方法来进行研究,就像我们曾经做过的房子设计一样。一开始比较直观,但随着冢本揭示重点的能力的增加,研究将获得意识和清晰度。这个过程非常令人兴奋。通过它,我学到了很多如何设计一个项目。

所以只有在大学毕业后,你才学会了怎么盖房子?

后来,我在西泽立卫的办公室里学会了建筑,我在那里工作了三年。我们建造了两套公寓和一个体育馆,我们还设计了许多其他未实现的项目。我着迷于他设计的房子和他的文章——他总是有一个强有力的陈述。与西泽立卫的相处让我受益匪浅,他向我介绍了建筑实践。但更重要的是,因为西泽立沢没有什么工作要做,我们有很多时间交谈。很高兴与他讨论城市、建筑、建筑师等。

你还和拉克顿·瓦萨在巴黎呆过一段时间。

是的。1998年,在东京的大成画廊(Taisei Gallery)举办了一场小型的展览,主题是七位年轻的法国建筑师,我在那里发现了拉克顿·瓦萨尔(Lacaton Vassal)的拉托屋(Latapie House)。我对他们的工作很感兴趣。我给法国建筑学院打电话,他们给了我办公室的电话。尽管我的英语说得不是很好,他们还是欢迎了一位日本实习生。因此,在2001年我为巴黎的Bow-Wow工作室所做的展览开幕后,我留在了Lacaton Vassal工作。当时他们的办公室在东京宫的阁楼层,他们正在翻新。穿过空荡荡的宫殿,跟随空间在时间里的变化,这是一种非凡的体验。我真的很喜欢那次经历。他们都是思想开放的人,我现在还和他们保持联系。

Tsukamoto was your main teacher at Tokyo Tech, wasn’t he?

Yes, indeed. I was part of Tsukamoto Laboratory for three years. There I collaborated on research projects like Made in Tokyo, which deeply shaped my view on the city.

Whereas the common understanding of architecture is focused on authorial architecture, Tsukamoto is capable of disclosing the quality and specificity of daily architecture and its particular background. For Pet Architecture, the following research, we studied the tiniest houses in Tokyo. Although one does not notice those houses at all, they are often very specific and enjoyable. Tsukamoto teaching was never dogmatic but always oriented to architectural practice.

Unlike with Bernard Rudofsky, the anonymous buildings were never understood as counter-projects to designed architecture. On the contrary, they were studied as a means to better understand the conditions and tools of architecture.

Why did you study at Tokyo Tech?

Maybe it had to do with my father being a mechanical engineer. I remember very well how on weekends in our living room he used to draw the turbines of ships—turbines often much bigger than the houses I currently build. His drawing, just the size of our table, allowed him to control huge objects. This transposition of scale, from a ship to a drawing, fascinated me as a child. Maybe I learned unconsciously a certain sense for scale from that. Anyway, before entering Tokyo Tech, I had quite a naïve understanding of architecture, limited to what I knew: the house in which I grew up, in wood, designed and built by local carpenters.

Japanese education, as you say, is very specific because the students often collaborate on their teachers’ commissions. You worked for Atelier Bow-Wow as a student. How do these collaborations work?

I only know about the procedure in the laboratory at Tokyo Tech. It goes back to Shinohara. From what I heard, when he had a new commission, the students would elaborate different proposals, on which he would regularly comment. One day he finally did a sketch, but he continued to debate with the students about it. Sakamoto worked similarly, but never even sketching, only discussing every day with students and commenting on their schemes till the design was clarified. I believe it is a very fruitful method for students. Tsukamoto has a similar way of working.

But Made in Tokyo is research, not a design project.

Yes, but Bow-Wow’s research is, as you know, not just research. Their reading of the city and its common buildings is highly creative. It is already a project, meaning that we used to approach the research in a similar way as we would have done for the design of a house. The beginnings were more intuitive, but incrementally, through Tsukamoto’s ability to disclose the important points, the research would gain in consciousness and clarity. This process was very exciting. Through it I learned much on how to design a project.

You learned therefore, only after finishing university, how to build a house?

I learned to build only later, in Taira Nishizawa’s office, where I worked for three years. We built two apartments and one gymnasium, and we also designed many other unrealized projects. I was fascinated with the houses he designed and also his article— he always has a strong statement to make. The time with Taira Nishizawa was very enriching as he introduced me to architectural practice. But even more importantly, because Nishizawa had little work to do, we had a lot of time to talk. It was fantastic to discuss with him on the city, architecture, architects, etc.

You also spent some time with Lacaton Vassal in Paris.

Yes. There was, I think, in 1998 a small exhibition on seven young French architects at Taisei Gallery in Tokyo, where I discovered Lacaton Vassal’s Latapie House. I got interested in their work. I called the French Institute of Architecture, and they gave me the office’s number. Although I couldn’t speak English very well, they welcomed a Japanese intern. Therefore, after the opening of an exhibition I had worked on for Atelier Bow-Wow in Paris in 2001, I stayed there to work at Lacaton Vassal. At that time they had their office on the attic floor of the Palais de Tokyo, which they were renovating. It was extraordinary to walk through the empty palace and to follow the transformation of a space through time. I really enjoyed that experience. They are such open-mind people, and I still keep in contact with them, even now.

目录