过程的发现

  • 来源:建筑创作
  • 关键字:白之家,,建筑,山本理显
  • 发布时间:2014-04-11 13:25

  白之家

  听说筱原一男先生的“白之家”将被解体移筑的事情,就过去看了一下。“白之家”于1966年完成。算起来已经是40年前的作品了。因为马上就要被拆解了,不管是家具还是照明器具等等都已经没有了,变成了一个空旷的、像空洞一样的空间。在这个空间的正中心,杉木质圆木的独立柱矗立着。在离这根圆木很近的地方,就是雪白的墙壁。天花板很高,白色的墙壁一直延伸到那高高的天花板下,真是一面巨大的墙。墙壁上有一扇小小的门,在门的斜上方有一个比它更小的窗户。这种设计让人觉得哪怕稍微改动几毫米,也会出现破绽。一看就是经过深思熟虑的结果。当然了,虽说都是在照片上看惯了的光景,实际上还是第一次看到它们。说实话,对于我个人来讲,这个作品当初并没有引起过我多少关注。然而,在得知伊东对“白之家”“很精彩”这样的赞不绝口后,我产生了无论如何都想去看一看的想法。

  雪白的、巨大的墙壁,在看到距离它很近的位置上,作为象征矗立着的圆柱子的瞬间,我明白了究竟伊东是被这个建筑的哪些内容刺激并启发的;也明白了当时才刚刚开始进行建筑设计的伊东丰雄感受到强烈触动的理由。当时的伊东和现在的伊东,在这个像空洞一样的空间面前,恰好重叠在一起。

  伊东所看到的,是纯粹发自筱原内心的、自律性极高的空间。所谓自律性高的空间,指的是与来自外部的因素,例如社会性,或者与周边环境的关系,或者与生活的关系,或是经济性等各种各样的限制条件完全无关中形成的空间。“白之家”估计是在筱原的内心里设计出来的、仅仅依靠固有的理论和固有的思想完成的。建立在这种意义上的纯粹性。与任何其它的东西无关,排斥所有的外在的关系,这种筱原式的纯粹的空间对于伊东来说是非常新鲜的。排除各种各样的外在的因素,仅凭自己固有的理论去实现的这个空间,看上去是非常理性的。即使已经过了40年的时间,这些感受仍然强烈地传达给了我。

  我很理解伊东被这种纯粹性所吸引的感觉。

  40年前的当时,建筑是为了生活的建筑。或者说建筑的问题本身就是城市的问题。建筑正是与日常生活的关系,或与城市的关系。要如何评价日常生活和城市环境,也就是说是要肯定它还是要否定它,这对于建筑来说是不可回避的外在因素。建筑实际上是建立在与外在因素的关系上的。这种观点处于支配地位。但是,筱原的思想所探究的“空间的纯粹性”,彻底颠覆了这种观点,开拓了建筑上新的可能性。对这种筱原的纯粹性,伊东产生了强烈的共鸣。

  从当初开始进行设计起,实际上即便是现在,我想伊东所采取的方式中仍然深刻地烙印着想要逃入这种空间的纯粹性的愿望。

  “在设计过程中,我认为应该尽可能地只以自己的思想为中心,设计出与委托人的要求无关的模型。”,“现在我所能做的唯一的事情就是,把设计之初的模型按照设计委托人对在生活技术的累积上形成的对自己家的欲望进行修改,在预算或法规上的社会性条件的基础上进行修改,按照施工技术或人际关系等条件进行修改,而且在完成后,对由于居住者的各种各样的生活方面的要求而被附加或歪曲的轨迹,也只能带着遗憾的心情来加以确切的关注”。(《设计行为无非是追踪被歪曲了的自我思考过程的工作》初次发表1971年《新建筑》10月号)

  这篇文章伊东写于1971年,当时他30岁。其中表达了伊东对“空间的纯粹性”的极其强烈的感情。由于受到各种各样的外在因素的影响,原本应该是纯粹的空间被歪曲了,我想这种观点正确切地表现出了伊东被“纯粹的空间”所吸引。这是排除了各种各样外在的因素、极为个人化的,也正由于是个人化的才能获得“空间的纯粹性”。

  菊竹和筱原

  大学毕业后,伊东在菊竹清训的事务所里工作。菊竹作为新陈代谢派的成员而闻名。包括菊竹在内的新陈代谢派,是一个建筑师集团,旨在研究急剧变化的城市和变化中城市的建筑应该如何发展,并从根源上探究城市与建筑之间的关系。菊竹给大家的印象也是一位致力于重新构建城市环境和建筑的新关系的、非常具有逻辑性的建筑师的形象。然而,真实的菊竹却与此完全不同。“虽然是片断性的,但却充满了灵感的草图,彻底地将建筑的新的可能性和基于人的感性进行设计的乐趣教给了我们这些年轻人”(《请教菊竹清训先生,指引我们激情的生存之道》初次发表于1975年《建筑文化》7月号)在伊东看来,与其说菊竹是理性的,倒不如说他是从自己的内心迸发出灵感的非常感性的建筑师。据说彻底地忠实于自己的感性的激烈程度到了近乎疯狂。伊东说“我想没有一个作家比他更贴切用‘狂热’来表现了”(引用文献同上),伊东高度评价了当时菊竹的内心那种狂热,而对之后菊竹开始重视与社会的关系,也就是向社会派逐步转变的行为,抱着极为批判的态度。伊东的见解是彻底追求发自内心的设计,即使到了狂热的地步,应该彻底贯彻的正是这种设计的纯粹性。但是菊竹是不同的,他害怕拘泥于这种纯粹性,反而会将自己的建筑与外部隔绝,也就是说结果会变成不具有社会性的建筑。“建筑的创造,必须彻底承认矛盾的社会、矛盾的人类。其结果令建筑朝向建立秩序的方向,探求对矛盾的克服。”(《现代的建筑家肖像》,《建筑》1965年4月号)。说到底,生活在社会中,就应该以受社会的影响,或者是影响社会为前提来建造建筑。这就是菊竹式的建筑。

  但是,伊东是不同的。如果因为对社会开放,而失去了自己设计的纯粹性的话,还不如不开放的好。既然只能成为平凡的社会派,难道不应该“狂热”一些吗?这个正是他向菊竹提问的。而且,在对菊竹提问的同时,也从根源上对自己提问。

  自己思想的纯粹性和扭曲了这种纯粹性的外部各种因素、城市化的状况和社会化的状况之间的关系应该是怎样的呢?这些对于伊东来说是非常迫切的课题。所以,和菊竹在同一时期的,认为与其作为社会化的建筑,不如作为个人化的建筑来看待的筱原,其主张更加强烈地触动了伊东的感受。

  要构建一个什么样的城市,或者现在的城市处在怎样的状况,筱原所创造的住宅“不是顺应这个课题,或者被这种课题带动而建造的建筑”(《住宅论》,《新建筑》67年4月号),筱原坚定地说道。建筑说到底,只不过是由于个人内心的理论、思想而产生的东西。“我明显是站在筱原先生这一边的。对于在60年代,建筑师(像菊竹那样的)坚信能够很容易地与城市关联起来的这种情况,从他的文章中我还是觉得让人难以理解。”(《请教菊竹清训先生,指引我们的激情生存之道》),通过比较菊竹的社会性和筱原的纯粹性,伊东认为,即使筱原的纯粹性不具有社会性,仍然应对这种纯粹性给予很高的评价。

  排除外部因素

  事实上,当时伊东的建筑是比筱原更加纯粹的空间。换句话说,就是更加个人化的空间。

  “中野本町之家”就是一个的雪白的空洞的圆环。光照进了白色的圆环,影子随之移动,就像只是为了这个光与影的白色空洞的圆环。这个作品象征性地表现出了伊东对于纯粹性的想法。这个住宅相对于外部是极其封闭的。是与周边的城市空间完全无关的一个完全封闭圆环。评论家多木浩二先生将这个空间称之为“白色的黑暗”(《形式的概念》,《新建筑》76 年11 月号)。的确它是与外部完全隔离得黯黑般的空间。被这个“白色的黑暗”所包围后形成的院子简直就像地下室的天井一样。实际上,这个建筑即使延伸进地下也是成立的。相对于周边的环境,它是如此的封闭,是一个几乎只靠内部空间来构成的建筑,即外面的世界是被排除在外的。

  但是,这不仅仅是从物理意义上排除外部的世界,它的思维方式也是封闭的。如果要将自己固有的思想彻底地反映在他的建筑上,也就是说在这种思想上创造出忠实的建筑来,就必须要尽可能地将自己的思想以外的各种各样他人的想法排除在外。因为不然的话,自己思想的固有性就无法得到保证。“在设计过程中,我认为应该尽可能地只以自己的思想为中心,设计出与设计委托人的要求无关的模型。”伊东这么说便是基于这个意义上的。把自己的思想纯粹地反映在空间上的这种思维方式,排除了来自外部的对这种思想的影响。基于这种固有的思想建立的空间才是“纯粹的空间”。在个人的思想和空间之间建立起直接的联系。也就是说在自己固有的思想和空间之间建立一个完全封闭的系统,排除了外部的思想。正因为如此,“空间的纯粹性”才能够得以实现。

  “中野本町之家”对外部封闭。但这不单纯是从物理意义上将城市环境排除在外。而是说伊东的思考方式把来自外部的思想,别人的思想的影响彻底地排除在外。将城市环境排除在外只是其必然的结果而已。

  也许,伊东是从“中野本町之家”的经验中,发现了这样的封闭性。在这之后,如何才能打破这种封闭性呢?在保证“空间的纯粹性”的同时,反过来打破这种相对于外部世界封闭的状态,这成了对伊东来说最大的问题。如果采取菊竹式的以社会派为目标的方法,结果就会失去自己的纯粹性。筱原式那种正因为是个人才能获得的“纯粹的空间”,结果是无法从这种封闭性里走出来。这就是伊东的自我探究。

  那该怎么办呢?现在,再回顾伊东的建筑,这个对自己自身的本质性探究即如何从“纯粹性= 封闭性的诅咒”中解放出来,我觉得这个探究就是伊东的建筑本身。不管在什么场合,伊东总是试图将这个问题作为自己自身的课题担负起来。

  体验仙台媒体中心

  在之后伊东陆续发表的 “银色小屋”、“风之塔”、“八代市立博物馆”、“中目黑T 大厦”、“诹访湖博物馆”、“大馆树海体育场”等作品,都是以如何从这种“纯粹性= 封闭性的诅咒”中解放出来为共通的主题。这些作品,无论哪一个都被给予了很高的评价。但是我想对伊东来说,却未必会觉得十分满意。我觉得这些作品各自都带有极为鲜明的观点。这些观点既是针对时代的观点,也是针对现状的观点。我想这些作品都对那个时代或者现状作出了圆满的回答。但也是在牺牲了一点点伊东所追求的纯粹性后才获得的观点。针对这个时代,这个社会环境的观点的强度,由于它的强烈,使得作品变成伊东曾经批判菊竹“为了顾全与城市环境的关系,而牺牲自己的纯粹性”的那种结构。一边是对纯粹性的追求,一面是歪曲这种纯粹性的来自外部的各种因素,可以感受到这些作品在这两极之间摇摆不定。我想伊东那时还无法找到明确的答案。

  “仙台媒体中心”的体验令我完全消除了对伊东的这种自身摇摆不定的看法。在“仙台媒体中心”最初的形象构思,到其最终建成的过程中,伊东第一次从“纯粹性= 封闭性的诅咒”中解放出来了。

  关于“仙台媒体中心”的竞赛创意,伊东曾跟我谈过。那是在作品发表之前,构想到了“划时代的创意”的这种说法,跟总是很冷静的伊东不同,是那种确实地传递着成就感般的、充满了欢欣期待情绪的语调。“如果这个创意没有被采用的话……”,话尾虽然说的暧昧,意思也就是说如果没有被采用的话就该怀疑评委的能力了。他对自己的创意有着如此的自信。对那时充满自信的伊东先生的记忆,现在依然鲜明地保留着。此后,通过模型看到了“仙台媒体中心”,纤细而有透明感,确实如伊东先生所说的,是到现在为止都没有见过的建筑。既不是梁柱结构,也不是壁式结构。利用透明的竖井所支撑起来的地板,可以断定它与普通网格状的由柱梁来支撑楼层的使用方式有决定性的不同。如果是梁柱结构或壁式结构,其结构系统决定了其楼层的使用方式。因为均等排列的柱子和墙壁对它们的使用方式赋予了一定的秩序。也就是说在建造建筑上,结构系统和其建筑功能是事先协调过的。但是这个“仙台媒体中心”却不同。它不以某种功能为前提,或者不诱导指向某种固定的功能,简单地说就是不知道如何使用。这样的楼层设计,应该说是优先满足了伊东对建筑的构架方面极其强烈的欲望。同时看上去他的这个欲望也已经得到了实现。建筑功能、社会性的要求、或城市化的要求,与其说是按来自外部的要求来建造某种东西,不如说是其中融入了伊东那种纯粹的个人化造型的思想。这个方案作为建筑真的能成立吗?实际上在竞赛的评审过程中,这个建筑是否具备现实性,恐怕是评委们所担心的。可见它与迄今为止所见到的建筑类型相去甚远,是彻底追求了空间的纯粹性的建筑。正因为如此,这个模型才美丽,仿佛透明的玻璃工艺品一般的模型才成为可能。

  如果伊东坚持要原原本本地实现这个美丽的模型,我想这个建筑的结局会成为完全不同的东西。这个纯粹的空间被来自外部的各种各样的因素所歪曲。“它能够禁得起这些歪曲吗?”如果伊东这么考虑的话,我想这个建筑恐怕就与它现在的形状大不相同了。也许,已经实现了追求透明的玻璃工艺品一样的建筑的目标。如果假设能原原本本地实现了这种纯粹性,恐怕在投入使用后,使用方必定也会对它进行各种各样的歪曲吧。

  但是,伊东并没有考虑“是否能禁得起歪曲”。他并不打算将这个建筑的纯粹性按照设计的原样去实现,而是在建筑工程中积极接纳来自外部的思想和大多数人的思维方式。在一开始,对这个建筑的批判非常激烈。说这个建筑仅仅只是伊东个人的东西,这种个人化的建筑为何作为公共建筑建在这个地方?这个迄今为止没有见过的建筑真的具备公共性吗?这是批判的重点。特别是在日本,至今大多数人都还认为,把建筑师的特定的个性如实地反映在建筑上是违反公共性的。他们认为应该听取大多数人的意见,尽可能地建造标准的建筑。据说伊东也跟这些人进行了好几次谈话。那些最开始反对伊东的建筑的人,通过和伊东的对话,随着自己的意见被伊东所采纳,我想才开始接受这个建筑了。这个过程对于伊东来说也是意想不到的体验。来自外部的各种各样的意见、各种各样的因素,这些外部性未必会歪曲建筑的纯粹性。我真实地体验到,应该说有时这些外部性,反过来将伊东的建筑梳理成为更加活生生的建筑。这种经历从根本上改变了伊东原来的想法。

  共鸣的建筑

  如何把在自己内心中形成的纯粹的空间对外面的世界开放呢?伊东的这个本质性问题,在这个“仙台媒体中心”的实现过程中化为了极为具体的问题。建筑的建造过程,一方面需要研究施工方法,探讨细节,考虑空调、电气以及各种各样的设备,是解决各种建筑方面课题的过程;另一方面,还需要考虑如何让自己独自在内心构思出来的建筑形象、思想和想法等,得到他人的认同,所以同时也是产生共鸣的过程。结果伊东在体验中获得的回答是,并非始终如一地贯彻自己的纯粹性,而是要从另外角度重新认识自己认为纯粹的思想本身。另外的角度,也就是相对化的角度。能够从相对的一面来观察,就意味着自己在建筑的过程中发生着变化。伊东在这个现场首次体验了,在建筑的过程中发现变化着的自己。那是一种与伊东之前的思考方式,即纯粹的空间和歪曲它的来自外部的因素,完全不同的想法。

  正由于是个人的,才能是纯粹的,即使它有着狂妄的一面。如果失去了对这种空间纯粹的坚持,建造建筑是没有意义的。我想在这一点上,即使到现在伊东仍在极其强烈地坚持着。通过“仙台媒体中心”的经历,伊东所改变的是,认识到这种纯粹的空间,可以通过与外部的关系获得变化。为了对外部开放、得到他人共鸣,在这个过程中自己自身也会发生改变。而且,伊东应该已经意识到并非由于改变而歪曲纯粹性,而是得以获得更加丰富的建筑。

  纯粹的空间是在自己的内心中形成的极为个人化的空间。但实际上,它也只是一个甚至还不能称之为建筑的、非常抽象的空间。这种空间的纯粹性

  是一个抽象的概念。幻想能够将这种抽象性原样保留同时作为实体进行构筑,难道不是让这种纯粹的空间真实存在吗?为了将这种纯粹的空间构筑成

  一个建筑,如果不能够接受来自外部的各种各样的因素,恐怕是不可能的。伊东通过“仙台媒体中心”的经历,发现 “纯粹的空间”的不可能性。

  观察伊东的思维斗争令我有所意识。“纯粹性= 封闭性的诅咒”其实是近代建筑本身所带有的矛盾。近代建筑的理论将空间定义为纯粹的。我们大多数人即使觉察到了这种矛盾,也会因为长时间地寻找解脱的方法而感到厌倦。即使空间的纯粹性因为来自外部的因素而被歪曲,不是采用去依从外部因素一方的方法,也不是采用停留在这种纯粹性里,取消对外部开放的念头的formalism( 形式主义- 译注),更不是自己站在外面指手画脚的cyinicism( 嘲笑主义- 译注),如何将自己的纯粹性作为一个具体的建筑来构筑,伊东在其实践的过程中发现了实现的方法。在抽象空间获得具体性的一瞬间,伊东在过程中的所有遭遇获得了结论。

  具体化的建筑常常和它所在的场所、时间、历史、地域社会这些外在的因素联系在一起。而抽象化的空间获得具体性这个结论,是在遭遇了固有的场所、固有的时间、固有的地域社会的文化后,与这些东西紧密地关联起来。正如文中反复说到的,这并不意味着失去了空间的纯粹性。反而这些关联的过程,正是伊东的固有性和纯粹性溶入其所在的场所、时间、历史、地域社会的过程。

  HOUSE IN WHITE

  Hearing that the “House in White” of Kazuo Shinohara was about to be disassembled and relocated, I paid a visit to it. The “House in White” was completed in 1966, some 40 years ago. As it is about to be disassembled, the furniture and lighting fixtures were all gone, and the whole house became an empty space, like a large hole. At the center of this space was an independent fir column. Close to this round column was just the snow-white wall.The white wall stretched all along to the high celling, so the wall seemed very huge. On the wall, there was a small door, and along the upper diagonal of the door, there was a smaller window. In such a design, even a slight change in millimeters will cause flaws. So, this design must come from a careful consideration. Of course, these scenes are commonly seen in pictures, but this was the first time that I saw them personally. Actually, to me, this work was not that appealing at first. However, after I heard that Mr. Toyo Ito always spoke highly of the “House in White”, I thought I must visit it anyway.

  When I saw the round symbolic column standing close to the snow-white and huge wall, I understood how this building inspired Ito on earth and why Ito, who was just a beginner in architectural design then, was strongly influenced emotionally. In front of the hole-like space, Ito of that time and today’s Itooverlap perfectly.

  What Ito saw was a highly self-disciplined space purely came from Shinohara’s heart, a holonomic space totally free from the various external limitations such as sociality, the relation with the surroundings, or the relation with life, or economy. The “House in White” was designed in Shinohara’sheart, only with the inherent theory and thought. Such purity has nothing to do with any other thing and excludes all external relations. For Ito, such a pure Shinohara-style space is very fresh. The space realized with inherent theory only and unrelated to various external factors seems very rational. Even though 40 years has passed, I still have such strong feelings.

  I do understand why Ito was attracted by purity.

  Forty years ago, architecture existed for life. In other words, architecture itself was part of a city, related to the daily life and the city. How to evaluate the daily life and urban environment, namely, to affirm it or to deny it, for architecture, was an evitable external factor. Architecture was actually based on the relation with the external factors. This view always dominated at that time. However, Shinohara explored the “Purity of Space”, totally upending this dominant view and providing a new possibility for architecture. Such purity struck a responsive chord in Ito. Ito resonated strongly on such purity.

  From the very beginning to now, actually, from Ito’s designs, I think we can still see his deep desire to escape into such purity of space.

  “In the design, I think I should center on my own thought as much as possible and work out the model unrelated to the client’s requirements.” “The onlything I can do now is to modify the initial design models according to the client’s desire on their homes formed based on the accumulation of life techniques,according to the social conditions such as budget, or laws and regulations, and according to the construction technologies or interpersonal relationship. Andafter the completion, I have to keep watching the attached or distorted tracks generating from dweller’s various requirements with concern and also regret.(Design Behavior is about Tracing Distorted Process of Thinking, first published in Shinkenchiku journal, October issue in October 1971)

  This article was written by Ito in 1971 when he was 30 in which he expressed a strong feeling toward the” Purity of Space”. He believed that pure spaces have been distorted by various external factors, an opinion well reflected Ito’s obsession with the “Purity of Space” – something very individual without being effected by any external elements and something can only be obtained by individuals.

  KIKUTAKE KIYONORI AND KAZUO SHINOHARA

  After graduating from university, Ito went to work in the office of Kikutake Kiyonori who was known as a member of Metabolist school, an architectgroup aiming to study the dramatically changing cities and the development of architecture in the changing cities and to fundamentally explore therelation between cities and architecture. Kiyonori is generally regarded as a very logical architect devoted to reconstructing the relation between theurban environment and architecture. However, Kiyonori’s real image is totally different. “Through fragmental but inspirational drafts, he taught ouryoung people the new possibility of architecture and the pleasure of emotional design completely.” (Consulting Kikutake Kiyonori about How to MaintainPassion, first published on Architectural Culture July issue in 1975). In Ito’s eyes, Kiyonori is very emotional rather than rational with inspiration burstingout from within. It’s said he was crazily loyal to his emotional self. “No other architect is more fanatical than him” (Literature cited as above), Ito said. Sucha fanatical Kiyonori was highly spoken of by Ito; however, later, when Kiyonori began to emphasize the relation with the society, and turned to the sociality school, Ito criticized Kiyonori a lot. Ito held that an architect should persist to his design from within and thoroughly realize the purity of design even ina fanatical way. However, Kiyonori thought differently. He was afraid that sticking to purity would isolate his architecture from the outside, making his architecture unsocial. “The creation of architecture must fully admit the contradictory society and human beings, as a result of which, architectural design will try to build orders and resolve contradictions” (Impressions of Modern Architects, Architecture April issue in 1965) After all, now that we live in asociety, we should build architecture under the influence of the society or on the premise of influencing the society. That is the Kiyonori-style architecture.

  However, Ito was different. He thought that if the openness to the society caused the loss of purity in one’s own design, it was better to give up the openness. “Shouldn’t an ordinary social architect be fanatical?” Yes, he questioned Kiyonori, and at the same time, he questioned himself fundamentally.

  For Ito, the very urgent issue was the relation between the purity of his own thinking and the external factors, urban and social conditions which have distorted such purity. Therefore, a contemporary of Kiyonori, Shinohara who holds that architecture should be more individual rather than social stimulated Ito more.

  What cities should be built? Or what is the situation of current cities? The houses Shinohara built “do not comply with such issue, or do not respondto such issue” (On House, Shinkenchiku journal, April issue in 1967). Shinohara said firmly, “After all, architecture is just something based on my personal theory and thought from within.” “Obviously, I stand on the side of Mr. Shinohara. In the 1960s, the architects (like Kiyonori) firmly believed that architecture could be easily related to cities. Such view, I think, is still hard to understand” (Consulting Kiyonori Kikutake about How to Maintain Passion). By comparing the sociality of Kiyonori and the purity of Shinohara, Ito thought that the purity of Shinohara does not possess sociality; however, such purity should still be highly praised.

  EXCLUDING EXTERNAL FACTORS

  In fact, Ito’s architecture is a space purer than that of Shinohara, namely, an individualized space.

  White U is a snow-white and hollow U-ring.Once the light comes into the white ring, the shadow also moves with it which seemed to be just for thewhite hollow U-ring. This work symbolically shows Ito’s thought about purity. This house is extremely isolated from the outside. It’s a completely closedring which has nothing to do with the surrounding urban space. Critic Koji Taki called it a “white darkness” (The Concept of Form, Shinkenchiku journal,November issue in 1976). Indeed, it’s a dark space totally isolated from the outside. Encircled by this “white darkness”, the courtyard looks like a part of abasement. Actually, it’s practical for it to extend downwards. Compared with the surrounding, it’s so closed that it nearly only relies on the internal space.In other words, the outside world is excluded.

  However, it not just excludes the outside world physically. Actually, its thinking mode is also closed. If wanting to reflect one’s own inherent thoughton the architecture, namely, establishing an architecture that is loyal to one’s own thought, one must exclude the various thoughts of others. If not, theinherent nature of one’s own thought cannot be ensured. “In the process of design, I tend to center on my own thought as much as possible and work outthe model unrelated to the client’s requirements,” Ito expressed his concept like this. The concept of reflecting one’s own thought purely on the space is to exclude the outside influence opposite to this thought. The space built on the basis of this inherent thought is the “pure space”. Between this thought and space, a direct relation is established. That is to say, an entirely closed system is established between one’s inherent thought and the space, excluding the outside thought. Because of this, “the purity of space” can be achieved.

  White U is isolated from the outside world. However, it does not simply exclude the urban environment physically. Actually, Ito’s thinking mode also excludes the external thoughts and the influence of others’ thoughts thoroughly. Excluding the urban environment is just the inevitable result.

  Perhaps, from the experience of White U, Ito found the closure of space. Afterwards, how to break the closure? How to break the closure relative tothe outside world while ensuring “the purity of space” is the biggest problem for Ito. If taking social school-targeted method like Kiyonori, as a result, one’s own purity will be lost. If taking the method of Shinohara to build a “pure space” which can only be acquired by oneself, the result is that one cannot go out of the closure. How to solve the problem is a question faced by Ito.

  What to do? Now, looking back the architecture of Ito, I think Ito’s exploring the essence of his works, namely, how to get free from the “curse of purity equals to closure” is the Ito’s architecture itself. Under any circumstance, Ito always takes this question as his subject.

  A TOUR TO SENDAI MEDIATHEQUE

  After that, Ito published Silver Hut, Tower of Winds, Yatsushiro Municipal Museum, T Building in Nakameguro, Shimosuwa Municipal Museum, OhdateJukai Dome etc. successively which are all doing research on how to liberate from the “curse of purity equals to closure”. Each of his works is thoughthighly of. But to Ito, he may not be very satisfied with this. I think, these works contain different and distinctive opinions of Ito to the age as well as the current conditions, and such opinions perfectly reflect the age or current conditions. However, they were acquired with the cost of giving up some of Ito persistence to purity. Those opinions reflecting the age and social environment are so powerful that they make Ito’s works Kiyonori’s structure that“sacrifice the purity to keep a relation with urban environment” which Ito once criticized. One is the pursuit of purity and the other is the external factors that distort the purity. These works swing between the two poles and, from this we can know that Ito didn’t find a clear answer then.

  Such a thought on Ito has disappeared after I paid a visit to Sendai Mediatheque. From the design concept of Sendai Mediatheque to the completion of it, Ito deliberated himself from the thought of “cause of purity equals to closure” for the first time.

  Before the publication of the design of Sendai Mediatheque, I once had a talk with Ito about his design concept. When talking about his epoch-makingidea, he was not as calm as usual; instead, he sounded joyful that I could feel his sense of achievement and expectation. “If this idea is not accepted…” His words were am biguous. But, his real meaning was “If my idea is not accepted by the examiners, their capacities must be doubted”. He was so self-confidentthat I still remain that confident Ito fresh in my memory. After then, I saw the model of Sendai Mediatheque. It was slim with transparency. Just like whathe said, it was an architecture we have never seen. Different with the column-beam or wall-type structure, it only utilizes the transparent shafts to support the floor. It can be concluded that it is definitely different from the network structure supported by columns whose utilization is decided by the structural system for the equally arrayed columns and the walls give orders to the utilization of floors. It means that the structural system and functions of a building are coordinated before its construction. But the Sendai Mediatheque is different. Its design didn’t give or hint a certain architectural function. Briefly, itsfunction was not set in advance. It is such a floor design. The design prioritized the burning desire of Ito in frame work which seemed to be realized. Thedesign was not made to meet external requirements, such as the requirements of sociality and urbanization, but to satisfy the pure design concept of Ito.But, can it really turn into a building? In the examination process, whether it’s practical might be the biggest concern for the judges. It is totally differentfrom all the architectures we have seen so far. It completely achieves the purity of space and just because of this, the model looks so beautiful as if theglass- craft-like model can become reality.

  If Ito has insisted on realizing this beautiful model, the result of the design wouldhave been completely different. The pure space would be distortedby various external factors. Could it bear those distortions? If Ito had taken these into his consideration, then Sendai Mediatheque would be quite different from its current appearance. But, maybe the transparent glass-craft-like architecture can be realized. Even if it achieved the purity according to the original design, I’m afraid that it still will be distorted for various purposes after it came into service.

  However, Ito had no regard for “whether it can bear distortions”. He didn’t want to achieve the purity according to the original design drawing butmore positively, he absorbed many external thoughts and many modes of thinking from the majority of people. At first, the voice of criticism was veryloud, saying if this architecture was merely a personal thing of Ito, there was no reason to construct such a personal architecture as a public one. Did this unprecedented architecture really have public character? In Japan, most of the people still think that it goes against the publicity to add the architect’spersonality to the architecture faithfully. They think the architect should take most people’s advices and try to design standard architecture. Ito had several talks with those people. Those who opposed this design in the beginning started to accept it after knowing the thought of Ito and their advices were adopted by Ito. And this process was also an unexpected experience for Ito. Various external advices and various factors and those external factors may not distort the purity of architecture. I truly experienced that, sometimes, it is just the very externality which makes Ito complete his architecture more vividly and lively. These experiences fundamentally changed the deep-rooted thought of Ito.

  RESONATING BUILDINGS

  How to open the pure space designed in mind to the outside world? The hypostatic question raised by Ito turned to be a very specific question during

  the realization process of Sendai Mediatheque. During the construction process of a building, in addition to solving all the architectural problems by

  studying the construction methods, discussing the details and taking air conditioners, electricity and all kinds of equipment into account, it’s also needed to consider how to make the models, thoughts and ideas in our minds approved by other people, namely, make them resonate with other people at the same time. After communicating with other people and finding the answer with lots of efforts, Ito hence found that he should not stick to the purity consistently but need to review his concept to purity from another perspective, or the opposite perspective. If someone can observe from the opposite perspective, it means he is changing in the construction process. On the construction site of Sendai Mediatheque, Ito found he was changing as the construction progress for the first time. That was a thought totally different from Ito’s previous way of thinking, namely, the thoughts of pure space and external factors that distort the space.

  “Only individual can get a pure space”, though the thought is radical, building construction will become meaningless if the spirit of insisting on purespace is lost. Even now, Ito still strongly insists on this point. The change that Ito gets from the experience of Sendai Mediatheque is that pure space canbe changed according to its relations with the outside world rather than the purity of space can be kept by opening it to the outside. In order to make thespace open to the outside world, namely, make it resonate with other people, he changed himself during the construction process. Besides, Ito has noticedthat changes are to enrich the content of buildings rather than distorting purity.

  A pure space is a very personalized space designed in one’s mind. But, it’s actually a very abstract space which even can’t be called a building. The pure concept of pure space is an abstract concept. Doesn’t this kind of pure space exist when you imagine building a physical building that retains the original abstract shape? I’m afraid it is not possible to complete a pure space as a building without accepting various factors from the outside world. This is the impossibility of “pure space” that Ito found from the construction experience of Sendai Mediatheque.

  From observing the ideological struggle of Ito I realized that “The curse of purity equals to closure” in fact is a contradiction of the modernarchitecture itself. Space is defined as pure space in modern architecture theory. Even though most of us have noticed the contradiction, we become tired after looking for the way out for a long time. But Ito is not a person who insists on respecting the external factors after they distort the purity of a space,nor a formalist who gives up the idea of opening to the outside world totally, nor a cynical man who only takes actions himself in the outside. Ito took purity as a specific building, and then he found the realization method during its construction process. Ito made a conclusion at the moment when the abstract space was reified.

  A reified building usually connects with the external factors such as its location, the time, history, territory and society. To make an abstract space obtain the reification, we need to take its inherent location, time, territory, society, culture into account, and associate with them closely. Although it is a bitrepetitive, it does not mean the purity of space gets lost. Instead, the process of looking for these associated factors is just the process that the inherence and purity in Ito’s thoughts are accepted by its location, time, history, territory, society and so on.

  文_山本理显

关注读览天下微信, 100万篇深度好文, 等你来看……