网站地图关于我们

查看相册 View Gallery
新与旧的对比,后现代主义将何去何从?第1张图片
© Giacomo Pala

后现代建筑剖析:为什么我们要停止使用建筑中的歧义词汇
Postmodern Post-Mortem: Why We Need To Stop Using Architecture's Most Misunderstood Word

由专筑网李韧,杨帆编译

在21世纪初我们就希望能够达成这个目标。在2011年伦敦举办的“后现代主义:风格与颠覆,1970年-1990年”展览中,这个现象就有所呈现。如今,在经历了无数次关于“后现代复兴”的讨论之后,我们可以确定,“后现代主义”这个词再次回到了人们的视野之中,但是正如这个词字面所表达的含义那样,我们似乎还不是特别了解该如何运用它。事实上,这个词被用于多种可能的含义理解之中,例如建筑师将其用于描述具有时尚感并且“可爱”的设计作品,而一些评论家则用它来表达丰富多彩的东西,甚至还有一些理论家用它来表达建筑的技术与形式,其实这些概念已经大大磨灭了这个词汇原本所表达的理念。

无论我们是否同意这样的说法,这里仍然有一件事需要我们来讨论,即:“什么是‘后现代’?”换句话说,“后现代”这个词在当今社会意味着什么?毕竟,如果我们要更好地理解这些曾经充满争议的词汇,我们至少应该了解它所代表的真正含义。

We were hoping for it to happen in the early 2000s. We saw it coming with the opening of the exhibition “Postmodernism: Style and Subversion, 1970 – 1990” at the V&A in London in 2011. But now, after recent discussions on the umpteenth supposed “postmodern revival,” it is finally sure: the word “postmodernism” is back and it’s here to stay. But as clear as it is that the word “postmodernism” is once again fashionable, it is not really clear what we mean when using it. Indeed, this word has been used to imply every possible meaning: architects have used it to describe fashionable and “cute” designs, some critics have used it to categorize everything that is colorful, while some theorists have been using it to affirm that, because of this concept, architecture has surrendered to technology or form, becoming nothing more than a caricature of its own presupposed moral values.
Whether we agree with such commentaries or not, there is one thing that we still need to discuss: what does “postmodern” mean? And, even more urgently: what could it mean today? After all, if we have to deal once again with one of the most misinterpreted and contradictory words ever introduced in our field, we should at least discuss what it means, before using it.

新与旧的对比,后现代主义将何去何从?第2张图片
Image © Gareth Gardner

就历史观念来说,“后现代主义”一词在建筑中被赋予了双重含义,它既代表后现代主义风格的简化概念,也代表了后现代主义的主流思想。就风格来说,后现代主义指的是60年代之后出现的一系列诗歌作品,而后这些作品又重新流行了起来。在那之后,建筑师将一些具有讽刺效果、装饰、历史理念、形状符号等元素拼贴在建筑中,许多建筑师十分着迷于将各种后现代元素结合使用,形成独特的建筑形态。然而,这种对建筑语言的讽刺性的使用,只将历史元素作为一种产生新形式的方法,往往避免了任何创新作品的产生。后来“后现代主义”逐渐成为一种建筑流派,但每次的新作品呈现的都只是不同元素的拼贴效果。

“后现代主义”的第二个释义似乎更需要人们理解建筑语汇,也许这种解释更加广义。在解释这个含义之前,我先问一个问题:既然建筑的定位来源于对其之前作品的批判,那么后现代主义建筑师都是怎么评价他们的作品呢?他们会改造建筑文化景观,发展新技术,来克服现代主义之后的一些弊端。

“后现代主义的出现是对于当时文化停滞不前的对抗标志,我们也许应当重新思考‘后现代主义’的文化批判作用,而非单纯地把它看做一种形状、符号或形式。”

虽然后现代主义常被看作是现代主义之后的新纪元,从这个角度来说,我们应当对后现代主义持中立的态度,而不是把它看做是一个特定的风格亦或是历史时期。换句话说,后现代主义展现的是是对当时文化停滞不前的一种对抗,我们也许可以将它看做是一种批判文化的形式,而不是一系列的形态、符号或建筑形式。从这个意义上来说,后现代主义成为背离规则的一种新方式,这种形式十分前卫,表达了对传统意义的对抗。文丘里的母亲住宅戏谑地玩弄了现代建筑的共同特征,而盖里的自宅、亦或是库哈斯的达尔雅瓦别墅这类在当今社会仍然十分流行的建筑形式,也仍然有人持质疑态度。尽管后现代主义并没有明确地概括此类概念,从这个角度看,后现代主义并不意味着全新的形式,也不意味着某种特定风格,它是对当今社会的质疑,既不反对过去的存在,也不抗拒对当今新技术的接纳。

Historically speaking, the word “postmodernism” has been used in architecture with a double meaning: as both a simplified notion of postmodernism as a style, or alternatively the idea of the postmodern as an attitude. As a style, postmodernism refers to a series of poetics that emerged from the 60s onward, and then cyclically came back into fashion. Since then, by putting elements of postmodernist style (ironic effects, decorative elements, historical quotations, and symbolic shapes) through a mixing process, many architects fascinated by this word have continued to emphasize postmodernist style’s elements, producing a constant reassembling of shapes, symbols, and forms. Yet, this ironic use of architectural language, focused on the past only as a way of producing new forms, tends to avoid the production of any innovation. It couldn’t be otherwise: by looking at “postmodernism” as an architectural genre, every re-actualization can only be stylistic and, beyond a certain point, fetishist.
The second interpretation of “postmodern” seems much more encouraging in order to understand and theorize what is happening in architectural discourse and, maybe, in order to finally move beyond the word itself. In order to explain this position, allow me to ask one question: since any architecturally strong position is partly born as a critique of the one that precedes, what were postmodern architects criticizing with their work? They were trying to reinvent architecture’s cultural landscape and to develop new techniques in order to overcome late-modernism’s rhetoric and the impasse at which the movement had found itself.
“Since postmodernism emerged as a kind of ethos against the cultural stagnations of its time, we might reconsider the term “postmodern” as a form of critical culture rather than a bunch of shapes, symbols, and forms.”
From this point of view—and although postmodernism is often spoken of as an epoch or as a style preceded by an ideologically blunt modernism and followed by an ineffable “contemporaneity”—we should envisage the “postmodern” as a general attitude rather than as a determined style or a historical period. In other words, since postmodernism emerged as a kind of ethos against the cultural stagnations of its time, we might reconsider the term “postmodern” as a form of critical culture rather than a bunch of shapes, symbols, and forms. In this sense, the postmodern becomes first of all a way of playing against the rules: a form of avant-garde putting forward the unexpected and the estranged against the dictatorship of the commonplace. In the same way as the Vanna Venturi House destabilized modern architecture’s boring certainties, so did Gehry’s own residence or Koolhaas’ Villa dall’Ava, and so today’s architecture might still do, even against the apparently surprising (but somehow boring) eccentricities of today’s “avant-garde.” Clearly, this is an idea in which “postmodern” has nothing to do with the notion of style. From this point of view, to be postmodern does not mean to be part of a new age, or refer to a particular style; it is the ethos of questioning the unsatisfactory circumstances of today, without refusing either the presence of past or the understanding of today’s new cultural conditions and technologies.


但是如果这样的话,那么后现代主义和早期20世纪初的欧洲先锋派又有何不同呢?尽管这二者的区别微乎其微,但至关重要。

“通过拒绝教条主义的时代精神(即建筑的时代表达方式),后现代主义在找寻一种复杂的设计理念,这种多功能的时代、叙事方式、表达形式能够发挥不同的作用。”

首先,这种后现代并没有扎根于当前的时效性。通过拒绝教条主义的时代精神(即建筑的时代表达方式),后现代主义正在寻找一种复杂的设计理念,这种多功能的时代、叙事方式、表达形式能够发挥不同的作用。第二,这样的解释避免了理论体系的形成,这种新型操作方式和风格元素的提出定义了一种新的风格,包括一种基于方法论的颠覆性理念。换句话说,如果后现代主义理论学家和21世纪初的文化运动复兴者通过消除批判性空间,或多或少地为基于权威元素的风格统一作出了贡献,这是一种全新的后现代理念,这种理念将会引发人们对于“常识”观念的争议,这其中也包含有后现代主义自身的概念。后现代主义的形成必须以创建新的方式与内容为出发点,同时还要避免烂俗文化,这里的“烂俗文化”指的是我们主流文化中所包含的批判性理念。换句话说,我们必须充分思考将“后现代主义”风格看做是一种误区的观念,这就好像“现代主义”的理念那样,即每座建筑都有着一些相同的特质。如今的后现代主义必须与传统的“后现代主义”观念有所区别,这也意味着后现代主义将包含有未来世界的不定趋势,包含建筑师的自我否定,同时还要寻找对于我们文化以及环境复杂性问题的现代化解决方式。

也许有些人会认为,我们现在所写的内容是在咬文嚼字,但有许多实例表明,这些“新型先锋主义者”正在对建筑进行重构,许多年轻建筑师的作品往往代表了文化的异质性和多元性。但事实上,这些建筑师与设计师尽量避免了主观的想法,将注意力放在特定的主题与内容之中,着眼于未来的同时也不放弃过往,同时坚定地立足于当前的时代。

But, if that’s the case, what is the difference between postmodernism and the early 20th-century avant-garde? Very little, even though there are two main differences that are as subtle as they are important.
“By refusing the dogma of the “Zeitgeist” (architecture as the expression of the age of something), the postmodern looks for a complexity of thought where multiple times, narratives and forms can all play a role while looking for the new.”
First, this kind postmodern does not ground itself on the ideology of “timeliness.” By refusing the dogma of the “Zeitgeist” (architecture as the expression of the age of something), the postmodern looks for a complexity of thought where multiple times, narratives and forms can all play a role while looking for the new. Secondly, this interpretation avoids the formulation of a theoretical system where new formal operations and stylistic elements are put forward in order to define a style and an overall ideal based on methodological prescriptions. In other words, if the theorists of postmodernism and the early 2000s revivalists have (more or less consciously) attempted to construct a stylistic unity based on canonical elements, with the result of removing almost all room for critical experimentation, a new sense of the postmodern has to rise up to combat the “common sense” notions, including postmodernism itself. To be postmodern must be ultimately intended as a way of creating new content while avoiding cultural clichés: it is a form of counter-culture meticulously involved in critically engaging our own mainstream cultures. In other words, we have to consider the idea of a “postmodernist” style as a mistake, in the same way as the concept of “Modernism” (capital M) was: as ways of silencing the experimental ethos of architecture. To be postmodern, today, must be something necessarily different from the stylish and banal idea of “postmodernism.” To be postmodern might mean to be directly involved in the constant destabilization and critique of ourselves while looking for alternative and new ways to deal with the complexity of our culture and our environment.
Even though some might think that what has been written here until now is just “playing with words,” there are many examples of this new sort of avant-garde attempting to rethink architecture, in the work of many young architects who are attempting to acknowledge the heterogeneity and plurality of our culture. They are, in fact, architects and designers who, by avoiding categorizing preconceptions, are focusing on specific topics, themes, and content, by looking at our future without forgetting our past and while being solidly grounded in our time.

新与旧的对比,后现代主义将何去何从?第3张图片
Image Courtesy of Andreas Angelidakis

这些过往的经验似乎为我们带来了一种新思路,“后现代”也许会有新的含义。它也许是戏谑地使用语言、价值观以及不同理念的新方式,同时也代表了对于能够导致怀旧理念的审美观念的抗拒。它也有可能代表一种复兴思维,以及简单的未来主义,也代表了设计师对于某些学术、文化以及政治问题的独到见解。

为了让这一概念发挥作用,后现代的观念应当摆脱其原有的定向思维,即传说中的“后现代主义”,这好像已经成为一种空洞的名词,我们必须将其摈弃。最终,无论是现代还是后现代,都能达到思想风潮的顶峰,但如果你越想要控制它的发展形态,那么它往往会发展向一个未知方向。

This ensemble of experiences seems to be highlighting a new path for the definition a different notion of “postmodern” that might finally be of interest today. It would be a way of playing with language, values, and concepts, refusing to seek a consensus on common taste which can lead to nostalgia. It could encompass revivals as well as easy-minded futurisms, opting instead to deal with specific disciplinary, cultural and political issues.
Still, in order for this concept to work, the idea of the postmodern has to get rid of its silent name: “postmodernism” has become an empty word and we need to trash it. Ultimately, to be either modern or postmodern is like having an orgasm: the more you wonder and worry about it, the less likely you are to achieve it.

新与旧的对比,后现代主义将何去何从?第4张图片

作者简介:

Giacomo Pala是一位奥地利因斯布鲁克的自由建筑师,并且当前致力于学术研究。他十分感兴趣于理论研究与写作。目前,他正在对Giovanni Battista Piranesi、时间理念、以及Ernst Bloch’的建筑多元概念进行研究工作。Pala已经参与了热那亚大学建筑学院的多项研究任务。从2013年起,他成为了Burrasca组织的一名会员,这是一个独立的文化联合会,他也为该联合会的同名杂志撰写了多篇文章。

Giacomo Pala is an independent architect and proud academic at present based in Innsbruck, Austria. His interests lie in the area of theory and composition. At the moment he is working on a research on Giovanni Battista Piranesi and the notion of time, parachronism and Ernst Bloch’s notion of “multiverse” in architecture. Pala has taken part in different research programs at the Architecture department of Genoa’s University and, in the last years, has published papers and participated in international conferences. Since 2013 he has been a member of Burrasca: an independent cultural association for which he has co-edited some issues of the homonym magazine.


出处:本文译自www.archdaily.com/,转载请注明出处。
        
【专筑网版权与免责声明】:本网站注明“来源:专筑网”的所有内容版权属专筑网所有,如需转载,请注明出处

专于设计,筑就未来

无论您身在何方;无论您作品规模大小;无论您是否已在设计等相关领域小有名气;无论您是否已成功求学、步入职业设计师队伍;只要你有想法、有创意、有能力,专筑网都愿为您提供一个展示自己的舞台

投稿邮箱:submit@iarch.cn         如何向专筑投稿?

扫描二维码即可订阅『专筑

微信号:iarch-cn

登录专筑网  |  社交账号登录:

 匿名

没有了...
评论加载中,请稍后!

新闻 (472 articles)


建筑 (9696 articles)


后现代主义 (9 articles)


批判 (2 articles)


2018 (506 articles)