天大建筑学人:哲匠齐物,亦礼亦诗
2017-04-06张利ZHANGLi
张利/ZHANG Li
天大建筑学人:哲匠齐物,亦礼亦诗
Tianjin University Architecture Alumni: Craftmanship, Principles and Poetics
张利/ZHANG Li
又是五月,又是我们聚焦于文革以后中国建筑教育的时刻。每年的这个时刻都是令人兴奋的,而在今年尤为如此,因为此时恰逢我们所关注群体的母校80周年校庆。我们今天所注视的是一个坚韧执着、严谨求实,以哲匠精神推动中国当代本土建筑创作前进的群体——天津大学建筑学院(前天津大学建筑系)的建筑学人。新中国、特别是改革开放后中国最好的建筑作品中,有相当大的一部分是来自于这个群体的。对这一群体的审视也让我们从一个纵切面接近中国当代本土建筑创作的中坚。按照惯例,我们的观察范围仍然是在1977年后在此接受建筑教育、目前在建筑设计及相关领域中具有代表性的人。
天大建筑学人在认识论上保持着一种中立与清醒。这与天津这座城市的历史不无关系。从明代的海岸卫城到第二次鸦片战争后的开埠,天津几乎被强制性地从旧制军事重镇转化为多元外来文化的商贸集散地。此后一个世纪的激烈文明碰撞与价值观摩擦在赋予天津活力的同时,也带来不停的动荡。天津承载了近代中国的军事与工商业的重要发展,也目睹了民族主义对外来宗教渗透的抵制、列强租界的频繁易手与战乱年代的权力纷争,直至其“城头变幻大王旗”的格局随着新中国的建立而结束。这种在相对紧凑的时空范围内密集呈现的多元价值冲突与交替在事实上造就了天津知识界的中立视角,及其在种种潮流面前的不动声色。作为根植于天津的高等教育机构,天大建筑秉承了这一城市的知性传统。在改革开放后的30余年中,输入式思潮对中国本土建筑教育冲击频繁,“后现代主义”、解构主义、参数化设计、平权与社会批评等,林林总总,每次皆有摧枯拉朽之势,每次亦掳得信众芸芸。而天大建筑在每次冲击前都表现出一种从容与冷静,处乱不惊,恪守其关于建筑学与建筑教育的基本立场。这种认识论上的中立态度使天大建筑与其他院校相比自成一体:它既非儒之伦理,亦非道之逍遥,而更似墨之非攻。
天大建筑学人在方法论上维系着一种笃信与坚守。自创建以来,天大建筑学人一直是建筑形式美基本原则的践行者和捍卫者。在建筑的故事中,从阿尔伯蒂的建筑师修养,到哈姆林的“建筑艺术所特有的均衡与宁静”,到西扎的“一切都是关于比例”,基本的形式美一直是建筑贡献于文明史的最令人信服的方式。遗憾的是,后工业社会对“更新的新”的群体盲动把对基本形式美的颠覆看成是“自由”与“解放”的必要途径,也使陌生化成了唯一的审美诉求。在国际建筑教育界中持“基本形式美落伍”论的大有人在(所幸多为书面建筑人士)。然而,见异思迁的机会主义从来不是天大建筑方法论的一部分。创立者徐中先生所奠定的对“建筑中美的存在形态与美的协调”的关注贯穿了天大建筑60余年来的教学、研究与实践,即使在近年的面向国际化的锐意改革之中,也从未中断。当世界上一些潮流建筑学院开始以画图为“耻”时,天大建筑的空间组合、形态合成与建造呈现体系仍然在不断地丰满,且与时俱进。在我国建筑学界的交流过程中,无论是学生还是专业人士,多数都会对天大建筑在形式美方面的基本功积累留下深刻的印象。从漂亮的钢笔线条、精致的平面布局、清晰的工程逻辑到典雅的建成空间,从脱颖而出的学生竞赛作品到当代中国城市的重要公共建筑,天大建筑把对基本形式美的信念带入一个又一个新的时空。
天大建筑学人在目的论上承载着一种博爱与包容。如果说“意司契而为匠”,则天大建筑之“意”在于对本地实情的深入体察与对建筑介入的顽强信心,因此而成天大建筑学人为之自豪的立足本土、务实创新的执业取向,也因此而成穿越建筑类型或尺度壁垒的共通影响力。在当今社会的“细分市场”结构下,建筑师也难免被逐渐专业化,归入文化、医疗、商业、交通、行政、居住、实验等诸多彼此割裂的领域,鲜见有人能在多个领域同时创作出有影响力的作品。天大建筑学人是一个群体性的例外,我们看到多人在小至国际艺术展装置、大至城市综合体的跨度内游刃有余地连续推出佳作,以不变的本土精神诠释文化性、纪念性、公共性、实验性等多方面诉求,他们自己也因此身处中国当代建筑的引领者行列。这种以平等的关怀对待不同的建筑类型或尺度,以同样的求索来抵达建筑的秩序与诗学的素养,已经成为了天大建筑的一种可识别的性格。
每个当代的建筑学院都需要面对巨大的挑战,天大建筑对此当颇有感触。全球化浪潮所导致的超级区域性资源集聚使天津面对更为复杂的地缘形势;网络文化所带来的审美消费快餐化在不断冲击着社会的形式美底线;国际化的竞争要求本土设计思维积极向外辐射;等等。然而,可以预期的是,无论如何革新与精进,天大建筑仍将作为中国本土哲匠精神的一个鲜明代表,在中国当代建筑与当代建筑教育中独树一帜。
感谢天津大学建筑学院张颀教授、宋昆教授及冯琳老师为本辑付出的努力,是他们的工作使本期专辑成为可能。
It is May now, time again for us to focus on post-cultural-revolution architecture education in China. This usually exciting time gets even more exciting this year, since it coincides with the 80th anniversary of the university to which the school we are about to look at belongs. We are about to observe a community known for its consistent contribution to Chinese land-based design: Tianjin University Architecture Alumni. It is fair to say that a chunk of the best built spaces in China after 1949 is from this community, even more so after 1978. A closer look at this community brings us eventually to some of the key figures in the domestic design fi elds of China. As all the other issues of our alumni series, the people we publish in this issue are those who were educated in the School of Architecture (previously Department of Architecture) of Tianjin University after 1977 and later became important fi gures in Chinese architecture.
There is an impartialism and calmness in the epistemology of Tianjin University architecture. Part of this comes from the history of the city of Tianjin. In the 1860s, the city was rapidly transformed from a 17th century seafront Fortress to a 19th century trade harbour of multi-cultural colonialism. A century of clash of civilisations thereafter defined the Tianjin's vibrancy as well as its turmoil. Up to the end of WWII, Tianjin boosted the early development of Chinese military and industry, witnessed anti-Christian movements of the Boxers, hosted transfers of concessions among western powers, recorded the worst of war-time power struggles. Until all types of disarray settled down after 1949, Tianjin has experienced extraordinarily frequent shift and replacements of short-lived dominating values. This helped the creation of impartialism among Tianjin intellectuals. They tend to show disinterest in trendy stuff. The School of Architecture of Tianjin University has inherited this intellectual quality. After 1978, numerous trends in western architecture education has hit Chinese shore and has taken many Chinese schools as followers. First there was "post-modernism", then there was deconstruction, then anxious social critiques, then parametric design. Tianjin University Architecture remained sombre in each of these waves. They have managed to adhere to their fundamental position in architecture education. They have kept a unique epistemological character which is quite different from both the ethics of Confucianism and the escape of Taoism. Rather, it is more like Mo Di's non-attack.
There is faithfulness and persistence in the methodology of Tianjin University Architecture. Since it was founded, the School of Architecture of Tianjin University has become a de-facto guard of basic principles of architecture beauty in China. We all know that basic and universal beauty is what architecture has contributed most to human civilisation. The basic principles have been reiterated throughout millenniums by voices like Alberti, Laugier, Hamlin and Siza. Only in the post-industrial time recently that these principles are deemed by some as outdated. Driven by collective unconsciousness, "new for the sake of new" has effectively set the departure from basic principles as the norm for new and liberal architecture. Architecture writers give further mandate to this departure. Interestingly, going-with-the-wind is never a part of Tianjin University Architecture approach. Its founding father, Professor XU Zhong, initiated a lasting investigation into the existential state of architecture beauty. This investigation has been carried on throughout the 60+ years of teaching, research and practice of Tianjin University Architecture. While some contemporary architecture schools of the world are deeming it "shameful" for architects to draw, Tianjin University Architecture still encourages its community to draw and make. While the faith in composition and form synthesis remains untouched, the vocabulary of Tianjin University Architecture is getting constantly updated. In the Chinese architecture circle, it is no news that people from Tianjin University Architecture know how to draw and make in a beautiful way. From fine line drawings, to crystal-clear floor plans, to well-sorted construction logic, to elegant built spaces, Tianjin University Architecture always try to bring the basic principles of architecture beauty to the next level.
There is tolerance and compassion in the teleology of Tianjin University Architecture. A Chinese proverb says that craftmanship is led by meaning. Tianjin University Architecture's craftmanship is certainly led by its deep insight into the reality of Chinese life and its belief in architectural intervention. For decades, Tianjin University Architecture alumni have taken pride in doing projects by and for reality, and making good works across the spectrum of building scales and types. Even when today's design market is sophisticatedly divided into small patches of buildings for culture, health, commerce, transportation, offices, housing, experiment, etc., Tianjin University Architecture alumni still find their ways into creating good things regardless of scale and building type. Several leading figures have even managed to produce highly regarded works in all building genres, from installations at biennales to complexes in metropolitan cities, fusing multiple qualities such as monumentality, identity, civic life and experiment into one localised interpretation. Treating all buildings (sizes and types) equal, and searching for moments of poetics has been a distinctive character of Tianjin University Architecture's way of looking at the profession.
Every architecture school of our time faces huge challenges. Tianjin University Architecture certainly has its fair share. Globalisation has resulted in ultracentralisation of resources in mega-cities and has put cities like Tianjin in a difficult position. The cultural life (or the lack of) in the internet era has dramatically lowered people's regard on beauty principles. International competition has made it a must for any domestic/local design approach to test itself in another culture. No matter what, we can anticipate Tianjin University Architecture to continue its own role as a unique representative of Chinese design.
Our special thanks to Mr ZHANG Qi, Mr SONG Kun and Ms FENG Lin, who have made this issue possible.
清华大学建筑学院/《世界建筑》
2017-05-11