張利/ZHANG Li

當(dāng)維特魯威將建筑的品質(zhì)歸納為“堅固、實用和美觀”，他是在談?wù)撊叩慕y(tǒng)一。當(dāng)然，那個時代資源有限，未曾出現(xiàn)供大于求的局面。在這些品質(zhì)之中尋找一個平衡是建筑師與建造者終其一生的課題，甚至看起來似乎對于如何實現(xiàn)這三個品質(zhì)最佳的協(xié)調(diào)統(tǒng)一有著普遍的共識。

然而，事到如今。我們生活在一個物質(zhì)與技術(shù)極大豐富的時代。平衡，或統(tǒng)一不同的目標(biāo)，是妥協(xié)的同義詞、軟弱的象征，甚至兩個特質(zhì)之間的斡旋都不再是必須的。要么有兩個特質(zhì)互惠互利，要么各自為政。

建筑作為不可或缺的物理存在，結(jié)構(gòu)主要與堅固相關(guān)。重力找到了自己作用于結(jié)構(gòu)的方式，亦敵亦友，顯然必須遵從物理的定律、數(shù)學(xué)的語言。然而結(jié)構(gòu)無法被視而不見。它的外表不可避免地會產(chǎn)生視覺感知，引發(fā)觀眾對于重力傳導(dǎo)的解讀，并最終接受審美的評判。我們都愿意相信，數(shù)學(xué)上成立的，必然是視覺上美觀的。但是，這種觀點一次又一次地被現(xiàn)實推翻。即使是最好的數(shù)學(xué)結(jié)果也不能保證會產(chǎn)生持久的審美享受。以最近的參數(shù)化建筑為例，罕見時，它們十分引人注目；大量出現(xiàn)時，它們變得無聊；冗余時，它們?nèi)侨朔锤小?/p>

對于結(jié)構(gòu)，有著許多不同的處理方式：計算它們，或者設(shè)計它們，或者兩者兼而有之。第一代明星建筑師，皮埃爾·奈爾維，幾乎讓我們認(rèn)為，通過現(xiàn)代技術(shù)，數(shù)學(xué)與美學(xué)可以達(dá)成完美統(tǒng)一。這些壯觀的鋼筋混凝土結(jié)構(gòu)不僅漂亮，也似乎是制造大跨度空間最有效的方式。通過對項目和相關(guān)文件的仔細(xì)分析，我們現(xiàn)在知道那看似完美的統(tǒng)一并不是真的。雖然我們不能否認(rèn)奈爾維結(jié)構(gòu)的視覺之美，然而我們可以質(zhì)疑它們的有效性。這不僅是因為奈爾維沒有計算他的結(jié)構(gòu)。這不僅是因為，他爬到他商業(yè)成功的巔峰，而后卻追名逐利毀掉了聲譽(yù)。而是因為實現(xiàn)大跨度至少有另一種方法，即預(yù)應(yīng)力混凝土，這一學(xué)派以里卡多·莫蘭迪為代表，用材更省，跨度更大。

巴克明斯特·富勒太聰明，他不肯將智慧浪費在裝飾性的瑣碎之中。他的dymaxion chronofiles（少費多用，最大限度利用能源，以最少結(jié)構(gòu)提供最大強(qiáng)度），當(dāng)然置入了一些絕對強(qiáng)大和美麗的數(shù)學(xué)。他的網(wǎng)格穹頂實現(xiàn)了數(shù)學(xué)與美學(xué)真正的統(tǒng)一，即使那很短暫。蒙特利爾世博會美國館本身是一個奇跡。靚麗的世博會建筑，它們的朝生暮死使其美得更為壯烈。但回到現(xiàn)實生活中，許多其他永久性的富勒穹頂，效果實在欠佳。

圣地亞哥·卡拉特拉瓦可能位于基因庫的另一邊，一位能夠進(jìn)行絕佳計算的極為有才華的藝術(shù)家。他的橋梁和建筑可以在數(shù)學(xué)與美學(xué)之間達(dá)成終極統(tǒng)一嗎？算是吧，但仍有差距?？ɡ乩呓Y(jié)構(gòu)的美麗在于富于韻律感地使用構(gòu)件，并賦予它們動態(tài)形式。它們近看很自然，甚至是有機(jī)的，一些人喜歡將卡拉特拉瓦的結(jié)構(gòu)稱為仿生。但仔細(xì)看看這些結(jié)構(gòu)，這一切自然、有機(jī)的美是過度使用構(gòu)件的成果。如同奈爾維的作品，將幾何置于物理之前。

因此，我們討論結(jié)構(gòu)還有何意義？當(dāng)然，我們不再是尋求數(shù)學(xué)與美學(xué)之間的理想統(tǒng)一，甚至不敢幻想在我們這樣一個資源耗竭的時代存在這樣一種統(tǒng)一。然而，結(jié)構(gòu)，宏偉的老建筑主體仍然提供著能夠帶我們回歸建筑學(xué)基本問題的工具。我們需要突破道德抗辯的焦慮。我們需要突破計算算法的巧妙。我們需要突破自我指涉的虛無主義的批評。我們需要就建筑談?wù)摻ㄖＮ覀冃枰迈r空氣，回到“堅固、實用、美觀”的范疇中去。

因此，我們制作了這期專輯，收集了大多集中在西歐中部的謙遜的小建筑，所有這些作品的特點是在具有結(jié)構(gòu)功能的構(gòu)件上使用了豐富多樣的材料。以結(jié)構(gòu)的名義，我們開始了一段反思建筑的旅程。

我們特別感謝丹尼爾·瓦爾澤教授的努力，他使這一專輯成為可能。

When Vitruvius summarised the qualities of architecture in firmness, commodity and delight, he was talking about the unity of all three. Of course,that was in a time when nothing was in excessive supply. To search for a balance among these qualities was a skill that architects-builders learned through life time. It was even plausible that a universal consensus can be achieved on how to best coordinate and unify endeavours aimed at all three qualities.

That was then. Here is now. We live in a time where there is ample supply of everything, technology to say at least. To balance, or to unify different objectives is a synonym of making compromises and therefore an indication of weakness. Even the negotiation between two qualities isn't necessary.Either you have two qualities reciprocally working for each other, or forget about it.

As the indispensable physical existence through which a building stands, structure is mostly connected to firmness. Friend or foe, gravity find its way down a structure, and is clearly governed by the laws of physics, the language of which being mathematics.Yet a structure is not to be hidden from the sight. Its physicality inevitably creates visual perceptions, elicits the viewer's interpretation of gravity transmission,and eventually is subject to aesthetical judgments. We all want to believe that what is mathematically sound is visually delightful. But time and again we have been struck by reality that such statement doesn't hold.Even the best mathematics cannot guarantee long lasting aesthetic pleasure. Take the recent case of parametric buildings for example, they looked really striking when they were rare. Then they have become boring when they are plenty. And then disgusting when they become overkills.

There are different operations related to structures:you calculate them, or you design them, or you do both.Thanks to the first-generation star architect, Pier Luigi Nervi, we could have really believed that the perfect unity between mathematics and aesthetics can be achieved through modern technology. Those spectacular ferro concrete constructions were said to be not only beautiful, but THE MOST efficient way of generating those spans. Through careful analysis of both the built projects and the related documentations, we know now that seemingly perfect unity wasn't true. While we cannot deny the visual beauty of Nervi structures, we can however challenge the statement that they were indeed the most efficient. This is not only because the fact the Nervi didn't calculate his own structures. This is not only because that he climbed to his commercial success then broke it by chasing world fame. This is because there was at least another approach to big spans, namely the pre-stressed concrete school of people like Riccardo Morandi, which did used less and achieved more.

Buckminster Fuller was too smart to waste his brain on trivia of cosmetics. His dymaxion chronofiles are certainly embedded with some utterly powerful and beautiful mathematics. His geodesic dome did manage to generate some true unity between mathematics and aesthetics, albeit temporarily. The US Pavilion in Montreal Expo was a wonder in its own right. The ephemerality of fancy Expo structures made its beauty even greater. But returning to real life, scores of other built Fuller domes, which are permanent, fared much less well.

Santiago Calatrava may be from the other side of the gene pool, an extremely talented artist who can do ridiculously good calculations. Can his bridges and buildings be the ultimate unity between mathematics and aesthetics? Kind of, but still not even close. The beauty of a Calatrava structure lies in the rhythmic use of components and the dynamic shape given to each of them. They look so natural,or even organic that some like to refer Calatrava structures as biomimicry. But a closer look at these structures reveals that all this natural, organic beauty comes at the excessive use of components.Like in Nervi, geometry comes before physics.

So, what's the point of talking about structure?Certainly, we are no longer to seek an ideal unity between mathematics and aesthetics. We don't even dare to fancy the existence of such a unity in our time of resource depletion. Yet structure, the grand old architectural subject still provides a vehicle which can take us back to more basic questions of architecture. We need some break from the anxiety of ethical debates. We need some break from the acrobatics of computing algorithms. We need some break from the nihilism of self-referential criticism.We need to talk about architecture like architecture.We need some fresh air back in the sphere of firmness, commodity and delight.

Hence, we are making this humble collection of small buildings in central west Europe, all of which feature a variety of uses of materials in components that have structural functions. It is in the name of structure that we depart on a small journey of architecture rethinking.

Our special thanks to Prof. Daniel A. Walser whose effort makes this issue possible.