喬伊絲·黃/Joyce Hwang

黃華青 譯/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

1 害蟲

大衛(wèi)·林奇導(dǎo)演的電影《藍(lán)絲絨》的片頭場景，展現(xiàn)了一個田園牧歌般的小鎮(zhèn)，擁有成排的古樸住宅和蒼翠的草地。隨著鏡頭下?lián)u至街道，眼前呈現(xiàn)的是一幅寧靜祥和的景象：孩子在馬路上嬉戲，消防員朝我們問好，在白色尖木籬的背后，一個男人正在給草坪澆水。然而，這種愉快的情緒隨著男人突然摔在草坪上而陡然轉(zhuǎn)變。當(dāng)他中風(fēng)般地痛苦掙扎，鏡頭不斷拉近，拉近，但并未聚焦在男人身上，而是潛入一個未知的世界——草坪之中。在草坪中，畫面呈現(xiàn)出陰暗、模糊的基調(diào)，成群昆蟲發(fā)出的壓抑而不斷增強(qiáng)的鳴叫進(jìn)一步渲染著這種氛圍。草坪的恐怖之處逐步顯露：這是一個人類迫切渴望控制的場所，然而卻不斷被自然的不可預(yù)知性所征服。盡管電影中的這個場景是以一種近乎夢境的基調(diào)來呈現(xiàn)的，但內(nèi)嵌于此的是一個現(xiàn)世的、不斷困擾著文明生活的問題。房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人、房主、園丁和農(nóng)民都深知這一境遇——即處理“害蟲”的噩夢現(xiàn)實。

但害蟲究竟是什么？

對害蟲的定義是極為矛盾的，取決于特定的語境。例如鳥類，對停車場和建筑壁架而言它們被視為害蟲，但在鳥類展館或野生動物保護(hù)區(qū)中卻受到珍視。又如蝙蝠，它們是除害行動中最普遍的目標(biāo)，被描繪為入侵老閣樓的狂暴吸血鬼；然而在農(nóng)業(yè)和園藝業(yè)語境下，它們卻是極受歡迎的捕食者，幫助消滅那些啃食植物的昆蟲。

2 害蟲構(gòu)筑物

人類與害蟲之間不斷交鋒的關(guān)系，隨處體現(xiàn)于我們?yōu)檫@些動物、或以這些動物為主題設(shè)計的構(gòu)筑物中。以鳥舍為例，最顯而易見地展現(xiàn)了操作中的矛盾邏輯。一方面，精心搭建的鳥舍本身是當(dāng)下流行的DIY熱度的結(jié)果，時常傳遞出一種渴求之感。屢見不鮮的鳥籠套用了動物園似的“可愛”風(fēng)格，是我們更大的已知世界的縮影。例如，鳥舍設(shè)計常常援引動畫式的（人類）單戶住宅造型，即雙坡屋頂、前門、陽臺、假煙囪以及入口坐墊1）。另一方面，驅(qū)趕鳥類的機(jī)制在城市建筑的營建中又無處不在。為了防止鳥類在可棲息的表面上徘徊，人們在窗臺上安裝成排的鋼針，在裝飾性架子外蒙上網(wǎng)簾，在屋脊鋪設(shè)電網(wǎng)。我們?nèi)で舐殬I(yè)咨詢的幫助2）。在兩種場景下，都可見對鳥類的控制和“捕獲”。驅(qū)鳥裝置顯然是為了控制鳥類的實體存在——無論是通過驅(qū)趕還是消滅。較為含混的是鳥舍建造中體現(xiàn)的“捕獲”形式。盡管它們并不像捕鳥器一樣在實體意義上捕獲鳥類，但卻通過吸引它們進(jìn)入我們設(shè)置的空間，來滿足內(nèi)心的捕獲感。通過對人類居所的微縮呈現(xiàn)，鳥類也被歸化為人類自身的微縮卡通形象。我們在為鳥類居所提供一處可預(yù)知、可見的場所的同時，也將它們置身于我們的凝視之下（想想觀鳥者）。這種類型的“捕獲”恰恰就是蘇珊·桑塔格所討論的攝影行為中的“掠奪性”。正如她在《論攝影》一書中寫道：

攝影，是對被攝之物的挪用。它意味著在我們與世界之間建立某種聯(lián)系，這感覺像是知識……[1]

就像車輛一樣，相機(jī)也被作為一種掠奪性武器而售賣——一種盡可能自動化、隨時準(zhǔn)備彈射的武器……拍照的行為有著掠奪性的成分。給他人拍照，就是對他們的侵犯……相機(jī)將人們轉(zhuǎn)化為一類可被象征性擁有的物件。[1]

我們對于蝙蝠的矛盾態(tài)度更為顯而易見，同時潛藏著沖突。與通常被刻畫得美麗而優(yōu)雅的鳥類不同，蝙蝠往往被認(rèn)為是惡毒、殘暴而兇狠的?？紤]到許多二次表現(xiàn)的傾向性，這一印象并不令人意外。除了阿爾弗雷德·希區(qū)柯克1963年的電影《鳥》之外，鳥類在影像記錄中大多呈現(xiàn)出優(yōu)雅崇高而神奇的形象。比如，《遷徙的鳥》（雅克·貝漢、雅克·克魯奧德導(dǎo)演，2001）、《帝企鵝日記》（呂克·雅克導(dǎo)演，2005）和《飛禽傳》（大衛(wèi)·艾登堡祿拍攝的PBS系列紀(jì)錄片，由BBC自然史部門制作，1998）[2]。

相反，蝙蝠往往出現(xiàn)在《德古拉》（托德·布朗寧導(dǎo)演，1931）這樣的恐怖片中，或在萬圣節(jié)卡片上與卡通化的鬼魂、巫師及黑貓共存。這種表達(dá)上的落差因我們無法真切地感知蝙蝠而被加強(qiáng)（也可能這是主要原因）。鳥類天生就在視覺和聽覺上吸引人們的注意力。它們能輕易被看到、拍照、攝影和記錄。它們的鳴叫能被理解，并在音樂創(chuàng)作中得到詮釋。然而，蝙蝠在大自然中是難以捉摸的。它們只在夜晚出現(xiàn)，其鳴叫的頻率無法為人耳察覺?？梢哉f，由于我們無法看見或聽見蝙蝠，不僅使我們對它的欣賞度降低，更致命的是引發(fā)了一種對未知的恐懼。

1 蝠塔/Bat Tower

人類傾向于無視那些看不見或無法感知之物。蝙蝠的生活基本上不為人類所察覺，因此也淪為被我們遺忘的對象。盡管它們是生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中重要的組成部分，發(fā)揮著授粉者及捕食者的積極作用（巧合的是，鳥類也從事相同“工作”），但它們的功勞在人類眼中幾乎是不存在的。這種不可見度同樣體現(xiàn)在人們?yōu)轵鸾ㄔ斓拇蠖鄶?shù)構(gòu)筑物中。與致力于營造奇觀和驚嘆的鳥舍不同，蝙蝠舍（假設(shè)它被建造出來）的任務(wù)似乎只有兩個：要么是進(jìn)一步掩飾蝙蝠的存在，要么是將其歸為一種功能型角色。前者情況下，很多蝙蝠舍在設(shè)計審美上都試圖融入后院環(huán)境，有時會模仿住宅的裝飾細(xì)節(jié)，或刷成臨近樹干的顏色。后者情況下，很多其他蝙蝠舍顯露出一種平庸節(jié)儉的風(fēng)格。盡管簡化的DIY蝙蝠舍方案——例如那些由“國際蝙蝠保護(hù)協(xié)會”等重要組織提供的方案[3]——在初學(xué)者的個人建造中很有幫助，但它們的視覺存在感很難點(diǎn)燃公眾對蝙蝠的興趣。在兩種情況下，不可見性始終存在。其一，通過采用一種消隱的建造美學(xué)[4]，蝙蝠舍就和蝙蝠一起被推至人類感知的邊緣；其二，鑒于我們對蝙蝠舍的設(shè)計及建造投入如此少的精力，也就在潛意識中表達(dá)出一種漠不關(guān)心的情緒——只不過是將蝙蝠舍建造視為環(huán)境保護(hù)者目標(biāo)清單中的又一個勾選項而已。

3 害蟲的可見性

以上討論皆基于將蝙蝠視為害蟲的微妙觀念之上。然而我認(rèn)為，蝙蝠這一物種的困境恰恰象征了人類與建成環(huán)境中諸多動物之間的矛盾關(guān)系。將這些所謂害蟲“趕出視線，揮出大腦”的傾向是無處不在的。因此問題就在于，我們要如何與消隱、漠然的美學(xué)作斗爭？我們?nèi)绾螛?gòu)筑一個能夠抵抗這種不可見性的“客觀世界”3）——即一個具有物種特異性的環(huán)境？建筑具有提升物種可見度的潛力，可以藉由圍繞其主體性設(shè)計的空間及構(gòu)筑物，提升對這一物種的關(guān)注度。這篇文章反對將動物排除在感官之外，而關(guān)注如何將它們納入設(shè)計建成環(huán)境的基本概念之中。

2 蝠云/Bat Cloud (?Sharon Li-Bain)

過去10年，越來越多建筑師和設(shè)計師開始將非人物種作為主體和服務(wù)對象進(jìn)行設(shè)計。娜塔莉·杰里米琴科的高技派裝置為飛蛾、蠑螈和魚等動物帶來新的主體性。弗里茨·海格的“動物莊園”系列項目將動物棲息地嵌入機(jī)構(gòu)建筑中，以一種怪異的存在感喚醒人們對當(dāng)下城市中動物空間之缺乏的關(guān)注。凱特·奧爾夫的“牡蠣建筑”項目在景觀尺度上激發(fā)起人們對物種的好奇心，同時也指向水體污染等更大挑戰(zhàn)。我設(shè)計的若干裝置項目，如“蝠塔”（圖1）、“蝠云”（圖2）、“蔭蔽所”（圖3）等，運(yùn)用了“奇觀”策略，試圖喚起對環(huán)境中動物空間的關(guān)懷。這些項目并未選擇默默消失（并延續(xù)消隱的美學(xué)），而是探索了形式及感知上的設(shè)計策略，以提升人類對于一個既定事實的認(rèn)知——我們與其他物種一起共享這個地球。

本文中，我將在更本質(zhì)的層面對“包容性”概念進(jìn)行反思，進(jìn)而拓展如何借助建筑提升物種“可見度”的觀點(diǎn)。接下來的討論包括一系列項目，它們將潛在的動物棲息地直接引入人類居住環(huán)境的建筑構(gòu)件之中。通過重新審視墻體、基礎(chǔ)、屋頂?shù)葌鹘y(tǒng)建筑構(gòu)件的性能和影響，這一策略試圖解決一個即便在對生物友好構(gòu)筑物的興趣越發(fā)濃厚的時代依然徘徊不去的棘手爭論。將其他物種以較高的親密度接納入我們建造的世界中，依然是個廣受爭議的論題。盡管城市居民整體上能理解在建成環(huán)境中提升生物多樣性的生態(tài)意義，但人類還是傾向于將動物排除在生活場域之外。當(dāng)我們在建筑中遭遇到動物，最常見的反應(yīng)或許就是想辦法將其趕走，并通過各種方式阻止它們進(jìn)入，例如用金屬網(wǎng)遮蔽通風(fēng)口。當(dāng)然，這一類藉由“調(diào)整”“修理”等方式的增量型操作被視為可行的策略，甚至被吹捧為“最好的方法”。接下來這些項目的討論，我希望轉(zhuǎn)而思考另一種納入物種多樣性的方式，從而導(dǎo)向一種更深刻的建筑形式。一旦我們能夠超越修理建筑漏洞的觀念，便學(xué)會將權(quán)力賦予更多元化的群體，由此以一種更加觸及本質(zhì)的方式重新構(gòu)思所處的建成環(huán)境。

4 構(gòu)件作為空間類型：重審墻體、窗、屋蓋/閣樓、基礎(chǔ)和屋頂

4.1 墻體

3 蔭蔽所/Bower

從一個名為“害蟲墻”（圖4）的概念方案出發(fā)，“巢墻”（圖5）是一個墻體原型結(jié)構(gòu)，將蝙蝠和鳥類棲息地融入設(shè)計，目的是為物種特殊性的考量賦予一種空間和材質(zhì)實體。這個原型結(jié)構(gòu)由杉木、松木和回收材料建成，其主要特征包括供蝙蝠棲息的狹長縫隙空間，而蝙蝠通常棲息在閣樓、墻縫及其他建筑部件中。采用回收窗百葉等粗糙切割的木材及質(zhì)感明晰的材料，是為了讓蝙蝠更輕易地著陸，并爬進(jìn)上方的空穴。層疊堆積的木材能在白天吸收過多的熱量，提供更好的隔熱及保暖持久性，這對蝙蝠的棲息而言十分重要。這個原型結(jié)構(gòu)也融入了供鳥類筑巢的盒子和表面，是為燕子或其他棲居在崖壁上的鳥類而設(shè)置的。在這個項目中，我們提出的問題是：既然外墻已是個可棲居的表面，那么如何將這種特性變得可見，并在美學(xué)上予以強(qiáng)化？一面墻體能否不僅作為立面，也可經(jīng)過設(shè)計發(fā)揮出活態(tài)細(xì)胞膜的作用？

4.2 窗戶

“防誤撞區(qū)”（圖6）項目針對城市區(qū)鳥類死亡的最主要原因：與玻璃相撞。飛行中的鳥往往很難分辨透明玻璃和露天環(huán)境，尤其是當(dāng)玻璃反射著天空、樹木或建筑周圍環(huán)境的其他元素。如今，我們看到越來越多的組織機(jī)構(gòu)開始關(guān)注這個很少被察覺的殺戮狂歡。奧杜邦協(xié)會、美國鳥類保護(hù)協(xié)會等愛鳥團(tuán)體最早發(fā)起了這樣的項目，與研究者合作開發(fā)對鳥類安全有益的城市建筑導(dǎo)則，并出版了相關(guān)報告，幫助建筑師、開發(fā)商和房屋業(yè)主在決定窗戶設(shè)計的過程中做出更周全的選擇。制造商開始制造一些防止鳥類誤撞的建筑材料和體系，從窗玻璃貼紙（類似于我們?nèi)祟悶榱烁玫亍翱匆姟辈Ａ评T而使用的方式）到印花、燒釉玻璃，試圖加強(qiáng)視覺“干擾”以防止鳥類選取那條可能致命的飛行路線。在關(guān)于建筑的可持續(xù)性評估體系中（它通常很少關(guān)注動物保護(hù)），美國綠色建筑委員會（USGBC）提出了一項LEED試點(diǎn)評分法，以評估“鳥類防撞性能”。

在生態(tài)-城市的兩難境遇之中，我們看到這些利益沖突之間一個越發(fā)值得探索的領(lǐng)域。如果建筑窗戶真的被認(rèn)為是城市鳥類的第一號連環(huán)殺手，那么我們?nèi)绾卧诓环恋K窗戶的觀景和采光功能的前提下，重新考慮玻璃窗的設(shè)計呢？我們?nèi)绾螢椴ＡгO(shè)計視覺上的干擾圖樣，而不破壞現(xiàn)代主義建筑所憧憬的透明性？我們?nèi)绾渭骖櫡侨祟愇锓N的主體性，同時又確保和提升人類從室內(nèi)窺視室外的愿望？

1 Pests

The opening scene of the film Blue Velvet,directed by David Lynch, shows an idyllic small town, with rows of quaint houses and lush green lawns. As the camera pans down the street, we are encountered with depictions of wholesome goodness:children crossing the street, a fi reman waving hello,white picket fences, and a man watering his lawn.The gleeful mood changes however, when the man suddenly collapses on the lawn. As he is struggling with what appears to be a seizure, the camera zooms closer and closer, focusing not on the man, but diving into a world of the unknown: the lawn itself. Zooming into the grass, the film reveals an atmosphere of darkness and uncertainty, intensi fi ed by muラed and increasingly louder sounds of swarming insects. The horror of the lawn is revealed: it is an artifice that human beings desperately attempt to control, yet it is continually being overtaken by the unpredictability of nature. Although this scene in the fi lm is depicted in an almost dream-like state, embedded within it is a mundane yet incessant problem frequently associated with civilised living. A condition known well by building managers, homeowners, gardeners, and farmers, it is the nightmarish reality of dealing with"pests."

But what exactly is a pest?

The very de fi nition of a pest is highly con fl icted and always contingent upon its specific context.Birds, for example, are considered to be pests in the context of parked cars and building ledges; but they are treasured in aviaries or wildlife preserves. Bats,a most popular target of pest removal practices,are depicted as rabid vampires who unwelcomingly invade old attics; however, in the context of farming and gardening, they are highly desirable as natural predators of plant-eating insects.

2 Pest artifacts

Our embattled relationship with pests is ubiquitously present in the artifacts that we construct for and of these animals. Perhaps a consideration of bird inhabitations most clearly shows these conflicting logics at play. On the one hand, carefully-crafted birdhouses – a popular resultant of do-it-yourself aspirations – often project an attitude of desire. All too frequently,they resonate with menagerie-like "cuteness,"a miniaturisation of our larger, known world.Birdhouse designs, for example, draw from cartooned representations of single-family (human)houses, complete with pitched roofs, front doors,balconies, fake chimneys, and welcome mats1). On the other hand, bird-deterrent mechanisms are ubiquitously incorporated in the construction of urban buildings. To prevent birds from loitering on perch-able surfaces, we implement rows of needle-sharp steel spikes on window sills and ledges; we drape nets over decorative molding; we install rows of electrified wire along roof edges.We seek professional consultants2). The control and "capture" of birds can be evidenced in both scenarios. Bird deterrent devices clearly control the physical presence of birds – either by repulsion or by extermination. Less obvious is the form of"capture" that is exerted through the construction of birdhouses. While they do not physically capture birds in the way that birdcages do, birdhouses allow us to ful fi ll a sense of capture by drawing them into our space. Through the miniaturised representation of our own habitations, birds, too, are also relegated to the status of cartooned miniatures of ourselves.By providing a predictable and visible place for bird inhabitation, we are also subjecting them to our gaze(think: birdwatchers). This type of "capturing" is precisely what Susan Sontag describes in discussing the "predatory" act of photography. As she writes in her book On Photography:

To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge…[1]

Like a car, a camera is sold as a predatory weapon – one that's as automated as possible, ready to spring… there is something predatory in the act of taking a picture. To photograph people is to violate them…; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.[1]

4 害蟲墻/Pest Wall

5 巢墻/Habitat Wall

6 防誤撞區(qū)/No Crash Zone

7 共居/Co-Occupancy

“防誤撞區(qū)”是對卡爾森·皮里·斯科特樓窗戶的臨時“整修”，試圖讓防鳥類誤撞的措施顯現(xiàn)出來，同時確保建筑中人文主義話題的預(yù)設(shè)。

在兼顧建筑窗戶周邊瓷磚樣式的同時，這個項目通過圖樣裝飾來創(chuàng)造視覺擾動，使其發(fā)揮超出美學(xué)構(gòu)成的作用。這個裝置明顯借鑒了文藝復(fù)興式的一點(diǎn)透視，以及如像素化偽裝這樣的當(dāng)代視覺操作手段，由此也涉足了人類視覺的根本建構(gòu)。

4.3 基礎(chǔ)與屋蓋/閣樓

“共居”（圖7）是一個概念方案，力圖讓野生動物棲息地融入人類建成環(huán)境。為了提升人們對于城市生態(tài)重要性、人與非人類物種關(guān)聯(lián)性的關(guān)注，這個設(shè)計納入了為植物和動物設(shè)置的條形區(qū)，使其與人類居住區(qū)共存。例如蝙蝠、鳥類，安置在可擴(kuò)展的、體塊式的屋頂構(gòu)筑物中。這些構(gòu)筑空間具有不同的尺度及保溫效果，但都是有遮蔽并容易進(jìn)入的，提供了筑巢的空穴及棲息的結(jié)構(gòu)。蛇、蠑螈及其他類似生物則占據(jù)了加厚的“基礎(chǔ)”，這個“基礎(chǔ)”采用鐵絲籠結(jié)構(gòu)，以承載密壘的大塊卵石及石塊。作為一項初步的設(shè)計，這個項目以跨物種共居的概念重新界定了屋頂、基礎(chǔ)等基本建筑元素，并提出了新的空間、視覺及材質(zhì)方式，來重構(gòu)我們的建成環(huán)境。

4.4 屋頂

“共棲”（圖8）是為人類與動物共同設(shè)計的屋頂棲居地，重新思索了城市屋頂?shù)臐撃?。人類棲居的空間被設(shè)置在一系列城市野生動物的棲息結(jié)構(gòu)之間，這些結(jié)構(gòu)專門設(shè)計來吸引和容納鳥類和蝙蝠。這些動物作為天然的授粉者和“殺蟲劑”，將促進(jìn)屋頂谷物和其他植物的生長。這個項目使人們有機(jī)會看到鳥類筑巢、蝙蝠捕食蚊子的過程（由此也為人提供了天然的除蚊措施），可作為城市自然休閑愛好者的一項體驗。從項目的室內(nèi)空間中，人類居住者可以更清晰地觀察周邊環(huán)境。項目設(shè)計了一個由反射鏡面百葉組成的幕墻體系，將有選擇性地調(diào)節(jié)看向城市的視線。這些鏡面通過使城市天際線變得碎片化以及創(chuàng)造視覺重復(fù)的方式——比如讓同一個標(biāo)志性建筑反射重復(fù)多遍，提升人們對城市環(huán)境的關(guān)注度。此外，蝙蝠和鳥類的存在感，隨著它們往返于巢穴內(nèi)外的飛行，將藉由這一反射系統(tǒng)在視覺上得到強(qiáng)化?！肮簿印碧魬?zhàn)了人們習(xí)慣上假定的人與動物、室內(nèi)與室外的二分對立關(guān)系。我們將項目構(gòu)想為一個微生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，由自然與建成主體/環(huán)境之間一系列相互依賴的流動來呈現(xiàn)。

5 結(jié)論

將我們設(shè)計的城市空間與動物共享，是一種矛盾的情緒。一方面，在公園和后院中鳥類通常是受歡迎的，從鳥類喂食器的數(shù)量和品類之多就不難看出。而另一方面，鳥類留下的痕跡和污垢又使它們成為入侵人類領(lǐng)地的“煩心事”。當(dāng)動物及其他非人物種穿越我們?yōu)橹畼?gòu)筑的邊界，就會被認(rèn)定為“不得其所”，進(jìn)而被視為“害蟲”。因此最緊迫的問題就是：我們?nèi)绾螌游锏拇嬖谥刂糜谝粋€更具建設(shè)性的舞臺？如上文所討論的，建筑與設(shè)計擁有在多個尺度激發(fā)大膽應(yīng)答、納入多元物種的能力。在最基本的層面，建筑可以建立一系列環(huán)境條件，為物種的棲息提供前提。而另一層面，將這些條件編織起來，能滿足人類的驚嘆感和好奇心?！昂οx建筑”并不將“蟲害控制”作為一個需要解決的問題。相反，它提出建筑所激發(fā)的共鳴——無論是視覺、空間、材質(zhì)、生態(tài)或是社會層面——能夠促進(jìn)更加廣義的“包容性”目標(biāo)。這就超越了“控制”任何物種數(shù)量的有限任務(wù)，而邁入一個更為切中要害的策略，以合作性態(tài)度介入我們所處的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)?！昂οx建筑”全身心地參與投入動物間的沖突邏輯——一端是可預(yù)見性，另一端是渴求感。如此，它就成為促使人們重新思索“害蟲”這一矛盾定義的引線?！昂οx建筑”通過強(qiáng)化所謂害蟲的存在感，最終可視為一種借助反思性的可視化過程而轉(zhuǎn)變頑固觀念現(xiàn)實的工具?！?/p>

注釋/Notes

1）案例見Yard Envy/For example, see Yard Envy.[2018-06-09]. https://www.yardenvy.com/bird-houses.asp.

2）案例見Birds Away/For example, see Birds Away.[2018-06-09]. https://www.yardenvy.com/bird-houses.asp, (accessed June 9, 2018).

3）雅各布·馮·尤克斯卡爾描述道，兩個不同物種可能存在于相同的總體環(huán)境中，但各自尋求的是完全不同的特殊環(huán)境。他列舉了壁虱和鹿的例子：適于壁虱的環(huán)境條件不同于鹿的，盡管它們存在于同一個環(huán)境中（森林）。（見參考文獻(xiàn)[5]）/Jakob Von Uexkull describes that two different species might exist in the same general environment, but each require completely different speci fi c environments. He uses the example of the tick and the deer: the conditions that matter to a tick are different than those that matter to a deer even though occupy the same environment (the forest). (See reference [5])

參考文獻(xiàn)/References

[1] Susan Sontag. On Photography. New York: Farrar,Straus and Giroux, 1989:3-24.

[2] David Attenborough. The Life of Birds. [2018-06-09]. http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/.

[3] Get Involved / Install a Bat House//Bat Conservation International. [2018-06-09]. http://www.batcon.org/index.php/get-involved/install-a-bathouse.html.

[4] Paul Virilio. Steve Redhead ed. The Paul Virilio Reader. New York: Columbia University Press,2004:57-81.

[5] Jakob von Uexkull. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans. Minneapolis, London:University of Minnesota Press, originally published 1934 by Verlag von Julius Springer.

Our conflicted attitude toward the presence of bats is even more pronounced and layered with contradictions. Unlike birds, which are often admired as beautiful and graceful creatures,bats are typically understood as vicious, rabid,and monstrous. This is not a surprise, given the tendencies of mediated representation. With the exception of Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 fi lm, The Birds,birds are typically documented and exhibited with a sense of gentle awe and wonder. Simply examine the list of bird-driven documentaries. To name a few,consider: Winged Migration (directed by Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud, 2001), March of the Penguins (directed by Luc Jacquet, 2005), and The Life of Birds (a PBS series by David Attenborough,produced by the BBC Natural History Unit, 1998)[2].

Bats, on the other hand, are more often depicted in horror films such as Dracula (directed by Tod Browning, 1931) or alongside cartooned ghosts, witches, and black cats on Halloween cards.This rift in representation is further enhanced (or perhaps caused) by our lack of ability to tangibly sense bats. By nature, birds attract attention,both visibly and audibly. They are easily spotted,photographed, filmed and recorded. Their songs are audibly understood and interpreted in musical compositions. Bats, however, are elusive by nature.They emerge at night and chatter at frequencies inaudible to the human ear. One could argue that our inability to see or hear them not only contributes to a lack of appreciation, but more poignantly contributes to a fear of the unknown.

Humans have a tendency to dismiss that which they cannot see or sense. Bats go about their lives relatively unnoticed by humans, and as such, they fall victim to our tendency toward forgetfulness.Although they are critical components of our ecosystem, functioning actively as pollinators and natural predators (incidentally, the same kind of"work" performed by birds), their efforts often remain invisible to the human population at large.This sense of invisibility is hardly resisted by the artifacts we construct for bats. Unlike birdhouses,which seem to intensify a sense of spectacle and wonder, bat houses (if even implemented at all)seem to accomplish one of two tasks: Either they further camouflage the presence of bats or they relegate the bat to a role of utilitarian function.Regarding the former, many bat houses are designed to aesthetically blend into backyard environments,sometimes mimicking the decorative trim of a house or painted to match the colour of a nearby tree bark. With regard to the latter, many other bat houses tend to project an attitude of banal economy.While simpli fi ed do-it-yourself bat house plans – for instance, those provided by signi fi cant organisations such as Bat Conservation International[3]–are indeed helpful in jump-starting individual efforts to construct more bat houses, their visible presence does little to fuel public interest. In both cases, invisibility is perpetuated. First, through constructing an aesthetic of disappearance[4], bat houses – and therefore bats – are pushed to the margins of human conscience. Second, by projecting little or low effort into the design and construction of bat houses, we subconsciously also project an aesthetic of indifference – that is, one which relegates bat house construction to yet another item on the to-do list of environmental stewardship.

3 Pest visibility

The discussion at this point has hinged on nuanced perceptions of bats as pests in particular, but I would argue that, as species, their plight is emblematic of the con fl icted relationships that humans have with animals in the built environment. The tendency to push these so-called pest species "out of sight, out of mind"is pervasive. A question therefore is: how do we combat the aesthetics of disappearance and indifference? How do we craft an "umwelt"3)– that is, a species-speci fi c environment – that resists a condition of invisibility?Architecture has the potential to increase species'visibility, to bring attention to animals through the spaces and artifacts that we design with their subjectivity in mind. Rather than excluding animals from our consciousness, this article focuses on how we can include them in a fundamental conception of the designed environment.

The past decade has seen a proliferating web of architects and designers who are working in considering non-human species as subjects and agents of design. Natalie Jeremijenko's technologically-embedded installations brought a new sense of subjectivity to moths, salamanders,and fi sh, for example. Fritz Haeg's "Animal Estates"project series projected animal habitats into institutions, with a strangeness of presence that brought an increased awareness of the lack of animal spaces in cities. Kate Orff's "Oystertecture" project instigated curiosity about species at the scale of landscape, while addressing larger challenges such as water pollution. Several of my installation projects,as well, such as Bat Tower (Fig.1), Bat Cloud (Fig.2),and Bower (Fig.3), also deploy tactics of "spectacle"to bring increased attention to the space of animals in the environment. Rather than fading quietly (and perpetuating the aesthetics of invisibility), these projects explore formal and perceptual design tactics to increase human consciousness of the fact that we share the world with many species.

In this article, I will expand on the notion of increasing "visibility" of species through architecture, by re fl ecting on the idea of "inclusion"in a more fundamental way. The following discussion includes a series of projects that introduce potential habitat conditions directly into the building components that make up the environments that we ourselves occupy. By reconsidering the performance and resonance of conventional building components – such as wall,foundation, and roof – this tactic begins to address a prickly issue of contention that still lingers, even with the growing interest in introducing speciesfriendly structures. The acceptance of species within close proximity to our own constructed world is still an embattled debate. While urban citizens generally tend to understand the ecological signi fi cance of increasing biodiversity in the built environment, our tendency as human beings is to consider animals as external to our spheres of living. Perhaps the most common response to encountering animals in buildings is to fi nd a way to remove them, to exclude them with various methods, such as covering ventilation holes with metal wire mesh. Certainly, these ways of working incrementally – through tactics of "tweaking"and "fixing" – are recognised as viable solutions,and even touted as "best practices." With the discussion of the following projects, I would like to instead speculate on another way to allow the multiplicity of species to move us toward a more poignant form of architecture. Once we are able to think beyond notions of fixing buildings, we can start to reimagine the built environment in a more fundamental way, by giving agency to a more collective population.

4 Components as spatial types: reconsidering the wall, window, roof/attic, foundation, and rooftop

4.1 Wall

Drawing from a speculative proposal titled “Pest Wall" (Fig.4), "Habitat Wall" (Fig.5) is a prototype wall structure that incorporates conditions for bat and bird inhabitation into its design, aiming to give a spatial and tactile presence to speciesspeci fi c considerations. Built from cedar, pine, and salvaged building materials, the prototype's primary features include thin crevices of space which allow for occupation by bats that typically might roost in attics, wall cavities, and other building features.Use of rough cut wood and textured material, such as recycled window shutters, enable bats to better land and climb into the cavities above. The layering and mass of the wood helps absorb heat during the day and provides better insulation and thermal consistency, which is important for bat dwellings.The prototype also includes bird nesting boxes and surfaces that are constructed for swallows and other cliff dwelling birds. In this project, we ask: If an exterior wall is already an inhabitable surface,how can those conditions be made visible, and aesthetically intensified? How can a wall not only act as a fa?ade but also be designed to perform as a living membrane?

4.2 Window

"No Crash Zone" (Fig.6) is a project that addresses the most significant cause of bird mortality in urban areas: collision with glass.Birds in flight are often unable to distinguish clear glass from open air, particularly if the glass is reflecting sky, trees, or other elements around a building’s contextual environment. Today we see a growing number of organisations that are beginning to address this under-acknowledged killing spree. Bird advocacy groups such as The Audubon Society and the American Bird Conservancy are spearheading initiatives by working with researchers to develop bird-safe building guidelines for cities and are publishing reports to assist architects, developers, and building owners to make more informed decisions about window design. Manufacturers are beginning to produce building materials and systems to prevent bird collisions, ranging from window decals (similar to those that we humans deploy to better "see"a glass sliding door) to patterned, fritted glass –intended to add visual "interference" to deter birds from what would be otherwise deadly flight paths. In the realm of sustainability assessment metrics for buildings – which has not typically focused on animal conservation – the USGBC has initiated a LEED Pilot Credit for testing "Bird Collision Deterrence."

In this eco-urban dilemma, we see an emerging territory for exploration among these conflicts of interests. If indeed building windows have been deemed as the #1 serial killer of urban birds,how then can we reconsider the glass window in a way that does not remove its function as an aperture for view and light? How can we design visual interference patterns into glass without undermining Modernism's dream of transparency?How can we consider the subjectivity of non-human species, while still enabling and enhancing human desires, such as views from inside out?

"No Crash Zone" is a temporary "renovation" of a window in a Carson, Pirie, Scott Building to make visible the logics of bird-strike prevention while still aspiring toward architecture's preoccupations with the humanist subject.

With a nod to the tiling pattern framing the building's windows, the project aims to create visual noise through the deployment of graphic ornament, reconsidering its role beyond agendas of aesthetic composition. The installation also taps into the fundamental construction of human vision by overtly referencing the one-point Renaissance perspective, as well as more contemporary optical tactics such as camou fl age through pixilation.

4.3 Foundation and roof/attic

"Co-Occupancy" (Fig.7) is a speculative project that aims to incorporate wildlife habitat into the built environment. In an effort to draw attention to the critical importance of urban ecologies, and our interconnectedness with non-human species,the design includes delineated zones for fl ora and fauna, as well as zones for human occupancy. Bats and bird, for example, could live in expanded,volumetric roof conditions. These are conceived as sheltered but accessible spaces of varying dimensions and degrees of insulation, with cavities for nesting, and structures for perching. Snakes,salamanders, and similar creatures could occupy a thickened "foundation" condition, composed of a structural mesh cage that is formed to hold closelypacked masses of boulders and large rocks. As a primary agenda, this project imagines fundamental architectural components – such as roof and foundation – in terms of cross-species occupancy,and begins to suggest new spatial, visual, and tactile ways to reconsider our constructed environment.

4.4 Rooftop

"Co-Habitat" (Fig.8) is a speculative roof habitation for humans and animals that reconsiders the potential for urban rooftops.Human occupancy spaces are situated between and along a series of urban wildlife habitation structures, designed particularly to attract and accommodate birds and bats. As natural pollinators and "pesticides," these animals would stimulate the growth of rooftop crops and other vegetation over time. With potential opportunities to see birds nesting or bats hunting for mosquitoes(consequently providing a natural means of mosquito-abatement for humans), this project is an experience for recreational enthusiasts of urban nature. From the project's interior spaces,human inhabitants will become extra-aware of their surrounding environment through vision.The project proposes a wall system composed of mirrored-louvers that would mediate selected views toward the city. The effects of these mirrors would draw attention to the urban context by fragmenting the skyline, as well as creating visual repetitions, for example situations where one sees the same iconic building reflected multiple times. Additionally the presence of bats and birds, as they fl y in and out of their nesting sheds,would be visually intensified through this system of reflections. Co-Habitat challenges typically assumed dichotomies and relationships between humans/animals and inside/outside. The project is envisioned as a micro-ecosystem staged as a series of interdependent fl ows between natural and constructed agents/environments.

5 Conclusion

The sentiment of sharing our designed urban spaces with animals is a conflicted one. On the one hand, the occupation of birds in parks and backyards is generally desirable, as exemplified by the quantity and variety of bird feeder types.Yet on the other hand, the traces and debris left by birds render them instead as "nuisances,"trespassing on our territory. When animals –and other species – transgress our constructed boundaries around them, they are judged to be"out of place," and as such, are characterised as"pests." The pressing question, therefore, is: how can we recast the presence of animals in a more constructive light? Architecture and design, as I discuss, has the capacity to inspire bold responses at multiple scales and involving multiple populations. At a basic level, architecture can set up a number of environmental circumstances provide habitat conditions for species. At another level, the act of choreographing these circumstances can begin to generate experiences of wonder and curiosity for human beings as well.Pest Architecture does not tackle "pest control" as a problem to solve. But it argues that architecture's production of resonance – whether visual, spatial,tactile, ecological, or social – can begin to address a much broader aim of "inclusion". This moves beyond the finite task of "controlling" any speci fi c animal population and rather, heads toward a more poignantly-conceived strategy for engaging collaboratively with our contemporary ecosystems.Pest Architecture revels in working through the conflicting logics toward animals – between predictability, on the one hand, and a sense of desire, on the other. In this way, it is a catalyst for rethinking the conflicted definition of "pest." By magnifying the presence of so-called pests, Pest Architecture ultimately is a means of transforming the stubborn reality of opinion through a process of re fl ective visualisation.□

項目信息/Credits and Data

1 蝠塔/Bat Tower

由大草原之蟻工作室的喬伊絲·黃主持。項目的設(shè)計和施工由紐約州藝術(shù)委員會的“獨(dú)立項目資金”和范阿倫協(xié)會的項目贊助支持；裝置由紐約州大學(xué)職業(yè)聯(lián)合會的“努阿拉·麥根·德雷舍爾博項目”資助。/Project by Joyce Hwang/Ants of the Prairie. Design and construction made possible with an Independent Projects Grant from the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA) and the Van Alen Institute as the project's Fiscal Sponsor; Installation made possible with a grant from the New York State/United University Professions' Dr. Nuala McGann Drescher Programme.

團(tuán)隊成員/Team: Thomas Giannino, Micahel Pudlewski,Laura Schmitz, Nicole Marple, Mark Nowaczyk

顧問/Consultants: 生物學(xué)/biology: Katharina Dittmar;結(jié)構(gòu)工程/structural engineer: Mark Bajorek; 施工/construction: Richard Yencer（布法羅分校建筑與規(guī)劃學(xué)院材料與工藝工作室/UB School of Architecture and Planning Materials and Methods Shop）

2 蝠云/Bat Cloud

由大草原之蟻工作室的喬伊絲·黃主持，是布法羅分校人文學(xué)院“流動文化”系列活動的一部分。感謝布法羅分校建筑與規(guī)劃學(xué)院的支持。/Project by Joyce Hwang/Ants of the Prairie. The project was designed and built as part of the University at Buffalo Humanities Institute's"Fluid Culture" Event Series. Thanks also to the UB School of Architecture and Planning for support.

“流動文化”組織者/Fluid Culture Organisers: Colleen Culleton, Justin Read

團(tuán)隊成員/Team: Sze Wan Li-Bain, Mikaila Waters, Robert Yoos

顧問/Consultants: 結(jié)構(gòu)工程/structural engineering: Mark Bajorek; 生物學(xué)/biology: Katharina Dittmar; 蒂夫特/布法羅科學(xué)博物館協(xié)調(diào)人/Tifft/Buffalo Musuem of Science coordinators: Lauren Makeyenko, David Spiering

3 蔭蔽所/Bower

由喬伊絲·黃、Ellen Driscoll以及Matthew Hume主持，City as Living Laboratory and Artpark委托設(shè)計和建造。/Project by Joyce Hwang and Ellen Driscoll, with Matthew Hume.Commissioned by City as Living Laboratory and Artpark.

經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)/生物學(xué)顧問/Ecology/Biology Consultants:Katharina Dittmar, Heather Williams

施工助手/Construction Assistants: John Costello, John Wightman, Olivia Arcara

結(jié)構(gòu)顧問/Structural Consultant: Mark Bajorek

項目在布法羅分校建筑與規(guī)劃學(xué)院的支持下得以建成。/Project made possible by the University at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning.

4 害蟲墻/Pest Wall

由大草原之蟻工作室的喬伊絲·黃主持。/Project by Joyce Hwang/Ants of the Prairie.

5 巢墻/Habitat Wall

由大草原之蟻工作室的喬伊絲·黃主持。芝加哥藝術(shù)學(xué)院沙利文畫廊“外部設(shè)計”委托，其館長為Jonathan Solomon。設(shè)計與制作還獲得了麥克道爾文藝營、布法羅分校SUNY建筑與規(guī)劃學(xué)院以及紐約藝術(shù)基金會的支持。/Project by Joyce Hwang/Ants of the Prairie. Project commissioned by School of the Art Institute of Chicago,Sullivan Galleries for "Outside Design," curated by Jonathan Solomon. Design and fabrication made possible with additional support from The MacDowell Colony, University at Buffalo SUNY School of Architecture and Planning, New York Foundation for the Arts.

施工合作者/Construction Collaborators: John Costello,Kenzie McNamara, Joey Swerdlin, Duane Warren, Alex Poklinkowski

顧問/Consultants: Katharina Dittmar, Mark Bajorek

6 防誤撞區(qū)/No Crash Zone

由大草原之蟻工作室的喬伊絲·黃主持。芝加哥藝術(shù)學(xué)院沙利文畫廊“外部設(shè)計”委托，其館長為Jonathan Solomon。/Project by Joyce Hwang/Ants of the Prairie.Project commissioned by School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Sullivan Galleries for "Outside Design," curated by Jonathan Solomon.

裝置管理/Installation Manager: Christina Cosio, Sullivan Galleries

7 共居/Co-Occupancy

由大草原之蟻工作室的喬伊絲·黃主持。在麥克道爾文藝營建造。/Project by Joyce Hwang/Ants of the Prairie.Created at the MacDowell Colony.

8 共棲/Co-Habitat

由大草原之蟻工作室的喬伊絲·黃主持。2010年由Living Architecture 和 Artangel主辦的“倫敦的一間房”競賽作品。/Project by Joyce Hwang/Ants of the Prairie.Created for "A Room for London" Competition, by Living Architecture and Artangel, 2010.