20世紀(jì)-21世紀(jì)泰國(guó)建筑的思考與實(shí)踐

東高·巴寧/Tonkao Panin

王冰 譯/Translated by WANG Bing

20世紀(jì)-21世紀(jì)泰國(guó)建筑的思考與實(shí)踐

東高·巴寧/Tonkao Panin

王冰 譯/Translated by WANG Bing

本期專輯所收錄的項(xiàng)目代表著21世紀(jì)伊始泰國(guó)建筑的形式與內(nèi)涵，它們類型不同，卻都有著某種共性?；仡?1世紀(jì)的前10年，我們遇到了很多挑戰(zhàn)。面對(duì)全球的環(huán)境危機(jī)，如何保護(hù)和挽救我們的生存環(huán)境已經(jīng)在所有專業(yè)領(lǐng)域成為人們共同為之奮斗的目標(biāo)，但仍有許多問(wèn)題是無(wú)法解決的。建筑思考與實(shí)踐以各種方式紛紛出現(xiàn)，體現(xiàn)了建筑師對(duì)建筑的看法。這些項(xiàng)目雖然多種多樣，目標(biāo)都是在建筑實(shí)踐的發(fā)展變化中發(fā)現(xiàn)平衡的不同類型，并提出平衡的理念。在眾多的建筑產(chǎn)品中，人們無(wú)法從中找到一個(gè)共同點(diǎn)，也不會(huì)對(duì)某一建筑有完全的認(rèn)同，平衡是理解不同方向或途徑的中間手段，這一手段在現(xiàn)如今被人們審慎地付諸實(shí)踐。在這些項(xiàng)目中，無(wú)論是在對(duì)理論的探索還是批判性的建筑實(shí)踐中都體現(xiàn)了建筑的平衡性，并且這種平衡性滲透在過(guò)去到現(xiàn)在的建筑設(shè)計(jì)之中，也將在未來(lái)得以延續(xù)。

建筑意識(shí)形態(tài)，實(shí)踐方式，意義與建筑

在20世紀(jì)的前半葉，泰國(guó)建筑經(jīng)歷了大規(guī)模的開發(fā)建造期，但建筑生產(chǎn)在一定程度上還缺乏理論研究。建筑生產(chǎn)作為實(shí)踐和政治的手段而受到大力支持，并獲得民眾和社會(huì)的廣泛關(guān)注，于是，“建筑該如何做”就變得比理解“建筑是什么”更為重要。這表明在當(dāng)時(shí)務(wù)實(shí)信條勝于理論研究。換句話說(shuō)，在20世紀(jì)前半葉，關(guān)于泰國(guó)建筑的論述更注重建造過(guò)程而非單純強(qiáng)調(diào)思索。

然而，在過(guò)去的30年中，泰國(guó)建筑的實(shí)踐重心已經(jīng)有所轉(zhuǎn)移，“建筑是什么？如何定義？如何建造？什么是建筑的訴求？”這些問(wèn)題都會(huì)在設(shè)計(jì)前期提出，成為建筑實(shí)踐的基本前提，這有助于建筑師基于地方建筑的社會(huì)文化特點(diǎn)而更好地理解建筑。這就解釋了為什么在過(guò)去的20年，我們看到相關(guān)建筑理論和實(shí)踐的學(xué)科發(fā)生了巨大變化。建筑相關(guān)的學(xué)位設(shè)置成倍增加，建筑及相關(guān)學(xué)科的專業(yè)出版社也迅速發(fā)展起來(lái)。過(guò)去鮮有的建筑出版物如今大量涌現(xiàn)。

“思考的過(guò)程”已經(jīng)為人們?cè)絹?lái)越重視，逐漸演變成自發(fā)的行為。近年來(lái)，泰國(guó)的建筑歷史和理論研究領(lǐng)域有兩個(gè)主要方向——關(guān)于建筑歷史和建筑的闡釋。首先，出現(xiàn)了大量關(guān)于建筑本體論的研究著作，其次是諸多相關(guān)既有建筑的出版物和再版物，這些閱讀物縱觀歷史，且品種繁多。無(wú)論如何，通過(guò)這兩個(gè)方向的研究著作，建筑歷史與理論已經(jīng)成為一個(gè)獨(dú)立的領(lǐng)域，逐漸脫離建筑實(shí)踐。建筑理論更多地成為一種對(duì)歷史的研究和匯編，以及對(duì)既有建筑物的闡釋，而并非著重設(shè)計(jì)的思考過(guò)程和新理念的研究成果。因此，理論和實(shí)踐之間的差距越來(lái)越難以彌合。今天的年輕一代建筑師將彌補(bǔ)建筑思考與生產(chǎn)之間的差距以及協(xié)調(diào)二者關(guān)系視為己任。在過(guò)去的10年中，建筑實(shí)踐帶有明顯的批判性，開始強(qiáng)調(diào)將跨領(lǐng)域的哲理性的設(shè)計(jì)思考與注重實(shí)效的生產(chǎn)過(guò)程相結(jié)合，而非將想與做的過(guò)程相向而立。與過(guò)去關(guān)注“已經(jīng)說(shuō)的”和“已經(jīng)做的”情況不同，在泰國(guó)帶有批判性的建筑實(shí)踐中，人們逐漸會(huì)去問(wèn)“該如何去做？”以及“如何理解目前的狀況？”

本著將建筑的思考與實(shí)踐相結(jié)合的共同目標(biāo)，在過(guò)去的10年中，泰國(guó)的建筑實(shí)踐要證明這個(gè)目標(biāo)并非只是一個(gè)假設(shè)，而是引人思考，從而尋求對(duì)我們行事方式可以構(gòu)成挑戰(zhàn)的方式，不僅僅只是簡(jiǎn)單地評(píng)論。在理論和實(shí)踐之間構(gòu)建一種創(chuàng)造性和批判性的對(duì)話，二者間的關(guān)系并不是通過(guò)一種單獨(dú)的方式或方向所能體現(xiàn)。換言之，其目的并非將理論思考應(yīng)用于實(shí)踐方式，或通過(guò)理論定位的例證左右實(shí)踐。相反，它是簡(jiǎn)單地問(wèn)——如何從嚴(yán)格的、批判的角度去思考并且提出具有創(chuàng)造性和生產(chǎn)性的建議[1]？當(dāng)人們將這種方法應(yīng)用于建筑研究時(shí)，它也改變了傳統(tǒng)的研究路徑，傳統(tǒng)路徑往往是從設(shè)計(jì)開始就指出了一系列問(wèn)題，并在一個(gè)特定的時(shí)間段內(nèi)探討它們。目前的建筑研究不一定遵循這一路徑，因?yàn)閱?wèn)題只會(huì)出現(xiàn)在建造和設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程中的某一階段。因此，研究問(wèn)題更多的是基于設(shè)計(jì)本身而不是單純的歷史和理論。

1 實(shí)踐的3種模式：從自主到接合

為了掌握目前泰國(guó)建筑實(shí)踐中的共同點(diǎn)，概述過(guò)去百年間不同的建筑實(shí)踐模式，這可能有助于我們進(jìn)一步了解21世紀(jì)建筑的自然演變。

如果說(shuō)建筑的產(chǎn)生是源于人類生存的需要，那么批判性理論的作用則是為建筑的發(fā)展確立方向。在過(guò)去的百年間，在針對(duì)泰國(guó)建筑的討論中再次質(zhì)疑了是否應(yīng)將文化、社會(huì)、政治、美學(xué)或象征性等相關(guān)因素作為建筑構(gòu)思與實(shí)踐的基礎(chǔ)前提。然而，這一看似共同的目標(biāo)卻通過(guò)各種不同的方法得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。比如說(shuō)，人們可以提出假設(shè)并論證建筑的自主性；設(shè)計(jì)師有權(quán)按照自己的理解決定建筑的形式和幾何形狀，這也顯示了他們的智慧或創(chuàng)造力。建筑是能夠?yàn)槿藗儙?lái)美學(xué)愉悅感的創(chuàng)造題材，但與我們欣賞畫作或音樂(lè)的方式不同。另一方面，人們可以否定所謂的形式自主性，發(fā)現(xiàn)隱藏在建筑尺寸、幾何形狀以及外觀背后的更廣域范疇的文化條件的影響，以及來(lái)自科技、社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)各方面的影響，這與我們所認(rèn)知的政治分歧和選擇的方式不同。在第二種說(shuō)法中，建筑不是一門獨(dú)立的學(xué)科，而是全面參與現(xiàn)代文明的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域中。介于二者之間的第3種實(shí)踐模式則認(rèn)為：建筑內(nèi)在的空間和組織形式也是人們社會(huì)交往、傳遞不同意圖以及與人互動(dòng)的載體。

這3種“思維模式”在過(guò)去的百年間影響著泰國(guó)的建筑實(shí)踐。雖然也存在其他的變化，這3種模式仍然是其中最重要的建筑實(shí)踐方式，向我們展示了如何以不同的方式解讀建筑。直到今天這些“思維模式”的想法與原則仍然與建筑設(shè)計(jì)有著重要的關(guān)聯(lián)性。

1.1 空間與形式的建筑美學(xué)

這種實(shí)踐模式只關(guān)注建筑的形式和外觀。在19世紀(jì)極為重要的建筑辯論就是相關(guān)藝術(shù)的象征手法與新興材料和工業(yè)文明的施工技術(shù)間的相互影響。但從20世紀(jì)開始，當(dāng)新式材料的應(yīng)用和生活習(xí)慣的科學(xué)分析改變了建筑的構(gòu)造和外觀，類似的問(wèn)題又出現(xiàn)了。在當(dāng)時(shí)提倡建筑生產(chǎn)要以公共科技社會(huì)的特點(diǎn)為設(shè)計(jì)依據(jù)，藝術(shù)理論教育也培養(yǎng)了個(gè)人的審美觀。其結(jié)果是，在科技支配力和個(gè)人想象力的共同作用下，人們?cè)噲D理解并制定了現(xiàn)代建筑文化的新秩序?，F(xiàn)代建筑特征的研究核心內(nèi)容是關(guān)于建筑空間、形式、外觀的創(chuàng)新性[2]。

通常來(lái)說(shuō)，人們對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的認(rèn)知方式可分為感性和理性兩種；前者主要是基于視覺(jué)體驗(yàn)，后者則是通過(guò)對(duì)所認(rèn)知的信息進(jìn)行概念重組這樣一個(gè)抽象的過(guò)程來(lái)完成的。如果說(shuō)理解力要通過(guò)想象力激發(fā)，那么感知?jiǎng)t發(fā)生在視覺(jué)想象或思考的領(lǐng)域內(nèi)[3]。但和19世紀(jì)的情況有所不同，在那個(gè)年代，有時(shí)人們會(huì)認(rèn)為用概念或抽象的方法去感知世界是不真實(shí)的，是低級(jí)的手段。這種傾向于理性思考的實(shí)踐模式可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致人們難以發(fā)展感知能力。于是，這種實(shí)踐模式試圖去協(xié)調(diào)事物的客觀規(guī)律和人們的主觀想象。

在20世紀(jì)之初，這種實(shí)踐方式出現(xiàn)在大師們的“非凡的創(chuàng)作”作品中，當(dāng)它又出現(xiàn)在20世紀(jì)末時(shí)則是以一種完全不同的形式?？陀^規(guī)律代替了主觀想象。建筑空間和形式的產(chǎn)生都可以圖示化的分析和制圖方法呈現(xiàn)。分析圖可以多學(xué)科的理論為依據(jù)，作為創(chuàng)造建筑形式的設(shè)計(jì)概念的有力支持。換句話說(shuō)，在塑造任何建筑空間和形式之前，設(shè)計(jì)師需要分析現(xiàn)有的全套信息，再將它們轉(zhuǎn)化成自己的一套設(shè)計(jì)概念和工具。這類的設(shè)計(jì)方法有很多，例如，采用生物學(xué)的原理去創(chuàng)建基于某種規(guī)則的聚合形式，這種形式在建筑師設(shè)計(jì)概念的控制下最終演變成建筑的形態(tài)。通過(guò)這樣的過(guò)程便形成了某種客觀依據(jù)和主觀想象之間的聯(lián)系。這是一個(gè)關(guān)于建筑是具象與抽象、外觀與內(nèi)在之間的統(tǒng)一體的論述。然而，這種思維模式主要是針對(duì)建筑空間和形態(tài)的生成。當(dāng)建筑主要依靠其觀感和設(shè)計(jì)概念的特征來(lái)表現(xiàn)，它是一門自主的學(xué)科規(guī)訓(xùn)，體現(xiàn)在建筑設(shè)計(jì)、生產(chǎn)以及建造過(guò)程的種種內(nèi)部事務(wù)中。

1.2 語(yǔ)義：建筑的意義

建筑實(shí)踐第一種模式的重點(diǎn)是建筑的構(gòu)成與外在表現(xiàn)，第二種模式則轉(zhuǎn)為關(guān)注建筑的語(yǔ)義內(nèi)涵。

這種思維模式的特點(diǎn)是尋求建筑的意義，這點(diǎn)在其中的許多側(cè)面都可以體現(xiàn)。換言之，設(shè)計(jì)的重點(diǎn)由外在表現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)而探求事物的內(nèi)在意義。我們可以通過(guò)觀察來(lái)認(rèn)識(shí)事物，但是更應(yīng)該去了解超越事物外在的其他更具內(nèi)涵的東西。一個(gè)建筑或藝術(shù)的形態(tài)在其外表之內(nèi)還可以承載一個(gè)內(nèi)含的象征意義，并且能為眼光獨(dú)到的專業(yè)人士所解讀。為了探討其意義，藝術(shù)和建筑作品不可避免地要與其他的文化語(yǔ)境相關(guān)聯(lián)，例如文學(xué)、人類學(xué)或社會(huì)學(xué)等等相關(guān)范疇。這種對(duì)意義的探求往往不僅對(duì)于形式，還包括建造的種種行為。例如，制圖、做模型或建設(shè)的意義，在建造的題材和建筑的表現(xiàn)過(guò)程中無(wú)所不在。當(dāng)具象的物體在建筑制圖中被分層表達(dá)，繪圖的各種方法也傳遞了圖紙所表達(dá)的意識(shí)層面。物體和方法可以被看作是在建筑和藝術(shù)生產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的兩個(gè)相互關(guān)聯(lián)的象征系統(tǒng)。

在這種思維模式中，一切事物都有其意義，沒(méi)有什么是無(wú)意義的。傳統(tǒng)的語(yǔ)意研究往往專注于對(duì)事物所蘊(yùn)含的意義進(jìn)行學(xué)術(shù)上的解讀，通常需要運(yùn)用知識(shí)的闡釋。與傳統(tǒng)不同，這種實(shí)踐方式會(huì)引導(dǎo)我們?nèi)リP(guān)注環(huán)境研究的意義。如果說(shuō)藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的意義可以通過(guò)其寓意和條理而被理解，那么，建筑和我們所處的環(huán)境之間的交流，則要通過(guò)環(huán)境的語(yǔ)意研究得以實(shí)現(xiàn)，并借此發(fā)現(xiàn)我們的建筑方法論。也就是說(shuō)，人們只知道作用于他們的最隱晦的影響力是記憶和聯(lián)想[4]。這與人們看懂一副寫實(shí)畫的方式不同，人們對(duì)建筑的真實(shí)感覺(jué)取決于某一特定時(shí)刻的感知，那些影響力只能通過(guò)一些具有參考性的建筑物來(lái)化解和消除。換言之，每時(shí)每刻的感知都蘊(yùn)含著個(gè)人和群體對(duì)過(guò)去的理解，我們的身體是對(duì)過(guò)去的轉(zhuǎn)化，過(guò)去每一刻的感知都會(huì)在身體中被重新組合，重新評(píng)估[4]。

這種對(duì)意義的探求由此轉(zhuǎn)化為兩個(gè)相互關(guān)聯(lián)的分析層次。首先，要理解每個(gè)事物所傳達(dá)的內(nèi)在含義；其次是了解場(chǎng)地更大的架構(gòu)或建造環(huán)境。在建筑設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)，這些思考方式往往會(huì)被轉(zhuǎn)化為對(duì)設(shè)計(jì)目標(biāo)和背景的分析過(guò)程。為了讓每個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)項(xiàng)目都可以被開發(fā)，建筑形式就需要基于與其所傳達(dá)的意義進(jìn)行類比設(shè)計(jì)。此外，每個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)都必須解讀與再解讀項(xiàng)目所在區(qū)域的構(gòu)造關(guān)系。從這個(gè)意義上講，建筑和建筑環(huán)境的關(guān)系也是一種建筑語(yǔ)匯，有其固有的語(yǔ)法關(guān)系，并可以根據(jù)特定情況和目標(biāo)而變化。采用這種設(shè)計(jì)思考方式的不只是紀(jì)念性建筑，也包括其他類型的建筑。這些建筑是社會(huì)大環(huán)境和文化背景的一部分，也包括當(dāng)代城市規(guī)劃的一些作品。與第一種批判理論的模式不同，前者是問(wèn)事物看起來(lái)像什么，后者則是探尋事物為何出現(xiàn)，以及不同組織下會(huì)產(chǎn)生什么結(jié)果。

對(duì)于第一種實(shí)踐模式來(lái)說(shuō)，人類的感知是建筑體驗(yàn)的中心，這種感知只是存在于此時(shí)此景的現(xiàn)場(chǎng)體驗(yàn)中，而沒(méi)有超越建筑自然存在之外的任何相關(guān)聯(lián)的意義。但對(duì)于第二種模式，人類的感知在本質(zhì)上沒(méi)有什么開始和結(jié)束。感知從過(guò)去到現(xiàn)在一直存在[4]，讓我們知道一切事物的意義。

1.3 意識(shí)形態(tài)、文化和政治

在20世紀(jì)的后半葉，泰國(guó)的政治立場(chǎng)和經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢(shì)成為主要議題，這些議題也滲透在大多數(shù)的教育論述中。問(wèn)題是：當(dāng)社會(huì)形態(tài)發(fā)生了根本性的改變，建筑生產(chǎn)是否還可以采用與20世紀(jì)前半葉相同的生產(chǎn)策略？還是應(yīng)該重新定義建筑實(shí)踐和開發(fā)的新策略？當(dāng)社會(huì)和文化的關(guān)注重心有所轉(zhuǎn)移，各種不同的問(wèn)題出現(xiàn)了，單純只在封閉的藝術(shù)和建筑領(lǐng)域?qū)で蠼ㄖ囊饬x就顯得不合時(shí)宜了。因此，建筑師和理論家只得被迫否認(rèn)所謂的形式自由性，去發(fā)現(xiàn)隱藏在建筑物尺寸、幾何形狀和整體外觀之后的更為廣域的文化條件的影響，這些影響無(wú)論是關(guān)乎技術(shù)、社會(huì)或經(jīng)濟(jì)的，與我們認(rèn)為的政治爭(zhēng)論和選擇方式并無(wú)不同。建筑不再是一門獨(dú)立的學(xué)科，而是與文化領(lǐng)域的許多方面息息相關(guān)。除了自身的美學(xué)和語(yǔ)義外，建筑還涉足了更為廣泛的文化范疇。

當(dāng)人們?cè)诮ㄖ?shí)踐的語(yǔ)義模式下嘗試去解讀建筑生產(chǎn)的意義，這一思考模式關(guān)注的是與社會(huì)、政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)以及學(xué)術(shù)界相關(guān)的大背景，而這一大背景可以使人們從更加廣泛的視角對(duì)塑造整個(gè)時(shí)代的種種現(xiàn)象加以更好地理解。換句話說(shuō)，這種思考方式的對(duì)象不是現(xiàn)象本身，而是其產(chǎn)生背后的整個(gè)大環(huán)境。在藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域里，建筑設(shè)計(jì)有其獨(dú)特的地位。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，繪畫和雕塑是獨(dú)立的藝術(shù)作品，人們可以在博物館與世隔絕的環(huán)境中去欣賞它們。但對(duì)于建筑來(lái)說(shuō)并不是這樣，建筑設(shè)計(jì)只是部分地與手工藝有關(guān)。它主要是生產(chǎn)一種技術(shù)化和社會(huì)化的產(chǎn)品，在給定的社會(huì)環(huán)境中體現(xiàn)某種功能性。因此，對(duì)于這種批判性理論的模式而言，建筑設(shè)計(jì)通常具有一種在道德與美學(xué)之間尋求平衡的張力。建筑師可能不得不放棄一些他們?cè)谒囆g(shù)和表現(xiàn)形式上的追求，而專注于實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)所賦予它的某些可能的功用。

這種思維模式經(jīng)常應(yīng)用在一些極為重視創(chuàng)作題材、并將之轉(zhuǎn)化為建筑產(chǎn)品的項(xiàng)目中。這些題材通常由更廣泛的社會(huì)及文化因素構(gòu)成，而非取決于建筑功能、美學(xué)或者象征意義。作為將理論與實(shí)踐相結(jié)合的媒介物，建筑方案過(guò)程是極為重要的，這培養(yǎng)了學(xué)生們?cè)谠O(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程中運(yùn)用概念性的思維方式去評(píng)判問(wèn)題或重述概要。各種不同領(lǐng)域的著作通常會(huì)為每個(gè)項(xiàng)目尋找托辭，為的是創(chuàng)造出一種“美觀”、“實(shí)用”且“適用”的建筑。換句話說(shuō)，建筑生產(chǎn)不僅生成建筑的形式和意義，也同樣與當(dāng)時(shí)當(dāng)?shù)氐纳鐣?huì)和文化體系相關(guān)聯(lián)。至于建筑理論研究，在某種程度上更接近于這種思維模式，而與傳統(tǒng)的歷史/理論研究方法不同。這種模式不僅只注重對(duì)基地環(huán)境或者創(chuàng)作題材的探尋與研究，而通常是批判和介入其中，為的是在當(dāng)代建筑設(shè)計(jì)問(wèn)題中尋找到有關(guān)的影響因素。

2 建筑實(shí)踐和跨學(xué)科發(fā)展

將20世紀(jì)泰國(guó)的建筑實(shí)踐分成3種不同的模式，并不意味著他們的實(shí)踐和教學(xué)是分開的。建筑美學(xué)、建筑語(yǔ)義和意識(shí)形態(tài)這3種模式也可以合而為一共同創(chuàng)造一系列新的問(wèn)題。然而，盡管它們之間存在差別，在21世紀(jì)初期，基于跨學(xué)科發(fā)展的影響，這些實(shí)踐模式被轉(zhuǎn)化為擁有某些共性的實(shí)踐方式。在大多數(shù)的學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)境中，“多學(xué)科”和“跨學(xué)科”這兩個(gè)術(shù)語(yǔ)經(jīng)?？梢曰Q。然而，在它們的核心理念中，這兩個(gè)概念是不同的。“多學(xué)科”指的是一種工作方式，在其中存在多個(gè)學(xué)科的協(xié)同作業(yè)，但每個(gè)學(xué)科都保持自己的獨(dú)特性和工作方式[1]。在另一方面，“跨學(xué)科”允許學(xué)科之間的個(gè)體轉(zhuǎn)換，以滿足工作中解決問(wèn)題的需要。換句話說(shuō)，跨學(xué)科更強(qiáng)調(diào)的是多學(xué)科間的一種合作，并不注重學(xué)科的區(qū)別，而是通過(guò)不同學(xué)科的共同努力完成各方都認(rèn)同的成果[1]。

當(dāng)泰國(guó)的當(dāng)代建筑還停留在關(guān)于建筑美學(xué)、建筑語(yǔ)義和意識(shí)形態(tài)的實(shí)踐階段，相關(guān)藝術(shù)、科學(xué)、人類學(xué)、社會(huì)學(xué)、文學(xué)、政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)等等的多種學(xué)科發(fā)展早已蓬勃興起。這意味著，目前在泰國(guó)的建筑實(shí)踐需要采用一種新的思考模式，不能再局限在一個(gè)單一的專業(yè)領(lǐng)域。在這種模式中，協(xié)調(diào)理論與實(shí)踐的運(yùn)動(dòng)或方法論不能通過(guò)單一的線性發(fā)展，于是，建筑實(shí)踐可以被認(rèn)為是一種協(xié)調(diào)多學(xué)科之間關(guān)系的三維網(wǎng)絡(luò)，多學(xué)科的介入會(huì)質(zhì)疑一些通常我們想當(dāng)然的問(wèn)題。有時(shí)，這種跨學(xué)科的網(wǎng)絡(luò)會(huì)要求我們對(duì)自己常用的方法、方式、專用術(shù)語(yǔ)等提出質(zhì)疑。每一個(gè)歷史時(shí)刻都有其特定的條件環(huán)境，這取決于他們的自身情況以及每個(gè)人不同的觀點(diǎn)。在許多方面，批判性理論實(shí)踐的出現(xiàn)可以將理論與實(shí)踐二者革新性地統(tǒng)一起來(lái)，雖然困難重重，但是這種工作方法卻是縝密和經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮的，富有成效且極具創(chuàng)新性以及批判性。

了解這些不同的建筑方法可以幫助我們理解什么是形成泰國(guó)建筑學(xué)科發(fā)展的影響力。理論與實(shí)踐的不同方式描述了建筑形成發(fā)展的特點(diǎn)，其他方面則對(duì)過(guò)去的建筑思考予與論述，這些因素都是我們未來(lái)的建筑發(fā)展所不可或缺的。它們是過(guò)去的，由此我們要基于歷史背景去理解它們；它們又是現(xiàn)在的，就擺在我們面前，成為我們今天所思考問(wèn)題的部分答案?！?/p>

During the first half of the twentieth century, architecture in Thailand, although largely productive, suffered in part from the lack of theoretical inquiry. Architecture was championed as a practical and political art. While this approach has made architecture open, democratic and socially concerned, it has also created an attitude in which making and doing architecture become more important than inquiring and understanding what it is that is being done. Such approach implies a triumph of pragmatic doctrine over theoretical inquiry. In other words, Thai architectural discourse during the first half of the twentieth century simply de-emphasized the process of thinking while it underscored that of making.

But in the past thirty years, architectural practice in Thailand has shifted its emphasis and given priority to questioning what architecture is, how it may be defined, how it is created, and what its aspirations might be. As these questions are set as the basic premises of architectural practice, it enables architects to understand buildings in relation to socio-cultural specificities of their places. This explains why the last twenty years have seen tremendous changes in the discipline of architectural theory and practice. As graduate programs in architecture have multiplied, publishing houses specializing in architecture and related disciplines have also blossomed. The number of architectural publications has gone from scant to overwhelming.

But as value has been placed more and more on the "thinking process", this process has also become increasingly autonomous. In recent years, the field of architectural history and theory in Thailand has been dominated by two prominent approaches, the historical and interpretational. While the first has generated a large number of ontological studies of buildings, the second has given us various readings and re-readings of existing buildings throughout history. At any rate, through both approaches, architectural history and theory has become a field unto itself, gradually disengaged from architectural practice. Architectural theory has leaned towards historical study or compilation and the interpretation of existing buildings instead of giving emphasis to the thinking process and new ideas. The gap between practice and theory has become increasingly difficult to bridge. Today's younger generation of architects has seen it as its task to bridge that gap and bring back the relationship between architectural thinking and production. During the past ten years, architectural practice has become more noticeably critical. Rather than putting thinking and making in opposite camps, it began to emphasize the interdisciplinary and philosophical framework of thinking as well as the pragmatic framework of making. Instead of concentrating on what had been said and done in the past, critical practice in Thailand began to slowly question how to do and understand things such as the current situation.

With the goal of bridging the gap between architectural thinking and making, architectural practice in Thailand during the past ten years do not seek to prove a hypothesis. It is instead reflective, seeking to challenge the way we do things rather than simply commenting on it. Aiming to construct a creative and critical dialogue between practice and theory, it does not see this relationship as oneway or linear. In other words, it does not aim to apply theoretical insights to modes of practice, or exemplify practice by illustrations of theoretical positions. It is simply asking - how can one think rigorously and critically as well as provide creative and productive proposition[1]? When this approach is employed in architectural research, it alters the more conventional research route, which tends to identify a series of questions at the outset and then explore them within a certain time frame. Current architectural researches do not necessarily follow this route because questions only emerge once a certain process of making and design have already been engaged. Thus research questions become more design oriented rather than purely historical and theoretical.

1 Three Modes of Practice: From Autonomy to Engagement

In order to grasp the current common ground of architectural practice in Thailand, a review of the different modes of practice over the past hundred years may be of use

Architecture, it is said, aims to orient human existence. It is also possible to say that the function of critical theory is to orient architecture. During the past hundred years, architectural discourse in Thailand has become once again a matter of questioning the basic premises of architectural thought and practice, whether cultural, social, political, aesthetic or symbolic. Yet, this seemingly common goal has been approached from various points of view. For example, one can assume and argue for architecture's autonomy; that form and geometry can be understood in their own right as well as as testimony of a designer's intelligence or invention. Architecture is, then, approached as the subject matter of aesthetic delight not unlike the way we view paintings or appreciate music. On the other hand, one can disavow the supposed autonomy of form and discover, behind a building's dimensions, geometry and overall appearance, the influence of broader cultural conditionstechnological, social, or economic. In this second understanding, architecture is not an autonomous discipline but rather one that is fully engaged in many aspects of culture. Between these two approaches, architecture can also be considered as communicative, conveying the various meaning inherent in its spatial and formal configuration as well as through its interaction with human beings.

The three "modes of thought" have influencedThai architectural practice during the past hundred years. Although other variations exist, these three modes are among the most important ways of "practicing architecture" and show us how buildings can be variously interpreted. The ideas and principles of these "modes of thought" had been of significant relevance to the concerns in architectural design until today.

1.1 Aesthetics of Space and Form

This mode of architectural practice simply concerns itself with the way things are formed and appear. The pivotal architectural debate of the nineteenth century concerned the interplay of artistic symbolism and the new materials and constructional technology of industrial culture. As the twentieth century began, similar questions reemerged as new materials and scientific analyses of living habits revolutionized building construction and appearance. While these encouraged architectural production based on the characteristics of a public technological society, contemporary artistic theories cultivated an aesthetic of private subjectivity. The result was the attempt to understand and order modern built culture with technological rules and the individual imagination. Central to the investigation of modern identity was the creation of spaces, forms, and surfaces of buildings[2].

In general, modes of experience by which one comes to terms with reality can be distinguished as perceptual and conceptual cognition; the former is based mainly on visual experience, while the latter is arrived at through a process of abstraction, the conceptual ordering of perceptual data. If the intellect operates through the faculty of concepts, perception take place in the realm of visual imagination or ideas[3]. Unlike the nineteenth century approach that sometimes regarded the perceptual world as inferior to conceptual or abstract cognition, this mode of practice saw that a bias toward conceptual thought could lead to difficulties in developing one's perceptual faculties. For this reason, this mode of practice sought to coordinate the objective rules and the subjective imagination.

While this mode of practice appeared at the beginning of the 20thcentury in "strokes of genius" of masters, it reappeared again towards the end of the century in a completely different form. Objective rules were used to replace subjective imagination.The methods of diagrammatic analysis and mapping that lead to a generation of architectural spaces and forms can be seen as a result of this effort. Analytic diagrams or maps can originate in multidisciplinary issues, act as a pretext for a conceptual frameworkthat generates architectural form. Before any spaces or forms take shape, their designers need to analyze existing sets of information and transform these into concepts and tools. Though there are many such design methods, one example of this approach is the adoption of biological theories to generate rulebased aggregated forms which are then manipulated and transformed by the designer's conceptual framework. In such a process a link between objective data and subjective imagination is formed. It represents an argument in which architecture exists on a continuum between physicality and conceptuality, appearance and inner structure. Yet, this mode of thinking aims mainly at the generation of architectural spaces and forms. When architecture is addressed primarily through its perceptual and conceptual quality, it is seen an autonomous discipline involved in a private conversation of designing, making and building.

1.2 Semantic Meaning of Buildings

The first mode of architectural practice focuses on how the building is formed and appears. The second mode turns to its semantic quality.

Among its many facets, this mode of thinking can be characterized by its search for meaning. In other words, in it the emphasis on appearances was replaced by the search for the inner meaning of things. We may recognize what lies before our eyes as an object, but this object may suggest something beyond its appearance. A piece of architecture or art may carry within its form an internal symbolic meaning that a trained eye can decipher. In order to reach such meanings, art and architecture was inevitably related to other cultural discourses such as literature, anthropology and sociology. More often than not, this approach is interested in decoding not only the meaning of forms but also of actions. The meaning of drawings, models or buildings, for example, lies in their subject matters as much as in the ways in which they are represented. While figurative objects in architectural drawings convey stories, various ways the drawings are made also encode the stories portrayed. Objects and the methods of representing them can be seen as interrelated systems of symbolism in architectural and artistic production.

With this mode of thinking, everything means something and nothing means nothing. Unlike conventional semantic research that focused on a scholastic reading of meaning that usually requires knowledgeable interpretation, this mode of practice also leads to the semantic approach of environmental study. If artistic creation can be read through its figurative and methodic aspects, architecture and our environment are also communicative. Only through a semantic study of environment we can discover the discourses in our building. In other words, people are only vaguely aware of the forces working in them, forces which feed on memory and association[4]. Similarly to ways figurative paintings are read, people feel that such forces can only propitiated and purged with objects that carry some reference to which they can respond in the very moment of perception. In other words, every moment of perception contains a whole personal and collective past, our body is the incarnation of that past; and with every moment of perception this past is reordered and revalued[4].

This search for meaning is thus translated into two interrelated levels of analysis, the first aiming at an understanding of inherent meaning conveyed by each and every object, while the second sets a goal if understanding the larger structure of a place or built environment. Such thinking, when employed in architectural design, is often translated into the process of syntactic analysis of both the design object and the context. In order for any design object to be developed, the kernel of their forms needs to go through analogical transformation based on the meaning they are to convey. Every object has to be read and re-read in relation to the structure of the place in which it belongs. Architecture and the built environment in this sense, are seen as languages with inherent syntax that may vary according to specific circumstances and goals. Examples of this mode of production lie not only in memorial designs, but also in other architectural constructs that see themselves as a part of a larger social and cultural context, including works of contemporary urban analysis. Instead of asking how things appear (the first mode of critical theory), it asks why things appear the way they do, and what may result if things are organized differently.

If for the first mode of practice, human perception is the center of architectural experience, it is only in the here-and-now moment that such perception can be related to any meaning beyond its physical present. But in the second approach, human perception does not begin and end in itself. Perception always contains a past in the present depth[4], allowing us to understand the meaning of all things.

1.3 Ideologies, Culture and Politics

During the second half of the twentieth century in Thailand, political stances and economic situations became the major issues penetrating most educational discourses. In a society that has been fundamentally changed, can architecture continue to derive its meaning from the same strategies elaborated during the first half of the century, or should a new definition of architectural practice be developed? As social and cultural preoccupations shifted and different questions were being asked, it became irrelevant to seek meaning within the closed disciplines of art and architecture. Architects and theorists were obliged to disavow the autonomy of form and discover behind a building's dimensions, geometry and overall appearance the influence of broader cultural conditions--technological, social and economic. Architecture was no longer seen as an autonomous discipline but became understood as one that was fully engaged in many aspects of culture. Architecture's task was to respond to broader cultural issues, ones outside its own aesthetic and semantic preoccupations.

While the semantic mode of architectural practice tries to read the meaning of architectural production, this ideological mode is concerned with social, political, economic as well as intellectual contexts that would provide a broad understanding of the type of representation that shaped the entire era. In other words, it is not the representationitself that this mode of thinking is preoccupied with, but the context which produced such representation. Among the arts, architecture has a special position. Painting and sculptures, for example, are autonomous works of art that can be enjoyed in the isolated atmosphere of the museum. But such is not the case for architecture for it is only partially related to the world of artisans. Primarily it produces a technical and social product, as buildings perform a function within any given society. Thus for this mode of critical theory, architecture will always contain a tension between ethics and aesthetics. Architects may have to let go parts of their artistic and formal ambitions and focus on the possibilities offered by society.

This mode of thinking is often characterized by projects that press great emphasis on the subject matters and their transformation into built products. Such subject matters are often framed by broader social and cultural issues rather than architectural functions, aesthetics or symbolic meanings. Architecture programs are vital vehicles for working between theory and practice, allowing students to develop conceptual thinking to critique or to reinvent the brief itself. Writings from various fields are often set as provocations for a project in order to create architecture that not only "appears" and "means" but also "fits". In other words, the production of architecture is not only about generating form and meaning but has to be considered in relation to the social and cultural frameworks of the place and time. As for theoretical research, approaching it from this mode of thinking differs from a conventional history / theory method in that sites or subjects of study are not only investigated and researched, they are often critiqued and mined for what might be relevant to current architectural design issues.

2 Architectural Practice and Interdisciplinarity

Dividing 20thcentury Thai architectural practice into three different modes does not mean that they were practiced and taught separately. The three modes-the aesthetic, semantic and ideological approaches-may also work together to create a new set of questions. Despite their differences, these modes of practice were transformed at the beginning of the 21stcentury by their interdisciplinary. In most academic contexts, the terms multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary are often interchangeable. Yet in their methods, the two notions are different. Multi-disciplinary refers to a way of working where a number of disciplines are present but maintain their own distinct identities and ways of doing things[1]. Inter-disciplinary, on the other hand, allows for individuals moving between disciplines and in so doing question the ways in which they work-more of a collaboration with the emphasis less on disciplinary distinctions and more on how different disciplines might work together towards a common end point using mutual consent[1].

While contemporary Thai architecture includes aesthetic, semantic and ideological modes of practice but more and more multiple disciplinesartistic, scientific, anthropological, social, cultural, political and economic-are engaged in the work. This means current architectural practice in Thailand requires a mode of thinking that is not limit itself to only one profession. It occupies an inbetween place where the movement or methodology between theory and practice is not linear. Practice becomes a three dimensional web of relationships between disciplines, one that calls into question what we normally take for granted. At times, this interdisciplinary web may require us to question our methodologies, the way we do things and our terminologies. Each historical moment offers a particular set of conditions and its own palette of circumstances. And each person has a different point of view. In many ways, the emerging practice of critical theory may unite theory and practice as a transformative, although difficult, way of workingone that is rigorous, reflective, creative, productive as well as critical.

Understanding these different architectural approaches may help us understand some of the forces that have shaped the history of Thai architectural discipline. Theory and practice characterized the way others performed and thought about architecture in the past, acts indispensable in shaping our present and future. They are at a distance from us-historical context is essential to understanding them-yet they are present. They stand in front of us and offer partial answers to the questions we ask ourselves today. □

/References:

[1] Jane Rendell. Art and Architecture: A Place Between [M]. London: I. B. Tauris, 2007.

[2] Mitchell Schwarzer. German Architectural Theory and the Search for Modern Identity [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

[3] Konrad Fiedler. Observation on the Nature and History of Architecture [M].//Harry Malgrave (ed.) Empathy, Form, and Space. CA: The Getty Center, 1994:125-148.

[4] Joseph Rykwert. Meaning and Building [M]//The Necessity of Artifice. New York: Rizzoli, 1983:9-16.

Thinking and Making Architecture: from the 20thto the 21stCentury

The projects featured in this issue ofWorld Architecturerepresent building typologies and contents that are prevalent in Thai architectural discourse at the beginning of the 21stcentury. Whether cultural, institutional, educational or commercial, they have something in common. Throughout the first decade of the 21stcentury, we have encountered many challenges. Faced with global environmental crisis, striving to save and protect our environment has become a common goal in all professional arenas. But many questions are still left unanswered. Various ways of thinking and practicing have emerged and shaped the way architects see buildings. The aim of these projects, however diverse, is to uncover various types of balance within the dynamism of architectural practice and to bring forth the idea of balance. Neither finding a common ground nor absolute agreement in architectural production, balance is a means to understanding the different directions and approaches being critically practiced today. Architectural balance in these projects thus represents both theoretical inquiry and the critical practice that partakes of the potential of architectural design to draw from the past and the present towards the future.

architectural ideology, modes of practice, meaning and building

泰國(guó)藝術(shù)大學(xué)副教授，美國(guó)賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)建筑歷史與理論博士。/Associate Professor of Silpakorn University, Thailand; Ph.D. in History andTheory of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania.

2014-04-06