赫爾曼·切赫，阿道夫·克利尚尼茲 蔡為

赫爾曼·切赫（Hermann Czech， 以下簡稱HC）：維也納古老的城市結(jié)構(gòu)，讓我們看到一種具有普適性的圖底關(guān)系如何被用于城市功能空間和交通空間的組織，在此之上的每一個(gè)具體的規(guī)劃方案都具有其特殊性。這讓人想到你在“多瑙之城總體規(guī)劃”（與海因茨·諾伊曼共同出版）中設(shè)計(jì)的剖面及其帶給三維立體空間的影響：由一個(gè)人為定義的零標(biāo)高平面開始，城市縱向發(fā)展。這個(gè)平面雖然在某些地方已經(jīng)存在了，但不是自由生成的。當(dāng)時(shí)，我就將這種主張稱為“對于維也納城市設(shè)計(jì)的不朽貢獻(xiàn)”，我之所以這么說，不僅是從維也納城市規(guī)劃的角度考慮，更聯(lián)系了整個(gè)城市規(guī)劃歷史。

阿道夫·克利尚尼茲（Adolf Krischanitz，以下簡稱AK）：“多瑙之城總體規(guī)劃”從某種程度上來說可算是一次“在敞開的心臟上動手術(shù)”，因?yàn)樵撘?guī)劃的前提是，維也納為即將舉辦的世界博覽會建造了一座3層的地下車庫結(jié)構(gòu)。但是，世界博覽會宣布取消，預(yù)定建設(shè)用地上只留下了一個(gè)9m深的大坑。我們在這個(gè)－9m的平面基礎(chǔ)上開始設(shè)計(jì)這個(gè)“總平面圖”，試圖喚醒這個(gè)區(qū)域在經(jīng)歷夭折規(guī)劃后的自信。利用設(shè)計(jì)在豎向上的可能性：向下有9m空間，向上有80m，將平面劃分為42m×42m的網(wǎng)格，使規(guī)劃和建造在此基礎(chǔ)上一步步循序漸進(jìn)，沒有設(shè)定最終的建成效果。這是一種不斷自我更新的規(guī)劃，每一次新的建造都應(yīng)該配合已建成的周邊環(huán)境，并遵循維也納地區(qū)建造規(guī)范所限定的房屋和日照間距，為未建用地保留建造潛力。

HC: 我一直對單間建筑這個(gè)概念感興趣，即建筑外部形態(tài)與內(nèi)部空間相符合（當(dāng)然大教堂亦在此列）。相對于賴納教授所定下的條款，我?guī)煆钠绽┛私淌跁r(shí)寫下了這樣的句子：房屋起碼得有兩層才能被稱為建筑?，F(xiàn)在我們看到了例外的情況，在設(shè)計(jì)中你將單間建筑的類型學(xué)擴(kuò)展了很多。

AK：是否能夠?qū)⒁粋€(gè)建筑類型深入下去，很多時(shí)候取決于在種種偶然情況催生的建造任務(wù)下，設(shè)計(jì)師采取積極還是消極的態(tài)度解決問題。有時(shí)候我得到的那些委托，其他建筑師根本就不會去做。但這種項(xiàng)目實(shí)際上做起來，不管在建筑層面上，還是在城市規(guī)劃的層面上，往往還是有相當(dāng)?shù)臐摿?。對于我來說，將一個(gè)建造任務(wù)研究透徹，挖掘出藏在任務(wù)書背后的所有可能性，是設(shè)計(jì)的基本前提?！俺鞘行∑贰本蛯儆谶@一類“困難的項(xiàng)目”，甲方相當(dāng)喜歡將這一類項(xiàng)目委托給我。建筑手段非常直接，傳統(tǒng)建筑學(xué)意義上的游戲空間少之又少，使得這類項(xiàng)目成為某種有趣的挑戰(zhàn)。有時(shí)候項(xiàng)目的成立懸于一線之上，資金、材料或者是否能夠通過審批，直至構(gòu)造都可能成為這條具有決定意義的線，而對這些因素的思考都能在建筑空間上反映出來。

HC: 先鋒，這個(gè)原來的戰(zhàn)爭術(shù)語已經(jīng)成了某種陳腐無比的隱喻。作為對此的回應(yīng)，克勞斯－于爾根·鮑爾在1998年為你出版的專輯所寫的前言中提到：“在戰(zhàn)術(shù)上，先鋒隊(duì)這種作戰(zhàn)單位實(shí)際上是不存在的。它們總是在某個(gè)特殊的情況下應(yīng)運(yùn)而生，從戰(zhàn)術(shù)的意義上來說是一種工具。”在戰(zhàn)場上，先鋒隊(duì)總是位于最前線，但在某些情況下，前線很可能就是陣營的大后方。

除此戰(zhàn)術(shù)工具外，我對“修補(bǔ)術(shù)”這種手法也很有興趣，修補(bǔ)術(shù)在此是指將各種混雜元素作為設(shè)計(jì)依據(jù)的邏輯。這些元素并不總是新的，它們常常是既成事實(shí)。因?yàn)樵诮ㄖW(xué)中，設(shè)計(jì)總是跟不同的事物發(fā)生關(guān)系，我們可以說，值得信任的只是呈現(xiàn)出的事實(shí)本身。形式層出不窮，它們最終為其周邊條件所局限。對形式的消解并不是通過“結(jié)構(gòu)”來完成的，我們知道，解構(gòu)主義者在他們短暫的活躍期內(nèi)將這種手法做到了眩人眼目。

問題在于，建筑學(xué)是否真如你所說的一樣，是“將不同物質(zhì)整合為一個(gè)元素”：我們用什么來構(gòu)筑世界，減法還是加法？到目前為止，我選擇了后者，對選擇出的元素進(jìn)行精煉。而你則在不同的時(shí)間內(nèi)嘗試了兩種不同的方式：1977年－1978年間，你和奧托·卡普芬格爾出版了《維也納類型學(xué)》和《維也納學(xué)派》兩本冊子，你們在1980年代早期的那些小型的建筑項(xiàng)目對于我來說裝飾性也過強(qiáng)了，過份專注于氛圍營造。而在1980年代中期，你（或者你們）忽然放棄了營造氛圍。你在1984年發(fā)表的關(guān)于漢斯·霍萊因的散文“美麗的碰撞”在這種態(tài)度轉(zhuǎn)變中扮演了重要的角色。那時(shí)侯，我在施瓦岑貝格皇宮里負(fù)責(zé)餐廳的修建，我有計(jì)劃但無目的地使用了各種風(fēng)格和形式符號去營造一種氛圍。

我質(zhì)疑當(dāng)下人們對“裝飾”和“氣氛”的理論新解。難道他們不是像追求新精神的明星建筑師一樣，以“主題化、廣告化、圖面化”的愚蠢方式將建筑變成了文化工業(yè)？難道他們不是將建筑作為“消費(fèi)品”來思考？他們不再將建筑看作創(chuàng)造，這難道不是一種媚俗？這一切，如果不是在欺騙消費(fèi)者和自欺欺人的前提下，難道真的是可能的嗎？

AK: 有多種方式可“將不同物質(zhì)整合為一個(gè)元素”：事實(shí)上，我們的目的是創(chuàng)造一個(gè)新的體系。一方面，它可以將現(xiàn)實(shí)與理想狀態(tài)之間的差距減至最?。涣硪环矫?，它將形式化的解決方式插入現(xiàn)實(shí)與理想之間，并嘗試將差異最大化呈現(xiàn)。為此，我們既可以用加法，也可以用減法，常常我們兩者并用。對“破碎形式”的使用將完整形式中的每一個(gè)可感知的細(xì)微組成部分作為前提，即使是小而又少，這些細(xì)微的成分還帶有些微敘事性。在我的作品中，氣氛的營造在極致簡約與最大繁復(fù)之間搖擺，通過這種類似呼吸的方式，使被邊緣化和被遺忘的元素復(fù)蘇，被重新創(chuàng)造。

現(xiàn)在，我們看到對立的兩者：建筑消費(fèi)與建筑創(chuàng)造。在建筑行業(yè)，人們自然也希望營利，建筑的商品性成為討論的中心，建筑從而成為產(chǎn)品和商品。商品不應(yīng)該帶上歷史（生產(chǎn)、手工勞作等）的痕跡，所以它的特征被削弱，敘事性也大大降低。在被呈現(xiàn)給市場之前，商品本身的形成過程被抹殺掉。歷史與個(gè)性被文化工業(yè)提出的指標(biāo)們均衡掉，這確實(shí)加劇了不真實(shí)性，成為一種媚俗。要嘗試解決建筑作為商品那種進(jìn)退兩難的困境，有不同的辦法。如果建筑師足夠天真，他可以完全忽略這個(gè)事實(shí)，忽視所有建筑作為商品應(yīng)該滿足的需求，忽視生產(chǎn)所需的時(shí)間，忽視生產(chǎn)的過程，這樣一來，商品作為物的一面以及它的語境都被忘記了。場所的缺失，以至于根本不為某塊特定的地域建造，這造成了一種超越文化差異的品質(zhì)，而使得建筑帶有烏托邦性質(zhì)。

但建筑師不可能讓自己的設(shè)計(jì)獨(dú)立于所有的需求。建筑是整個(gè)商業(yè)社會鏈條上的一個(gè)環(huán)，建筑師裝作對此一無所知，將建筑包裹起來，使其陌生化，繼而失語。這種失語的狀態(tài)在消費(fèi)者和生產(chǎn)者之中都能見到。他們失去了對文化的感受力和反應(yīng)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無可爭辯的重要性。就像你說的那樣，如果功能可以被明確定義，我們都在修建“可以使用的東西”。而一旦功能在設(shè)計(jì)之外扮演了某種角色，“平衡”也就被打破了。事實(shí)上，所有建筑設(shè)計(jì)涉及的元素：構(gòu)造，功能，形式，在設(shè)計(jì)完成之前都是不存在的。使用和行為是建筑被人感知的途徑，就像我們通過耳朵感受音樂（也沒人會覺得這是一種感官的局限）。

你寫道：“建筑不必只是背景”。而我覺得“建筑就是背景”，我考慮的不只是平庸的無謂之物，而是要將某種性格賦予這個(gè)背景，使它堅(jiān)強(qiáng)挺立，使人們有所依靠。

椅子就是一個(gè)很有說服力的例子。1960年代對人類工程學(xué)的探索也沒能做到讓椅子成為“以人為模具生成的形式”，而是擁有主動性，可以通過一定的點(diǎn)支撐人們脆弱的身體，使人們感到舒適。

現(xiàn)在的問題在于，功能到底在建筑中扮演著什么角色，而它又是如何地構(gòu)成了設(shè)計(jì)。

AK: 功能當(dāng)然是建筑設(shè)計(jì)的內(nèi)涵。它不是物，也不是某種形式。如果任務(wù)書或者競賽標(biāo)書限定了建筑的使用目的和組織框架，這些元素也仍然不能被稱之為建筑。一個(gè)任務(wù)書明確的建筑競賽會帶來迥異的設(shè)計(jì)方案。即使如此，功能這一概念在建筑中還是不容忽視，就算人們以此為名糟蹋了很多建筑。功能作為概念不僅是建筑設(shè)計(jì)的內(nèi)涵，也是決定任務(wù)書設(shè)計(jì)的關(guān)鍵元素。我認(rèn)可你在2003年寫的相關(guān)文章：“功能不存在于設(shè)計(jì)之前，而是生成于設(shè)計(jì)中。跟空間和結(jié)構(gòu)一樣，功能隨著建筑的產(chǎn)生而出現(xiàn)。是的，建筑的藝術(shù)魅力不在材料，不在結(jié)構(gòu)，不在雕塑般的形體，甚至不在光、不在空間，而是存在于人的行為中?！?/p>

HC: 你使用了“認(rèn)知性意向”這一貼切的說法來解決阿道夫·路斯在思考中遇到的問題，這些問題讓他創(chuàng)造出一種形式語言，從而區(qū)別于其他的建筑師。

路斯有一個(gè)幾乎是可悲的理論，這一理論被約瑟夫·弗蘭克繼續(xù)深入：一種對他者帶來的變化的接受。是路斯最早——我在這里引用自己的文章“改建”——“描寫了關(guān)于可憐的有錢人的故事：一幢房子如何被移交給陌生的后來人，并且不得不承受某種美學(xué)品質(zhì)的改變。路斯讓我們認(rèn)識到一種足夠強(qiáng)大的建筑，它提供一個(gè)框架，開放，可以包容任何新事物，甚至對不幸的扭曲也有所準(zhǔn)備。”這樣的情況在我們合作完成的哈德鎮(zhèn)項(xiàng)目中也發(fā)生了，我們到現(xiàn)在也沒有仔細(xì)討論過租戶的自由到底應(yīng)該有多大。

AK: 現(xiàn)代社會對建筑的要求越來越高。路斯的話有時(shí)候帶有某種宣言的意味，他的作品，那種隱約的過分繁復(fù)的青年風(fēng)格，保持在某種為大眾接受的安全線內(nèi)，最終走入了死胡同，盡管是水平很高的死胡同。當(dāng)代建筑成了一種自我挑戰(zhàn)和自我滿足的場所。那種既無動機(jī)，也沒有相應(yīng)質(zhì)量的過分活躍，反而導(dǎo)致建筑的社會文化向度逐漸萎縮。

讓我們還是借用你的話來說：建筑作為一種學(xué)科，其實(shí)是一種建筑性的思索。這種思索在很多場合被過度形式化，它的規(guī)則被陌生化，成為原來的對立面。盡管如此，建筑性的思索仍然是所有建筑活動的基礎(chǔ)?！?/p>

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 ("Sch?ne 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）