公共空间中游戏的力量

利亚纳·勒费夫尔/Liane Lefaivre

黄华青 译/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

公共空间中游戏的力量

利亚纳·勒费夫尔/Liane Lefaivre

黄华青 译/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

“我并不是想要在文化的各种理论中定义游戏的位置，而是想要确定文化本身究竟在何种程度上包含游戏的特质。”——约翰·赫伊津哈，《游戏的人》[1]

自从阿尔多·凡·艾克在1946年以一个叛逆“愤怒青年”的姿态闯入建筑学界，他的文章和宣言对建筑学思考的影响之大，恐怕很少有建筑师或评论家可望其项背。[2]他创造了很多重要的词汇、口号和标语，已融入到标准的建筑学语境之中。在他具有划时代意义的、恒久的贡献之中，包括对“空间”和“场所”的区分。[3]另外，他还将哲学家马丁·布伯的哲学概念“之间”引入建筑学[4]。简单地说，场所就是“之间的场域”。当他最初在建筑学和城市设计语境中，将空间和场所的区别理论化，这被看作是极具威胁的。一直以来，已有不少关于场所营造的尝试——主要来自于1960年代，例如简·雅各布斯这样的平民论者、所谓的批判地域主义者、肮脏现实主义者等等——但阿尔多·凡·艾克的阿姆斯特丹游戏场仍然是最为成功的。背后的原因也不难理解。建筑的从业者无法察觉到这些特质，是因为它的概念如此无形、虚无缥缈。因此建筑学对它们的忽视也是令人震惊的。这些游戏场不仅是阿尔多·凡·艾克最重要的作品，而且也是对建筑学、城市主义乃至战后艺术界最具原创性的贡献之一，而且它的潜能远未得到充分挖掘。

在1950年代末到60年代，有一系列关于阿姆斯特丹游戏场的照片，捕捉到它们对阿姆斯特丹的影响力。这些照片的焦点并不在儿童的特写，而更多关乎城市环境。它们有其独一无二之处，是源自设计背后的概念，与阿尔多·凡·艾克的思考息息相关。他一直和负责这项建设的政府官员密切合作，改善阿姆斯特丹的游戏场。根本上，项目前后的对比展现了一种蜕变的本质，也就是从所谓的城市“空间”向城市“场所”的蜕变。

要说有多少游戏场应归功于凡·艾克，仍然没有定论。他自己估计，自从他1947年设计第一个柏特曼广场游戏场以来，在阿姆斯特丹有700个游戏场是“按照我的设计建造的”1）[5-6]。然而，在查阅市政档案库之后发现，数量远比这更多。档案材料中记录，仅在1957-1959年间，在阿姆斯特丹城西的新郊区——古斯维尔德、斯洛特瓦尔特、斯洛特米尔——设计的游戏场，大多数是由政府按照凡·艾克的最初设计元素复制的，而由他亲自设计的更细致的、独一无二的、为场地量身定制的游戏场，也有约200个之多。那些他人模仿的游戏场算是凡·艾克的游戏场吗？这取决于你如何定义它们。狭义地说，它们不是；广义地说，它们是。实际上，从后一种定义来说，考虑到1947年以来游戏场在全荷兰的大规模拓展，它的数目将不可估量。阿尔多·凡·艾克对荷兰城市景观的改变，比他自己意识到的程度还要高得多。

造反有理

亨利·列斐伏尔曾论述现代化进程对传统、历史城市肌理带来的压迫2）。根据列斐伏尔的理论，20世纪早期见证了一个不断加速的趋势：场所发生解体，另一种全新的、匿名的、贫瘠的、技术主义的空间则以前所未有的速度出现。这种空间被维克多·布吉瓦称作“理性发展”[7]，被勒·柯布西耶称作“光辉城市”[8]，被路德维希·希尔塞姆称作“大城市建筑”[9]，被科尔·范·伊斯特伦称作“功能城市”3）[10]。

另一个二战后影响了城市设计思想的重要转变，是从国际现代建筑协会倡导的“自上而下”的城市设计方法，转向一条“自下而上”“肮脏现实”“情境化”的路径。第一个对国际建协式的城市规划做出真正改变的——至少是一种补充——就是阿尔多·凡·艾克设计的游戏场[2]。除了凡·艾克之外的十人小组成员，都将追随他的脚步。有两个设计可以概括在第一个游戏场设计之后产生的城市设计方法的巨大差别：一个是1934年凡·伊斯特伦的阿姆斯特丹总体扩建规划（AUP），拥有统领一切的标准化空间、严格僵化的街区；另一个在阿姆斯特丹的约尔丹街区肌理中嵌入的战后游戏场。一个是服从“总平面”的设计策略；另一个可以称作见缝插针的、多中心的策略。

凡·艾克为特定城市环境做适应性设计、而不是采取预设条件设计的理念，和战后很多其他领域有共通之处，例如，文学、电影、政治学、哲学和科学等。从普通语言哲学家、存在主义者、现象学家到数学家，其典型特征是反对先验的概念和抽象的形而上原则，尽管相互之间也存在意见的分歧，但却保持同一共识：将要解决的问题放在真实的“境遇” “生活在其中的环境” “体验经历”“临近文脉”、时代的“情境”精神中看待，尤其受到让-保罗·萨特的存在主义理论的影响。凡·艾克对“空间”和“场所”的区分，可以看作是萨特关于“虚无”和“存在”的哲学理念在建筑学领域的呼应[2，11]。自然，凡·艾克和萨特都反对宏大叙事、自上而下、权威体系。萨特认为，这些理念都受制于一种“内

"It was not my objective to define the place of play among other manifestations of culture, but rather to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play."

J. Huizinga, Homo Ludens[1]6

From the time Aldo van Eyck burst onto the scene as a rebellious "angry young man" in 1946, his writings and statements influenced architectural thinking to a degree that has rarely been surpassed by other architects and critics[2]. He coined many important phrases, catchwords and slogans that have passed into standard architectural discourse. Among his epoch-making and lasting contributions was the distinction between "space" and "place"[3]. Another was the importation into architecture of the philosophical term of "in between" that he borrowed from Martin Buber[4]. Simply put, place was the "realm of the in between." When he began to theorize about the space/place distinction in relation to architecture and urban design, it was perceived as extremely threatening. There have, of course, been examples of attempts at place-making – mostly from the 1960s, with populists like Jane Jacobs, with so-called critical Regionalists, and Dirty Realists – but Aldo van Eyck's Amsterdam playgrounds are among the most successful. The reason is understandable to some extent. The architectural profession was not capable of perceiving them because they were so immaterial, built out of thin air, as it were. This oversight by the profession is surprising. The playgrounds are not only Aldo van Eyck's most important works, but they were also one of the most original contributions to architecture, urbanism and art of the post-war period, and one whose potential has yet to be tapped.

A series of photographs of Amsterdam playgrounds, taken in the late 1950s and 1960s, captures the kind of impact they had in Amsterdam.Their focus was not close-up and engaged with actual children, but rather on the urban environment. But they do have a uniqueness, and it lies in the concept behind them that has everything to do with the thinking of Aldo van Eyck, who was working closely with the civil servants responsible for implementing the Amsterdam playgrounds, fundamentally, their before-and-after character illustrates the essence of the metamorphosis of what may be called urban "space" into urban "place".

Just how many playgrounds can be attributed to van Eyck is open to interpretation. He himself guessed that since 1947, when he built his first one on the Bertelmanplein, 700 "were carried out according to my designs" in Amsterdam1)[5-6]. A check in the municipal archives, however, reveals many more. Archival material documenting the playgrounds designed between 1957 and 1959 for the new western suburbs of Amsterdam – Geuseveld, Slotervaart and Slotermeer – points to mass production of playgrounds by civil servants based on van Eyck's initial design elements as opposed to the detailed, unique, in situ designs that characterise the approximately 200 playgrounds built up to that time. Are they van Eyck playgrounds? It depends on how you define them. In the narrow sense of the term, they are not; in the largest sense, they are. In fact, in this latter sense, given the superabundant spread of playgrounds all over the Netherlands since 1947, the number is myriad. Aldo van Eyck has changed the Dutch cityscape to a much higher degree than he ever knew.

Rebel with a cause

Henri Lefebvre wrote about the pressures that were brought to bear upon traditional, historically inherited urban fabric in the process of modernization2). According to Lefebvre, the early twentieth century saw a marked increase in the tendency toward the dissolution of these places and the unprecedented rise of a new, anonymous, sterile, technocratic alternative space that Victor Bourgeois referred to it as "rationelle Bebauungsweisen," (rational development)[7], Le Corbusier to "la Cité radieuse"[8]Ludwig Hilseimer to "Grosstadt Architektur"[9], and Cor van Eesteren to the "functionele stadt"3)[10].

1-3 荒凉的城市空间转变成公共空间的三个例子，源自作者从阿姆斯特丹档案中发现的照片/Three examples of the transformation of deserted urban space into public space from photographs discovered by Liane Lefaivre in the Amsterdam archives（©Amsterdam City Archives）

One more major change that affected the thinking about cities in the aftermath of the Second World War consisted in turning this "top-down" CIAM approach to urbanism on its head and adopting an approach that was "ground-up", "dirty real", "situational". The first real alternative, or at least complement, to CIAM-style urban planning was these playgrounds by Aldo van Eyck.[2]The other members of Team Ten besides van Eyck, were to follow in his footsteps. Two images sum up the difference in approach to the city that accompanied the design of the first playground: van Eesteren's General Expansion Plan of Amsterdam (AUP) of 1934, with its sweeping standardizing, regimenting blocks, and the insertion of some post-war playgrounds into the fabric of the Jordaan neighbourhood of Amsterdam.生的幻想”。因此，他鼓舞同代人、尤其是新的战后一代，更积极地“介入世界”和它的独特“处境”[11]。

战后的叛逆一代塑造的不满、傲慢的反英雄角色中，存在一种普遍态度，即反对传统、因循守旧和文化价值的“骗局”，同时在不同国家有着个性化的表现：在英国是约翰·奥斯本的“愤怒青年”，在法国是阿尔伯特·加缪的“反抗者”，在美国则是尼古拉斯·雷的“无因的造反”[12-14]。

另一个与建筑学更接近，而且同样反叛、反陈规、自下而上的思想，来自亨利·列斐伏尔的作品。列斐伏尔的《日常生活批判》与阿尔多·凡·艾克的第一个游戏场同样诞生于1947年，感觉上与城市地理学家皮埃尔·亨利·康巴·德·洛伊的《巴黎和大巴黎地区》一书有很多共同点[15]。

不过，就其对自上而下和自下而上的结合，凡·艾克的游戏场或许最接近于诺伯特·维纳的自动化理论，即研究自调节有机体如何持续根据新的输入信息而调节自身，通过反馈循环来从不断变化发展的环境中“学习”，这个过程或许可称作“往复调节”[16]。

见缝插针和肮脏现实的美学

这种自上而下和自下而上的思维方式之间的自动往复调节，存在很多不同的侧面。实际上，阿姆斯特丹游戏场独一无二的地方在于，它们见缝插针地嵌入于地段的生活肌理之中。它们都为地段量身而制，在庞塔努斯街游戏场是不平衡和块状的，在海坝区游戏场是碎片化和扭曲的。

对于场所精神的表达，始终无法脱离实际形式的异形或粗糙。现实总是肮脏而混乱，至始至终都是一种“肮脏现实”。沙福兹伯里的安东尼勋爵在谈到新的自然秩序、新的地形学地区主义时，曾感叹：“伟大的场所精神啊，你无处不在。我不应再压抑内心对自然之物的热情，无论艺术或是自负之人都无法闯入这种原始的状态，破坏它真实的秩序。甚至是粗犷的岩石、长满苔藓的山洞、未经雕琢的怪异洞穴、裂开的瀑布，所有这些荒野中骇人的优雅魅力，都是自然更真实的表现。在那些试图模仿自然的正统园林中，这些因素应得到更加壮丽的使用和表达。”[17]

这段话与凡·艾克在1951年9月5日写给阿姆斯特丹公共事业部主管的信传达出一样的精神。在这封信中，他拒绝美化游戏场周边裸露的防火墙，而将这种粗糙墙面的“雕塑性”现实称作“积极”的一面予以展示[18]。距离他的家乡更近的，是由阿斯葛·琼、康斯坦特·纽文华、柯奈尔·贝佛鲁和卡尔·阿佩尔等人组建的“眼镜蛇画派”。凡·艾克在战后与这些艺术家走得很近。战争期间，他在苏黎世联邦理工学院学习建筑，导师是卡罗拉·吉迪恩-维尔克——她是个有声望的权威人物、当时最伟大的艺术史学家和评论家之一，她将凡·艾克带进了前卫艺术的世界[6]。有趣的是，当他在1940年代末的战后回到荷兰，和他联系最紧密的并不是建筑师，而是与他同一代的艺术家。众所周知，凡·艾克和眼镜蛇画派的很多成员都是好朋友，而且在1949年，他们委托凡·艾克在阿姆斯特丹市立博物馆策划了名为“实验艺术”的著名展览[19]。我们还没有深入研究他的游戏场设计从这些艺术家中获得的启发。他为1947年国际现代建筑协会的布里奇沃特会议撰写的文章，正表达了他当时的思想状态。那篇文章叫作“关于艺术关联性与合作重要性的报告”[20]。

那个时代，艺术与建筑有很多的交叉。我们也可以看到阿尔多对眼镜蛇画派的主要人物之一康士坦特的影响[21]。至少在1945年迪克街游戏场的案例中，凡·艾克在设计游戏场的同时也创作了一幅艺术作品，贯彻了“实验艺术”展中的精神。与毕加索、加博、摩尔、查德金在鹿特丹创作的战后公共雕塑不同——那些雕塑是只能远观、与环境格格不入的纪念碑，而凡·艾克的游戏场则从它的环境文脉中“学习”。它是战后最早的为特定地段设计的雕塑之一。在这个意义上，它与库尔特·施威特的“梅尔茨谷仓”（1947）有惊人的相似之处——凡·艾克也与这位艺术家保持着通信[6]——这座雕塑嵌入泰恩河上的纽卡斯尔的一栋现存的破败建筑中，施威特自己曾于纳粹德国统治期间在这里避难[2]52-54。另外，也值得将阿尔多的游戏场和《眼镜蛇》杂志的第四期作对比。它和1949年秋在市立博物馆的展览有巧合之处，都以儿童为主题，例如柯奈尔的画作“儿童游戏与大太阳”（1949）。还有一个主要的角色反转，就是在“天真”、孩童般的“涩艺术”作品中，把儿童画当作成人的典范，例如让·迪比费、胡安·米罗和其他战后表现主义画家[22]。康斯坦特曾写道，“儿童知道的原则，只有对生存的自发性体验；他们所具备的动机，只有亲自去尝试。”

这使人联想到由彼得·史密森、艾莉森·史密森和阿尔多·凡·艾克联合编写的出版物《十人小组初级读本》（1961），就直接隐喻了儿童在小学学习阅读的那类书籍，以及在当时的表现主义画家中普遍存在的对基本真相及原初价值的回归。阿尔多·凡·艾克在某些游戏场的建筑效果图中所使用的儿童蜡笔画语汇，与眼镜蛇画派艺术也有共通之处。就像这些试图模仿儿童绘画风格的艺术家一样，凡·艾克将儿童蜡笔画用在效果图中，例如在海坝区游戏场的图纸中就可以看到。

游戏的人

凡·艾克的游戏场设计也表达了一种深层次的文化延续性，是对荷兰文化中“长时段”概念的现代诠释。正如西蒙·沙玛所指出的，可识别的城市环境中表现出的“儿童游戏”，是一种至少可以追溯至16世纪荷兰画派的常用主题。“没有什么比荷兰的绘画、印刷甚至墙面瓷砖的主题，更能说明荷兰文化对儿童和世界的特殊偏好了。有一系列关于儿童游戏的绘画，其理念同样是当代对待儿童态度的One conforms to the strategy of the "master plan", the other is what could be called the strategy of the interstitial and the polycentric.

Van Eyck's idea of adapting design to a given urban setting, rather than working with a pre-conceived set of assumptions, has an equivalent in the way many other people dealt with their respective fields in the immediate post-war period, whether in literature, cinema, politics, philosophy, or science. Characteristically, reacting against a priori concepts and abstract principles of metaphysics, researchers as varied as philosophers of ordinary language, existentialists, phenomenologist, and mathematicians , whatever disagreements they had, shared one thing: they approached their problems as embedded in real "circumstances", "lived-in conditions", "experienced cases", "immediate contexts", "situational" spirit of the time, in particular the existentialist writings of Jean-Paul Sartre. Van Eyck's "space" and "place" distinction can be seen as a parallel in the field of architecture to Sartre's more philosophical categories of "Nothingness" and "Being"[2,11]. Naturally, both van Eyck and Sartre rebelled against the idea of grandiose, top-down, authoritative systems. For Sartre they suffered from the "illusion of immanence." Accordingly, he had challenged his contemporaries, in particular the new post-war generation, to become "engaged in the world" and in its unique "situations"[11].

The attitude predominant among the discontented, upstart anti-heroes of the generalised post-war rebellion against the traditional, conformist, "big bluff" cultural values personified in England by John Osborne's "angry young man," in France by Albert Camus's "homme révolté," and in the US by Nicholas Ray's "rebel without a cause"[12-14].

Closer to architecture, we find the same rebellious, non-conformist, ground-up thinking in the work of Henri Lefebvre. Lefebvre's Critique de la vie quotidienne came out in the same year as Aldo van Eyck's first playground, in 1947 and bears a remarkable similarity in feeling or the of urban geographer Pierre Henri Chombart de Lauwe's Paris et l'agglomération parisienne[15].

But perhaps what van Eyck's playgrounds come closest to, in the way they combine top-down and ground-up, was Norbert Wiener's cybernetic theory of self-regulating organisms constantly adjusting themselves in response to new inputs, "learning from" their evolving contexts through feedback loops, through what one might call a process of "inbetweening"[16].

Interstitial and dirty real aesthetics

There are many facets to this cybernetic inbetweening of top-down and ground-up thinking. Indeed, what is unique about the Amsterdam playgrounds that they are interstitial, inserted within the living fabric of the site. They are all site-specific, now lopsided and blob-like as in Pontanusstraat, now fractured and contorted as in the Zeedijk playground.

The search to express the genius loci is always associated with irregularity or roughness of real forms. Reality has always been dirty and messy; it has always been "dirty real". Anthony Shaftsbury. Speaking of the new natural order, the new topographic regionalism, he proclaimed: "Your genius, Genius of the Place, and the Great Genius have at least prevail'd. I shalt no longer resist the passion growing in me for things of a natural kind; whether neither Art, nor the Conceit of Man has spoiled their genuine order, by breaking in upon that primitive State. Even rude rocks, the mossy caverns, the irregular unwrought Grottos, and broken Falls of Waters, with all the horrid Grace of the Wilderness itself, as representing Nature more, will be the more engaging and appear with magnificence beyond the formal Mockery of Princely Gardens"[17].

This is the same spirit in which van Eyck wrote a letter to the Director of Public Works of Amsterdam dated September 5, 1951 where he declined to prettify the bare firewalls surrounding the playgrounds, preferring what he called the "positive" aspect of the "sculptural" reality of their roughness[18]. Much closer to home, however, is the COBRA group consisting of Asger Jorn, Constant Nieuwenhuys, Corneille Beverloo and Karel Appel among others. Van Eyck had particularly close ties with artists immediately after the war. He spent the war studying architecture at the ETH in Zurich and also under the aegis of a senior, authoritative figure, one of the greatest art historians and critics of the time, who introduced him to the world of avantgarde art, Carola Giedion-Welcker[6]. Interestingly, when he returned to the Netherlands after the war it was with artists of his generation, and not architects, that he formed the closest ties in the late 1940s. It is well known that van Eyck was a close friend of many members of the COBRA group of painters, and that they chose him to install a famous show of theirs at the Stedelijk Museum in 1949 called "Experimental Art"[19]. What has not been pointed out is the formal debt his playground designs owe to these artists. His contribution to a meeting of CIAM in Bridgewater in 1947 is revealing of his state of mind. It was entitled "A Report concerning the Interrelation of the Arts and the Importance of Cooperation"[20].

There was much cross-over between art and architecture at this time. That Aldo himself was an influence on one of the main figures of the group, Constant, is clear[21]. In at least one case, the Dijkstraat playground of 1945, van Eyck created a work of art and a playground simultaneously, in keeping with the spirit of the Experimental Art exhibition. As opposed to the post-war public sculptures in Rotterdam – by Picasso, Gabo, Moore or Zadkine – which were conceived as monuments to be looked at in isolation from their surroundings, the playground "learns" from its context. It is one of the first site-specific sculptures of the post war period. From this point of view it is more than coincidentally germane to Kurt Schwitters's Merzbarn (1947) – an artist with whom van Eyck kept up a correspondence[6]– a sculpture carved into an existing dilapidated building in Newcastleupon-Tyne where Schwitters had taken refuge from Nazi Germany[2]52-54. It is tempting to draw a parallel between Aldo's playgrounds and the fourth issue of the magazine COBRA. It coincided with the Stedelijk exhibition of Fall 1949 devoted to the theme of核心，包括‘绕路和引导、自由和服从、探险和安全之间的永恒冲突’。不将儿童的游戏放置在想象的虚幻时空，而是放在有地形学意义的场所背景之中，周围几乎总是伴随着某些公共建筑，可以看到市政厅或行会大厦。这些背景所唤起的市民和公共美德，就是抚养得当的儿童应被引导的方向。”

正如沙玛所指出的，这些图像传统中令人震惊的是，“公共空间中除了儿童之外，什么人都没有。”[23]这种绘画传统是荷兰文化独一无二的，有着很强的现实基础。它对“游戏的人”的表达，并不只是为了游戏本身。就像赫伊津哈关于游戏的理论中所阐述的，它充斥着实践性的目的。它反映出的愿景是将共和国价值观早早灌输给儿童，将他们带入资产阶级社会的现实世界。

科尔·范·伊斯特伦，游戏的人？提升城市密度的途径

荷兰独特的儿童游戏传统，也能够解释为何科尔·范·伊斯特伦受到以阿尔多·凡·艾克为代表的新一代建筑师思想的影响，要比国际现代建筑协会的任何老一辈更多。实际上，这位自上而下、功能主义的老派建筑师及城市规划师，在他1934年的阿姆斯特丹扩建规划中还没有设计任何游戏场，而后来却成为一名全身心的、自下而上的情境主义者。他在1958年11月9日撰写的纪要中，习惯性地、也可以说亲切地将这种场地称为“小朋友的小游戏场”，并积极将它嵌入像斯洛特米尔这样的战后项目中[24]。

作为战后阿姆斯特丹城市发展的领导人，他激进地改变了自己的设计方式，这直接受到阿姆斯特丹游戏场的影响，在最近一项对阿姆斯特丹市政档案馆的研究中也有所展现。虽然没有抛弃自上而下的规划理念，但他开始从现存城市肌理的遗留地、缝隙场所的特殊性和异规性中“学习”，并以此作为设计依据，而非予以抛弃。因此，正是在这时候，年轻建筑师在1947年为了应对战后满目疮痍的城市对游戏场的需求而提出的点对点设计策略，正式成为了官方政策，而这正是新的街区迅速建设的时代。新城镇中每一个新建的街区，如果想要一个游戏场，就会得到一个。

顽皮的城市

就像眼镜蛇画派的画家一样，凡·艾克将孩童作为战前“功能城市”思想的反面。对于他来说，童年就等同于顽皮。就像我们在前文提到的其他思想一样，凡·艾克提出的“顽皮城市”概念也是当时倍受争论的话题之一。在战后的日常生活理论中，列斐伏尔使用了青年马克思提出的异化概念，勾勒出“日常性”理论的框架，指向普通的、重复性生活的潜能，而非生产或消费世界的相关物。列斐伏尔强调了所有人将城市作为娱乐和享受之地的“权利”，不受经济驱动力的影响，而是一种他称之为“节日”的场所。

阿尔多·凡·艾克的游戏场和约翰·赫伊津哈1938年的《游戏的人》都深信游戏的教化作用。阿姆斯特丹最早的游戏场常位于那些被驱逐的犹太人的住宅留下的空隙。面对这样的事实，将这些空隙用生活填满也是一种救赎的、治愈的行为，一种将被摧毁的社区关系重新编织起来的方式。他们的目的就是通过游戏的方式，提升或克服赫伊津哈所说的人们的“痛苦的”（或好战的）倾向[1]90-106。

自下而上和自上而下——参与式城市主义

阿尔多·凡·艾克的游戏场产生于一种半秩序、半散漫、高度参与性的过程，其中包括了几十年中很多人的努力。这或许可以称作一个自动的过程，既是自下而上，也是自上而下的，其中相互关联的大量参与者扮演着同样重要的角色，不可能将其彼此分离。阿尔多·凡·艾克只是最有名的一个而已。这个过程还包括，我们前面提到的科尔·凡·伊斯特伦、雅各布、穆尔德、阿姆斯特丹市民，以及公共事业部。这是一种复杂、互动式、剧烈的大量巧合和连锁反应的集合。游戏场由城市塑造，也反过来塑造着城市。城市被看作一个临时性现象，建筑师的介入行为也同样如此。如今，这看似是个显而易见的事实，但在国际现代建筑协会年代的思想中，重要的是“规划”——一种大尺度的、功能性的、永恒的空间模式。然而对凡·艾克来说，游戏场这种空间介入的形式，只在它们需要的地方和时刻出现[25]。

多中心的网

游戏场最具原创性和深远意义的地方，是它们共同作用时形成的一种网状特质。它们就像是一片星云，一个由具体情境产生的单元——即游戏场——组成的体系，与时间、偶然性和环境紧密相关。将城市作为一个开放图式的概念，再次引用1923年凡·杜伊斯堡和凡·伊斯特伦的风格派理论来说，消解了“室内和室外空间的二元对立”。或许更进一步，它使人想起皮埃特·蒙德里安的画作——凡·艾克将这位艺术家称为“天使”[26]。实际上，当我们把这700多个游戏场看作一个整体，它就像是蒙德里安的“星空”画作——他坚决取消了经典的、封闭式的、单中心的古典构图，而采取一种开放的、反经典的构图策略，建立在随即散布的、多中心的点网之上。在凡·艾克的个人画集中可以看到，他的“构成4号”作品就模仿了蒙德里安的这种绘画方式[27]。

这些游戏场从城市的裂缝和间隙之中产生，与现有的城市肌理叠加，也可以看作后来凯文·林奇称之为“多中心网络”的插缝式城市设计方法的先驱[28]。凡·艾克的“星空”城市，出现于很多空想式设计理念之前，例如，康斯坦特设计的“新巴比伦”、尤纳·弗里德曼设计的“移动城市”、沙德拉设计的柏林自由大学[2]118-141。从这个角度来看，凡·艾克在战后阿姆斯特丹设计的这片游戏场“星空”，也是战后城市设计最伟大的突破之一。（本文是即将出版的《为什么不让游戏场构成最好的公共空间》一书的内容概要。）childhood, with paintings like Corneille's Les Jeux d'enfants et le grand soleil (1949). In a major role reversal, the child became a model for the adult in "naif", child-like Art Brut works by Jean Dubuffet and Joan Miró, and post-war expressionists[22]. Constant, for his part, wrote that "the child knows no other law than the spontaneous feeling of being alive and knows no other imperative than to act it out."

One cannot help thinking that the collective publication by Peter and Alison Smithson with Aldo van Eyck called Team Ten Primer (1961) was a direct allusion to the kind of book children learn to read from in primary school and germane to the return to basic truths and primitive values that one finds in the expressionist painters of the time. Aldo van Eyck's architectural renderings in children's crayons of some of the playgrounds share something else with COBRA art. Like these artists, who were trying to imitate children in their drawing style, van Eyck used children's crayons in his renderings of the playgrounds, as the drawings of Zeedijk, for example, reveal.

Homo Ludens

Van Eyck's playground scheme also expresses a deep-seated cultural continuity in an updated form "longue durée" in Dutch culture. As Simon Schama has pointed out, kinderspelen or "children's play," represented in readily recognizable urban settings, is a topos of Netherlandish painting that goes back at least to the sixteenth century. "Nothing illustrates the peculiar bias of the Netherlandish culture toward children and the world more graphically than the compendia they put into paint, print and even wall tiles. There was a kinderspelen series of pictures embodying "the perennial conflicts between diversion and instruction, between freedom and obedience, between exploration and safety that were at the heart of contemporary attitudes towards the child. By situating the games not in some imaginary vacuum of time and space but in topographically meaningful (…) settings, nearly always with some public building, a town hall or guildhall in view, they evoke the civic and public virtues to which the correctly brought-up child should be led."

What is striking about this representational tradition, as Schama again points out, is "the absence of any figures other than children from these public places"[23]. This tradition in painting, unique to Dutch culture, had a foundation in reality. It was not so much an expression of homo ludens for the sake of play alone. As in the case of Huizinga's theory of play, it filled a practical purpose. It reflected the wish to instil republican values into children from an early age and bring them into the fold of the reality of civic life in a bourgeois society.

Cor van Eesteren, Homo Ludens? One approach to urban density

This uniquely Dutch tradition of kinderspeel goes a long way towards explaining why Cor van Eesteren was influenced by the ideas of the new generation, particularly Aldo van Eyck, more deeply than any of the CIAM old guard. In fact, this old top-down, arch-functionalist architect and urban planner, who had made no provisions for playgrounds in his extension plan for Amsterdam of 1934, became a devoted ground-up situationist, actively dedicated to placing what he, in a memo dated November 9, 1958, idiomatically and, yes, tenderly called Kleuterspeelplaatsjes or "small playgrounds for the little kids" in his post-war projects like Slotermeer[24].

As head of city development for the city of Amsterdam after the war, he changed his approach radically, and this was directly because of the Amsterdam playgrounds, as recent research into newly discovered archives in the Amsterdam Municipal Archive has shown." Without abandoning the idea of top-down planning, he began to "learn" from the particularities and irregularities of leftover, interstitial places in the existing fabric of the city and to work with them rather than overlook them. Thus it was that what had begun as an ad-hoc response of a young architect to a perceived need on the part of a war torn city for playgrounds in 1947 became, by the time the new neighbourhoods went up, official policy. Every block in the new towns that wanted a playground was granted one.

Ludic city

Like the COBRA painters, van Eyck used the child as a foil to the pre-war idea of the "functional city." For him, childhood was equated with the ludic. As with the other ideas we have mentioned above, the idea of the ludic city projected by van Eyck was part of the debate of the time. In the post-war Theory of Everyday Life he had used the concept of alienation developed by the young Marx as a springboard to outline the theory of "everydayness," or le quotidien, the potential of the humble and repetitive aspects of life, as opposed to those related to the world of production or consumption. Lefebvre asserted the "right" of everyone to the city as a place of pleasure and enjoyment, independent of the imperatives of the economy, as a locus of what he called "festival."

Aldo van Eyck's playgrounds shared with Johann Huizingha's Homo Ludens of 1938 a profound belief in the civilizing function of play. The very first playgrounds were embedded very often in the voids of Amsterdam where the houses of deported Jews had stood. Filling them with life, in the face of these facts, was a redeeming, therapeutic act, a way of weaving together once more the fabric of a devastated neighbourhood. The intention was to sublimate or overcome what Huizinga had called people's"agonal" (or combative)tendencies through play[1]90-106.

Bottom-up and top-down, participatory Urbanism

Aldo van Eyck's playgrounds arose within a semihierarchical, semi-anarchic, highly participatory process involving many people over many decades. It was what might be called a cybernetic process, ground-up, top-down, inter-relating a mass of agents, each playing an equally crucial role, impossible to disentangle from one another. Aldo van Eyck is simply the most well-known. Also involved in the process were, as we have seen Cor van Eesteren, Jacoba Mulder, the citizens of Amsterdam, and the Public Works Department. It is complex, interactive, seething mass of coincidences and chain reactions. The playgrounds were shaped by the city but they also shaped the city. The city was seen as a temporary phenomenon. So were the various interventions of the architect within it. Today this seems an obvious fact, but within the universe of CIAM thinking, what was important was the "plan", a large-scale,functional, timeless spatial pattern. For van Eyck, on the other hand, the playgrounds were actions in space occurring where and when they were needed.[25]

Polycentric net

The most original and significant aspect of the playgrounds is the net-like or web-like quality they assume when taken as a whole. They are conceived as a constellation, a scheme made up of situationally arising units – the playgrounds – bound to time, accident and circumstance. The idea of the city as an open-ended pattern removes "the duality of interior and exterior space," to quote van Doesburg and van Eesteren's 1923 text on De Stijl once again. Perhaps even more, it recalls a work by Piet Mondrian, an artist whom van Eyck referred to as "an angel"[26]. Indeed, when taken as a whole, the over seven hundred playgrounds can be seen as resembling Mondrian's so-called Starry Sky paintings, in which the artist decidedly moved away from the classical, closed, monocentric composition towards an open, anti-classical compositional strategy based on a randomly distributed, polycentric galaxy of nodal points, as he did also in his composition no. 4, a painting that closely resembles a Mondrian painting in van Eyck's personal collection[27].

Emerging in the cracks and interstices of the city and overlaid upon the existing urban fabric, the playgrounds are also forerunners of the interstitial approach to the city that Kevin Lynch was later to refer to as a "polycentric net"[28]. Van Eyck's "starry sky" city precedes the visionary schemes by Constant's New Babylon Yona Friedman's Mobile City, Shadrach Free University of Berlin.[2]118-141From this point of view too, then, van Eyck's design for this "starry sky" of playgrounds in post-war Amsterdam was one of the great breakthroughs of post-war urban planning.( This article is a summary of a forthcoming book entitled "Why don't Playgrounds Make the Best Public Spaces".)

注释/Notes

1）1980年，弗朗西斯·斯特劳文，凡·艾克和工程部门不同员工的作品总计730个。/In 1980, Francis Strauven, van Eyck and different employees of the department of public works counted 730 of them.

2） 两种空间类型的差异在列斐伏尔的著作《空间的生产》中有所描述。/The distinction between two types of space is presented by Lefebvre in La Production de l'Espace, Paris, 1974.

3） “功能城市”是1933年雅典国际建协第4次会议上的官方术语。/The "functional city" was the official term of the fourth congress of CIAM in Athens in 1933.

/References

[1] Johan Huizinga. Homo Ludens (First published in Dutch 1938) New York, 1955: 6.

[2] L.Lefaivre and A.Tzonis. Aldo van Eyck, Humanist Rebel: Inbetweening in a Postwar World, Rotterdam, 1999.

[3] A.van Eyck. Architecture of Dogon. Architectural Forum, Sept. 1961, 1961:121.

[4] A. van Eyck. Whatever Space and Time mean, Place and Occasion mean more. Forum, 1960-60: 121.

[5] Vincent Ligtelijn (ed.) Aldo van Eyck Werken, Bussum, 1999: 68.

[6] Francis Strauven, Aldo van Eyck. The Shape of Relativity , Amsterdam, 1998: 132-143.

[7] Victor Bourgeois. La Cite Moderne. Berchem-Bruxelles, 1922.

[8] Le Corbusier. La Cité Radieuse, Paris, 1921.

[9] L. Hilberseimer. Grosstadt Architectur , Stuttgart 1927.

[10] Annales Techniques. Organe officiel de la Chambre Technique de Grèce, 2. October 1933: 44-45, 1127-

[11] Jean Paul Sartre. L'Etre et le néant, Paris, 1943; Lefaivre and Tzonis, Op. Cit, 1999.

[12] John Osborne. Look Back in Anger, London, 1956.

[13] Albert Camus, L'Homme revolté, Paris, 1951.

[14] Nicolas Ray, Rebel without a cause, 1955.

[15] Pierre-Henri Chombart de Lauwe. Paris et l'agglomération parisienne, Paris 1952.

[16] Norbert Wiener. Cybernetics. Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Cambridge, MA, 1948.

[17] Anthony Ashley Cooper. Third Earl of Shaftsbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, Indianapolis, New York, 1964; First publ. 1711, vol. II, Part III, section II.

[18] Letter of Aldo van Eyck to the Director of Public Works, 27 august 1951. Amsterdam City Archives, 5213 inv. 2160, no 60.

[19] Willem Stokvis. COBRA, Geschiedenis, voorspeel en betekenis van een beweging in de kunst van na de tweede wereloorlog. Amsterdam, 1980.

[20] Comment of Aldo van Eyck on the sixth CIAM meeting at Bridgewater in 1947.

[21] Mark Wigley, Constant's New Babylon, Cambridge, MA 1999.

[22] M. Thévoz, Art Brut, New York, 1995.

[23] S. Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, New York, 1987, p. 495.

[24] Amsterdam City Archives 5213, 736.

[25] John Voelcker, CIAM 10. Dubrovnik 1956, Architect's Yearbook, 6, 1956.

[26] Aldo van Eyck, Toespraak bij de uitreiking van de Sikkensprijs, 1962; A. van Eyck, Niet om het leven. Van en over Aldo van Eyck, Amsterdam, 1986: 34-35.

[27] E.A. Carmean, Mondrian. The Diamond Compositions , Washington, 1979: 25-27.

[28] K. Lynch. The Pattern of the Metropolis// Daedalus, winter, 1961: 79-98.

The Power of Play in Public Space

维也纳应用艺术大学教授

2016-11-04