以结构的名义

张利/ZHANG Li

当维特鲁威将建筑的品质归纳为“坚固、实用和美观”，他是在谈论三者的统一。当然，那个时代资源有限，未曾出现供大于求的局面。在这些品质之中寻找一个平衡是建筑师与建造者终其一生的课题，甚至看起来似乎对于如何实现这三个品质最佳的协调统一有着普遍的共识。

然而，事到如今。我们生活在一个物质与技术极大丰富的时代。平衡，或统一不同的目标，是妥协的同义词、软弱的象征，甚至两个特质之间的斡旋都不再是必须的。要么有两个特质互惠互利，要么各自为政。

建筑作为不可或缺的物理存在，结构主要与坚固相关。重力找到了自己作用于结构的方式，亦敌亦友，显然必须遵从物理的定律、数学的语言。然而结构无法被视而不见。它的外表不可避免地会产生视觉感知，引发观众对于重力传导的解读，并最终接受审美的评判。我们都愿意相信，数学上成立的，必然是视觉上美观的。但是，这种观点一次又一次地被现实推翻。即使是最好的数学结果也不能保证会产生持久的审美享受。以最近的参数化建筑为例，罕见时，它们十分引人注目；大量出现时，它们变得无聊；冗余时，它们惹人反感。

对于结构，有着许多不同的处理方式：计算它们，或者设计它们，或者两者兼而有之。第一代明星建筑师，皮埃尔·奈尔维，几乎让我们认为，通过现代技术，数学与美学可以达成完美统一。这些壮观的钢筋混凝土结构不仅漂亮，也似乎是制造大跨度空间最有效的方式。通过对项目和相关文件的仔细分析，我们现在知道那看似完美的统一并不是真的。虽然我们不能否认奈尔维结构的视觉之美，然而我们可以质疑它们的有效性。这不仅是因为奈尔维没有计算他的结构。这不仅是因为，他爬到他商业成功的巅峰，而后却追名逐利毁掉了声誉。而是因为实现大跨度至少有另一种方法，即预应力混凝土，这一学派以里卡多·莫兰迪为代表，用材更省，跨度更大。

巴克明斯特·富勒太聪明，他不肯将智慧浪费在装饰性的琐碎之中。他的dymaxion chronofiles（少费多用，最大限度利用能源，以最少结构提供最大强度），当然置入了一些绝对强大和美丽的数学。他的网格穹顶实现了数学与美学真正的统一，即使那很短暂。蒙特利尔世博会美国馆本身是一个奇迹。靓丽的世博会建筑，它们的朝生暮死使其美得更为壮烈。但回到现实生活中，许多其他永久性的富勒穹顶，效果实在欠佳。

圣地亚哥·卡拉特拉瓦可能位于基因库的另一边，一位能够进行绝佳计算的极为有才华的艺术家。他的桥梁和建筑可以在数学与美学之间达成终极统一吗？算是吧，但仍有差距。卡拉特拉瓦结构的美丽在于富于韵律感地使用构件，并赋予它们动态形式。它们近看很自然，甚至是有机的，一些人喜欢将卡拉特拉瓦的结构称为仿生。但仔细看看这些结构，这一切自然、有机的美是过度使用构件的成果。如同奈尔维的作品，将几何置于物理之前。

因此，我们讨论结构还有何意义？当然，我们不再是寻求数学与美学之间的理想统一，甚至不敢幻想在我们这样一个资源耗竭的时代存在这样一种统一。然而，结构，宏伟的老建筑主体仍然提供着能够带我们回归建筑学基本问题的工具。我们需要突破道德抗辩的焦虑。我们需要突破计算算法的巧妙。我们需要突破自我指涉的虚无主义的批评。我们需要就建筑谈论建筑。我们需要新鲜空气，回到“坚固、实用、美观”的范畴中去。

因此，我们制作了这期专辑，收集了大多集中在西欧中部的谦逊的小建筑，所有这些作品的特点是在具有结构功能的构件上使用了丰富多样的材料。以结构的名义，我们开始了一段反思建筑的旅程。

我们特别感谢丹尼尔·瓦尔泽教授的努力，他使这一专辑成为可能。

When Vitruvius summarised the qualities of architecture in firmness, commodity and delight, he was talking about the unity of all three. Of course,that was in a time when nothing was in excessive supply. To search for a balance among these qualities was a skill that architects-builders learned through life time. It was even plausible that a universal consensus can be achieved on how to best coordinate and unify endeavours aimed at all three qualities.

That was then. Here is now. We live in a time where there is ample supply of everything, technology to say at least. To balance, or to unify different objectives is a synonym of making compromises and therefore an indication of weakness. Even the negotiation between two qualities isn't necessary.Either you have two qualities reciprocally working for each other, or forget about it.

As the indispensable physical existence through which a building stands, structure is mostly connected to firmness. Friend or foe, gravity find its way down a structure, and is clearly governed by the laws of physics, the language of which being mathematics.Yet a structure is not to be hidden from the sight. Its physicality inevitably creates visual perceptions, elicits the viewer's interpretation of gravity transmission,and eventually is subject to aesthetical judgments. We all want to believe that what is mathematically sound is visually delightful. But time and again we have been struck by reality that such statement doesn't hold.Even the best mathematics cannot guarantee long lasting aesthetic pleasure. Take the recent case of parametric buildings for example, they looked really striking when they were rare. Then they have become boring when they are plenty. And then disgusting when they become overkills.

There are different operations related to structures:you calculate them, or you design them, or you do both.Thanks to the first-generation star architect, Pier Luigi Nervi, we could have really believed that the perfect unity between mathematics and aesthetics can be achieved through modern technology. Those spectacular ferro concrete constructions were said to be not only beautiful, but THE MOST efficient way of generating those spans. Through careful analysis of both the built projects and the related documentations, we know now that seemingly perfect unity wasn't true. While we cannot deny the visual beauty of Nervi structures, we can however challenge the statement that they were indeed the most efficient. This is not only because the fact the Nervi didn't calculate his own structures. This is not only because that he climbed to his commercial success then broke it by chasing world fame. This is because there was at least another approach to big spans, namely the pre-stressed concrete school of people like Riccardo Morandi, which did used less and achieved more.

Buckminster Fuller was too smart to waste his brain on trivia of cosmetics. His dymaxion chronofiles are certainly embedded with some utterly powerful and beautiful mathematics. His geodesic dome did manage to generate some true unity between mathematics and aesthetics, albeit temporarily. The US Pavilion in Montreal Expo was a wonder in its own right. The ephemerality of fancy Expo structures made its beauty even greater. But returning to real life, scores of other built Fuller domes, which are permanent, fared much less well.

Santiago Calatrava may be from the other side of the gene pool, an extremely talented artist who can do ridiculously good calculations. Can his bridges and buildings be the ultimate unity between mathematics and aesthetics? Kind of, but still not even close. The beauty of a Calatrava structure lies in the rhythmic use of components and the dynamic shape given to each of them. They look so natural,or even organic that some like to refer Calatrava structures as biomimicry. But a closer look at these structures reveals that all this natural, organic beauty comes at the excessive use of components.Like in Nervi, geometry comes before physics.

So, what's the point of talking about structure?Certainly, we are no longer to seek an ideal unity between mathematics and aesthetics. We don't even dare to fancy the existence of such a unity in our time of resource depletion. Yet structure, the grand old architectural subject still provides a vehicle which can take us back to more basic questions of architecture. We need some break from the anxiety of ethical debates. We need some break from the acrobatics of computing algorithms. We need some break from the nihilism of self-referential criticism.We need to talk about architecture like architecture.We need some fresh air back in the sphere of firmness, commodity and delight.

Hence, we are making this humble collection of small buildings in central west Europe, all of which feature a variety of uses of materials in components that have structural functions. It is in the name of structure that we depart on a small journey of architecture rethinking.

Our special thanks to Prof. Daniel A. Walser whose effort makes this issue possible.