M.L.比亞叨達·他威邦西邦/M.L.Piyalada Thaveeprungsriporn

李若星 譯/Translated by LI Ruoxing

泰國性策略

M.L.比亞叨達·他威邦西邦/M.L.Piyalada Thaveeprungsriporn

李若星 譯/Translated by LI Ruoxing

建筑長久以來被認為是居住者精神和特性的重要體現(xiàn)。當我們在全球化時代中經(jīng)歷著極端的流動性時，“我們在哪里”以及與之直接相關(guān)的“我們是誰”的觀念變得越來越模糊。簡而言之，建筑作為個人和文化身份表達的觀念陷入了從未有過的困境。但是，當我們更細致地觀察時，我們開始發(fā)現(xiàn)日常生活中的細微差別仍然根植于文化之中。我們體內(nèi)的“泰國性”仍然在各種方面起作用，許多文化和藝術(shù)作品強烈地表現(xiàn)出這種感覺。本文將研究這些揭示出泰國性詩意的多樣方式。

文化特性，泰國性，符號化形式，空間體驗，當代建筑

文化特性的概念在建筑領域并不新鮮，它在最近40年的建筑文獻中經(jīng)常被研究和討論。據(jù)推測，建筑應具有特性的最早的提倡是針對現(xiàn)代單調(diào)城市景觀提出的一個后現(xiàn)代批判。諾伯格-舒爾茲的《場所精神：邁向建筑現(xiàn)象學》（1979）和肯尼斯·弗蘭姆普頓的《走向批判地域主義：建筑抵抗的六點》（1983）是關(guān)注無場所性和非精神性建成環(huán)境的時代特性的少有經(jīng)典著作[1-2]。在新千年里，場所的觀念和它的文化特性在建筑文獻中仍然具有巨大的價值，這在數(shù)不勝數(shù)的出版物和論壇中可見1）。在泰國的背景下，文化特性在藝術(shù)和建筑中一直是個吸引人的主題，有時甚至是最重要的問題。但是在過去的10年里，當?shù)亟ㄖ熢絹碓蕉嗟厥艿绞澜绺鞯刈钚伦髌返募ぐl(fā)，對文化特性的興趣逐漸衰退。這是否與突然在網(wǎng)絡平臺上大量傳播的建筑設計信息相關(guān)，還需要更多的調(diào)查，然而明顯的是，泰國當代建筑設計的文化特性再一次成為問題。在當今的時代，城市居住者在表面上過著相似的生活、吃著相似的連鎖餐廳、依賴相似的國際化品牌、購買相似的居家用品，文化特性是否還對當代建筑設計具有任何意義？是否已經(jīng)幾乎無關(guān)——“我們不再生活在舊時代，所以泰國性可以是任何屬性”？或者我們拋棄它只是因為我們太過無知而不能深層挖掘泰國特性的傳承？但是，在最近幾年，為數(shù)不多的幾個展覽重新點燃了藝術(shù)領域?qū)μ﹪缘呐d趣——最為相關(guān)的是暹羅建筑師協(xié)會（ASA）年度展覽會Architect' 11上的“解密泰國特性”（Plod Lock Ekaluck Thai, 2011）。另一個在曼谷藝術(shù)文化中心的展覽“酷泰國”（Thai Tay, 2012）探索了泰國當代社會中藝術(shù)和文化更為廣泛的領域。巴差·素威拉蓬的《泰國特性：從泰國到泰國的泰國》（Attaluck Thai: Chak Thai Soo Thai Thai , 2011）也證明了宣傳和大眾媒體對泰國特性興趣的復興。

在興趣重新產(chǎn)生的狀況下，本文探索在建筑中表達泰國性詩意的方式。鑒于需要考慮的廣闊的時間框架和多樣的作品，這固然是極具挑戰(zhàn)的一項工作，具有過度簡化的風險。因此，本文的第一部分將簡要地考察當代建筑實踐（1933-1982）對泰國文化特性的多種表達，以提供一種總體的、歷史性的綜述。第二部分聚焦于將泰國性作為當代泰國建筑設計的靈感之源。

1 泰國性的足跡 | 簡要的綜述（1933-1982）

像在許多非西方國家一樣，現(xiàn)代建筑在泰國并不是一個自然產(chǎn)生的現(xiàn)象，而是“進口的”。第一批受到歐洲訓練的泰國建筑師開始他們的現(xiàn)代專業(yè)實踐，在皇室贊助下于1933年成立了暹羅建筑師協(xié)會，并在同年積極投身于建立泰國第一所建筑學?！炖」Υ髮W的建筑學院。在那個時期，現(xiàn)代建筑在歐洲和美國正處于巔峰，現(xiàn)代思想和風格很自然地通過這些建筑師的實踐傳播，并波及到朱拉隆功的建筑課程設置。因此，一種刺眼的橫亙在傳統(tǒng)和現(xiàn)代之間的斷裂是不可避免的。1933年之后對泰國建筑進化的研究揭示出，現(xiàn)代與傳統(tǒng)泰國建筑設計和實踐在實質(zhì)上具有各自獨立的方式[3]。

1 帕西瑪哈他寺平常大廳，曼谷，1942（建筑師：帕·邦比集爾）/The Ordinary Hall, Wat Phra Srimahathat, Bangkok (1942), by Phra Prompijitr（1-5、7、8圖片來源：Pussadee Tiptus）

The topic of cultural identity in architecture is nothing new. It has been frequently examined and debated in architectural discourses over the last 40 years. Presumably, calls for an architecture with a sense of identity originally surfaced as a postmodern critique of the Modern monotonous cityscape. Christian Norberg-Schulz's Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (1979) and Kenneth Frampton's Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance (1983) are but a few leading works that reflect concern about placelessness and the uninspired built environment of the time[1-2]. And the notion of place and its cultural specificity have remained of great value in architectural discourse well into the new millennium as evident in numerous publications and symposia since that time1). In the Thai context, cultural identity in art and architecture has always been a topic of interest, at times more so than others. Over the last decade, however, such interest seems to have subsided as local architects have become increasingly inspired by the latest works from around the world. Whether that has anything to do with the sudden proliferation of design info through web-based architectural publications requires further investigation. It is nevertheless clear that the relevance of cultural identity in Thai contemporary architectural design is once again being called into question. In a day and age when, ostensibly, urban dwellers lead similar lives, eat at similar chain restaurants, rely on similar global brands and consume similar household products, does cultural identity still mean anything for contemporary architectural design? Does it become virtually irrelevant-"We-don't-live-in-the-old-days-anymore-so-itcan-be-anything Thai-ness"? Or do we dismiss it simply because we are too ignorant to dig deep into what Thai identity entails? In recent years, a few exhibitions have rekindled artistic interest in Thai-ness—the most relevant being Plod Lock Ekaluck Thai (Unlocking Thai Identity) in ASA's annual exposition Architect’11 (2011). Another exhibition, Thai Tay (Cool Thai), at the Bangkok Art and Cultural Center (2012) explored the broader realms of art and culture in contemporary Thai society. Pracha Suweeranon's book Attaluck Thai: Chak Thai Soo Thai Thai (Thai Identity: From Thai to Thai Thai, 2011) is also a testament to a resurgence of the interest in Thai identity in advertising and mass media.

With such a renewed interest in mind, this essay explores the manners in which the poetics ofThainess is manifest in architecture. Given the broad timeframe and variety of works to be considered, this is admittedly an extremely challenging task, running the risk of oversimplification. As such, this review should be considered a mere synopsis of a complex phenomenon. With that in mind, the first part of the essay will briefly examine the various expressions of Thai cultural identity in modern architectural practice (1933-1982), providing an overview or a historical survey of sort. The second part will then focus on Thainess as design inspiration for contemporary Thai architecture.

1 Traces of Thainess | A Brief Survey (1933 -1982)

As in many other non-western countries, Modern architecture in Thailand was hardly an indigenous phenomenon, rather it was something "imported". The first generation of European-trained Thai architects started their modern professional practice and formed the Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage in 1933 and was active in the foundation of the first architecture school in the country, namely the Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, in the same year. At such a time, when Modern architecture was at its peak in Europe and the United States, it was only natural that Modern thinking and stylistic influences would spread through these architects' practices and penetrate the architectural curriculum at Chulalongkorn. Given this, a glaring discontinuity between tradition and the modern was inevitable. Studies of the evolution of Thai architecture from 1933 onward reveal the almost entirely segregated paths of modern and traditional Thai architectural designs and practices[3].

Taking a closer look, traces of "Thai-ness"-broadly defined here as a constellation of geographical, climatic, socio-cultural and aesthetic particularities-in architecture emerge. On the one hand, Classical/Traditional Thai architecture practice carried on, continuing its reliance on traditional formal language, spatial order, symbolism and tectonic and decorative details. Modern materials and construction technology were well adopted yet still more or less subservient to traditional forms (fig.1). It is noteworthy that these traditional buildings mostly served traditional functions-i.e. religious and ceremonial structures.

Presence of Thainess in "modern" buildings was relatively diverse. Generally speaking, they may be arranged into 3 categories: (1) Conventional Thai, (2) Tropical Thai and (3) Contemporary Thai. Closest in appearance to Traditional Thai architecture, yet not to be mistaken as one, is Conventional Thai, whose most distinguishing features are dominating pitched roofs, symmetrical building organization and traditional decorative elements. These features were simply applied to the top of a modern structure so as to "appear Thai" in response to the then prime minister Field Marshal P. Pibulsongkram's "Thai National Identity" policies begun in 1938[3]. Essentially, these buildings differed from their traditional counterparts in that their "Thai" characters lay only in the outward appearancesroofs and facades. Their architectonic elements, spatial order, tectonic language and functions were mostly non-traditional-e.g., schools, governmental offices, to name a few. Put simply, they were modern buildings with traditional looking roofs and decorations applied as signification of Thai-ness (fig.2-4).

If the Conventional buildings were Thai by intention, those classified as Tropical Thai would therefore be "just" Thai. The formal language of these works was decidedly modern, yet with characteristic features that were mostly responsive to the geographical and climatic concerns of the area2). Pitched roofs with broad eaves, roofs with extra long overhangs and sun shading devices such as louvers, brise soleil, and masonry screens were featured prominently in these buildings, which belonged mostly to the period between 1958-19723). In contrast to the deliberate symbolism of the Conventional, the Tropical’s sense of identity seemed perhaps more inherent and natural, although the screen designs in certain cases implied traditional Thai motifs (fig.5-8).

2 差甲邦樓，曼谷，1932（建筑師：M.C.伊德希德訕·吉達甲拉）/Chakkrabongs Building, Bangkok , 1932 (by M.C.Iddhidepsan Kridakara)

進一步看，“泰國性”的痕跡（此處大體定義為地理的、氣候的、社會文化的和美學的特性）在建筑中顯現(xiàn)出來。一方面，經(jīng)典或傳統(tǒng)的泰國建筑實踐在繼續(xù)，持續(xù)依靠傳統(tǒng)的形式語言、空間秩序、符號、建構(gòu)和裝飾細節(jié)。現(xiàn)代材料和建造技術(shù)很好地被采用，但仍然或多或少地屈從于傳統(tǒng)形式（圖1）。值得注意的是，這些傳統(tǒng)建筑大多數(shù)服務于傳統(tǒng)功能，例如宗教和儀式建筑。

“現(xiàn)代”建筑中的泰國性相對多樣化?？傮w上它們可以分為3種類型：（1） 傳統(tǒng)泰國；（2）熱帶泰國；（3）當代泰國。傳統(tǒng)泰國類型的形式最像泰國傳統(tǒng)建筑，但是不能與傳統(tǒng)泰國建筑混為一談，它們最為突出的特征是具有主導性的坡屋頂、對稱的建筑布局和傳統(tǒng)的裝飾元素。這些特征只是加在一個現(xiàn)代結(jié)構(gòu)上，從而讓建筑“看著像泰國的”，以此回應當時的泰國首相鑾披汶·頌堪陸軍元帥在1938年提出的“泰國國家特性”政策[3]。本質(zhì)上，這些建筑與它們對應的傳統(tǒng)建筑的差別在于它們的“泰國”特性僅僅依賴于外觀——屋頂和立面。建筑元素、空間秩序、建構(gòu)語言和功能基本上都是非傳統(tǒng)的，例如學校、政府辦公樓。簡而言之，它們是以傳統(tǒng)樣式的屋頂和裝飾表達泰國性的現(xiàn)代建筑（圖2-4）。

如果說那些被歸為傳統(tǒng)泰國類型的建筑帶有人為的泰國性，那么，被歸為熱帶泰國類型的建筑則是實實在在的泰國建筑。這些建筑的形式語言完全是現(xiàn)代的，但是具有應對當?shù)氐乩砗蜌夂蛱匦缘奶卣?）。其中顯著的特征是寬屋檐的坡屋頂、長長的向外懸挑的屋頂和諸如百葉、遮陽板和磚石幕的遮陽設備，這一時期主要是指1958-1972年3）。與傳統(tǒng)泰國類型有意為之的符號象征相比，熱帶泰國類型的特性價值似乎更為內(nèi)在和自然，盡管一些案例中的幕墻設計暗示有傳統(tǒng)的泰國主題（圖5-8）。

3 海關(guān)總署（設計：泰國公共工程部）/Department of Customs (by Department of Public Works)

據(jù)威蒙西提·霍拉揚古拉（Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura）等人，傳統(tǒng)泰國類型風格開始于1938年左右，熱帶泰國類型的建筑大多數(shù)出現(xiàn)于1958-1972年。第三種當代泰國類型在1972年之后引入，是對被視為表面符號的傳統(tǒng)泰國風格的批判性反應[4]。它最初的目標是抓住本質(zhì)特性并以現(xiàn)代設計、材料和技術(shù)語言對它們進行再闡釋。因此，它主張當代泰國設計應具有泰國的精神特性，而不是簡單地從傳統(tǒng)“抄襲”。在1970年代出現(xiàn)的一些此類作品是公認的非常成功的作品，例如威洛·西素（Wirote Srisuro）設計的沙拉羅伊寺（Wat Salaloy，圖9），Plan建筑師事務所的巴恩·巴里乍德（Baan Parichat），它們?yōu)榻裉斓奶﹪ㄖ熖峁┝艘粋€強有力的新方向。

2 當代狀況

但是應該被當代泰國建筑吸收的“泰國精神”或者是同樣難以捉摸的泰國的“本質(zhì)特征”究竟是什么？對于這樣的“精神”，是否只有一個正確答案？或者由于泰國文化自身多樣和復雜的本性，它也具有一定的多樣性？還需要考慮的是，將這些品質(zhì)成功而詩意地融入現(xiàn)代設計之中的復雜程度。該如何完成這項任務？通過形式、空間秩序、建筑細節(jié)、符號、材料和建構(gòu)，或其他？這里有無盡的可能性，所以，只有從多樣的當代設計中汲取能力，從而理解泰國文化特性的外在表達方式。根據(jù)泰國性的實現(xiàn)方式，相關(guān)作品可以被分為兩種主要類型：（1）符號形式中的泰國性；（2）空間體驗中的泰國性。每種類型還包含子類型，將在下文中給出相應解釋。

2.1 符號形式中的泰國性

在所有的當代泰國建筑作品中，通過符號形式表達文化特性的作品是最易于識別的。這些作品可以被分為兩個子類型——“敘述性”參考和“闡釋性”參考。敘述性形式屬于更為“直接”比喻過去的建筑，以多種程度的簡化為典型特征，它們是各種“標志性”的招牌。其范圍包含從在整體設計上參考傳統(tǒng)或鄉(xiāng)土建筑（將整體建筑或項目設計為“看起來”像老建筑），到在整體項目的一部分引入傳統(tǒng)或鄉(xiāng)土建筑（創(chuàng)造出新與舊的混合體）。前者的例子如翁加德·薩特拉班度（Ongard Satrabhandu）設計的羅望子鄉(xiāng)村酒店和拉查曼哈酒店，馬塔爾·汶納（Mathar Bunnag）設計的清邁四季酒店，阿頌·信設計的阿頌·信藝術(shù)研究院。這些作品易于被識別為“鄉(xiāng)土的泰國”，但是仔細辨別能夠發(fā)現(xiàn)其中巧妙的現(xiàn)代細節(jié)和空間改良。對于混合傳統(tǒng)樣貌和現(xiàn)代建筑的后者，此類的典型案例有IDIN建筑師事務所設計的普吉島入口（見本刊P62-65）。有時，傳統(tǒng)的部件和模式在非常時尚的現(xiàn)代設計中被運用為裝飾主題元素，著名的作品包含建筑系有限公司設計的普吉島薩拉度假村和CHAT建筑師事務所設計的南達遺址酒店（見本刊P42-45 )。

4 泰國煙草專賣局主樓，曼谷，1957（建筑師：樸·楚拉社沃）/ Main Building, Thailand Tobacco Monopoly, Bangkok, 1957 (by Bhol Chulasewok)

另一方面，闡釋性參考則意味著更少“直接的”、更多“選擇性的”或“批判性的”在現(xiàn)代設計中融入傳統(tǒng)。它同時包含標志性和符號化的參考4)。不論是項目的尺度還是意義，最為突出的案例是阿頌·信和敦信工作室設計的沙帕亞·沙帕·斯他恩（Sappaya Sapa Sthaan）和新國會大廈，建筑師在概念象征和形式類比中都運用了傳統(tǒng)要素。其他的案例包含將一種或者多種傳統(tǒng)主題詩意性地闡釋在現(xiàn)代設計中，一個很好的例子是馬塔爾·汶納設計的華欣巴萊溫泉酒店（The Barai in Hua Hin）。另一個運用單一主題的案例是汶頌·普雷姆塔（Boonserm Premthada）設計的坎塔納電影動畫學院，它只通過技巧性地運用材料產(chǎn)生奇妙的戲劇性效果。

盡管通過形式類比表達文化特性可能太過直接和簡單，它卻是相對有力的，因而更易于與大眾交流（即那些沒有藝術(shù)和建筑背景的人）。它看起來很簡單，但是要想在當代語言中成功地對傳統(tǒng)形式進行再創(chuàng)造或再闡釋，需要對影響美學和結(jié)構(gòu)形式的傳統(tǒng)文脈和多樣因素有深度的知識和理解，更不用說比例、秩序和建構(gòu)細節(jié)。實際上，就美感（一種審美趣味）而言是要求非常高的，一點微微的“脫離”比例或曲線就讓人們立刻感受到這個作品某些地方不對。

2.2 空間體驗中的泰國性

According to Vimolsiddhi et al, ConventionalThai style began sometime after 1938, while works in the Tropical Thai category appeared mostly during 1958-1972. The third category, Contemporary Thai, was only introduced around 1972 onward as a critical reaction to the allegedly superficial symbolism of Conventional Thai style[4]. Its primary goal was to capture essential characteristics and reinterpret them through the language of modern design, materials and technology. Contemporary Thai designs, accordingly, should bear the spirit ofThai-ness without simply "copying" from tradition. There were not a few works in this category from 1970's which were deemed highly successful-Wat Salaloy by Wirote Srisuro (fig.9), Baan Parichat by Plan Architects, etc.-and these set a strong new direction for Thai architects today.

2 The Contemporary Situation

But what exactly is this "spirit of Thai-ness" or are its equally elusive "essential characteristics" that should be incorporated in Contemporary Thai architecture? Is there only one correct answer to such a "spirit" or is it multifarious due to the diverse and complex nature of Thai culture(s) itself? And not to mention the intricacy involved in successfully and poetically reintroducing such qualities in modern design. How does one do it? Through forms, spatial orders, architectonic details, symbolism, materials and tectonic, or what? The possibilities are endless. It seems only reasonable to examine contemporary design to understand how Thai cultural identity might be manifest. Here work can be grouped into two main categories based on the way Thai-ness is achieved: Through symbolic forms or through spatial experience. Each option contains sub-categories that should be explained.

2.1 Thai-ness through Symbolic Forms

In Contemporary Thai projects, ones which express cultural identity through symbolic forms seem the most readily recognizable. These may be classified into two subcategories-those using "descriptive" references and those using "interpretive" ones. Descriptive forms belong to architecture with a relatively more "direct" analogy to those of the past, typically with various degrees of simplification. They are "iconic" signs of sorts.This may range from referencing one's overall design to a traditional or vernacular architecture-by designing the whole building or project to "look like" the old or by introducing traditional or vernacular architecture as a part of whole project-creating a mixture between the old and new. Examples of the former are the Tamarind Village and Rachamankha Hotel by Ongard Satrabhandu, The Four Seasons, Chiang Mai by Mathar Bunnag and the Arsom Silp Institute of the Arts by Arsom Silp. All of these would be readily recognized as "vernacular Thai" but discerning eyes would see the adeptly integrated modern details and spatial modification of the tradition. For a mixture of traditional and modern, is Phuket Gateway by IDIN Architects is a prime example and is featured in this volume. Occasionally, traditional parts or patterns are adopted as thematic decorative elements in sleek modern designs. Noted works in this last group include Sala Phuket by Department of Architecture and Nanda Heritage by CHAT Architects (also featured in this issue of World Architecture).

On the other hand, interpretive reference involves a less “direct” and more "selective" or "critical" integration of tradition in modern design. It may involve both iconic and symbolic kinds of reference4). Most prominent, both in terms of project scale and significance, is Sappaya Sapa Sthaan, or the new Parliament Building project, by Arsom Silp and Tonsilp, in which the architects employ tradition both in terms of conceptual symbolism and formal analogy. In other cases, it involves adopting one or a variety of traditional motifs to be poetically interpreted through modern design. A fine example of this method would be Mathar Bunnag's The Barai in Hua Hin. Another example of appropriating and expanding on a single motif, one that also involves the selection of single materials applied to intriguing and dramatic effect, is the Kantana Film and Animation Institute by Boonserm Premthada.

5 芒天酒店，曼谷，1966（建筑師：博·戈·甲森·布沙亞西里）/Montien Hotel, Bangkok, 1966 (by Pol.Col.Kasem Busayasiri)

Although the expression of cultural identity through formal analogy may seem overly direct and simple, it is relatively powerful and hence more readily communicable to the general public-i.e., those with no prior background in art and architecture. Simple as it may seem, to successfully re-create or re-interpret traditional forms in contemporary language requires in-depth knowledge and understanding of the traditional contexts and various factors influencing the aesthetic and architectonic forms, not to mention the proportion, order, and tectonic details. In fact, it is quite demanding in terms of aesthetic sensibility. A slightly "off" proportion or curve and one can immediately sense something is not right about the work.

2.2 Thai-ness through Spatial Experiences

6.7 因陀羅麗晶酒店，曼谷，1970（建筑師：集拉·西爾巴甲諾）/Indra Regent Hotel, Bangkok, 1970 (by Jira Silpakanok)（圖片來源：作者自攝）

8 泰國銀行，曼谷，1975（楚差瓦·德·韋革爾國際設計部）/ Bank of Thailand, Bangkok, 1975 (by Chuchawal De Weger International)

9 沙拉羅伊寺，呵叻，1977（建筑師：威洛·西素）/Salaloy Temple, Nakon Ratchasima, 1977 (by Wirote Srisuro)

在形式類比之外，泰國性感受在當代設計中也可以通過空間體驗表達。這類體驗包含作品整體的氣氛，或是通過空間邊界的特殊編排方式產(chǎn)生的空間品質(zhì)和特征。此類作品中文化氣息的闡釋可能更為微妙和開放，它被“感受到”，而不僅僅是被“看到”。這類作品的案例可以粗略地分為兩組：應對泰國建筑的“氣候”方面和“建構(gòu)”方面。起初，這類作品可能與任何文化性關(guān)聯(lián)甚微，尤其是應對氣候的作品。但是，并不是所有考慮氣候的作品都能展現(xiàn)人們視為“東方的”或“泰國的”氣氛，這在1960年代的熱帶泰國類型的作品中已經(jīng)很常見。但是部分作品具有一些相似的建筑特征，雙層表皮是其中最有表現(xiàn)力的一種。這組建筑中的著名作品是阿頌·信設計的因陀般若佛學檔案館（見本刊P32-37）、汶設計的汶勒住宅（Boonlert Residence）和Studiomake工作室設計的帕塔納畫廊（見本刊P70-73），尤其是因陀般若佛學檔案館，不僅在立面上采用了砌體屏幕作為特色，還在建筑首層運用了開放空間，是對傳統(tǒng)泰國房子的多功能“tai toon”空間的懷舊。汶勒住宅和帕塔納畫廊的幕墻盡管沒有明顯地參考傳統(tǒng)，其生成的采光特質(zhì)為室內(nèi)空間灌注了詩意，與人們在一個泰國房子里的感受差別并不大。另一方面，建筑系有限公司設計的SUNONE辦公樓和標準工作室（normalstudio）的I食堂不僅是詩意操縱光影的獨特作品，也具有迷人的空間構(gòu)成，帶有些許不易察覺的泰國氣息。

建筑建構(gòu)的詩意在當代建筑思想和實踐中非常有名，但是關(guān)注泰國建筑建構(gòu)的作品也許是最為棘手的。其中少有的幾個建筑是素里雅·溫攀西里拉特（Suriya Umpansirirat）的作品和致力于住所與環(huán)境建設的建筑師社團（CASE）設計的十宅。后者是一個非常有趣的項目，它的經(jīng)濟限制剝奪了任何多余的輕浮設計，形成了一種新的“城市鄉(xiāng)土”——以最直白而純粹的形式反應泰國城市生活方式的建筑。同時，素里雅在瓦齊拉班樸寺（烏巴西克住宅）和考布達戈東佛寺（圍墻里的精舍，見本刊P54-57）項目中，通過塑造空間邊界（如地面、墻和屋頂）的模式達到了極好的效果，產(chǎn)生了具有當?shù)貧庀⒌莫毺亍胺窖浴薄?/p>

如前所述，文化特性或精神的概念是相當復雜的。因此，在許多作品中使用超過一種的“技巧”來形成認同感毫不奇怪。普沙迪（Pussadee）的迪普圖斯宅（Tiptus House）、東方建筑師事務所（East Architects）的汶亞瓦·迪普圖斯（Bunyawat Tiptus）和比拉斯·帕乍拉沙瓦泰住宅是以傳統(tǒng)形式和空間組織作為靈感，并且也是探索熱帶設計和當代建構(gòu)的突出案例。

3 結(jié)語

建筑長久以來被認為是居住者精神和特性的重要體現(xiàn)。當我們在全球化時代中經(jīng)歷著極端的流動性時，“我們在哪里”以及與之直接相關(guān)的“我們是誰”的觀念變得越來越模糊。簡而言之，建筑作為個人和文化身份表達的觀念陷入了從未有過的困境。但是，當我們更細致地觀察時，我們開始發(fā)現(xiàn)，日常生活中的細微差別仍然根植于文化之中。我們體內(nèi)的“泰國性”仍然在各種方面起作用，許多文化和藝術(shù)作品均強烈地表現(xiàn)出這種感覺。在建筑領域，上文略述的作品遠不僅僅是全部。然而，它們幫助呈現(xiàn)出“泰國性”如何在當代建筑實踐中表達的一個宏觀圖景。總體來說，符號形式因為其最為有效仍然扮演著重要角色。因此，在文化特性被“出售”或是被特別重視的項目中——例如度假酒店、政府建筑——經(jīng)常涉及符號形式。鼓舞人心的是，種類繁多的文化參照都在被運用，它們不僅局限在經(jīng)典的泰國建筑中，還包含泰國不同地區(qū)的鄉(xiāng)土形式，因此以充裕的設計資源豐富了當代建筑的景象，并且通過多種程度的分析和闡釋獲得的成果相當樂觀。至于關(guān)注于通過熱帶設計和建構(gòu)、探討整體空間體驗的作品，其能夠達到的“泰國性”可能并不明顯，但是這些作品享有一個共同的特征，即建筑師都不遺余力地讓自己的作品脫穎而出。畢竟，“泰國性”本身的含義并沒有其作為設計靈感的方式更重要?！?/p>

注釋：

1 ）學術(shù)組織例如加利福尼亞大學的傳統(tǒng)環(huán)境研究國際協(xié)會（IASTE）、伯克利大學的環(huán)境設計學院及其一年兩次的論壇和刊物。

2 ）這組建筑作品是否能被公認為是“泰國”的或是否擁有設計的文化特性仍然值得商榷。但是，考慮到鄉(xiāng)土建筑的本質(zhì)特征主要存在于地理和氣候的感受，熱帶泰國類型的作品應該被視為固有某一程度的泰國性。然而值得注意的是，這些作品中的建筑元素同樣出現(xiàn)在全世界許多熱帶國家相似時期的現(xiàn)代建筑中，它們也受到當?shù)亟ㄖZ匯的啟發(fā)，例如，磚石幕墻存在于各式各樣的土著建筑中，如印加和印度，愛德華·杜雷·斯通對此稱贊有加，后來運用到他的許多公共項目中。實際上，愛德華·杜雷·斯通深深迷戀于這種元素，他在自己紐約住宅的立面改造中也使用了它，但紐約并非熱帶氣候。

3 ）這段時期非常有趣，因為這些應對氣候的設計似乎在1972年之后就沉寂了，可能因為建筑尺寸和復雜度的增大不幸地將建筑師的關(guān)注點轉(zhuǎn)移到其他地方。

4 ）杰弗里·布羅德本特認為，圖像符號是通過物理相似性或共有的特性指向指代物的符號。另一方面，象征符號是通過抽象規(guī)則或社會契約的方式指向指代物，可能與外貌毫無關(guān)聯(lián)。參見杰弗里·布羅德本特發(fā)表于《建筑設計》（1977年7-8期）的“建筑學符號理論大眾指南”一文。

Beside formal analogy, the sense of Thainess in contemporary design may also be expressed through spatial experiences. Such experiences include the overall ambience of the work, its spatial qualities or characteristics, produced by the careful orchestration of the work's spatial boundaries.The cultural flavor in such cases may be subtle and open to interpretation, made to be "felt" not merely "looked at". Examples of works in this category are loosely divided into two : Those responding to the "climatic" and "tectonic" aspects of Thai architecture. At the outset, works in this category may seem to have little to do with anything cultural, particularly the climate-responsive ones. Not all climate conscious work would produce ambiences that one could perceive as "Eastern" or "Thai". Yet ones that do seem to share certain architectonic features, the most expressive of which is the double skin. Notable works in this group are the Buddhadasa Indapanno Archives (BIA, see P32-37 of this issue) by Arsom Silp, the Boonlert Residence by BoonDesign and the Patana Gallery by Studiomake (see P70-73 of this issue). BIA, in particular, not only features masonry screens on its facade, but also makes use of open space at the building's ground level in a way that is reminiscent of the multipurpose "tai toon" space of the traditional Thai house. The screens of the Boonlert Residence and Patana Gallery, although without any overt reference to tradition, generate lighting qualities that imbue the interior spaces with a poetic sensibility not too different from what one may find in a Thai house. On the other hand, SUNONE by Department of Architecture and I-Canteen by normalstudio, despite being unique works with poetic plays of light and shadows as well as captivating spatial configurations, have somewhat less readily perceptible Thai flavor.

The poetics of the making of architecture, the architectural tectonic, has been well celebrated in contemporary architectural thinking and practice. Yet works that focus on the tectonic of Thai architecture are perhaps the trickiest. Few examples can be found. Among the ones that can are works by Suriya Umpansirirath and Ten House by CASE (Community Architects for Shelter and Environment). The latter is quite an interesting example as financial constraints stripped the work of any frivolous excess, resulting in a new "urban vernacular"—an architecture which reflects the urban Thai way of living at its barest, and perhaps purest, form. Meanwhile, Suriya's works at Wat Wachirabanphot (the Ubasika Residence) and Wat Khao Buddhakodom (Walled Monk's Cell, see P54-57 of this issue) play with modes of making spatial boundaries such as the floors, the walls and the roofs to a great effect, resulting in unique "vernaculars" with local flavor.

As mentioned earlier, the notion of cultural identity or spirit is rather complex. It is no surprise, therefore, that in many works, more than one "technique" was used to establish a sense of identity. Tiptus House by Pussadee and the Bunyawat Tiptus and Pirast Patcharasawate's House by East Architects are outstanding examples of projects inspired by traditional form and spatial organization that also explore tropical design and a contemporary tectonic.

3 Epilogue

Architecture has long been recognized as the very embodiment of the identity and spirit of those who dwell in it. As we are buffeted by flow in the age of globalization however, the notion of "who we are" as a direct correlation to "where we are" becomes less and less distinct. In short, the notion of architecture as an expression of self and its cultural identity has never been more in question. Yet, when we look more closely, we begin to realize the nuances and details of our daily lives are still very much culturally situated. The "Thai-ness" in us is still at work in various ways, the very sense that does indeed manifest in many cultural and artistic outputs. The essay will look into the various manners by which this poetic of Thai-ness unveils.

The architecture, the works outlined here, are by no means all inclusive. Nevertheless, they help provide a big picture of how "Thai-ness" is articulated in contemporary architectural practice. In general, symbolic forms still play a significant role as they are most efficient. As such, in projects where cultural identity "sells" or is particularly valued-resort hotels, government buildings, for example-symbolic forms are often involved. What is encouraging is the large variety of cultural references in use. They are not only limited to classical Thai architecture, but inclusive of the vernaculars from different parts of Thailand as well, thus enriching the contemporary architecture scene with the abundance of design resources. With the various degrees of analysis and interpretation at work in these projects, the results look rather promising. As for works that focus on the overall spatial experiences brought about by tropical design and tectonic considerations, the "Thainess" achieved may be less "guaranteed". Yet, such projects provide alternatives that are perhaps more spontaneous and contextual. Either way, what these works seem to share is the architects' passion to make their works stand out from the rest. After all, what "Thai-ness" is may not matter as much as the way it lends itself to design inspiration.□

Note:

1 ）Examples include academic organizations such as the International Association for the Study of Traditional Environment (IASTE) of the University of California, Berkeley's College of Environmental Design along with its biannual symposia and journal.

2 ）Whether works in this group can be professed as "Thai" or be said to possess a cultural identity by design is still arguable. Yet, considering the fact that vernacular architecture's essential characters mostly lie in its geographical and climatic sensitivity, the Tropical Thai works should be considered inherently Thai to a certain degree. It is noteworthy, however, that the architectonic elements found in these works are shared by modern buildings of the same era in many tropical countries around the world, many of which were also inspired by local vernaculars. Masonry screens, for example, were found in various indigenous architecture-Incan, Indian, for examples-and were later celebrated by Edward Durell Stone in many of his public works. In fact, Stone was so intrigued by the element that he used it on the renovated facade of his own townhouse in the non-tropical New York City.

3 ）The period here is quite interesting as these climatic-responsive designs seemed to have subsided after 1972. Perhaps it is the increase in building size and complexity that shifted the architects' concerns elsewhere unfortunately.

4 ）Iconic sign, according to Geoffrey Broadbent, is a sign that refers to the object it denotes by physical resemblance or shared characteristics. Symbolic sign, on the other hand, refers to its reference by means of abstract rules or social contracts which may have nothing to do with physical appearance at all. See Geoffrey Broadbent, "A Plain Man's Guide to the Theory of Signs in Architecture," Architectural Design 7-8 (1977).

/References:

[1] Christian Norberg-Schulz. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture [M]. New York: Rizzoli, 1980.

[2] Kenneth Frampton. Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance [M].//Kate Nesbitt(ed.) Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996:16-29.

[3] Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura et al. Pattanakarn Naewkwamkid Lae Roopbaeb Khong Sthapattayakam: Adeet Patchuban Lae Anakot [M]. Bangkok: The Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage, 1993.

[4] M.L.Tridhosyudh Devakul. Directions in Thai Architecture [J]. ASA: Journal of the Association of Siamese Architects 1, 1972(9).

The Politics of Thai-ness

Architecture has long been recognized as the very embodiment of the identity and spirit of its dwellers. As we are buffeted by flow in the age of globalization however, the notion of "who we are" as a direct correlation to "where we are" becomes less and less distinct. In short, the notion of architecture as an expression of self and its cultural identity has never been more in question. Yet, when we look more closely, we begin to realize the nuances and details of our daily lives are still very much culturally situated. The "Thainess" in us is still at work in various ways, the very sense that does indeed manifest in many cultural and artistic outputs.The essay will look into the various manners by which this poetic of Thai-ness unveils.

cultural identity, Thai-ness, symbolic form, spatial experience, contemporary architecture

泰國朱拉隆功大學副教授，美國密歇根大學建筑歷史與理論博士/Associate Professor of Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; Ph.D. in History and Theory of Architecture, University of Michigan.

2014-04-24