作者：Alice Laguarda（建筑師，學者）

By Alice Laguarda, architect, philosopher

桀驁不馴

Manuelle Gautrand在探索建筑學的過程中發(fā)現(xiàn)了現(xiàn)代社會危機，這種危機表現(xiàn)為富足、過度工業(yè)化社會日益走向“極端現(xiàn)代”和“極度守舊”兩個極端?！艾F(xiàn)代社會”脫胎于“啟蒙時代”，我們需要一個干凈利落的變革來讓“現(xiàn)代社會”有別于強調(diào)遵循傳承、保持統(tǒng)一的“傳統(tǒng)社會”。這個迅猛的變革帶來了“現(xiàn)代社會”，“現(xiàn)代社會”立足于人性化、科技化?，F(xiàn)代人定義自己為“創(chuàng)造者”，現(xiàn)代人有能力建設(shè)富有、發(fā)達的世界，同時我們也逐步認識到現(xiàn)代人把生活碎片化?！艾F(xiàn)代社會”本身也時刻面臨故步自封的風險，重蹈“古代社會”或“傳統(tǒng)社會”的覆轍，根源在于同質(zhì)化、抄襲、封閉循環(huán)以及教條主義等，盡管這些做法可以保持社會間聯(lián)系，但應(yīng)對問題卻采用一刀切的辦法。新式“現(xiàn)代派”盡管立足于科技化和人性化，卻依然面臨抄襲、自我封閉、沉悶的威脅。

揭示

補救還是另辟蹊徑，判斷的關(guān)鍵還是文化。當今社會過度的利用技術(shù)、虛擬現(xiàn)實和超精密工具向人類展示人為的世界，這已經(jīng)不是自然世界。即使人類身居自然之中，卻時刻想要標新立異，主動改造、利用自然。人類世界是語言的世界，這個世界與探討、創(chuàng)造有關(guān)，而并非由流水線上的產(chǎn)品堆疊而成。文化的精髓、創(chuàng)造性作品里存在一種雙向表述。個人與藝術(shù)作品間存在一種聯(lián)系，這種聯(lián)系唯一、私密、充滿激情而又獨出心裁。社會與藝術(shù)作品間存在一道裂痕，藝術(shù)作品的產(chǎn)生會影響到周圍社會環(huán)境，揭開這道裂痕。藝術(shù)作品從未粘合這道裂痕，同時試圖接近自身本質(zhì)。這就是為什么設(shè)計文化建筑需要把重點放在揭示本質(zhì)。Manuelle Gautrand認為補救過程中需要揭示、以開放態(tài)度面對所有問題，對此她同樣身體力行。Manuelle Gautrand喜歡引用法國詩人圣.瓊.佩斯（Saint-John Perse）對于文化的定義即“非比尋常的奢華”（the luxury of being unaccustomed）。我們必須不斷努力才能創(chuàng)造一個處處非比尋常、存在不同聲音、與眾不同、桀驁不馴的世界。

方法

為了把這樣的世界呈現(xiàn)在人們眼前，或者說為人們打開通往其中的大門，Manuelle Gautrand采用了許多方法，有些方法甚至相去甚遠，采用這些做法是為了更貼合不同功能性需要，也使不同作品帶來截然不同（的感覺）。這種相異性同樣源自對于項目的專注，采用多種不同方法處理問題。Manuelle Gautrand先通過分析、演繹、改造，然后再考慮美學因素，據(jù)此調(diào)用不同方法（應(yīng)對不同情形）。有些項目需要和施工地周邊環(huán)境保持協(xié)調(diào)，例如Musée d’art moderne Lille Métropole，位于Villeneuve d’Ascq，就和周邊地形以及四周由羅蘭.西蒙內(nèi)（Roland Simounet）設(shè)計的建筑相得益彰。Manuelle Gautrand的建筑大膽將新空間與周邊現(xiàn)有建筑聯(lián)系起來，但又包含獨特的設(shè)計使其有別于周邊建筑，在空間上，建筑師們經(jīng)常讓自己的作品區(qū)別于周邊環(huán)境，有時近乎偏執(zhí)。Manuelle Gautrand注重建筑與周邊環(huán)境的協(xié)調(diào)，在蔓草、金銀花叢生的弗吉尼亞，Manuelle Gautrand為自己的建筑設(shè)計了一面垂直玻璃墻，讓建筑融入周邊環(huán)境?！皡f(xié)調(diào)”在某種層面上來說，是讓建筑“扎根”于當?shù)丨h(huán)境，富有強烈表現(xiàn)力，也就是所謂“原生藝術(shù)”觀點。

其他項目（的設(shè)計）則表現(xiàn)為對差異性和經(jīng)過深思熟慮后對自由的追求，例如位于北屯（Béthune）的“國家戲劇中心”（Dramatic National Center），這座混領(lǐng)土建筑結(jié)構(gòu)緊湊、刷清漆，與周邊建筑無論在規(guī)模、比例上都相去甚遠。 “雪鐵龍展廳”（Citro?n show room），位于巴黎香榭麗舍大街，選用折疊彩色玻璃把“雪鐵龍”V形標志建造在展廳屋頂。我們通過狹窄空間表達圓形世界和節(jié)慶主題，是汽車領(lǐng)域的最終目標，這一設(shè)計跳出了普通建筑的固有形式。

某些項目旨在形成簡單、清楚的功能性空間，另外一些項目則需要形成開放性空間，例如巴黎的 La Ga?té Lyrique。

外形

Manuelle Gautrand具備高雅個人審美，善于運用不同方法設(shè)計出合理建筑外形，比如在利用形狀倒置，在多種形狀交融、集合過程中，運用發(fā)散、包圍、添加、切斷的手法。比如，La Ga?té Lyrique項目，我們決定將原本充滿傷感、空洞的建筑改建，而不僅僅是修復(fù)。

我們在某種程度上放棄了舊有建筑風格，這點值得肯定。運用建筑的長度、房頂?shù)纫?，利用發(fā)散效果，讓“新活力”逐步在舊有房屋頂部、邊緣煥發(fā)出來。

Manuelle Gautrand利用實地情況、材料、光線（Manuelle Gautrand同樣視其為“材料”）（為建筑）塑形。例如法國圣路易（Saint Louis）的“文化中心”就選用紅棕色的混凝土，在很長的玻璃外墻上選用紅棕色雖然不常見，但能很好的通過暖色表現(xiàn)歡快的情感。我們用透明玻璃來表現(xiàn)情感的深度，通過折射日光在玻璃的表面營造質(zhì)感。

建筑學中的擺動

Manuelle Gautrand在把人文主義深刻融入建筑當中，不僅因為她始終致力于為居住者提供便利生活，更因為努力背后她所傾注的意義。Manuelle Gautrand的建筑充滿人性化，把“建筑環(huán)境”放在首位考慮，“建筑環(huán)境”作為一個整體把人們聚集在一起、調(diào)和人與人、城市與建筑、特定建筑與居住者、參觀者之間的關(guān)系。如果說文化永遠是重中之重，那是因為文化是調(diào)和人與世界關(guān)系一劑良藥。在這個層面上說，文化并不是尋求祥和狀態(tài)或陷入被動沉思。文化必須涉及處理雙向關(guān)系，比如化解潛在爭端、對立、爭論和反叛。在這個層面上，Manuelle Gautrand的建筑充滿人性化，這些建筑試著鼓勵表達人的東西，也就是主動溝通的“人性”。 人性化的觀點有力的迫使我們重新審視建筑矛盾，具體表現(xiàn)為（建筑學）日益走向“極端現(xiàn)代”和“極度守舊”兩個極端。建筑學讓人著迷，因為充滿了無窮的可能，受虛擬現(xiàn)實技術(shù)影響已經(jīng)從形式、色彩中解脫出來，但不能脫離居住者、作為個體的人類及其恐懼和歷史。建筑學應(yīng)該在不斷的揭示中發(fā)展，放飛自我，充滿激情，才能在嘗試、創(chuàng)新、冒險中發(fā)揚光大。Manuelle Gautrand說，懷疑精神可以讓我們時刻推陳出新，確保文明不會停滯不前。世人并非都喜歡富足、膩煩的社會，建筑學可能向簡短、臨時性、輕便型發(fā)展。我們毫無疑問會逐漸在大城市里看到一些建筑，這些建筑為人們開發(fā)新的生活方式，在感覺上逐步接近人們的新想法、新期望。

Disobedience

In her approach to architecture, Manuelle Gautrand explores the crisis of modernity, in which ‘our rich and sated industrialised society is torn between extreme modernity and a reactionary return to the past’. The Moderns, who were heirs to the Age of Enlightenment, wanted to make a clean break with traditional,holistic societies, the sole value of which was conformity to tradition. The break came as a revolution, violent and swift: the Moderns stood for individualism and technology. Modern man saw himself as homo faber – the doer capable of building a technology-rich world and - as we now know - of blowing all life to pieces! The fact is that modernity itself is constantly at risk of retreating into its ivory tower, and indulging in the same replication process that it censures in ancient or traditional societies. Replication based on identical copying, imprisonment in cycles, the dogma of religions which, although they protect social bonds, pretend to know all the answers (always the same) to all the questions. The new modern religions -technology and individualism – carry the same threat of replication, enclosure and suffocation.

Manuelle Gautrand has devised pairs of opposites to address this threat:dependence/disobedience, immobility/boldness, past/present, unique/plural,answers/questions… Her thought is on the side of disobedience, boldness and plurality as remedies against replication -these things are the founding elements of her architecture and her approach to programmes. The lesson contained in these remedies are summed up in a number of her remarks: if ‘innovation is always based on disobedience’, we should ‘mark the change by our way of representing our civilisation’, ‘work within discrepancies’, take ‘the risk of building’ and test ‘our emotions and desires to the utmost!’.

Unmasking

The fl ash point between all these issues - the milieu par excellence of remedy and disobedience - is culture. The overwhelming presence of technology, of virtual reality and of the hyper-sophisticated tools of our present-day societies shows us to what extent the world of humans is not a natural world. Even when they live amidst nature, humans are always wanting to mark differences, to exploit discrepancies: to show ‘initiative’. The human world is a world of language,discussion and creation, and not one occupied by the fabrication of stereotypes.In the heart of culture, in the created work, lies a dual articulation. Between the individual and the artwork exists a unique, privileged, passionate and inventive relationship, and between the artwork and society exists a relationship of rupture,due to the opening up effect that the artwork imposes on its social milieu. The artwork keeps what is open, affording access to the essence of being itself. And this is why design work for cultural facilities is necessarily focused on unmasking the essence. This remedial process, which Manuelle Gautrand lays claim to and engages in, entails an unmasking and an opening up to questions. She likes to quote a definition of culture made by the French poet Saint-John Perse, who spoke of ‘the luxury of being unaccustomed’. We have to make a constant effort to force our entry into that world where the ‘unaccustomed’ is dominant, a world where everything is called into question and where divergence, disorder and disobedience constitute the norm.

Strategies

To bring people into this world and – more important still – to open it up to them,Manuelle Gautrand employs different strategies, which are themselves divergent.In fact, it is their divergence that suits them to the function of unmasking and it is what makes her projects very different one from the other. This diversity also derives from the attention she brings to bear on programmes, on the many and varied ways she appropriates and interprets briefs in order to work. This process of analysis, interpretation and even deformation of the programme, which in all her projects precedes any aesthetic choice, leads her to deploy her strategies.For example, the project infiltrates the site by maintaining a certain continuity with what is already there, as is the case with her extension to the Musée d’art moderne Lille Métropole at Villeneuve d’Ascq, which establishes a strong link with the topography and with the buildings designed by Roland Simounet. But hers is a bold continuity, since the new spaces (five folded ‘branches’, organic forms)furl around the existing buildings, marking a treatment distinct from what is usual in this type of project, where designers often mark a clear (and often rigid) spatial separation with the ‘historic’ context. Her ‘soft’ continuity fi nds expression in the small vertical glazed openings of the new buildings, and in the presence of plantlife bases of Virginia creeper and honeysuckle that ‘colonise’ the architecture and anchor it to the ground. Continuity in this case also entails putting down roots, a settling in of architecture, perhaps in response to the powerful expressiveness of the works on display there – in particular the standing collection of Art Brut.

Other projects mark the need for a certain kind of disobedience and favour deliberate formal liberty: this is the case of the Centre dramatique national at Béthune, a compact varnished and painted concrete case that breaks with the scale and proportions of the surrounding architecture. Similarly, the Citro?n show room project on the Champs-Elysées in Paris makes constructive use of the chevron motif that is the car-maker’s trademark: up the fa?ade and onto the roof in an arrangement of folded and stained glass. The narrow vertical space conveys circus world and festive themes that are not part of the general consensus whereby the automobile is seen as the ultimate object, a stereotype given the site.Other projects aim at producing simple and clear functional spaces, while some express the will to elaborate more open-ended and ambiguous places: for instance La Ga?té Lyrique in Paris.

Figures

These different strategies are all based on fi gures proper to Manuelle Gautrand,and which constitute her highly personal aesthetic discourse. The figure of inversion, of invasion, or of colonisation, which entails dissemination and enfolding, addition and rupture, for instance marking La Ga?té Lyrique project.The construction ‘sets out to conquer’ an existing building that is sad and empty.More than a rehabilitation, this is architecture of violence that is determined to transf i gure.

What we have here is a sort of abandoning (in pleasure) to the tendencies of the existing building, which has to be espoused: using its length, roof, etc. By the dissemination effect there is a slow yet gradual invasion by the side and by the top, an invasion that instils ‘new life’ into the old building.

Manuelle Gautrand exploits these fi gures by means of matter, materials and light(seen as a material in its own right). Consider, for example, the importance of the reddish brown concrete used on the cultural complex at Saint Louis (France),which brings pleasure and emotion by featuring a warm, unusual colour in a long glazed fa?ade. The transparency of glass is used to procure pleasure in depth and even more so on the surface, where scintillating sunlight def l ects sight-lines onto technical spaces. Steel, a technique-ridden and heavy materials, is always used to introduce a vibration effect – a constant and gentle variation, comfortable and pleasant.

Matter and materials are thus constantly side-tracked from their economic or technical ends – they become elements caught in an inf i nite play on their capacity to engage in metamorphosis.

The oscillation of architecture

In all her projects Manuelle Gautrand proposes a deeply humanist conception of architecture. Not only because she always carefully integrates constraints of usage for the benef i t of users, but also because of the meaning she imparts in doing so. Her architecture is human because it aims first and foremost at building a ‘milieu’ for people, a ‘whole’ that unites and reconciles individuals with other individuals, the city with its buildings, a particular building with the people who live in it and see it. If culture is always of prime importance, it is because it is a fundamental means of conciliating and soothing our relationship to the world. Culture in this sense does not mean seeking a beatif i c state or engaging in passive contemplation. It has to do with setting up two-way relationships that integrate possible conf l ict, opposition, criticism and disobedience. In this sense,Manuelle Gautrand’s architecture is humanist because it attempts to encourage the manifestation of human things – our humanity: things contrary to passiveness and withdrawal. This forceful conception of humanity obliges us to re-think architecture as being torn between ‘a(chǎn)ttachment to the past and attraction to extreme modernity’. Architecture ‘fascinated’ by the infinite number of possible references, ‘cut loose’ among the endless variety of forms and colours, and given up to the technological mirage of virtual reality should never detach itself from ‘its users, its individuals’, nor from their fears and their history. Architecture should proceed by a perpetual unmasking, and to do so it must ‘let itself go’, let itself be enthusiastic, so as to open up increasingly to experimentation, innovation and risk-taking. Doubtless, in doing so, as Manuelle Gautrand says, we will be able to continue to change the representation that we have of our civilisation, and keep it from becoming static and sacred. Our ‘rich and sated’ societies might take more interest in those that are not like them, and architecture might move towards ‘forms that are ephemeral, temporary, light-weight’. And no doubt too, we might see increasingly in our gigantic cities an architecture that invents ‘ways of living and opening up in a dimension that is tactile, sensitive and near to people in their new concerns and expectations’.