青鋒/QING Feng

從邊緣出發(fā)

Starting from the Periphery

青鋒/QING Feng

在邊緣……我們放棄了對(duì)不依靠任何參照行事的信仰，重新考慮地理?xiàng)l件與歷史的補(bǔ)足性本質(zhì)。

——阿爾瓦羅·西扎，《建筑文集》，1997

雅克·德里達(dá)在他的名篇《論文字學(xué)》中，試圖解構(gòu)西方思想體系中一直存在的中心優(yōu)于邊緣的二元結(jié)構(gòu)。這一哲學(xué)批判實(shí)際上延續(xù)了15世紀(jì)神學(xué)家?guī)焖_的尼古拉所做的類似推論，為了維護(hù)神絕對(duì)性的至高無(wú)上，他只能放棄宇宙中心與邊緣之分，從而破壞了亞里斯多德宇宙模型，為新科學(xué)的誕生掃除了部分阻礙。然而，跨越500年的努力并不足以動(dòng)搖人們對(duì)中心的常識(shí)性認(rèn)同。畢竟我們只能從自己的身體出發(fā)，漸次接觸周圍的事物。維護(hù)中心的優(yōu)越性實(shí)際上出于原始的生存本能，這幾乎是不容選擇的。即使是在更大的范疇中，當(dāng)身體的控制性退隱之后，也還有傳統(tǒng)與既存體系在支持中心的權(quán)威。作為“中國(guó)人”，這種影響更為明顯?！爸袊?guó)”的稱呼，至少可以上溯到《尚書(shū)·梓材》篇，從那時(shí)開(kāi)始，我們對(duì)國(guó)家與民族的認(rèn)同就與中心/邊緣的差異性相互關(guān)聯(lián)。近40年來(lái)經(jīng)濟(jì)與政治實(shí)力的上升以及國(guó)家策略的制定，進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)化了民眾對(duì)中心性的渴望。無(wú)論承認(rèn)與否，在不斷取得成功的同時(shí)，我們的確面對(duì)越來(lái)越強(qiáng)烈的可能滑向中心的傲慢的危險(xiǎn)。一種抗衡的方式是對(duì)邊緣給予更多的關(guān)注，本期《世界建筑》就致力于這一方向，我們將要展現(xiàn)一個(gè)處于世界“邊緣”的國(guó)家——智利的當(dāng)代建筑。

將智利描繪為“邊緣”顯然會(huì)遭致批評(píng)，之所以要露出破綻是為了承認(rèn)我們的無(wú)知。談到這個(gè)國(guó)家時(shí)，我們想到的或許是復(fù)活節(jié)島、麥哲倫海峽、前往南極旅游的中轉(zhuǎn)地以及英超阿森納球隊(duì)的正選前鋒，除此之外，所知甚少。它不僅是除了南極之外距離我們最遠(yuǎn)的大陸盡端，也從未在我們的知識(shí)體系與利益架構(gòu)中扮演任何重要角色?！斑吘墶奔仁沁@個(gè)國(guó)家給我們的印象，也同樣是描述我們自身貧乏認(rèn)知的準(zhǔn)確詞匯。

從另一方面看，這一描繪也有一定的客觀性，因?yàn)樗彩呛芏嘀抢俗陨淼目捶ā?duì)于智利（Chile）國(guó)名來(lái)源的一種猜測(cè)是美洲原住民所稱的“世界的盡頭”，如果這種說(shuō)法成立，無(wú)疑與“中國(guó)”的來(lái)源形成完整的互補(bǔ)。而對(duì)于智利知識(shí)分子而言，地理上的邊緣僅僅是一個(gè)戲劇化的索引，將討論者引向建筑話語(yǔ)體系中北半球?qū)δ习肭虻闹萍s與忽視。在很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間中，拉丁美洲僅僅被視為北方現(xiàn)代主義體系擴(kuò)展和移植的一個(gè)范例，奧斯卡·尼邁耶與盧西奧·科斯塔在巴西的工作被當(dāng)作現(xiàn)代主義普適性的證據(jù)而被納入典型歷史論述當(dāng)中。僅僅是在最近一段時(shí)間，這一地區(qū)的建筑師與作品才開(kāi)始得到更多的獨(dú)立評(píng)價(jià)，保羅·達(dá)·洛查與斯米連·拉迪奇等新老兩代建筑師獲得廣泛的國(guó)際聲譽(yù)，西方主流評(píng)論體系也通過(guò)展覽等形式來(lái)彌補(bǔ)對(duì)拉丁美洲的認(rèn)知不足。智利人在這一潮流中有特殊的貢獻(xiàn)，由戴維·阿薩埃爾與戴維·巴蘇爾托創(chuàng)立的ArchDaily網(wǎng)站是近年發(fā)展最快的建筑網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒體之一，拉丁美洲建筑師通過(guò)這一途徑獲得了更多被世界所了解的機(jī)會(huì)。有趣的是，這一網(wǎng)站的創(chuàng)立動(dòng)機(jī)之一就是“邊緣”對(duì)“主流”的反擊，阿薩埃爾與巴蘇爾托試圖給予那些無(wú)法在主流媒體中獲得發(fā)聲機(jī)會(huì)的年輕建筑師應(yīng)得的關(guān)注。今天，這種關(guān)懷已經(jīng)惠及全球各地的“邊緣”建筑師們。

On the periphery ... we abandon the belief in doing without references, and reconsider the complementary nature of Geography and History.

álvaro Siza, Writings on Architecture, 1997

In his classic essay Of Grammatology, Jacques Derrida tried to deconstruct the long existing binary opposition of Center/Periphery, in which the center occupies a superior position. His philosophical critique actually echoed similar conjectures by Nicolas of Cusa, a 15th century philosopher, theologian, jurist, and astronomer. To ensure the absolute transcendence of God, Nicolas had to abandon the center/ periphery difference in the universe, thus undermining Aristotelian cosmology and sweeping aside certain obstacles for the birth of the new science. Efforts over the 500 years between Nicolas of Cusa and Derrida were not enough to destabilize the priority of the center in common sense. Perhaps this is because we can only start from our own body and reach out to touch things around us. Without any choice, it is thus intuitive for people to maintain the superiority of the center.

More broadly speaking, even when the human body is removed, , there are still many traditions and existing institutions which support the authority of the center. In China, these influences are quite apparent. The very name of the country in Chinese, Zhong Guo (the Middle Kingdom, translated literally) shows that privileging the center can be traced back at least to the ancient literature of ShangShu mostly from the Zhou Dynasty c. 1046 BC–256 BCE. Thus over 3,000 years understanding of our national identity has been connected with the difference between the center and the periphery. With the help of China's national strategy, our economic boom and our political rise during the past 40 years have all stimulated people's desire for even stronger centrality. Whether we deny it or not, in the shadow of one success after another, we face an ever stronger danger of slipping into the arrogance of a central stakeholder. To prevent this from happening, a counter move is to pay greater attention to the periphery. Thus this issue of World Architecture focuses on a country from China's periphery. We whould like to present the contemporary architecture of Chile.

To describe Chile as being on the periphery could easily expose us to criticism. The intention of such partial phraseology is to deliberately confront our ignorance. When we think of Chile, we think mostly of Easter Island, the Straits of Magellan, a transit point on a trip to Antarctica or Alexis Sanchez, the leading forward of Arsenal F.C.. We know very little about Chile as a country. Chile is not only antipodal to China on the globe, but it also a country of limited significance in our knowledge system and economic interests. On the one hand "periphery" describes our impression of Chile, on the other hand, it accurately illustrates our poor understanding of this region.

There may also be some objectivity behind the very name of the country, "Chile". Many Chileans use the term Chilli to refer themselves. At least, one interpretation of the etymology of Chile is the Mapuche or indigenous American word for "where the land ends". If this is indeed true, Chile constitutes an intriguing counter example to China the center, i.e. Chile the periphery.

For Chilean intellectuals, geographical marginality is a dramatic index introducing discussion of the dominance of the global north over the global south in architectural discourse. For a long period, Latin American architecture was regarded as an exemplification of the transplantation of Northern Modernism. Oscar Niemeyer (1907-2012) and Lúcio Costas (1902-1998) works in Brazil were treated as historical evidence demonstrating the universality of modern architecture. Only quite recently, have architects from the Latin America begun to acquire more independent acclaim. International recognition was given to architects like the Brazilian, Paulo Mendes da Rocha (1928- ) and the Chilean, Smiljan Radic (1965- ). And various exhibitions helped to enhance the reception of Latin American architecture in the West.

Chilean contributions to this rising tide is impressive.The ArchDaily website founded by David Assael and David Basulto is one of the most successful architecture websites in the world. With its help, Latin American architects have gained recognition throughout the world. Interestingly, one motivation for the foundation of ArchDaily is a counter fight of the periphery against the center. Assael and Basulto intended to give young architects publication opportunitiesthat were normally denied by main stream media. Today, their support has benefitted peripheral architects around the world.

It is still misleading to use the confrontation between center/periphery to explain the intentions of the Chilean architects appearing in this issue of World Architecture.The Parisian students of 1968 and the ArchDaily founded in 2006 (originally named Plataforma Arquitectura) shared the same dissatisfaction towards the dominant episteme. The former led to the end of the architecture department in école des Beaux-Arts, the latter led to the construction of a new institution; the former was eager to subvert or reverse the center/periphery difference, the latter lacked such ambition and rather saw the periphery as an appropriate starting point. The architects listed in this issue share the same non-aggressive and constructive ethos as Assael and Basulto.

For these architects, the periphery is not a competitor dreaming of replacing the center, but rather represents neighbouring people and places that have not been given sufficient attention. Their works shown here all focus on construction in this periphery zone. It is not hard to see, that all these works are public projects. They mostly benefit children, Native Americans and common urban citizens, all of whom have a less privileged status in society. Publicity and social concern constitute the main selection criteria. These projects epitomize the expansion of public projects in Chile. Constant economic progress and increasing social investment enable architects to jump out of the circle of elite private houses and render a deeper and wider service to the general public. It is wrong to regard Chile as a Utopia, but as Assael and Basulto mention, in the past 10 years, "profound reforms have helped ameliorate existing inequalities in education, healthcare and labor." In this extraordinary change, architects stand as a prominent positive factor.

The above discussions only touch on the architects' social stance. The quote of álvaro Siza at the beginning of this essay can better generalize their design strategy. It could be called a "peripheral gesture." When you are not the dominant central agent who sets the rules and enforces them, naturally you will pay more respect to circumstances and limiting conditions thus Siza's emphasis on Geography and History. Projects in this issue of World Architecture clearly show such sensitivity. They all share respect for local climate, water and earth, housing tradition, urban fabric, historical architecture and craftsmanship. Humility is firmly established as a virtue.These projects may lack the celebrity effect of architecture highlighted by main stream media, but they clearly exemplify one main principle: Architecture does not serve the curiosity of a magazine reader, rather the works here serve a Mapuche community, a group of people threatened by flood, a group of wicker weavers, Catholics living in a slum and farmers enjoying a short rest in the field. Only these people living on the site and experiencing the climate change, only they value local life and culture, only they embody the collective memory. Behind Geography and History is the way of life of real users. When a single person is given such respect, whether it is center or periphery is no longer important.

This is the conclusion for which we aim at. Even if we acknowledge the animal instinct of protecting the center, it still can't be denied that there is something special in human beings – dignity. Emanuel Kant believed that one interpretation of human dignity is that everyone is treated as an end rather than a tool. This means we cannot establish the superiority of the center by denouncing others in the periphery. The respect of the other is the respect of the periphery, because every other is indeed periphery compared to our embodied self. This means, we need moral principles to restrict our animal instinct, such moral principles form our own dignity, as Kant argued.

In these Chilean works, we can substantially feel the ethical thickness. They represent not only the focus of a region, a group and a time, but also the fundamental principles of a discipline as well as a profession. Starting from the periphery, does not end in the conquest of the center. As Nicholas of Cusa and Jacques Derrida expected, breaking the center/periphery limitation is to open space for more possibilities, more comprehensive experiences, and a deeper understanding of ourselves and our buildings.

Our special thanks to Assael and Basulto, and their team from ArchDaily, who made this issue possible.□

然而，我們不應(yīng)用邊緣與中心的對(duì)抗來(lái)簡(jiǎn)單解釋智利建筑師的意圖。1968年的巴黎學(xué)生與2006年創(chuàng)始的ArchDaily（西語(yǔ)原名為Plataforma Arquitectura）都不滿于傳統(tǒng)主流體系的統(tǒng)治，但前者導(dǎo)向了巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院建筑系的終結(jié)，而后者則專注于一個(gè)新體系的建設(shè)；前者急于顛覆或者翻轉(zhuǎn)中心/邊緣的差異性地位，而后者并無(wú)對(duì)抗的野心，反將邊緣視為恰當(dāng)?shù)钠瘘c(diǎn)。本專輯中所收錄的當(dāng)代智利建筑作品均持有這樣和緩的建設(shè)性心態(tài)。

對(duì)于這些建筑師而言，邊緣不是企圖取代中心的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者，而是身邊未能受到足夠重視的人與場(chǎng)所，他們的作品無(wú)一例外聚焦于這一邊緣地帶的建設(shè)。不難看出，入選作品均為公共建筑，絕大部分項(xiàng)目的受益者是孩子、原住民、城市平民等往往處于弱勢(shì)的群體，公共性與社會(huì)關(guān)懷是項(xiàng)目選擇上未加掩飾的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。盡管只是少數(shù)幾個(gè)案例，這些作品實(shí)際上是近年來(lái)智利不斷增長(zhǎng)的公共項(xiàng)目的縮影。持續(xù)的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)與社會(huì)投入使得建筑師能夠擺脫精英私人住宅的項(xiàng)目限制，更廣泛地影響大眾的日常生活。將智利描繪為烏托邦是不現(xiàn)實(shí)的，但是如阿薩埃爾與巴蘇爾托所寫(xiě)到的，過(guò)去10年智利社會(huì)中“教育、醫(yī)療和就業(yè)的不平等”得到了大幅的緩解，建筑師是這一顯著改變中不容忽視的積極因素。

如果說(shuō)上述討論僅僅涉及了建筑師的社會(huì)立場(chǎng)的話，那么文首阿爾瓦羅·西扎的那句話可以用來(lái)概括這些建筑師的核心設(shè)計(jì)策略。這可以被稱為一種“邊緣姿態(tài)”，當(dāng)你不是作為中心主導(dǎo)者制定規(guī)則并強(qiáng)硬推行的時(shí)候，自然會(huì)對(duì)各種周邊條件有更多的尊重與妥協(xié)。因此，西扎說(shuō)地理?xiàng)l件與歷史成為身處邊緣的建筑師們的合理選擇。本專輯所收錄的項(xiàng)目鮮明體現(xiàn)出這一敏感性，對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)貧夂?、水土條件、住房傳統(tǒng)、城市肌理、歷史建筑、手工藝技術(shù)的尊重是這些項(xiàng)目所共有的特征，謙遜在這里成為一種美德。這些作品可能缺乏主流媒體所期盼的驚世駭俗，但是它們闡明了自己的原則，建筑服務(wù)的不是獵奇的讀者，而是一個(gè)馬普切部落、一群受到洪水威脅的市民、加工柳條的手工藝者、貧民區(qū)的天主教徒以及田間休息的農(nóng)人。只有這些具體的人居住在建筑所處的地方，面對(duì)氣候的變遷，也只有這些人在共有的集體記憶中延續(xù)生活的價(jià)值。地理和歷史所承載的是一個(gè)真實(shí)使用者的生活方式，而當(dāng)一個(gè)人受到這樣的尊敬，中心或邊緣已經(jīng)不再重要。

這就是我們想要獲得的結(jié)論。即使我們認(rèn)同中心性源于保護(hù)身體的動(dòng)物本能，也無(wú)法否認(rèn)不同于其他動(dòng)物的人具有某種特殊性，那就是尊嚴(yán)。而康德認(rèn)為，這種尊嚴(yán)的體現(xiàn)方式之一就是人作為目的而非手段，這就意味著你不能通過(guò)將他人貶斥為邊緣而強(qiáng)化自身的中心優(yōu)越性。對(duì)他人的尊重就是對(duì)邊緣的尊重，因?yàn)橄鄬?duì)于自己，他人的確處于邊緣。這也就是說(shuō)，我們需要用道德原則來(lái)約束動(dòng)物本能，這也構(gòu)成了人自己的尊嚴(yán)。

在這些智利建筑師的作品中，我們的確可以感知到這樣的倫理厚度。它們所展現(xiàn)的不僅僅是一個(gè)地區(qū)、一個(gè)群體、一個(gè)時(shí)代的專注，也同樣有建筑作為一個(gè)學(xué)科與行業(yè)所遵循的根本性原則。從邊緣出發(fā)，不是為了占據(jù)中心，而是如庫(kù)薩的尼古拉與德里達(dá)所期望的，打破中心/邊緣的狹隘限制，為更多的可能、更全面的體驗(yàn)、更深入的理解開(kāi)啟空間。

特別感謝阿薩埃爾和巴蘇爾托及ArchDaily團(tuán)隊(duì)，他們使本期專輯成為可能?！?/p>

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2015-06-05