建筑理论:寻求普遍的原则

今天,一些建筑历史学家对建筑中相对稳定原则的存在提出了质疑。事实上,历史的多样性(希腊神殿、哥特式大教堂、朗香教堂……)和当代的多元性(马里奥·波塔、西扎或摩尔的房子……)支持了这一论点。

The existence of relatively stable principles in architecture is contested today by a certain number of architectural historians. In fact historical diversity (the Greek temple, the Gothic cathedral, the chapel of Ronchamp …) and contemporary plurality (the houses of Mario Botta, of Siza or of Moore …) sustain the argument.

我不是历史学家,因此我既没有同样的义务,也没有同样的目标。建筑学教学领域,我没有首先寻找明显的或微妙的差异,而是寻找潜在的或结构上一致性。我观察他们,比较他们,为了教学,我向他们学习他们有什么共同点,什么是相对稳定的。

I am not a historian and I therefore have neither the same obligations nor the same objectives. Teaching in the field of architecture, I do not first of all look for the obvious or subtle differences, but the underlying or structural consistencies.I look at them, I compare them, and in order to teach I learn from them what they have in common and what is relatively stable.

古典建筑理论

自维特鲁威(公元前80年)以来的建筑理论历史的特点是,在不考虑其历史地位的情况下,寻求可能仍然有效的普遍原则。这是一项棘手的工作。阿尔贝托·佩雷斯-戈麦斯说,关于Memmo在18世纪对Lodoli的教学的注释,他正在寻找一种与历史无关的美学规范。

The history of theories of architecture since Vitruvius (80 BC) is characterized by the search for universal principles likely to remain valid without reference to their position in history. It is a tricky undertaking. Alberto Perez-Gomez says, on the subject of notes by Memmo on the teaching of Lodoli in the eighteenth century, who was seeking precisely an aesthetic norm independent of history. 

在中世纪之前和文艺复兴到19世纪之间,建筑美学理论都以希腊的古代建筑为标准,与任何新设计进行比较。这些论述有三个关注点:网格的排列或几何顺序、建筑元素的空间组织;多立克、爱奥尼亚、科林斯……等元素的组合或范式;协调部分与整体关系的对称或节奏和比例。

Before the Middle Ages and again from the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, theories of architectural aesthetics used Greek Antiquity as a standard with which any new design was to be compared. These treatises have three obsessions: the taxis or geometrical order of grid and tripartition to organize the position of architectural elements and their spacing; the genera or code for sets of elements such as Doric, Ionic, Corinthian …; the symmetry or rhythm and proportions which regulate the relationship of parts to the whole.

我们在哪里可以找到真理的来源,无论是一种形式还是比例体系?斯证明希腊列的形式和它们的首都相对于人类的地位(第四章),我们更倾向于分享我们的信仰在人已经说到,在1750年,如果建筑是模仿一些东西,它应该更好地模仿上帝,而不是他的作品。也就是说,在建筑问题上,人类无论好坏,都是占主导地位的。这是负责任的。

Where can we find the sources of truth, whether it be a form or systems of proportion? Vitruvius justifies the form of Greek columns and their capitals in terms relative to human stature (Chapter 4). We are more inclined to share our faith in man with Zanotti who was already saying, in 1750, that if architecture was really to imitate something, it should preferably imitate God, rather than his works.8 That is to say that in the matter of architecture, humanity holds sway for better or worse. It is responsible. 

建筑理论家总是试图使他们的陈述和他们的研究和思考的结果在他们形成的时期之后仍然持续。在某种程度上他们已经成功,因为古代的研究论文架构仍然提供智慧的源泉之一,支撑着我们自己的思想和行动,要么因为他们主张形状和确认自己的模糊印象,或因为他们迫使我们反驳声音推理。

Architectural theorists have always tried to make their statements and the results of their research and thinking last beyond the period in which they have been formulated. To a certain extent they have succeeded, because the study of ancient treatises on architecture still provides one of the founts of wisdom which sustains our own thinking and actions, either because their propositions shape and confirm our own vague impressions, or because they force us to refute them with sound reasoning.

我们的目的不是对这些论文进行分析;我们将满足于回顾与本书前提有关的一两个特殊方面,特别是艺术与科学之间的平衡。

Our purpose is not to carry out an analysis of these treatises; we shall be content to recall one or two particular aspects relating to the premises of this book, notably the balance between art and science.

维特鲁威努力将建筑置于“科学”的层面,融合了建筑艺术、功能和美学。古代模型的价值是假定的。他对希腊神庙的形式给出了“达尔文主义”的解释,希腊神庙原本是木制结构。他的理论主张的目标是在艺术和科学之间建立建筑学。

Vitruvius strove to place architecture on the level of a ‘science’ which integrates the art of building, functionality and aesthetics. The value of the models of Antiquity is postulated. He gives a ‘Darwinian’ explanation of the form of the Greek temple which would have had a wooden structure as its origin. The objective of his theoretical proposition is the establishment of architecture among arts and sciences. 

对于维特鲁威,以及后来的文艺复兴理论家(阿尔贝蒂、菲拉雷特、马提尼、塞利奥……古代作品是主要的参考,与其说是历史的片段,不如说是需要重新解释的模型。然而,《阿尔贝蒂》的十卷在内容的清晰度和范围上都超过了维特鲁威。他在城镇的布局上花了相当大的篇幅。如果在这篇论文中使用“科学”一词,它的性质更像是一位提出建议并分享他的关注和经验的大师:伽利略、笛卡尔和牛顿的科学严谨性将在以后出现。对阿尔贝蒂来说,理论是基于常识和经验的对实践的客观化解释,即“知识科学”。这在帕拉第奥的四卷书中是一样的,帕拉第奥用他自己的计划来阐述他的论述。音乐和建筑中的比例研究也许是这些论述中最客观的方面。

For Vitruvius, and later the Renaissance theorists (Alberti, Filarete, Martini, Serlio … Palladio), the works of Antiquity are the primary reference, not so much as fragments of history but rather as models to be reinterpreted. The ten volumes of Alberti, however, outstrip Vitruvius in terms of clarity and range of subject matter. He devotes considerable space to the layout of sites of towns. If the term ‘science’ is used in this treatise, its nature remains more that of a great master who offers advice and who shares his concerns and experiences: the scientific rigour of Galileo, Descartes and Newton will come later. For Alberti, theory is the objectivizing explanation of a practice based on common sense and experience, ‘the science of knowhow’. It is the same in the four books of Palladio who illustrates his treatise with his own schemes refined for the purpose. The studies of proportions in music and architecture constitute perhaps the most objective aspect of these treatises. 

启蒙时代建筑理论

笛卡尔的理性主义和精确科学在十七、十八世纪的诞生是建筑理论家们不能忽视的。弗朗索瓦•勃朗德尔(Francois Blondel)曾说过,只有天才是无法成为建筑师的。他必须通过学习、应用、长时间的实践和经验来获得对他的艺术和比例规则的完善的知识,以及在它们之间进行选择的技能。

The birth of Cartesian rationalism and exact sciences in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries could not be ignored by architectural theorists. François Blondel said genius alone will not make an architect. He must through study, application, long practice and experience acquire a perfect knowledge of the rules of his art and of proportions and the skill to choose between them.

这句话很好地总结了启蒙时代建筑理论的困境。“天才”,即艺术家,是毫无疑问的;“规则”指的是稳定的原则,尤其是比例,人们可以从对最美丽建筑的研究中获得。“科学”指的是对规则的理解、有序组织和合理应用。这种模糊性来自于这样一个事实,即Blondel和其他人所阐述的不同的规则和“永恒的”法则并不具有相同的科学价值。对于一定的音乐和声来说,整数之间的关系是不容置疑的;这同样不适用于它们对建筑比例的转换。事实上,我们很难区分经验上建立起来的美的传统,以及当这些传统被抛弃后依然存在的法则,就像二十世纪的情况一样。

This quotation sums up well the dilemma of architectural theory in the Age of Enlightenment. ‘The genius’, the artist, is not in question; ‘the rules’ are an allusion to stable principles, especially proportions, which one would obtain from the study of the most beautiful buildings. ‘Science’ refers to the understanding and the orderly organization of rules and their judicious application. The ambiguity comes from the fact that the different rules and ‘eternal’ laws expounded by Blondel and others do not have the same scientific value. The relation between the integers for a certain musical harmony are not to be questioned; the same does not apply in their transposition to architectural proportions. It is in fact difficult to distinguish between conventions of beauty established empirically, and laws which subsist when these conventions are discarded, as is the case in the twentieth century.

在用诸如物理学或生物学的永恒法则来描述建筑世界的这种困难中,我们发现了一个领域,在那里有转向感官或艺术判断的迹象,这是19世纪和20世纪某些趋势的特征。这里的“自由裁量权”并没有否定的含义,而是指判断和科学分析之间的区别。艺术与科学的分离再次挑战了进步的观念。查尔斯·佩罗认为艺术的发展和消亡,没有持续的进步,而科学在进步。

In this difficulty in describing the world of architecture in terms of eternal laws such as those in physics or biology, we discover an area where there are indications of a shift towards sensory or artistic discretion, which characterizes certain tendencies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ‘Discretion’ is not used here with a negative connotation, but to denote a difference between judgement and scientific analysis. The idea of progress is again challenged by the separation of the arts and science. Charles Perrault suggests that the arts develop and perish, that there is no continuous progress, whereas the sciences progress.

把科学和艺术更紧密地结合在一起的尝试在19世纪有了一种特殊的形式。从迪朗(1802年)到加代(1903年)的论述反映了西方世界这一时期的美术学术理性主义。对于迪朗来说,美是通过节俭和简单的结合来实现的。为此,他制定了一份与他对这一假设的解释相一致的模型目录。其中一个目标是让建筑变得“可教”。杜兰德说,建筑既是一门科学也是一门艺术,但他所说的艺术指的是应用知识的能力。

Attempts to bring science and art closer together assumed a particular form in the nineteenth century. The  treatises from Durand (1802) to Guadet (1903) reflect the academic rationalism of Beaux-Arts, an authority during this period in the Western world. For Durand, beauty is reached by uniting economy and simplicity. To this end, he drew up a catalogue of models which corresponded to his interpretation of this assumption.13 One of the aims was to make architecture ‘teachable’. Durand said that architecture is both a science and an art, but by art he meant the faculty of applying knowledge. 

加代说,一百年后:“科学有它的公理,艺术有它的原则。在所有的艺术中,建筑有着最严格的原则。但是这些原则并没有像公理那样表现出来……”他所说的原则——指的不再仅仅是秩序或属,而是建筑的要素(墙、门、窗、楼梯、屋顶……)和构成要素的知识,这些要素是通过类比历史上最美丽的模型而获得的。这种类比教学的弱点在于倾向于使同样的模式永久化,而不是对它们所体现的本质有更深刻的理解。

Guadet said, one hundred years later: ‘Science has its axioms, art has its principles. Of all the arts, architecure has the most rigorous principles … But the principles do not manifest themselves in the same way as the axioms .. .’. By princi- ples he no longer means just the order or genera, but knowledge of the elements of architecture (walls, doors, windows, staircases, roofs …) and elements of composition which are acquired by analogy with the most beautiful models of history. The weakness of such teaching by analogy lies in the tendency to perpetuate the same models instead of a more profound understanding of the essence which they embody. 

19世纪- 20世纪初:科学

十九世纪, 森佩尔 Gottfried Semper维奥莱·勒·迪克 Viollet-le-duc 等理论家已经动摇了美术的权威。它们预示着“原则”的衰落和通过工程师的艺术中介的精确科学的到来,这将危及传统的建筑规范,并为技术和形式的变化开辟道路,“剥夺了艺术的选择”。 维奥莱·勒·迪克 从两个不同的方面来看待建筑:(1)理论,它处理的是永久的和始终有效的东西,特别是艺术的规则和静力学的法则;(2)实践,它试图使这些永恒的法则适应时间和空间的变化条件。

The authority of the Beaux-Arts was already shaken in the nineteenth century by theorists such as Gottfried Semper and Viollet-le- Duc. They presaged the decline of the ‘principles’ and the arrival, in force, of the exact sciences through the intermediary of the art of the engineer, which would compromise the conventional codes of architecture and open the way for change in techniques and forms ‘stripped of artistic choice’. Viollet-le-Duc sees architecture from two different aspects: (1) Theory, which deals with that which is permanent and always valid, notably the rules of art and the laws of statics; and (2) Practice, which seeks to adapt these eternal laws to the variable conditions of time and space.

这返回原因为至高无上的地位的逆转铺平了道路的编纂的学术架构美术和那些正式发明的诞生,在20世纪初,是决定性的突破与历史引用为了找到自己的革命和真正的前进道路。

This return to reason paves the way for the reversal of the supremacy of the codified academic architecture of the Beaux-Arts and the birth of those formal inventions which, at the beginning of the twentieth century, were to make a decisive break with historical references in order to find their own revolutionary and authentic path forward.

20世纪初的各项方案和宣言尤其具有说服力。“工程师的美学,建筑,两个相互依存的连续的事物,一个在盛放,另一个在痛苦的衰落”,勒柯布西耶在1920年说。即使后来包豪斯把艺术和工艺放在首位,这种艺术的原则还是从根本上改变了,科学也光荣地进入了建筑学的教学。

The programmes and manifestoes of the beginning of this century are particularly eloquent. ‘The aesthetics of the engineer, architecture, two interdependent consecutive things, one in full bloom, the other in painful decline’ said Le Corbusier in 1920. Even if the Bauchaus then gave first place to arts and crafts, the principles of this art have nevertheless fundamentally changed and the sciences have made their honourable entry into the teaching of architecture. 

从科学到诗学

我们这个世纪的最后四分之一已经导致了科学思想的重大变化。首先,我们看到了一个重要的发展,不仅在精确科学,而且在社会科学,特别是在心理学,社会学和历史学。在精确科学的确定性与艺术的近似性之间,它们构成了一座危险的桥梁。答案是不确定的,因为大约20年来,最有见识的科学家们一直在质疑科学与现实之间的关系。现象学的方法正在增多,形而上学正在逐渐恢复。

The last quarter of our century has led to a threshold of considerable change in scientific thought. First of all we have witnessed an important development, not only in exact sciences, but also in social sciences, notably in psychology, sociology and history. These form a precarious bridge between the certainties of exact sciences and the approximations of art. Precarious, because for about twenty years the most informed scientists have been questioning the relationship between science and reality as experienced. Phenomenological approaches are multiplying and metaphysics is gradually regaining ground. 

马尔罗说:“21世纪要么是宗教的世纪,要么不是。”

Alberto Perez-Gormez在《建筑与现代科学的危机》中指出: 真理——可以通过科学法则证明——构成了人类在“现实”之上做出决定的基本基础,而“现实”总是模棱两可的,只有通过“诗学”的领域才能理解。今天,任何学科的理论通常都被认为是方法论;它已成为一套与技术价值有关的专门规定规则,即以过程而非最终目标,以最小努力寻求最大效率的过程。一旦生命本身开始被视为一种过程,无论是生物学的还是目的论的,理论就能够不顾伦理上的考虑而更倾向于适用性。现代理论以19世纪早期的物理数学模型为基础,并带有乌托邦式的理想,认为人类最关键的问题是不合理的,超出了物质世界的改造和控制。

Malraux said: ‘The twenty-first century will either be religious or it will not be’.

Alberto Perez-Gormez points out: in Architecture and the crisis of modern science: Truth-demonstrable through the laws of science – constitutes the fundamental basis upon which human decisions are made over and above ‘reality’, which is always ambiguous and accessible only through the realm of ‘poetics’. Today, theory in any discipline is generally identified with methodology; it has become a specialized set of prescriptive rules concerned with technological values, that is, with process rather than ultimate objectives, a process that seeks maximum efficiency with minimum effort. Once life itself began to be regarded as process, whether biological or teleological, theory was able to disregard ethical considerations in favor of applicability. Modern theory, leaning on the early nineteenth century model of the physico- mathematical sciences with their Utopian ideals, has designated the most crucial human problems illegitimate, beyond the transformation and control of the material world. 

这段话暗示了1968年5月的一些动机,反映了我们与源于科学的技术进步之间的暧昧关系。它包含了一个合理的批评,但必须谨慎地接受。如果伟大的人类决策不再是通过咨询德尔菲的先知或神谕来做出的,那么这些决策也不再是“科学的”。我们用科学来更好地理解我们想要掌握的那部分现实;对于实际的决策,我们参考我们的价值体系。我们的伦理道德比我们愿意承认的更经常地凌驾于客观事实之上。伦理与神话是相辅相成的。神话在使我们更接近生活的同时,也使我们对已确定的事情产生混淆,但当神话没有给怀疑留下空间,而它本身成为确定的时候,它就可能变得可怕。

This quotation suggests some of the motivations for May 1968, a reflection of our ambiguous relationship with technological progress stemming from science. It contains a justified criticism which must nevertheless be accepted cautiously. If it is true that great human decisions are no longer taken by consulting a clairvoyant or the oracle at Delphi, it is also true that these decisions are not taken ‘scientifically’. We use science to obtain a better appreciation of that part of reality that we want to grasp; for the actual decisions we refer to our value systems. Our ethics override objective facts more often than we like to admit. Ethics and myth aid and abet each other. Myth, while bringing us closer to life, spreads confusion over what were certainties, but when myth does not leave space for doubt and itself becomes certainty, it might become terrifying.

尽管外表如此,20世纪的先驱们的建筑从来不是“科学的”,即使是像汉斯·迈耶这样的理性和科学方法的坚定信徒。他们中的一些人,在开始用一种纯粹的逻辑或数学的方式来处理形式法则之后,逐渐滑向一种对非理性的控制。年轻的建筑理论家克里斯托弗·亚历山大并没有失去数学天才,他在1964年说,他的最终梦想是成功地用数学捕捉玫瑰的美丽和复杂。他在20年后出版的《形式综合笔记》一书反映了他对绝对但模式语言的探索。同样, 勒柯布西耶在1910年之后的几年里对工程师艺术的迷恋 ,在1957年的成熟作品图雷特修道院中也所向无几。

Despite appearances, the architecture of the pioneers of this century has never been ‘scientific’, even in the case of the almost unwavering believers in a rational and scientific approach, such as Hanes Meyer (see his competition plan for the SDN in 1929). Some of them, after starting to tackle the laws of form in a purely logical or mathematical manner, slid progressively towards a rein- statement of the irrational. The young architectural theorist Christopher Alexander, who was not deprived of mathematical genius, said in 1964 that his ultimate dream was to succeed in capturing mathematically the beauty and complexity of a rose. His book Notes on the Synthesis of Form’ reflects this search for the absolute, but Pattern Language’, published about twenty years later, grasped techniques, myths and realities in a mixture of positivism and phenomenology. In the same way, there remains little of the fascination that Le Corbusier had in the years following 1910 for the art of the engineer in his mature work of 1957, the convent of La Tourette.


相关内容

    […] 1.2 寻求普遍的原则 […]

目录