从理念到直觉，从城市到建筑

多林·斯蒂芬/Dorin Stefan

徐知兰 译/Translated by XU Zhilan

1 城市

我们发现，历史上曾出现过许多对城市进行研究、组织和发展的不同模式。总体而言，人们通过原型，从文化和建筑两个层面对欧洲城市进行解读。因此，人类进行城市建设的第一个原型就是以网格状结构为基础的古希腊城市。古希腊人在对星辰和苍穹的凝望中，找到了他们想要的和谐，他们通过理性秩序在人间实现了和谐。紧随其后的第二种城市建设原型是古罗马城市，由相互垂直的南北大道和东西大道两条轴线在中点相交构成，在交点处形成城市中心，并在那里建有各种象征权力的标志性建筑。而每一座新建成罗马城市聚落都不断重复这个原型。之后，中世纪时期出现了理想城市的基础模型。进入现代，我们可以讨论的是现代主义运动时期的城市原型，也就是勒·柯布西耶设计的线性城市。

网格状的城市模型、南北大道和东西大道形成的正交轴线城市模型和线性城市都反映了人类理性的头脑和概念。这些概念和它们产生的现实往往彼此冲突，在我们的头脑中，它们不断消除、重叠、限制或建设了我们想象中的虚构空间，让它不断扩张，直至蔓延全球。概念一个接着一个，虚假紧随虚构而来。全球化的虚构空间越来越成为可供消费的产品。也许，这就是我们永远被过去的历史纠缠不清的原因，那段历史形成于我们闯进概念的迷宫之前。古希腊人出于对拥有非世俗世界的渴望，通过神话人物代达罗斯i把平凡的人世间变得规划有序，来映射天堂之美。他们通过理性秩序的方式建立起（超越尘世的）和谐天堂。我们无法理解超凡脱俗的事物。但我们可以通过理性秩序建成平凡之物，让它们反映超越平凡的特征。

勒·柯布西耶把现代城市安置在多层建筑里，为了实现坐落在花园里的街区，为了把工厂从住宅区里搬走，也为了实现人车分流，分隔开不同的城市功能。勒·柯布西耶的这座现代城市——也就是线性城市，和过去由“毛驴小道”界定的历史城市截然相反。毛驴的双目紧盯地面，四蹄不停前行，时而需要翻山越岭，它的主人紧跟其后，这幅场景描绘了天然的古代城市[1]。勒·柯布西耶就这样用理性的现代城市来对抗这种只能一味因循“毛驴小道”向前发展的、非理性的历史城市。当然，勒·柯布西耶对城市原型的概括和简化也体现了部分真理的伟大象征意义。只是，重点并不在于历史城市和现代城市之间的差别，而在于天然城市和理性城市之间的不同。因为我发现历史城市在本质上有其自身的理性基础，而其差异却在于理性和直觉之间。在艺术研究领域，画家和理论家索林·杜米雷斯库[2]曾比较了“思想雕塑”和“意识雕塑”之间的异同。这位画家把康斯坦丁·布朗库西ii的作品分为两组，一组是发自内心的作品，如《祈祷者》《地球的智慧》《吻》；另一组则是产生自概念、“对形式进行升华”的作品，包括《空中之鸟》《鱼》《雄鸡》等等。

回到有关城市主题的探讨，耶稣基督从未绘制过任何城市的蓝图。他只是在天堂等待人们到来——在那个超越尘俗的地方。而人类则借助思想的概念在尘世中建造出天堂的固定形式。历史城市是人工雕琢的结果，它是人类头脑的产物。最早的建设者表达了他的概念——网格形式；第二位则持有另一种概念——两条正交的轴线；第三个概念是单一的线性空间。那些人们曾经建立和规划的历史城市，体现了这些思想观念变成意识形态的过程。它们借助意识形态的力量代代相传，长盛不衰。它们曾被尘俗中的强权利用，被思想的力量驱使，在那些强权者的人类同胞面前为他们代言。历史城市的形象是一副后来形成的面具，此前只有最初的人类聚落随意地彼此共存。因此不拘一格的聚落形式才是最原始的形式，然后才通过这副面具（固定的形式） 变得正式起来。现在就回到随意的形态如何？那就是，丢掉面具的生活，在去除了意识形态面具的城市中生活。我们哀叹着历史城市的消逝失落，其实我们此刻也仍在迷宫中茫然失措。我们陷入了概念的迷宫而无力逃脱。所以现在是否正应丢掉面具（也就是理想的历史城市的概念），离开这座迷宫？是不是放弃了这个理念，我们就会因此看起来迷失了方向？我们曾经带着开放的心灵走进迷宫，不知不觉地变成了概念的囚徒，而我们现在是否重新找到了心灵的思维——也就是直觉了？

也许，如果我们能找到那个在弹指一瞬间、理念刚好偏离了直觉的位置，我们就能走出这座迷宫。

2 建筑学

一般来说，我们觉得自己知道建筑是什么，也知道它是如何建成的，我们通过专业训练和执业实践[3]来掌握建筑学的技能。而我目前关心的是（考虑到自己在建筑学教育领域多年来的持续投入），借助在设计过程中采用计算机和人工智能技术的便捷性能，在未来，建筑师是否还能发挥同样的作用？或者说，他们会越来越多地被人工智所能替代；又或者……被其他什么要素所替代吗？毋庸置疑的是，计算机目前为我们提供了巨大的帮助，尤其是在提高设计效率方面，在完成项目建设方面也同样如此。计算机能更快地运作，而对投资者来说，速度非常重要。那么，从今往后，机器能取代一切吗？答案仍未可知。在这样的情景下，我怀疑人类建筑师还有什么方面是不能被机器建筑师所取代的。如果一切都转化为知识和程序性的决策，那么，还有什么要素是不可替代的？为了找到答案，我回溯到起点，回到人工建成环境还只有简单的形式、只是人类庇护场所的时代。我在思考，曾经带领我们离开庇护空间的出口是否也曾引领我们走向建筑学？建筑学是否曾为我们打开了新的领域？一处建成空间的领域不仅是技术上十分有效的具有物质形态的庇护所，同时也是各种思想和与物质空间保持一致的精神空间的“庇护所”。

1 The city

We find in the history different models of tracing, organising and developing of cities. In general, the European city is read culturally and architecturally, through archetypes. Thus the first archetype of the founded city would have been that of ancient Greece based on the grid. The ancient Greeks, looking in the stars and at the sky, found a harmony they were trying to bring to earth through the rational order. It followed the second archetype of the founded city - the Roman city, marked by two axes, cardo and decumanus, perpendicular to each other, intersected at the middle, thus defining a centre equipped with the marks of power, in a process of permanent re-founding with each new Roman settlement. It followed in the Middle Ages a founding model of the ideal city and in Modernity we can talk about the city of the Modern Movement,the linear city drawn by Le Corbusier.

The grid model, cardo & decumanus, the linear city, was established as a reflection of the rational mind, of the idea. Ideas, their deeds, fought against each other, annihilated, overlapped, imposed, and produced in our minds a fictional space that expanded until it became global. Idea by idea. Fictitious after fictional. A globalised fictional becoming a consumer product. Perhaps this is why we are permanently haunted by a past that could only be the one before entering the labyrinth of the idea. The ancient Greeks,through the legendary Dedalus, began, ordering the earthly world as a reflection of heavenly beauty, in the desire to have a non-earthy earth. Establishing heavenly harmony (beyond the earth) through the gesture of rational order. What we cannot understand is extraordinary. What we can implement as a reflex of the extra-ordinary is an ordinary one, coming from the rational order.

Le Corbusier places the modern city on levels,segregates the functions of the city for the sake of the blocks in the park, of the factories separated from the houses and of devided traffic: pedestrian and cars. The modern city, the linear city, opposite to the historical city defined by the "donkey road". With his eyes on the ground, the donkey climbed the hill or followed its course as its feet carried and the man followed it, defining the historical, organic city[1].Thus Le Corbusier opposes to the irrational historical city, which would follow only the "donkey road"the modern, rational city. Of course, Le Corbusier generalises and simplifies but also has a great symbol of truth. Only that the difference won't be between the historical and the modern city but between the organic and the rational city. Because I saw that the historical foundation has a rational idea at its base. The distinction would be between reason and instinct. And in art we have the distinction that Sorin Dumitrescu[2], the painter and theoretician, makes between thought sculpture and mind sculpture. The painter distinguishes between the achievements of Constantin Brancusi, those of the heart, The Prayer,Wisdom of the Earth (Cumintenia Pamantului), the Kiss and those of the idea, those of the "sublimation of form": Bird in Space, The Fish, The Rooster etc.

Returning to the city, Jesus Christ did not draw any city. He is waiting for people in heaven. In that extra-ordinary. People, through the idea of mind,have formalised a heaven on earth. The historic city is an artifact, a product of the mind. The first founder had an idea of representation, the grid. The second one had another idea, two perpendicular axes, and the third one linear. The historical cities,founded, organised, are ideas becoming ideologies.They have been perpetuated from generation to generation by the ideology power. Imposed by the power of the powerful on earth, imposed by the force of the mind, to represent them in front of their peers. The image of the historically city is a mask, which appeared late, after the first human settlements began to coexist informally. It was first the informal, who were formalised with a mask(form). Let us go back to informal now? That is, to live without a mask, in a city deprived of the mask of ideology. We deplore the historic city we lost when we were actually lost in the maze. We went into the maze led by ideas and could not get out. Is it now this loss of the mask (the idea of the ideal historical city) coming out of the maze? Do we seem disoriented because we no longer have the idea?We entered the labyrinth with an open heart, as we lived informally captives of the idea, and now we find again the thoughts of the heart, the instinct?

Maybe we could get out of the maze if we found the point where the click occurred, where the sense of instinct deviated from the idea.

2 Architecture

Generally, we consider that we know what architecture is or how it is made, in the sense that we practice it by the virtue of the specialised training and experience[3]; what concerns me now(given my constant involvement for many years in architecture education) is - by virtue of the beneficial presence of the computer and artificial intelligence in the design process - if the architect in the future will have the same role or artificial intelligence replace us more and more? Or... what will replace it? Without discussion, the computer helps us now enormously, especially in terms of efficiency of design, but also of realisation; the computer can operate faster; for an investor, speed meant a lot; and then the machine will take over everything? We don't know yet; and in this context I wonder where the architect-being could not be replaced by the architect-machine; if everything becomes knowledge and procedural decision, where will be the irreplaceable being? Looking for answers,I thought back to the beginning, to those times when the artificial built space was a simple gesture,a shelter; and I was wondering - did the exit from the shelter lead us to architecture? Has architecture opened a new horizon for us? The horizon of a space built not only technically efficient physical shelter but at the same time a "shelter" of thoughts, of a mental space in solidarity with physical space.

我从建筑师因德拉·卡吉斯·麦克尤恩精彩纷呈的书中了解到，似乎建筑始于希腊神庙外围廊的空间[4]。那是一处既非围合也非开敞的空间。神庙的墙体引起的心灵震动既不属于洞穴的黑暗，也不属于室外的阳光。这是一处新的空间，是为了让努力奋斗的物种能够见诸光明。建筑是新的空间吗？因德拉·卡吉斯·麦克尤恩告诉我们，建筑如何作为一种意象而不是一处庇护空间缓慢形成的过程。建筑师一直以来都被称为照亮想象和建成物理环境的人。而早在建筑学、哲学、数学和戏剧之前就出现的，是手工艺。它是对尘世中创造性的天才所具备知识的欣赏和崇敬，也是对想把天堂里的宇宙和平与和谐带到人间的匠人的欣赏和崇敬。代达罗斯、西奥多罗斯iii、罗伊克斯iv、厄帕俄斯v、伽尔瑟夫农vi、梅塔杰纳斯vii等神话中的建筑师和工匠把想象变为现实，然后又从现实变为想象，形成了所谓的建筑。他们“建造”了神庙——一处祭拜的空间，其四周围绕着廊柱，这些廊柱在他们的想象中犹如飞行与陶罐，也仿佛神话和现实1）[4]。

工匠、艺术家和建筑师用手工艺的方式，模仿了我们在自然界中见到的景象，其目的却是为了获得我们需要为之赋予意义的人工制品。让我们来阐释一下。

建筑空间通过某种意义，或带着某种意义，围合了周围的环境。直到人工建造的场所被赋予意义以前，它只是出于生存需要的空间。洞穴本身作为未知的象征，也作为假想中的宇宙，人类在其中描绘了许多符号，由此来加强心理上的内化过程2）[5]，这一过程始于人类对自身在世界中所处的位置进行探索的行为。出于生存需要的空间见诸光明[6]，并在人们面对外界现实感到震惊的时候得以建成；此后，又在人类对自己在有形现实世界中耀武扬威的姿态感到惊讶的情形中建成。建筑像一只翻转的手套，揭示了居住的涵义。意识在洞穴中留下痕迹，又指向了室外的现实事物——如一只陶罐、一匹纺织的帆布、一艘木船。这意味着给予者的出现。他走出洞穴，做了一只陶罐，织了一匹布，凿了一艘木船，穿了一身布衣。他用帆布遮蔽自己的身体。他登上了船。他欣赏那个陶罐、那艘船，以及绘有各种符号的帆布。内在的符号见诸光明，就像离开“黑房间”的过程，光赋予了反面以意义，由此产生了图像，并完成了外化的过程。反面变成了正面，并取而代之。建筑成为建造自身的人工建成空间。反面取而代之的过程正是建筑的意义所在。人工构建的意义留下了印迹。它标记了道路。我们能擦掉这些意义的印迹吗？我们能毫无痛苦地摆脱它们吗？我不知道。但它们还在这里，我们也仍带着这些印迹。

建筑自有神话起就体现了同样多的功能必要和内心渴望。它具有功能的必要性，因为庇护空间和食物是人类生存的必需品。人类对精神空间的渴望则来源于他想完成物理空间的建设，进而拓展它，赋予它确定性，赋予它美感，以便享受生命的乐趣。精神空间和物理空间共同形成了人造的建成环境。

我不知道出于关心（或也许是恐惧）的立场，建筑是否会成为人工智能主导的排他性领域（并带来建筑师的失业）。我更乐于认为，我们作为人类，在我们所从事的创造性活动中，不仅需要算法，也需要直觉 （也就是非程序性的思考）。有人也许会说，我们正在用头脑和意识进行创造，抑或称为理性和心灵，又或是概念和思想。

为了实现建筑设计，我们在工作中同时使用概念和直觉，同时依靠头脑和心灵，也同时信赖理性和意识。如果我们承认，理念或概念是能够用数学（也就因此能用人工智能）的方式进行“解读”、无需意识参与的算法，那么思想、直觉和意识就是很难用算法来驾驭的东西。这也就是在今天，当一切事物都向着“提供支持”的路径发展的同时，它们也更接近人工智能的危险的原因，因为直觉和意识可能是人类独有的品质。创造力也同样来自热情，热情恰恰是意识，而非理念。□

译注/Notes from translator

i 代达罗斯是古希腊神话中的建筑师和雕刻家，相传曾为克里特国王建造迷宫。

ii 康斯坦丁·布朗库西（1876-1957）生于罗马尼亚，法国雕塑家和现代摄影家。他是继奥古斯特·罗丹之后，20世纪最具影响力的雕塑家，被誉为现代主义雕塑先驱。

iii 西奥多罗斯，公元前6世纪的萨米亚雕塑家罗伊科斯的儿子。

iv 罗伊科斯是公元前6世纪的萨米亚雕塑家。他和他的儿子西奥多罗斯的青铜作品尤为引人注目；据希罗多德说，罗伊科斯曾在萨摩斯岛上建造了赫拉神庙，后来被大火烧毁。

v 厄帕俄斯是希腊神话中的英雄，特洛伊战争中参加希腊联军，不仅是有名的拳击手，也是一位能工巧匠，在雅典娜帮助下建造了特洛伊木马。

vi 伽尔瑟夫农是克诺索斯古克里特岛的建筑师，是以弗所的阿耳忒弥斯神庙的建造者。

vii 梅塔杰纳斯是克诺索斯古克里特岛的建筑师伽尔瑟夫农的儿子，他跟随父亲参与了以弗所的阿耳忒弥斯神庙的建造。

I found in a book, a fascinating story told by an architect, Indra Kagis McEwen[4], as if the architecture had begun in that space of the peripter porch of the Greek temple. A space neither closed nor open. A vibration of the wall that was given neither to the darkness of the cave neither to the sunlight. A new space for a struggling being to come to light. Architecture a new space? Indra Kagis McEwen tells us how the architecture started slowly and was not intended as a shelter but as an image. Architects have since been called those who put the light on the imagination and give the built substance. Before architecture, before philosophy,before mathematics, before drama, there was the craftsmanship. It was the admiration and veneration for the knowledge of the earth's creative genius. Of the man who wanted to bring to earth the peace and harmony of the cosmos seen in heaven. Dedal,Theodorus, Rhoikos, Epeius, Chersifron, Metagenes,mythical architects and craftsmen made possible that transfer from the imaginary to the real and then from the real to the imaginary, that the people called architecture. They "built" the temple - the space of veneration, surrounded by columns, columns that embodied in their imagination flight and pottery,myths and realities1)[4].

Craftsmen, artists, architects through our artefacts we copy what we see in nature but in order to acquire our artifact we need to give it meaning.Let us interpret it.

In/by significance the architectural space closes round. Until it has been filled with significance the artificially constructed space is emptyness-lived-byneed. The cave, itself, a symbol of an unknown but assumed cosmos, is signed by man to strengthen his psychological internalisation2)[5]started with the investigation of the positioning in the world.Emptyness-lived-by-need comes to light[6]and is established in the architecture by the astonishment of the man in front of the reality-from outside and then, by the astonishment at his own gestures flaunting tangible realities. Like a glove turned on its back, the architecture brought to light the significance of the dwelling. Consciousness was signed in the cave and it was designated outside, in the reality of the things: a clay pot, a woven canvas,a wooden boat. Meaning givers. He came out of the cave, he made a pot of clay, he wove a canvas, he made a boat, he put a canvas on him. He covered himself with the canvas. He boarded on the ship.He adorned the clay pot, the ship and the canvas with signs. The inner sign came to light. Like the process from the "dark room", the light gave the negative meaning, it generate the image, it was externalised. The negative got positive. It has taken over. Architecture is an artificial space built itself.The process of taking over is the meaning of the architecture. The established meaning has left signs.It kept the road signs. Can we erase the signs of significance? Can we be deprived of them without suffering? I do not know. They are still present. We still carry these signs.

Starting from the myth, the architecture is in equal measure necessity and desire. Necessity because shelter along with food is vital to life. The desire for the mental space comes to complete the physical space,expand it, give it certainty, give it beauty, participate in the joy of life. The metal and the physical space form altogether the artificial built environment.

I do not know if from the concern (perhaps fear)that architecture will become the exclusive privilege of artificial intelligence (and the architect will lose his job) I like to believe that we, the people, in our creative works operate not only with algorithms but also with intuition (non-procedural thinking).Some would say that we operate concurrently with the brain and the consciousness. Or with reason and heart. Or with the idea and the thought.

For its realisation we work with ideas and intuitions, with the brain and the heart, with the reason and with the conscience. If we admit that ideas are non-conscious algorithms, which can be"read" mathematically (so by artificial intelligence),then thought, intuition, consciousness, are conscious algorithms that are hard to be gouverned by algorithms.That is why today, when everything is on the way to the"support", but also the danger of artificial intelligence,the intuition and the consciousness, could be those particularities specific to the human being. Creativity also comes from enthusiasm, enthusiasm which is consciousness, not idea.□

注释/Notes

1）“那些神话人物之间独具创造性的相互影响更进一步暗示，周围神庙的翼廊和早期把建筑同时阐释为对飞行和航海的表达有很大的关系。”来源：参考文献[4]/"The ingenious correspondences between the mythical figures further suggest that the pteron of the peripterous temple had much to do with an early interpretation of architecture both as embodied flight and as navigation..." Sources: Reference [4]

2）“洞穴是归属地的象征，是心理学的内化过程。这一过程结束后，人类才成为他自己，变得成熟起来。因此他不得不仿造出他留下过印记的整个世界，同时冒着扰乱它的风险，把这些影响接纳为构成自身力量的一部分，由此整合他自己的个性和他为了适应周遭世界而发展出来的个性。内在自我的组织及其与外部世界的联系同步发生。而洞穴，从这个角度来看，因其包容性而成为人类主体性的象征，与此同时，它也仍然有许多差异性的问题。”

来源：参考文献[5]/"The cave symbolises the place of identification, that is the process of psychological internalisation, after which the individual becomes himself and reaches maturity. He will therefore have to assimilate the whole collective world that puts his stamp on it, at the risk of disturbing it, and to integrate these contributions into his own powers, so as to constitute his own personality and a personality adapted to the world around him. The organisation of the inner self and its relation with the outer world is concurrent. The cave symbolises, from this point of view, the subjectivity, in its inclusion with the problems of its differentiation."Sources: Reference [5]

参考文献/References

[1] LE CORBUSIER. Essential Joys. Bucharest:Meridiane Publishing House, 1971.

[2] DUMITRESCU S. Gorduz, from Ideas to "Showing", 7 Lessons to Make Art. Anastasia Publishing House, 2010.

[3] STEFAN D. Captives in the Labyrinth//Designing the Profile of The Future Architect. ROBU-MOVILA A,TIGANAS S, MINDIRIGIU E, eds. Igloo, 2019.

[4] MCEWEN I K. Socrates' Ancestor: An Essay on Architectural Beginnings. CambridgeMass:The MIT Press, 1993.

[5] CHEVALIER J, GHEERBRANT A, BUCHANANBROWN J. Dictionary of Symbols: myths, dreams,customs, gestures, forms, figures, colours, numbers.Penguin Books, 2009: 718.

[6] STEFAN D. Is light the poetry of the life of architecture?. IGLOO Magazine, 2019.