| 摘要: |
| 地域建筑的概念起源于欧美建筑对
全球化现代建筑的批评；现代建筑的中心观
念之一是建筑的普遍性，即脱离传统的建筑
对世界各地都有一定的可行性。而地域建筑
认为，建筑应该与地域的特殊条件相结合，
包括文化、气候、材料和技术等。本文指出
这个以欧美文化为参照的“地域建筑”的概
念从萌芽时期就没充分考虑“非西方”对
“地域性”带来的可能性。现代建筑的普遍
性和地方性是西方文化对建筑的特殊想象、
定义和实践。中国文化植根于象形文字，并
将其内化为一种建构世界的思维方式。其
“建筑”的思想中心并不是功能为基础，以
独立单体为目标的“建造”，而是刻意追求
生活和系统之间的互存，从中得出山水园林
的意境。从宏观的角度看，这个理解建筑的
区别表现了印欧文明和中国文明对建造世界
的不同的基本想象。如何以这个中国“特
质”为参照来重构地域建筑，是中国建筑的
一个特殊机会。 |
| 关键词: 地域建筑 印欧文化 物化思维 中国式思维 对话 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20241223005 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| A new beginning for Chinese regionalism |
|
LI Shiqiao
|
| Abstract: |
| Regionalism in architecture as an idea emerged from a critical response to globalized
modernism in architecture; one of the main claims of modernism is its general applicability once it
separated from the specificities of cultural traditions. Regionalism argues that architecture should be
integrated into local conditions, including culture, climate, materials, technologies, etc. This paper,
argues that the conceptual framework of “regionalist architecture”, from the outset, never fully
considered the “non-west” in the formation of regionalism. The universality of modern architecture
and its regionalist other stem from a specific cultural imagination and practice.Regionalism appeared
in the late twentieth century in the critical writings of, among others, Alexander Tzonis, Liane
Lefaivre, and Kenneth Frampton, who resisted the “trivialization” of architecture in postmodern
architecture at the 1980 Venice Biennale. There are two main theoretical groundings of their critical
writings: a Kantian dialectic of homogeneity and heterogeneity, and a Heideggerian critique of
superficiality in architecture. Seeing from a distance of forty-five years, these theoretical
formulations were integral parts of a modernization of architecture in Europe and America since the
17th century. In doing so, a wide range of examples of architecture from the world had been brought
into these debates to demonstrate “otherness” in design and theory. This development, ironically, was
reductive by being inclusive. The resulting condition, strongly present today, is one of homogenized
“global architecture” that is both wonderfully open-minded and disappointingly distorted. The
project of reconsidering regionalism in China therefore becomes an important opportunity to
reconsider this history of regionalism. It is an opportunity to reframe the conversation. After decades
of fulfilling the expectations of regionalist architecture defined in Europe and America, Chinese
architecture is poised to take a critical review of its recent past; a review of future possibilities of
Chinese architecture gives us a chance to move outside the mode of “regionalist architecture”,
towards an architectural practice that will in turn contribute to the richness of cultural resources in
architectural design in the global context.To embark on this much more ambitious endeavor, it must
begin from ground up; this requires an examination of much deeper forces of cultural production.
Perhaps the best way to start is to examine language-thought (pensée-langue), a highly useful phrase
coined by the renowned French thinker Fran?ois Jullien. Anything less than this would not do justice
to a judicious understanding of cultures and design traditions. Languages gave rise to thoughts and
ideas; thoughts and ideas in turn influenced architecture profoundly. It is only through a reflexive
examination of these deeper issues that we can engage with a true regionalism.The language-thought
traditions in today’s world are descended from two broad methods, phonetic and figurative. The
phonetic method, using sounds and notations of sounds as language, is the most common; this is the
framework of the so-called “Indo-European” language family. The figurative method uses visual
shapes as language, putting emphasis on how words look like and how they match the material
world, treating sounds as secondary (although important); this method is the less common,
nevertheless equally significant framework of the “Sino-Tibetan” language family. If architecture
orders the world, these language-thought methods have a profound impact on how buildings are
conceived and constructed, on what is considered valuable and beautiful, and on how we can learnfrom each method the most significant lessons when we consider the future of architecture. This paper argues that a true regionalism in China must engage
with this long and deep language-thought method of deploying figures. Chinese culture is grounded in immanent thought, the idea that principles are not
abstract; rather, they are embedded in how things work. While the Greek conception of architecture-and its dominant influence on what we consider as
architecture today-is very much focused on the discreet object of perfection, the Chinese “architecture” is much more about deployment of figures, just like
the deployment of shapes in the Chinese language. This distinction is both profound and far-reaching. The most distinctive feature of Chinese “architecture”
is perhaps the garden rather than the building: it is a garden of material things and immanent thoughts; it is the most vibrant and creative part of Chinese
“architecture”, in contrast with the rather rigidly regulated imperial buildings. Unlike Greek architecture, Chinese gardens are full of poetic writings, as if to
underline the connection between design and language-thought-that do not submit themselves to architecture but assert their own presence. One important
aspect of this Chinese “architecture” is the possibility to practice it on an urban scale-something traditional literati garden builders were not able to do-so that
the links between cities and ecology are much more sustainable. The Greek “defiant city” confronting nature is in its old ways increasingly untenable; the
alternative of a city of ten thousand things may indeed be a great resource for a viable future in architecture. |
| Key words: regionalism indo-european culture immanence chinese thought dialogue |
