同济建筑学人：一枚开启中国建筑现代性的钥匙

张利/ZHANG Li

同济建筑学人：一枚开启中国建筑现代性的钥匙

张利/ZHANG Li

五月总是有各种理由让人感受到青春与乐观主义，这其中的一个理由便是每年此时我们都会聚焦于文革以后的中国建筑教育。今年，我们观察的是一个在中国建筑现代性的进程中不可替代的群体：同济大学建筑与城规学院（建筑系）的建筑学人。对中国建筑现代性的求索贯穿了这一群体存在的历史，而了解这一群体对于认知、梳理中国建筑现代性而言，无异于一枚钥匙。当然，按照惯例，我们的观察范围仍然是在1978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。

同济建筑学人对中国建筑现代性的求索源于其根。不可否认，我们今天所谈及的一般意义上的现代性是来自西方的。在这方面，上海这座在中国近代史上（甚至在亚洲近代史上）独一无二的城市为同济提供了得天独厚的文化土壤。众所周知，上海在整个中国现代史中所扮演的、被罗兹·墨菲称为“现代中国之匙”的角色起于19世纪中叶，延续发展至今。其间，现代性的标识性特征——新兴的工业、经济变革与社会思潮——在到达中国时，几乎无一例外地首先在上海着陆。如果暂且抛开其作为殖民者的轻狂与偏见，英国传教士慕维廉在其1893年外滩演讲中所提到的“上海是我们的高度文明与基督教精神对整个中国产生影响的中心”这一论断实际上从另一个视角证实了，上海自西学东渐以来在国际时代思潮引入中国方面所一直起到的作用。得益于这种文化环境的持续滋养，于1952年成立的同济大学建筑学院（系）自然地继承了其前身圣约翰大学建筑系、之江大学建筑系等校博采西学众家之长的底蕴，从一开始便奠定了以理性精神和多元路径来探求中国建筑现代性的身份，并随着其一代又一代杰出学者的推动，在中国建筑教育中独树一帜。

同济建筑学人对中国建筑现代性的求索执于其性。回溯历史，中国建筑的现代性远非一个甜蜜的故事，中国建筑教育对现代性的态度亦体现为时近时疏的摇摆。考虑到多数中国高等学府都或多或少是西学方法与儒学传统的合体，而儒学传统与现代性之间有着被黄秉泰称为“不可避免”的冲突，这一历史纠葛并不令人感到意外。然而，作为中国高等教育中最少儒家重负的学院之一，同济建筑学院（系）在“物”“我”两个层面都表现出了对中国建筑（及中国建筑教育）现代性的执拗。于“物”，即教育的客体目标方面，同济建筑教育始终坚持了重技、务实、创新的“包豪斯”精神。无论是在建国之初的古典主义复兴时期，还是在改革开放初期的“民族后现代主义”时期，同济建筑学人都体现了群体性的连贯与坚持，敢冒天下之大不韪，积极介入、引领了中国城市与建筑现代化的线索。于“我”，即教育的主体组织方面，同济建筑教育更是建立起了引以为豪的、在国内罕见的现代“学术民主”生态。历经半个多世纪，这一学术生态的成就是令人击节赞叹的：不仅因为其在数十年间所造就的宽广学术高原，或者说同济建筑学人在教育、研究、公共管理、实践、市场等众多方面的成功；更因为这一以“群峰”取代“尖峰”的多元化机制与当今国际化体系的兼容，因为其在好奇心、竞争、更新、修正与激发创新方面的持久动力。如果说前者影响的是中国建筑学界与业界，后者影响的则已经超出了学科本身，而上升到了中国高等教育现代性的范畴。

同济建筑学人对中国建筑现代性的求索见于其行。自冯纪忠先生起，同济建筑学人群体坚持置身于中国现代建筑的前沿，从早期的对现代建筑的引入到今天的当代中国建筑创作、评论、策展与传播。他们不仅创造了中国现代建筑历史上相当一部分的经典作品，更在建筑文化的各个层面积累起成功案例的清单：专门报道中国建筑、进入西方建筑书店的期刊，关注建筑与城市问题的艺术展览，国际重要建筑奖项的评委，先进的制造实验室，等等。我们清晰地看到，同济建筑学人作为一枚中国建筑现代性的钥匙，其开启的已不仅是输入之门，也同时是输出之门。

攻击，特别是来自自身的攻击是建筑教育现代性的一部分，科林·罗的言论为我们提供了典型的佐证。作为中国建筑教育现代性的代表之一，同济自然不能回避这样的部分，特别是当它处于中国现代史上这样一座特殊的城市、有着与众不同的文化识别性时。然而历史向我们表明，攻击未曾动摇同济建筑学人群体对中国建筑现代性的求索，反倒强化了其乐观主义的态度。过去如此，现在如此，未来也将是如此。

行文至此不得不提及在此辑“同济建筑学人”形成过程中的两个令人难忘之处：其一是李振宇教授提出希望突破“学人”系列每辑50人的常规，因为同济方面宁愿为收录更多学人以体现年龄与方向上的多样性而缩减其余内容的篇幅，这是一个令人无法拒绝的要求。其二是在确定入辑人选的过程中，同济方面不仅依赖自己学科专业委员会的判断，更邀请了同济之外的人士参与投票选择，这多少是有点令人意外的。此两处权作现代性开放多元特征的实例罢。

感谢同济大学建筑学院李振宇教授、李翔宁教授、蔡永洁教授及其他为本辑付出努力的教授。是他们的工作使本期专辑成为可能。□

We have good reasons to feel young and optimistic in May. One of the reasons is that it is time again for us to focus on post-culture-revolution architecture education in China. This time, we will present a community that is indispensable in the development of Chinese modern architecture, namely Tongji alumni. Throughout the history of this community, there has been a persistent inquiry into what Chinese modern architecture is. This community is effectively a key to modernity in Chinese architecture. To continue the norm in our architecture school series, we will study only architecture alumni of Tongji after 1978.

The Tongji inquiry into modernity in Chinese architecture comes from its root. Few will argue that the concept of modernity has been a western construct. In this regard, Shanghai has been a unique substrate in Chinese history （or even in Asian history） which fosters modernity. Shanghai has been performing the role of the key to modern China, as Rhoads Murphey put it. This role started in mid-19th century, and has been continued up to now. When major marks of modernity, such as new industry, new economy and new ideas arrive in China, they arrive in Shanghai first. Putting its colonial arrogance and prejudice aside, William Muirhead's famous sentence in his 1893 speech at the Bund Park, "Shanghai is the pivotal point of our advance civilisation and Christianity influencing the entire China", still gives a tangible proof of the role of Shanghai from an alternative view point. It was from this cultural ground that the Tongji Architecture Department, right from its founding in 1952, inheriting the tradition of both its predecessors, St. John and Zhijiang, defined its identity as the pursuer of Chinese modernity. Propelled by the hard work of generations of talents, Tongji now enjoys a unique place in Chinese architecture education.

The Tongji inquiry into modernity in Chinese architecture has been built into the persona of its people. Modernity in Chinese architecture is by no means a sweet and happy story. Chinese architecture education's take on modernity has been at best a pendulum movement. Most Chinese higher education institutes are mergers between western academic systems and Confucianism core beliefs. According to HWANG Byung-tai, there have been inevitable contradictions between modernity and Confucianism. This partially explains the reluctant attitude towards modernity adopted by many Chinese universities. Tongji is a rare supply in this regard. It doesn't have much Confucianism heritage to live with. That is why Tongji has always been enthusiastic to modernity, both in its pedagogy and its faculty. In its pedagogy, Tongji has a Bauhaus-like tradition which emphasises technology, practicality and innovation. Whether in the Chinese classic-revival time of the 1950s or in the national post-modernism time of the 1990s, Tongji stayed virtually undistracted, adhering to its own modernism preoccupation. In its faculty, Tongji has built a modern academic democracy, something unusual in China. Five decades into its existence, this academic democracy has been found by many to be convincing. Not only has it produced an academic plateau, a collection of numerous influential people and success in a wide range of fields, it has also built a pluralistic institution that is highly compatible with the international systems today. If the impact of the former is still limited to Chinese architecture education, the latter has gone far beyond that, and addresses Chinese higher education as a whole.

The Tongji inquiry into modernity in Chinese architecture has been proven with substance. Ever since Prof. FENG Jizhong's pioneering practice, the Tongji community has been staying in the front row of Chinese modern architecture. From introducing modern architecture into China in the early days, to the design, criticism and communication of today, Tongji hasn't stop evolving. The Tongji community has not only made some of the best buildings in modern China, but also has been collecting a long list of successes in multiple fields: architecture media focusing specifically on contemporary Chinese architecture, modern Chinese exhibitions on cities and architecture, sitting in the juries of prestigious international awards, state-ofthe-art fab-labs, etc. Tongji as a key to modernity in Chinese architecture has not only opened the door of overseas input, but also the door of the other way around.

Self-attack is something modern architecture education has to live with. The famous quote from Collin Rowe proved that. Tongji cannot be immune, particularly when it is located in such a unique city. But history has demonstrated that the Tongji community won't bend to attacks. On the contrary, they have been sharpening themselves and have become more determined in its faith in modernity.

Finally, two things are worth mentioning here about the making of this issue. One is the request from Tongji to publish more than 50 individuals in order to accommodate diversity. To do this they have agreed to cut the size of related materials. The other is the involvement of outsiders in the selection of the final list. Both are examples of openness, pluralism and modernity.

We would like to express our thanks to Prof. LI Zhenyu, Prof. LI Xiangning, Prof. CAI Yongjie, and many others, who have made this issue possible. □

Tongji Architecture Alumni: A Key to Modernity in Chinese Architecture

清华大学建筑学院 /《世界建筑》

2016-05-10