我们所考虑的一切：赫尔曼·切赫与阿道夫·克利尚尼兹的对谈

赫尔曼·切赫，阿道夫·克利尚尼兹 蔡为

赫尔曼·切赫（Hermann Czech， 以下简称HC）：维也纳古老的城市结构，让我们看到一种具有普适性的图底关系如何被用于城市功能空间和交通空间的组织，在此之上的每一个具体的规划方案都具有其特殊性。这让人想到你在“多瑙之城总体规划”（与海因茨·诺伊曼共同出版）中设计的剖面及其带给三维立体空间的影响：由一个人为定义的零标高平面开始，城市纵向发展。这个平面虽然在某些地方已经存在了，但不是自由生成的。当时，我就将这种主张称为“对于维也纳城市设计的不朽贡献”，我之所以这么说，不仅是从维也纳城市规划的角度考虑，更联系了整个城市规划历史。

阿道夫·克利尚尼兹（Adolf Krischanitz，以下简称AK）：“多瑙之城总体规划”从某种程度上来说可算是一次“在敞开的心脏上动手术”，因为该规划的前提是，维也纳为即将举办的世界博览会建造了一座3层的地下车库结构。但是，世界博览会宣布取消，预定建设用地上只留下了一个9m深的大坑。我们在这个－9m的平面基础上开始设计这个“总平面图”，试图唤醒这个区域在经历夭折规划后的自信。利用设计在竖向上的可能性：向下有9m空间，向上有80m，将平面划分为42m×42m的网格，使规划和建造在此基础上一步步循序渐进，没有设定最终的建成效果。这是一种不断自我更新的规划，每一次新的建造都应该配合已建成的周边环境，并遵循维也纳地区建造规范所限定的房屋和日照间距，为未建用地保留建造潜力。

HC: 我一直对单间建筑这个概念感兴趣，即建筑外部形态与内部空间相符合（当然大教堂亦在此列）。相对于赖纳教授所定下的条款，我师从普利施克教授时写下了这样的句子：房屋起码得有两层才能被称为建筑。现在我们看到了例外的情况，在设计中你将单间建筑的类型学扩展了很多。

AK：是否能够将一个建筑类型深入下去，很多时候取决于在种种偶然情况催生的建造任务下，设计师采取积极还是消极的态度解决问题。有时候我得到的那些委托，其他建筑师根本就不会去做。但这种项目实际上做起来，不管在建筑层面上，还是在城市规划的层面上，往往还是有相当的潜力。对于我来说，将一个建造任务研究透彻，挖掘出藏在任务书背后的所有可能性，是设计的基本前提。“城市小品”就属于这一类“困难的项目”，甲方相当喜欢将这一类项目委托给我。建筑手段非常直接，传统建筑学意义上的游戏空间少之又少，使得这类项目成为某种有趣的挑战。有时候项目的成立悬于一线之上，资金、材料或者是否能够通过审批，直至构造都可能成为这条具有决定意义的线，而对这些因素的思考都能在建筑空间上反映出来。

HC: 先锋，这个原来的战争术语已经成了某种陈腐无比的隐喻。作为对此的回应，克劳斯－于尔根·鲍尔在1998年为你出版的专辑所写的前言中提到：“在战术上，先锋队这种作战单位实际上是不存在的。它们总是在某个特殊的情况下应运而生，从战术的意义上来说是一种工具。”在战场上，先锋队总是位于最前线，但在某些情况下，前线很可能就是阵营的大后方。

除此战术工具外，我对“修补术”这种手法也很有兴趣，修补术在此是指将各种混杂元素作为设计依据的逻辑。这些元素并不总是新的，它们常常是既成事实。因为在建筑学中，设计总是跟不同的事物发生关系，我们可以说，值得信任的只是呈现出的事实本身。形式层出不穷，它们最终为其周边条件所局限。对形式的消解并不是通过“结构”来完成的，我们知道，解构主义者在他们短暂的活跃期内将这种手法做到了眩人眼目。

问题在于，建筑学是否真如你所说的一样，是“将不同物质整合为一个元素”：我们用什么来构筑世界，减法还是加法？到目前为止，我选择了后者，对选择出的元素进行精炼。而你则在不同的时间内尝试了两种不同的方式：1977年－1978年间，你和奥托·卡普芬格尔出版了《维也纳类型学》和《维也纳学派》两本册子，你们在1980年代早期的那些小型的建筑项目对于我来说装饰性也过强了，过份专注于氛围营造。而在1980年代中期，你（或者你们）忽然放弃了营造氛围。你在1984年发表的关于汉斯·霍莱因的散文“美丽的碰撞”在这种态度转变中扮演了重要的角色。那时侯，我在施瓦岑贝格皇宫里负责餐厅的修建，我有计划但无目的地使用了各种风格和形式符号去营造一种氛围。

我质疑当下人们对“装饰”和“气氛”的理论新解。难道他们不是像追求新精神的明星建筑师一样，以“主题化、广告化、图面化”的愚蠢方式将建筑变成了文化工业？难道他们不是将建筑作为“消费品”来思考？他们不再将建筑看作创造，这难道不是一种媚俗？这一切，如果不是在欺骗消费者和自欺欺人的前提下，难道真的是可能的吗？

AK: 有多种方式可“将不同物质整合为一个元素”：事实上，我们的目的是创造一个新的体系。一方面，它可以将现实与理想状态之间的差距减至最小；另一方面，它将形式化的解决方式插入现实与理想之间，并尝试将差异最大化呈现。为此，我们既可以用加法，也可以用减法，常常我们两者并用。对“破碎形式”的使用将完整形式中的每一个可感知的细微组成部分作为前提，即使是小而又少，这些细微的成分还带有些微叙事性。在我的作品中，气氛的营造在极致简约与最大繁复之间摇摆，通过这种类似呼吸的方式，使被边缘化和被遗忘的元素复苏，被重新创造。

现在，我们看到对立的两者：建筑消费与建筑创造。在建筑行业，人们自然也希望营利，建筑的商品性成为讨论的中心，建筑从而成为产品和商品。商品不应该带上历史（生产、手工劳作等）的痕迹，所以它的特征被削弱，叙事性也大大降低。在被呈现给市场之前，商品本身的形成过程被抹杀掉。历史与个性被文化工业提出的指标们均衡掉，这确实加剧了不真实性，成为一种媚俗。要尝试解决建筑作为商品那种进退两难的困境，有不同的办法。如果建筑师足够天真，他可以完全忽略这个事实，忽视所有建筑作为商品应该满足的需求，忽视生产所需的时间，忽视生产的过程，这样一来，商品作为物的一面以及它的语境都被忘记了。场所的缺失，以至于根本不为某块特定的地域建造，这造成了一种超越文化差异的品质，而使得建筑带有乌托邦性质。

但建筑师不可能让自己的设计独立于所有的需求。建筑是整个商业社会链条上的一个环，建筑师装作对此一无所知，将建筑包裹起来，使其陌生化，继而失语。这种失语的状态在消费者和生产者之中都能见到。他们失去了对文化的感受力和反应力，也在一定程度上，迷失了自己。

HC: 我一直置疑功能在建筑中看似无可争辩的重要性。就像你说的那样，如果功能可以被明确定义，我们都在修建“可以使用的东西”。而一旦功能在设计之外扮演了某种角色，“平衡”也就被打破了。事实上，所有建筑设计涉及的元素：构造，功能，形式，在设计完成之前都是不存在的。使用和行为是建筑被人感知的途径，就像我们通过耳朵感受音乐（也没人会觉得这是一种感官的局限）。

你写道：“建筑不必只是背景”。而我觉得“建筑就是背景”，我考虑的不只是平庸的无谓之物，而是要将某种性格赋予这个背景，使它坚强挺立，使人们有所依靠。

椅子就是一个很有说服力的例子。1960年代对人类工程学的探索也没能做到让椅子成为“以人为模具生成的形式”，而是拥有主动性，可以通过一定的点支撑人们脆弱的身体，使人们感到舒适。

现在的问题在于，功能到底在建筑中扮演着什么角色，而它又是如何地构成了设计。

AK: 功能当然是建筑设计的内涵。它不是物，也不是某种形式。如果任务书或者竞赛标书限定了建筑的使用目的和组织框架，这些元素也仍然不能被称之为建筑。一个任务书明确的建筑竞赛会带来迥异的设计方案。即使如此，功能这一概念在建筑中还是不容忽视，就算人们以此为名糟蹋了很多建筑。功能作为概念不仅是建筑设计的内涵，也是决定任务书设计的关键元素。我认可你在2003年写的相关文章：“功能不存在于设计之前，而是生成于设计中。跟空间和结构一样，功能随着建筑的产生而出现。是的，建筑的艺术魅力不在材料，不在结构，不在雕塑般的形体，甚至不在光、不在空间，而是存在于人的行为中。”

HC: 你使用了“认知性意向”这一贴切的说法来解决阿道夫·路斯在思考中遇到的问题，这些问题让他创造出一种形式语言，从而区别于其他的建筑师。

路斯有一个几乎是可悲的理论，这一理论被约瑟夫·弗兰克继续深入：一种对他者带来的变化的接受。是路斯最早——我在这里引用自己的文章“改建”——“描写了关于可怜的有钱人的故事：一幢房子如何被移交给陌生的后来人，并且不得不承受某种美学品质的改变。路斯让我们认识到一种足够强大的建筑，它提供一个框架，开放，可以包容任何新事物，甚至对不幸的扭曲也有所准备。”这样的情况在我们合作完成的哈德镇项目中也发生了，我们到现在也没有仔细讨论过租户的自由到底应该有多大。

AK: 现代社会对建筑的要求越来越高。路斯的话有时候带有某种宣言的意味，他的作品，那种隐约的过分繁复的青年风格，保持在某种为大众接受的安全线内，最终走入了死胡同，尽管是水平很高的死胡同。当代建筑成了一种自我挑战和自我满足的场所。那种既无动机，也没有相应质量的过分活跃，反而导致建筑的社会文化向度逐渐萎缩。

让我们还是借用你的话来说：建筑作为一种学科，其实是一种建筑性的思索。这种思索在很多场合被过度形式化，它的规则被陌生化，成为原来的对立面。尽管如此，建筑性的思索仍然是所有建筑活动的基础。□

Hermann Czech (HC): The historical Viennese city structure strongly suggests that one could find a generally applicable figure-ground structure of usable space and development, for which every concrete planning solution represents a special case.Not to be forgotten is your section of the master plan for the Donau City (published with Heinz Neumann) and its mental projection into the third dimension: as an upwards and downwards extension,conceptualized from a zero level, which must not be the "grown"－in the present case indeed already artificial－upper boundary of the grounds. At the time I called it a "secular contribution to Viennese urban design," by which I meant not only a local reference but a history of planning considerations as a whole.

Adolf Krischanitz (AK): The "Donau City Master Plan" was to a certain extent an "open heart surgery"in the sense that the plan at the time called for a three storey underground garage structure for the World Fair scheduled in Vienna. After the fair however was cancelled the only thing that remained was a construction excavation. A master plan was created from this emergency situation, based on what was now a level of minus 9 meters. In light of this circumstance we used the available vertical potential from minus 9 to plus 80 metres in order to conceptualize the city district and developed 42 by 42 metre building site modules, which allowed for a successive development of the area, without establishing a final planning status. It was a kind of ongoing planning in consideration of the previous planning steps with a guaranteed development potential for every lot, while maintaining spacing and observing regulations for permeation of natural daylight according to the Vienna building code.

HC: The thought of a one room building whose inside and outside necessarily correspond (of course this includes cathedrals), has always interested me.It represents the exception to principle I formulated in the "Plischke-Schule" against the "Rainer School,""Architecture is at least two storeys high." You have made extensive use of this building type in the draft.

AK: Whether one makes extensive use of a(building) type or not, is naturally often results from coincidences of the contract situation, which one can master by going into the offensive or the defensive. I also received contracts which were completely out of the question for other architects,but which harbored a hidden architectonic or urban developmental potential. It became one of my cardinal rules to continuously rethink tasks until the potential slumbering within them became apparent.The pavilions were as a rule such "impossible"tasks,which were ultimately gladly consigned to me.The naked, direct method of working with little space for the usual architectonic wishes was a challenge. These tasks are sometimes determined by an existentially saturated totality, which affects the economics, the material, the possibility of being granted a permit and the construction of the architectonic space.

HC: Considering that the at any rate admittedly obsolete metaphor of the avant garde comes from the art of war, in the introduction to your monograph published in 1998 Klaus-Jürgen Bauer emphasized that the avant garde is “not a fixed entity in the tactical sense, but depending on certain strategically determined situations becomes a tactical instrument.” The avant garde is there in the field, just where the enemy is, and in certain circumstances also at the rearguard.

In addition to this tactical instrument I am also interested in the bricolage method, in the sense of its logic, which is the basis of haphazard appearances. It is not always new, but more often existing inventory. It is heterogeneity, because

when one is involved in architecture with very many things, that is the only credible result of objectivity.There are a multitude of forms on hand, but they are relativized by their context. Destruction of form does not occur through the use of “destroyed”forms, as one sees in Deconstructivism, which in the short time it existed has become very pretty.

It is the question of whether architecture,as you write, is the "unification of all things in a single being": Does it contain the world more by reduction than by enrichment? Until now I have taken the second path－limited by selection.With you there was a change: the catalogues you and Otto Kapfinger produced, Wiener Typen and Wiener Studien from 1977 and 1978, and also your small architectures from the early 1980's were too decorative for me, too much devoted to the reflection of atmosphere. You, or you both suddenly gave up this atmosphere in the middle of the 1980's.Your essay about Hans Hollein ("Schöne Kollisionen")in 1984 played an important role in that regard.At that time I was designing the restaurant floor in the Palais Schwarzenberg and used stylistic and trivial associational material, for the production of atmosphere－in my view methodically, not motivically.

I am suspicious about the current theoretical basis of ornament and atmosphere. Don't they simply mean－just like the "news value" of star architecture, like those "theming, branding, and imaging" strategies and all the associated nonsense－the appropriation of architecture to the culture industry? Aren't they trying to reorient architecture away from production to consumption, which is a definition of (involuntary) kitsch? And is that possible at all without consumers and self-betrayal?AK: One can attain the "unification of all things in a single being" in different ways: apparently what is involved is the installation of a new system of relationships, which on the one hand has as its goal the lessening of the difference between a state that is real and one that is strived for, but which on the other hand inserts a formative program for the heightening of the selectivity between the two states. Enrichment or reduction can furnish the necessary means to that end, and both are often employed. The use of the“destroyed forms”presumes a consciously accessible quantum of intact forms, which should be endowed with a minimum of linguistic capability, in order not to disappear into an abyss. The oscillation of the atmospheric in my work, from absolute reduction to its maximizing, is that cultural respiratory process which is capable of reviving the marginal and the forgotten in order to push new developments.

The paradigm trap is set: consumption versus production of architecture. Since of course the construction industry is concerned with profitability,the marketability of architecture is also subject to debate, so that architecture becomes merchandise,a product. Since a product ought to be realized as unencumbered as possible by its/an actual history(production, traces of craftsmanship, etc.), an impoverishment of its established characteristics and thereby its linguistic capability results. The traces of its existential genesis and being become blurred and it reaches the market unmediated.In the sense of the requirements of the culture industry, this lack of history and thereby identity is

mercilessly compensated. It is actually sublimation into the false, and therefore really kitsch. There are different strategies for reacting to the dilemma of architecture as merchandise. If one is naive enough, one can even become addicted to the idea of generating a product that is released from all demands of production, duration of development,or from its own history and thereby from its own physical existence and context. The cultural difference arises from superseding the location and the general localization. The work exists in a utopian state.

Of course the product (house) is not free of all demands. As a part of the social circulation the product or merchandise only acts as if it were not, seals off itself, estranges itself and becomes speechless in a certain sense. This loss of speech pertains to the consumer as well as to the producer. They lose a portion of their cultural ability to react as well as their flexibility and thereby a part of themselves.

HC: I have always doubted the apodictic role of function. There would have to be, as you say an"exclusively usable thing unto itself" if function had such a defining power. But the gist of the term of"balance" is also unsatisfactory, to the extent that it always assigns a role to function outside the design.In fact everything－construction, function, formis mediated in the design. That means it is created by the design and is not there until then. Use and behavior are perceptual modes of architecture and as with music which is apprehensible through our sense of hearing (which no one has experienced as a hindrance), architecture is by nature usable.

You write that "architecture does not have to be background." With my assertion that "architecture is background", I was not just thinking about the cases of trivial meaninglessness, but also about the background with character, on which one can rely and which endures.

The chair (or armchair) is the concrete example. The ergonomic investigations of sitting from the 1960's also did not produce the "conforming to the human body," but rather an "active" profile which supports defined points of the unstable body,which perceives them as comfort.

The question is, what meaning function has within architecture and what the connection is to the design.

AK: Of course function in architecture is immanent to design. It is positioned neither objectively nor solely according to form. If for example a program for function or a description matrix establishes certain types of use and the organizational forms in an architecture competition, this is still not architecture. A competition on the basis of a common program for function produces very different results as a rule. However the term of function in architecture is not completely to be dismissed, although much abuse is thereby perpetrated. Aside from the design immanence of the term function in the architectonic process,function is a program factor. But I agree with your formulation from 2003: " 'Function' is not determined by the design, but is always first transmitted in the design. It is until then not there; like space and construction it is created by architecture. Yes,the real artistic material of architecture is not the construction material, the construction, the

sculptural form, or even space or light. It is the behavior of human beings."

HC: In a felicitous phrase you called the solution of conceptual problems by Adolf Loos “cognitive figures,” which are distinguished from the formal characteristics of others.

There is admittedly a trait one can call tragic in Loos, which is continued by Josef Frank: The idea of a possible future change by others. Loos was the first who could－I quote here from my article"Umbau"－"write the story about the poor rich man that describes an apartment, a house, in which the users continue to live and have to put up with the taste decisions of someone else－that is, with another ethic…Loos lets us imagine an architecture which is strong enough to be a guideline, to encompass much, but which is also aware of the distortion." We haven't yet discussed what the tenants in our concrete housing development in Hadersdorf are allowed to do.

AK: The demands on architecture are increasing.The Loosian statements, which have a thoroughly manifesto-like character, are of course to be seen against the background of exuberant, but still somewhat collectively established stylistic selfexperiments (Jugendstil), which led to stagnation at a high level. In the meantime architecture has become very much a domain of self-service and self-experimentation, whose calm social cultural dimension has atrophied in favor of a hyperactively determined agitation, which is justified neither by the occasion nor the quality that is finally achieved.

The subject of architecture is, to go back to what you say, exclusively the architectonic idea. This idea, in many cases obliterated by form, alienated from its rules and transformed into its opposite, must continue to be the basis of every architectonic intervention. □（本文首次出版于/This text was first published in: "Adolf Krischanitz: Architecture is the difference between Architecture", edited by Uta Graff, published by Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, Germany, 2009）