建筑的真实与真实的建筑

作者：Bas ten Brinke，70F建筑事务所

By Bas ten Brinke, 70F architecture

从全方面考虑，建筑的本质是一种感知。而真实也是如此。换言之，你眼中的真实与我眼中的真实是不同的，所以说是基于感知的。当代社会中，物理实在的重要性日渐减弱，同时“地点”也不再是一种物理性限制，而是被赋予了全新的自由感。因此在这样的时代背景下，建筑行业也正在努力提升其自身的价值。或者说，至少我们是在为此而努力的。

丢失真实

上世纪初，人们开始担心会丢失真实，担心的原因是由于技术流动性逐渐增强，技术复制开始出现，更准确地说，就是地域限制的突破以及图像技术的变革。(1)后来就出现了电视机，我们突然可以通过图像看到其它地方的真实情形。过去我们一般是在现场或是同一个地点观看演出，突然之间可以在另一个地方通过电视机观看了。

很明显，这就出现了一个关于真实的问题。与我们亲眼所见的相比，以真实情景为基础的图像是否有所不同，或者说是否没那么“真实”呢？换言之，与剧院里看的表演相比，在电视上看到的节目是否没那么“真实”呢？

这个问题目前仍未能找到答案，反而变得更加深刻。因为即使是我们的思想，似乎也已处于迷失的危险之中。

丢失你的思想

随着智能手机的上市，我们突然之间得以与世界各地相联系，而且这种联系并非暂时的，而是持久的。在日常生活中，我们也总是会不时翻看脸书，照片墙，和WhatsApp等应用程序，看看别人都在做些什么，有没有人想和自己聊聊天。所以，不仅我们的身体和眼界已经突破了地域限制，就连我们的思绪似乎也常常飘游到远方，这在历史上还是第一次。

眼见为实

然而，问题仍未得到解答——什么是真实的，什么是不真实的？或者说，某件物体是不是真实的？或许，根本就没有答案。我们得出的结论应该是：最有意思的也是唯一真实的就是每个个体对事物的不同感知。我们可以将现实情景复制为图像，或者说我们可以足不出户就了解任何地方的真实情景，然而图像记录与现实生活，隔屏观赏与亲身体验之间，始终是存在差距的。

你是否曾立足于Rothko的画作之前？抛开你脑海中想象的画面。抛开你曾在书中看到的描述。亲身观看的确是另一种体验。那才是你该追寻的真实。或者，正如著名诗人马瑟斯三世写道：

快速回到现实中。噢，地心引力来了……(2)

你会感觉到一种从头到脚的震撼。你也会沉浸于其中。你会很享受在那里的每一秒。

“真实”的建筑

我们第一次近距离感受这一关于真实的理论是在2007年为当地一个表演“艺术”(3)的剧组设计剧院时。剧组表演的是三个朋友的故事。其中一个花了200.000法郎买了一副白色绘画。另两个人就十分气愤，他们不明白怎么会有人花这么多钱买一副画，还是一副似乎只有白色的画。

我们在自己的建筑作品中给出了答案。观众席位于舞台正对面，四周包裹的严严实实，就像是两面垂直和水平方向都相向而立的U型墙。从稍远一些的地方看，建筑就像一个白色的箱体，上面还有一个大洞。透过建筑外框，可以直接看到后面的景象，也就是，分别位于剧场两边的观众与演员。建筑上的洞，如同一个相框，而这个相框内所展示的，不是单一的观众席或舞台，而是整个剧场的一切。因而也涵盖了观众与演员之间的无形互动。

此外，建筑选址于公园之内，听上去似乎有些荒唐。其方位的设计，使得演出结束之时，观众正好可以看到建筑一侧的日落美景。如果我告诉你这座临时建筑仅树立了半年之久，你可能就会明白我们这个项目的讽刺意味和美感了。

建筑的真实感

没有什么工具能够创造真实。我也不可能写完这本手册之后，就告诉你，只要你按我的方法去做，你就可以通过建筑设计去创造出真实。我唯一能做的就是告诉你我们设计了什么，为什么要这么设计，材料有哪些。目前，后者的答案已经清楚。

实践中，我们只采用“真实的”材料。也就是说，我们选用某种材料是因为其自身特有的品质。有些人可能认为，木材是“真”材料，塑料是“假”材料，但我们不这么认为。塑料和木材一样，都是真实的材料，不需要刻意隐藏。而应该予以重视、突出、接纳和完善。使其成为建筑的一部分，但不要滥用。

不是非常必要的情况下，我们通常不会给木材染色。这样可以欣赏并感受到木材的原生态纹理。混凝土也是如此。涂上颜色简直就是对原生态美感的亵渎。我们设计的项目会采用大量单板。对我们来说，单板与木材图片之间存在明显差异，常用于防火板产品中。如果是纯粹主义者，可能要求更高，他们认为只有实木才称得上“真材实料”。中密度纤维板只用薄薄的一层是不够的。我们不这样认为。我们的观点是，无论木材多薄，木材的图片和实物仍然存在差异。

然而对于这一存在争议的问题，更直观更全面的答案可能是：通过所选用的材料，人们可以欣赏并感受得到你在设计中所花费的心思和时间。设计的作品也可以在众多建筑中脱颖而出。

感受建筑

前几日，我和妻子受邀去阿姆斯特丹一家新开业的高级餐厅就餐。我们知道这家餐厅是印度尼西亚风格的，所以猜想它的设计应该比较常见，至少在我们国家是比较常见的。但事实并非如此。这家餐厅(4)设计精妙，匠心独运。餐桌上的菜肴大都是寻常菜，我感觉很好。

我们原本的猜想源于我们家乡一家印度尼西亚餐厅。我们曾经去过那里一次，我对那家餐厅的设计抱怨重重。我不喜欢那家餐厅。总觉得缺少点什么。虽然我也给妻子解释了其中原委，但她还是不能完全理解。餐厅里面装饰过多，而菜品缺乏新意。太糟糕了。

而这次我和朋友去的这家餐厅，让我感觉到了明显的区别。这里有其独到之处，让我感觉很不错。如果让我概括它的特点，我想应该是简单，是设计师的热爱。

唯一美中不足的是餐厅的洗手间。或者说，是洗手间的位置。我妻子觉得洗手间太远了，我还好。因为我愿意多走走，可以欣赏餐厅内部设计，还有周边的酒店。这也让我想起了另一个建筑学上的关键点——功能。

建筑功能性

我们的建筑，或者应该说是我的建筑，都是从功能设计开始的。任何建筑最先要确定的就是功能，也就是说保证其具有功能性。我们会花大量的时间和精力去制定完善的平面布置图，因为我们以及我们的作品都是为客户服务的，而不是我们自己。正门入口在哪里?太阳在哪个方位？厨房在哪里，厨房里的炉灶又在哪里？卧室和浴室在哪里？我的外套要放在哪里？

钥匙放在哪里？平面图如何反映我们的日常活动？这座建筑是客户要长期或短期居住的地方，因此最重要的是保证其完整的功能性。而在明确功能之前，还有一个需要认真思考的重要问题——环境。

熟悉背景

我们的任何设计过程的结果都是以背景开始和结束的。建筑的时间和地点对我们的设计来说都至关重要。我们不崇尚所谓的“地标性”建筑。因为这些建筑一般与周边背景不相容，也不符合近邻社区和用户们的需求，其关注的只有自身。

任何建筑的有效参数都是时间、地点、功能，是这样吗？我们认为是这样的，并且也是这样做的。环境参数有很多，我们要做的就是将这些参数精简到可接受的数量。对此，我们采用的方法是——对话。与员工对话，与客户对话，与自己对话。我们工作中多数时间都是在进行对话商讨，确定任何环节之前，我们都会先进行讨论。我们会一边讨论，一边绘草图，或制作实体模型。对话商讨和背景明确都进行完之后，就要开始选择材料了，这是我们最后一步——细节设计。

生活在于细节

严格意义上来说，我们在任何设计环节中所投入的体力和脑力精力，最终都归结为一件事情——细节设计。细节设计是一项工艺，而且是一项很费时的工艺。要保证所有细节都相融合，四个维度都要考虑到。三个维度是不够的，因为不同事物的融合要有一定顺序。我们在关注边边角角、各类材料、以及切实可行的设计方案时，都会去思考，我们距离构想的和最终作品还有多远？这就是我们想要的答案吗？这一处细节是否完全体现出我们的构思？这在建造过程中是否可行呢？或者说，我们能否让建筑方相信，这是可行的呢？或许对这些问题我们还没有答案，但至少我们清楚，这就是我们所爱。并且我们热爱它的全部。

很多人喜欢数字版出现之前的模拟录制音乐。两者的区别很明显，数字音乐只能说是断断续续的曲线图，而模拟音乐却是非常流畅的。数字音乐是将真实音乐以阶梯式曲线表现出来，以数字格式存储。

想象一下，一个建筑设计有圆角。那么圆角处的窗户就要采用整块弧度玻璃，否则就只能将窗户分段建造，以仿造出弧度。这也是模拟音乐与数字音乐之间的差别。数字音乐总会少些什么。我们能听得出来吗？我们听不出来。我们能感受得到吗？没错，虽然听不出，但我们可以感受得到。

热爱

我想，我们已经找到了答案。就是内心的热爱。我们热爱建筑。而且不止是我们。仔细看看Peter Zumthor在Juhani Pallasmaa等处的诸多作品。你会发现，它们都是源于对建筑的热爱，不掺任何杂念。

如何判断某些事物是否真实，仍未得到解答。尽管我知道，这样的问题只在上世纪初期出现过，但我也相信以后还会出现。大概20年前，我自己在进行研究的时候就遇到过这样的问题，现在我的学生和员工们在生活中也会遇到这样的问题。什么是真实，我们该如何处理真实？这个问题问得好，但到目前为止，我认为这是个学术性问题。答案可能有很多。作为建筑师，我们唯一能做的就是坚持本心，为用户创造我们所构想的体验。

唯一令人信服的解答，是你在工作中投入的热爱之情。这种情感是可以感受到的，也必将赢得赞赏。塑料这样的材料尽管用，但要保证使用的方式恰当。木材也尽管用，但要体现出来。混凝土尽管用，但要满怀感情地使用。热爱是唯一可以助你实现最终目标的方法。而你的最终目标就是——建筑。

建筑

如果说，有什么可以实现无法复制的体验，那么我想应该就是建筑了。这些体验包括听音乐、赏艺术、感受大自然等等。在这些短暂的时间内，似乎一切都变得有意义。观众与演员之间的无形互动，飘荡在剧场上空，形成一种微妙的联系，在短暂的时间里呈现着另一个世界。我想把这段时间定义为真实。

这就是建筑能做的，也是应该做的——创造这种真实。

注释：

1.——引自1935年Walter Benjamin的《机械复制时代中的艺术作品》。

2.——引自2002年Eminem歌曲《迷失自我》。

3.——1994年Yasmina Reza《艺术》。

4.——阿姆斯特丹Spinozastraat 61号，Mama Makan

Architecture is, all things considered, about perception. The same goes for reality.Your reality is different from mine. In a world where physical reality seems to be losing its importance and ‘place’ is no longer a physical restriction but a new found freedom, architecture is trying to find its importance in all of this. Or at least our architecture is.

Losing Reality

At the beginning of the previous century people were worried to lose reality because of increased mobility and the introduction of technical reproduction. Or, to put it more clearly; place and image.(1)Later, they came together in television; we suddenly saw an image of some reality of a place other than our own. As we used to watch a play live and on the same spot, suddenly we were watching it on a tube, on a different spot.

Apparently the question became one of reality; is an image of reality different or less‘real’ than looking at it irl, with our own eyes? And is watching a play on television less ‘real’ than watching it live in a theatre?

The question remains unanswered. But it has become a more profound one.Because now even our minds seem to be at stake.

Losing your mind

With the introduction of the smartphone, we are suddenly connected to the whole world continuously, not sporadically. As we go about to live our lives, we are checking Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp to see how others are doing, what they are doing and checking to see of any of them wants to speak to us. So, for the first time in history, not only our bodies or vision are somewhere else, now even our minds seem to be somewhere else continuously.

Seeing is believing

But the question remains; what is real and what is not? Or is it? Maybe there is no answer and we should conclude that the only interesting and real thing is; our personal perception of it. We can reproduce or be somewhere else all we want but there will always be a difference between the record and live, between being there or looking at it on screen;

Have you ever stood in front of a Rothko painting? Forget the image of it you will find online. Forget the book you have read about it. Seeing it live is an experience.There’s reality for you. Or, as the well-known poet Marshall Bruce Mathers III puts it:...Snap back to reality. Oh, there goes gravity...(2)

You will be swept off your feet. You will lose yourself. And you will love every second of it.

The architecture of reality

Our first project that had a closer look at this reality-theory was a theatre we made for a local theatre group playing ‘art’(3)in 2007; a play about three friends of which one of them buys a white painting for 200.000 French Francs. The friends go nuts as they do not understand why someone would do such a thing, especially for something that appears to be just a painting of the colour white.

We gave the answer in our building; it puts the audience opposite the scene clearly and definitely, covered from all sides, like two U-shaped walls opposite each other,vertically and horizontally. Looking at the building from a little distance, you will see a white box with a large hole in it. You can look straight through the building to the scenery behind it, seeing the audience on the one side and the actors on the other. The hole shows, like a picture frame, not the audience, not the actors, but everything that happens between them. The invisible interaction is framed.

Additionally, the building is put in a park like a folly, rotated in such a way the audience will see the sun set next to the building as they are watching the end of the play. You will understand the complete irony and beauty of the project when I tell you the building was only a temporary one; it existed for only half a year.

The reality of architecture

There are no tools for creating reality. I cannot write a handbook and tell you; if you do it this way, you will be creating reality with your architecture. The only thing I can do is tell you what we do, why we do it and where it all comes from. The latter should be clear by now.

In our practice, we only use ‘real’ materials. What it means is, we use materials because of their own qualities. Where some people might consider wood a ‘real’material and plastic a ‘fake’ one, we do not. Plastic is as real as wood, just don’t try to hide it. Emphasize it, love it, use it, challenge it. Make it part of your architecture,but don’t waste it.

We don’t paint wood if we don’t have to. You should see and feel the grain of the wood. The same goes for concrete. Painting it would be sheer blasphemy. We use a lot of veneer in our projects. For us there is an apparent difference between veneer or a picture of wood, which is used in many HPL products. A purist might go even further and claim only solid wood is the ‘real thing’. A thin layer of it on MDF will not suffice. We don’t agree. For us there is a real difference between a picture of wood and wood itself, no matter how thin.

But the even more apparent and overall answer to this discussion would be; the thought and time you put into the design will be appreciated and felt. It will be the thing that makes it stick out from all the rest.

Feeling it

Recently, my wife and I were invited for dinner in a new fancy restaurant in Amsterdam. Beforehand we knew it would be Indonesian which has the presumption of being generic, at least in our country. This turned out not to be true.The restaurant(4)was carefully designed and crafted, and the food was nothing but ordinary. It was good.

Our reference was an Indonesian restaurant we have in our home town. We went there once, and I was complaining about the design of it. I hated it. It lacked something. My wife did not understand despite my efforts to explain the horror. It was all décor and the food was generic. It was bad.

Sitting there having dinner with some of our friends, the difference became apparent. There was something different about the place, something good. The answer to what it was, was simple; it was love.

The only thing left to complain about was the toilets. Or at least the position of them.As I loved the walk all the way there, appreciating the interior of the restaurant and the adjacent hotel, my wife was less lucky; she thought they were located too far away. Which brings us to another interesting architectural top; function

Making it work

Our architecture, or should I say mine, starts with function. Before anything else, a building should submit to its function and be just that; functional. We put a lot of time and effort into creating a perfect floorplan, as we and our architecture are serving the clients, not ourselves. Where is the main entrance? Where is the sun? Where is the kitchen and once in it, where is the stove? Where is the bedroom and where is the bathroom? Where can I put my coat? And my keys? And how does the floorplan reflect our daily rituals? The building becomes the clients machine to live in or live with. It should be absolutely clear and without nonsense. But before function, there is another major architectural component to be reckoned with; context

Settling down

The result of any of our design processes starts and ends with context. The place and time a specific building will be put in, is of paramount importance to our architecture. We do not believe in so called ‘iconic’ architecture; buildings that are not connected to the surroundings and disrespect the neighbourhood and the user,since this architecture only seems interested in itself.

Aren’t the only interesting parameters in any building place, time and function? We think so, so that’s where we start. The number of contextual parameters is huge; our task is to bring them down to an acceptable few. Which we do by dialogue. Dialogue with our crew, with our clients and with ourselves. A great deal of time in our office goes into dialogue. We talk before we do. This talking goes hand in hand with sketching and making physical models. And after this process and defining context and function, the choice of materials results in our final task; detailing.

Life is in the detail

Technically, the sum of all we do and think in any design process, boils down to one thing; details. Detailing is a craft, a time consuming craft. Everything has to fit and all four dimension have to be considered. Three is not enough, because there is a sequence in which things have to be put together. And as we go about looking at corners, edges, materials and practical solutions we wonder how far or close to our concept and architecture we are. Is this the real answer? Does this detail represent all we had in mind? And is it buildable? Or can we convince the builder that it is? We don’t know yet, but we do know one thing. We love it. We love all of it.

There are many people that prefer analogue recorded music before the digital version. The difference should be clear; digital music can only be described as a blocked curve, where analogue music is an absolutely fluent one. Digital music is a stepped interpretation of the real thing, a sample defined in bits.

Imagine a building with a rounded corner. The windows in the rounded corner could be made of one perfect piece of curved glass, or the windows could be segmented in order to fake the curve. That’s the difference between analogue and digital music.There is always something missing in digital music. Can we hear the difference? No,we cannot. Can we feel it? Yes, we can.

Love

So, there you have it. Love is the answer; we simply love architecture. And we are not the only ones. Have a closer look at Peter Zumthor’s work, at Juhani Pallasmaa’s or many others. It is driven by love and nothing else.

The question of something being real or not will always be there. Although I am sure it only popped up at the beginning of the previous century, I am also sure it will be alive for the rest of times. I see it in my own study some twenty years ago, and in the life of my students and employees today. What is reality and how shall we deal with it? It is a good question, but by now I feel an academic one. The answer is redundant. The only thing we can do as architects, is to stay true to ourselves and the experience we want to offer to the people using our buildings.

The only convincing argument in all of this, is the love you will put into your work. It will be felt, it will be appreciated. Use plastic all you want, but use it the right way.Use wood all you want, but show it. Use concrete all you want, but cherish it. But love is the only thing that will bring you to your final goal; architecture.

Architecture

I guess architecture, if anything, should create the conditions for uncopiable experience. The experience we sometimes have listening to music, looking at art or experiencing nature. That short moment in time when suddenly everything makes sense. That ungrabable interaction that happens sometimes between spectator and actor, the thing in the middle that floats in the air, that beautiful connection, which makes the rest of the world disappear for a short moment in time. That moment that I would like to define as real.

That’s what architecture can and should do; Create that kind of reality.

1 – From ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ by Walter Benjamin, 1935

2 – From the song ‘Lose Yourself’ by Eminem, 2002

3 – ‘Art’ by Yasmina Reza, 1994

4 – Mama Makan, Spinozastraat 61, Amsterdam