畢月/Beatrice Leanza

徐知蘭 譯/Translated by XU Zhilan

劉晨 校/proofread by LIU Chen

氣質(zhì)性的空墟—圍繞城市性格的策展人手記

畢月/Beatrice Leanza

徐知蘭 譯/Translated by XU Zhilan

劉晨 校/proofread by LIU Chen

1-3胡同材料目錄，2015研究項(xiàng)目，由速溶胡同/頭條工作室完成/Hutong Material Catalogue， research project 2015， by Instant Hutong/Ramoprimo Studio

“……行動(dòng)就是形式。”

——?jiǎng)P勒·伊斯特林，《超國(guó)家機(jī)器——基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施空間的力量》［1］21

目前有一股來(lái)自當(dāng)代設(shè)計(jì)知識(shí)領(lǐng)域的變質(zhì)效應(yīng)正在加速產(chǎn)生影響。它產(chǎn)生于一個(gè)重要的時(shí)間節(jié)點(diǎn)，即技術(shù)進(jìn)步與設(shè)計(jì)師最終產(chǎn)品——無(wú)論是物件、設(shè)施、還是程序——為人們所接觸到的容易程度相互交疊，正在讓個(gè)體能夠與他們的構(gòu)成性規(guī)則及結(jié)構(gòu)形成更為個(gè)人、更具感染力和更為日?？梢?jiàn)的關(guān)系。信息作為對(duì)不斷影響擴(kuò)大的全球參與范式進(jìn)行形態(tài)轉(zhuǎn)換的終極標(biāo)志，現(xiàn)在與數(shù)據(jù)、設(shè)備和空間緊密交織在一起，它們的結(jié)合似乎給我們提供了能在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中自發(fā)成為活躍的用戶、消費(fèi)者和生產(chǎn)者的機(jī)會(huì)。凱勒·伊斯特林的《超國(guó)家機(jī)器》探索了這種隨著“基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施技術(shù)”而新出現(xiàn)的表面上的透明性所具有的短路效應(yīng)，今天這種技術(shù)“不僅僅包含管線組成的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，還具有通用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和理念，它們控制著從技術(shù)配件到管理風(fēng)格的所有事物?！c隱而不見(jiàn)的狀態(tài)相反，現(xiàn)在，基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是在我們所有人之間進(jìn)行聯(lián)絡(luò)和交通往來(lái)的顯性節(jié)點(diǎn)——它們是統(tǒng)治日常生活空間的規(guī)則”［1］11。伊斯特林對(duì)于當(dāng)代去物質(zhì)化控制機(jī)制的調(diào)查揭示了空間的固有語(yǔ)義學(xué)意義，它將基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施定義為“構(gòu)成城市形態(tài)的操作系統(tǒng)”，即規(guī)則和環(huán)境——從免稅區(qū)到寬帶網(wǎng)不一而足，由此實(shí)現(xiàn)的全球化治理是有形物件和無(wú)形協(xié)議共同繁育的成果。她的發(fā)現(xiàn)證實(shí)了一處批判性的邊緣地帶，代表了一些策展人的視角，他們有志于將城市與對(duì)變化和反思的參與性實(shí)踐項(xiàng)目聯(lián)系在一起，并提出具有建設(shè)性的理論暗示結(jié)論。

伊斯特林對(duì)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施空間的解讀擴(kuò)展了拉圖爾創(chuàng)立的行動(dòng)者網(wǎng)絡(luò)理論［2］的譜系，這一理論關(guān)注“中介”，也就是無(wú)形的社會(huì)敘事。它作為一種積極的形式幫助形成了我們與空間和物質(zhì)對(duì)象之間的關(guān)系——從建筑到社區(qū)、街道和機(jī)動(dòng)車——后者也同樣具有積極的形式“作用”。全球化城市的空間與社會(huì)行為的程式化——市區(qū)、郊區(qū)、度假村、大型商城等——本質(zhì)上包含著一種預(yù)設(shè)的“性格”或趨勢(shì)，使?jié)撛诘男袨榈靡园l(fā)生。因此，城市的背景可以被視為一系列歷史元素構(gòu)成的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，它們層層疊加在一系列空間、行為與文化的關(guān)聯(lián)性詞匯上，這些關(guān)系在城市的“主操作系統(tǒng)”中被消費(fèi)、再生產(chǎn)和得到體現(xiàn)。隱喻地說(shuō)，如果電子設(shè)備表面上賦予了我們?cè)S多手段與工具，讓我們能在新興的“數(shù)字城市主義”大道上縱橫馳騁、自由地定制所有這些詞匯，那么，它們所具有的分裂和瓦解效應(yīng)也同時(shí)需要新的干預(yù)策略來(lái)提升系統(tǒng)的各項(xiàng)機(jī)能，產(chǎn)生新的集體參與和契約倫理。

通過(guò)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施對(duì)城市進(jìn)行反思，并將城市作為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施進(jìn)行思考，提示我們應(yīng)該重新想象時(shí)代與空間的關(guān)系。社會(huì)與個(gè)人形成于過(guò)去的物質(zhì)條件背景下，這些條件也限定了社會(huì)與個(gè)人的現(xiàn)在與未來(lái)，因此當(dāng)代城市（重新）產(chǎn)生的軌跡成為這些特質(zhì)性關(guān)系之間的相互作用——也就是在其維護(hù)與再生產(chǎn)過(guò)程中涉及的空間、組織與道德經(jīng)濟(jì)之間的相互作用。這種進(jìn)行中的重塑過(guò)程，調(diào)和了政治敘事、社會(huì)選區(qū)和消費(fèi)大眾之間的對(duì)話，彌合了各種不同知識(shí)領(lǐng)域與人類實(shí)踐對(duì)于未來(lái)的設(shè)想，它居于當(dāng)代文化“行動(dòng)”的核心位置，考慮到20世紀(jì)中期以來(lái)各類藝術(shù)實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域的不斷拓展，這一過(guò)程可被視為一種對(duì)空間政治的回歸批判。從由極簡(jiǎn)主義與概念藝術(shù)的出現(xiàn)而引發(fā)具象空間的死亡，到“關(guān)系美學(xué)”與“體制批判”所擅長(zhǎng)的去物質(zhì)化論辯，直至固執(zhí)己見(jiàn)的“客體本體論”，這些思潮的往復(fù)變遷與1980年代以來(lái)針對(duì)后現(xiàn)代背景下游離地理學(xué)進(jìn)行的跨學(xué)科研究的轉(zhuǎn)折交織在一起，它們?cè)陔S之產(chǎn)生的后續(xù)思潮“對(duì)立文化實(shí)踐”中具有主導(dǎo)地位，而后者回應(yīng)了不斷變化的、因地而異的身份與知識(shí)的概念，它們依托于后殖民主義話語(yǔ)，同時(shí)也推動(dòng)了許多批判性實(shí)踐，催生了新的 “社區(qū)”范式與“歸屬感”1）［3］?？臻g、場(chǎng)所、身份之間的變革性關(guān)聯(lián)，及其與不斷排列組合的機(jī)構(gòu)與地點(diǎn)之間的聯(lián)系，終將被21世紀(jì)的創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)理性化，融入為消費(fèi)主義、壯觀景象與游憩活動(dòng)提供服務(wù)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施空間，在博物館一般的購(gòu)物中心的崛起過(guò)程中，這一現(xiàn)象達(dá)到了頂峰。

策展人批判性的努力可能佯裝為伊斯特林所謂的“乘數(shù)器”形式進(jìn)入當(dāng)代城市空間，這些要素會(huì)影響或調(diào)整各自所在體系的性格或氣質(zhì)。它們植入了能夠評(píng)估、反映并重新審視我們的意識(shí)的中介，同時(shí)讓我們親身感受那些橫貫在生活環(huán)境中的變化。戲劇《諸多無(wú)限》在這方面提供了一個(gè)有說(shuō)服力的案例。這項(xiàng)獲得許多大獎(jiǎng)的杰出劇目最初在2002年公演，由遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)卓識(shí)的導(dǎo)演盧卡·隆柯尼與劍橋大學(xué)宇宙學(xué)家和數(shù)學(xué)家約翰·戴維·巴羅的共同合作完成。以巴羅為劇作家，隆柯尼為舞臺(tái)魔術(shù)師，《諸多無(wú)限》通過(guò)5幕獨(dú)立的場(chǎng)景，探索了“無(wú)限”的數(shù)學(xué)概念。每一幕劇都別開(kāi)生面，并關(guān)注各自獨(dú)特的方面。這出戲的演出場(chǎng)地是斯卡拉倉(cāng)庫(kù)的空曠場(chǎng)地——這座飛機(jī)庫(kù)一樣的建筑綜合體曾經(jīng)是斯卡拉歌劇院的實(shí)驗(yàn)室所在地，位于米蘭曾經(jīng)的偏遠(yuǎn)工業(yè)區(qū)博威薩。觀眾一到達(dá)劇場(chǎng)，就被分為70人一組進(jìn)入演出場(chǎng)地。他們會(huì)按順序上樓，分別經(jīng)過(guò)5個(gè)不同的演出場(chǎng)景，因此空間里總是同時(shí)有5組觀眾占據(jù)其中。《諸多無(wú)限》將城市作為劇場(chǎng)，在其中營(yíng)造了一個(gè)“瞬間”，由此不同形式的智力活動(dòng)、空間活動(dòng)和社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)都在其中得到了活生生的體驗(yàn)和集體上演。巴羅對(duì)此解釋說(shuō)：“講故事似乎是刺穿層層（關(guān)于無(wú)限概念的）悖論的方式，因此通過(guò)讓觀眾沉浸于其他的場(chǎng)景中的方法，這些悖論變得令人熟悉，而那些違反直覺(jué)的‘無(wú)限’特征則活生生地聳現(xiàn)在這些場(chǎng)景中?！保?］《諸多無(wú)限》以吉莉安娜·布魯諾稱之為“一種對(duì)時(shí)代政治的徹底重塑”［5］的方式喚醒和激起了觀眾的積極參與，我們現(xiàn)在通過(guò)自己身邊平淡無(wú)奇的建成環(huán)境中不均質(zhì)的空間獲得這種體驗(yàn)——這些建成環(huán)境是一個(gè)不斷分解與瓦解的超鏈接世界，在這個(gè)世界里，有關(guān)附近、距離和歸屬的概念會(huì)經(jīng)常被重新定義。

"［…］ the action is the form."

—Keller Easterling， Extrastatecraft - The power of Infrastructure Space［1］21

An accelerating， metamorphosing effect radiates from the fields of contemporary design knowledge. It originates at a momentous temporal crossroad when the overlay between technological advancement and the ease of accessibility to design's end-products - be those objects， utilities or processes， is empowering individuals to a more personal， affective and quotidian rapport to their constitutive rules and structures. Information，the ultimate shape-shifting signifier of an ever expanding paradigm of world-wide participation，coalesces today into an entanglement of data，devices and spaces that we are seemingly offered to self-operate as active users， consumers and producers of the reality we inhabit. Keller Easterling's Extrastatecraft explores the shortcircuiting impact of this new apparent transparency in the emergence of an "infrastructural technology" that today "more than grids of pipes and wires，includes the shared standards and ideas that control everything from technical objects to management styles.［…］ Far from hidden， infrastructure is now the overt point of contact and access between us all - the rules governing the space of everyday life"［1］11. Easterling's investigations into the dematerialized mechanics of contemporary control unearth an immanent semantics of space that defines infrastructure as an "operating system for shaping the city"， that is the formulas and environments，from free zones to broadband networks， through which global governance is exercised as a proliferation of both tangible objects and immaterial protocols. Her findings substantiate a critical perimeter which presents curatorial perspectives interested in engaging the city and participatory practices of change and reflection， with productive theoretical implications.

Easterling's reading into infrastructure space build onto a genealogy of actor-network theory as developed by Latour［2］， focusing on "agency"， i.e. immaterial and social narratives， as an active form contributing to the shaping of our relation to space and spatial objects （from buildings， to neighbours，streets and vehicles） "as" active forms. The formulas of spatial and social conduct of the global city -zones， suburbs， resorts， malls - essentially embed a preconfigured "disposition"， or tendency， of potential activities to be performed wherein. The urban context can be therefore observed as a web of historical constructs， stratified over a spatial，behavioural and cultural vocabulary of relationality consumed， reproduced and embodied in the "host system" of the city. By way of a metaphor， if our electronic devices seemingly enable us with the tools and measures to freely customize this vocabulary across new avenues of "data-urbanism"， their atomizing， disaggregating effect is simultaneously calling for new strategies of intervention to upgrade the system's faculties towards a renewed ethics of engagement and collective participation.

Rethinking the city through-and-as infrastructure prompts us to reimagine the timesand-spaces where sociality and personhood are created alongside the past material conditions that contribute to their present and future definitions. The contemporary locus of urban（re）generation becomes therefore the interplay of these dispositional relations - the spaces， the organizations and the moral economy implicated in their preservation and reproduction. This form of ongoing reworking， that is the moderation of dialogical processes among political narratives，social constituencies and the consuming public，bridging visions from diversified fields of knowledge and human practice， is at the heart of contemporary culture's "doing"， one that can be looked upon as a recursive critique of spatial politics predicated on the ever expanding fields of artistic practice since the mid 20th century. From the demise of representational space with the emergence of minimalism and conceptual art， to the dematerialization exercised by the rhetoric of Relational Aesthetics and Institutional Critique， until the self-absorption of Objectoriented Ontology， these perambulations are intertwined with the transdisciplinary turn of studies addressing the disembodied geographies of the postmodern condition since the 1980s. These were paramount in the consequent formulations of "oppositional cultural practices" that responded to changing notions of place-bound identity and site-bound knowledge postulated in post-colonial discourse， as well as informed a variety of critical endeavours through which new paradigms of "community" and "sense of belonging" have been produced until nowadays1）［3］. The transformative nexus between space， place， and identity and its connection to the ongoing permutations between institutions and locations， is what eventually the creative industries of the 21th century have rationalized into an infrastructure space of consumerism， spectacle and play， epitomised by the rise of the mall as museum.

Critical curatorial endeavours can enter contemporary urban space in the guise of what Easterling calls "multipliers"， elements that can affect or retune the temperament or disposition of the systems in which they are suspended. They emplace forms of agency that can assess，reflect upon and readdress our awareness and simultaneously offer physical engagement with the experience of the changes traversing our living environments. The theatre piece Infinities offers to this extent a powerful exemplification. An awardwinning dramaturgical wonder staged originally in 2002， it is product of the collaborative efforts of visionary director Luca Ronconi and John D. Barrow， a cosmologist and mathematician from the University of Cambridge. With Barrow， the playwright， and Ronconi， the stage wizard， Infinities explores the mathematical concept of "infinity" through five separate scenarios， each of which functions as a performative tableau focusing on one of its singular aspects. The play was hosted in the vacant spaces of Magazzini della Scala， a large hangar-like complex that used to house the laboratories of La Scala Opera House and is located in Milan's once remote industrial zone of Bovisa. On arrival， the audience was let inside in groups of seventy， which would sequentially move up through the five different scenarios so that five different groups were simultaneously inhabiting the space. Infinities took the city as the theatre， creating within it a "moment" through which different forms of intellectual， physical， and social movement came to be lived and collectively performed. Barrow explained: "Story-telling seemed to be the way to penetrate its ［the concept of infinity］ paradoxes so that they became familiar by the device of immersing the audience into other realities where the counter-intuitive features of the infinite loomed as large as life."［4］Infinities evoked and provoked an active engagement with what Giuliana Bruno calls "a radical refashioning of a politics of time"［5］as we nowadays experience it through the uneven spaces of our ordinary， built environments: a hyperconnected world in endless solution and dissolution，where notions of proximity， distance and belonging are constantly reconfigured.

The spatio-temporal dynamic activated and engaged by the project encapsulates a strategic form of agency that simultaneously speaks to and challenges the various transformative registers as well as the "ongoing biographies" sedimented across the interiors and exteriors of the city［6，7］. Urban regeneration more than an artefactual rejuvenation of architectural forms must perform as an agent of relational transformation and act with punctuality and precision along the locational specificity of discarded social narratives and material histories - urban voids - that can substantiate what we otherwise often found labelled as an encounter between top-down regimentation and bottom-up experimentation. In this infra-dimensional space，designers can "code" moments of not-totallyplanned deviation from the status quo， working with the temperamental character of these latent forces， thus creating novel interactional scapes between spaces and communities， and so allowing for motives of change and resilience to mobilize extant relations of production， inheritance and place into new conformations.

4.5行動(dòng)中的思想，上海西岸藝術(shù)中心，2016年1月10日-3月15日，展覽由reMIX工作室設(shè)計(jì)/Ideas in Action， exhibition views in West Bund Art Centre，Shanghai， January 10 - March 15， 2016， exhibition design by reMIX Studio

6.7管·白塔寺，2015北京設(shè)計(jì)周北京白塔寺歷史街區(qū)裝置，眾建筑設(shè)計(jì)/ Tubular Baitasi， installation in Baitasi historic district （Beijing）， Beijing Design Week 2015， by people Architecture Office

項(xiàng)目激發(fā)和吸引的時(shí)空動(dòng)態(tài)，包含著中介的策略形式，它們?cè)谂c各種變量以及沉淀在一座城市內(nèi)外的許多“形成中的自傳”進(jìn)行對(duì)話的同時(shí)，也對(duì)它們提出挑戰(zhàn)［6，7］。城市復(fù)興的進(jìn)程不僅僅是人工恢復(fù)建筑形式的過(guò)程，也必須成為相關(guān)變化過(guò)程的中介，并且在區(qū)位特性上與被遺棄的社會(huì)敘事與物質(zhì)歷史——城市的無(wú)用空間——保持精確的一致，后者也證明了我們平時(shí)經(jīng)常見(jiàn)到的所謂自上而下的制度化與自下而上的實(shí)驗(yàn)之間的沖突。在這個(gè)亞維度空間里，設(shè)計(jì)者能夠通過(guò)“編寫代碼”形成許多并不完全在計(jì)劃中的、偏離現(xiàn)狀的瞬間，與這些隱藏力量的氣質(zhì)特征協(xié)作，在空間與社區(qū)之間創(chuàng)造出新的互動(dòng)景觀，并允許變革力和活力將生產(chǎn)、遺產(chǎn)和場(chǎng)所之間的既有關(guān)系組織成新的構(gòu)象。

在云計(jì)算與共享經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮的支持下，對(duì)影響力的分析判斷與專業(yè)服務(wù)的傳遞得以 加速發(fā)展，推動(dòng)了學(xué)科之間日益增長(zhǎng)的相互滲透與開(kāi)源技術(shù)穩(wěn)定持續(xù)的發(fā)展；盡管如此，最令人痛心的卻是，城市復(fù)興的時(shí)空在意識(shí)形態(tài)上與生產(chǎn)行為和對(duì)權(quán)力與資本的等級(jí)制度的回應(yīng)相關(guān)聯(lián)，將城市作為全球渴望的對(duì)象進(jìn)行崇拜。這些跨國(guó)現(xiàn)象共同產(chǎn)生的隱性前提是，認(rèn)為今天表現(xiàn)出的設(shè)計(jì)是跨學(xué)科、物質(zhì)系統(tǒng)與非物質(zhì)系統(tǒng)的“元項(xiàng)目”，這些結(jié)構(gòu)必須通過(guò)以專門技術(shù)為基礎(chǔ)的各種過(guò)程相互作用才能發(fā)揮作用，同樣重要的是，必須使區(qū)位特征里那些具有文化氣質(zhì)的機(jī)能獲得更大的力量，讓它們能通過(guò)中小尺度的集體參與方式重新獲取對(duì)城市應(yīng)有的權(quán)利。盡管這些專項(xiàng)調(diào)查來(lái)源于不同的生產(chǎn)方式，從數(shù)碼知識(shí)、匠人思維到草根智慧等，它們的驅(qū)動(dòng)力卻具備共同特征，即積極創(chuàng)造價(jià)值、共同實(shí)現(xiàn)理想以及道義上的志趣相投。讓這些創(chuàng)新企業(yè)吸引到共同價(jià)值的是它們?cè)趨f(xié)同創(chuàng)造與知識(shí)整合的高效生產(chǎn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)中的動(dòng)態(tài)布局；也是它們?cè)诳裳a(bǔ)救范圍內(nèi)的迂回行動(dòng)，這種方式能重新激發(fā)在生產(chǎn)、遺產(chǎn)和場(chǎng)所之間已經(jīng)斷裂或陳舊的關(guān)聯(lián)，形成相互關(guān)聯(lián)和彼此依賴的創(chuàng)新過(guò)程。這也成為最近上海藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)雙年展2）上一個(gè)展覽的主題，展覽由上海西岸藝術(shù)中心舉辦，筆者就是策展人之一。題為“行動(dòng)中的思想”的展覽表達(dá)了彼此相關(guān)的多學(xué)科設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐，驕傲地呈現(xiàn)了整體思想的形式，它們來(lái)源于并呼應(yīng)了各種在中國(guó)發(fā)生變化的當(dāng)代場(chǎng)景，跨越從物品到城市的制造，通過(guò)在許多社會(huì)、文化和空間條件的關(guān)系之間進(jìn)行變化關(guān)聯(lián)形成展覽，這些條件來(lái)自于不均等或被忽視的各類發(fā)展框架。展覽分為4個(gè)核心部分——基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施模型、增長(zhǎng)的協(xié)議、填充，以及物質(zhì)與客體——它們都被布置在一個(gè)“動(dòng)態(tài)的總平面”上。展覽由總部設(shè)在北京的臨界工作室設(shè)計(jì)，這種方式鼓勵(lì)觀眾在各部分之間進(jìn)行有機(jī)的橫向解讀，并允許他們將其作為視覺(jué)與空間景觀來(lái)體驗(yàn)。

圍繞著這些當(dāng)代設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐的道德經(jīng)濟(jì)，涌入了各類設(shè)計(jì)知識(shí)領(lǐng)域，它對(duì)重新評(píng)估拉圖爾和伊斯特林針對(duì)“社會(huì)”的本質(zhì)提出的問(wèn)題和解決方法至關(guān)重要。在中國(guó)急迫的多元化現(xiàn)象、人口分化、流于形式的公眾聽(tīng)證會(huì)和當(dāng)前各類社會(huì)價(jià)值觀的背景下，這些質(zhì)問(wèn)顯得比以往更為重要，并進(jìn)一步被改變游戲規(guī)則的范式所擴(kuò)大和加強(qiáng)，中國(guó)失控的私人企業(yè)也因此隨著勞工體系與生產(chǎn)體系變化而左右搖擺。這些都是公共文化機(jī)構(gòu)與組織進(jìn)行討論的必然前提，本文的作者也在努力獲得第一手資料的同時(shí)，擔(dān)任北京設(shè)計(jì)周2013年以來(lái)的創(chuàng)意總監(jiān)。盡管這種大規(guī)模公眾事件具有天然的曝光性質(zhì)，其臨時(shí)性的特點(diǎn)也能對(duì)行動(dòng)與反思采用實(shí)用主義的姿態(tài)（空間與時(shí)間上的開(kāi)放）——將城市作為生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室，測(cè)試集體智慧形式在自身演進(jìn)過(guò)程中自我淪陷的可能性。2011年以來(lái)在大柵欄歷史街區(qū)，在當(dāng)?shù)亻_(kāi)發(fā)商合作下建立起來(lái)的長(zhǎng)期項(xiàng)目平臺(tái)，以及2015年在白塔寺進(jìn)行的類似工作，試圖產(chǎn)生出這種類型的合作機(jī)構(gòu)——即僅僅通過(guò)空間的操作，與目前生活中的動(dòng)態(tài)要素共同作用，這些要素也構(gòu)成了它們的背景。設(shè)計(jì)者被邀請(qǐng)來(lái)加入這些對(duì)話，他們對(duì)錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的空間尺度、來(lái)源于街道、棋牌室和餐桌等的社交形式具有非常敏銳的感受，由此通過(guò)已有的實(shí)踐知識(shí)和有意將其服務(wù)于社會(huì)需求的興趣，重新編寫了它們目前的構(gòu)成代碼。

通過(guò)這些可以到達(dá)且容易辨識(shí)的項(xiàng)目——無(wú)論是半臨時(shí)性的干預(yù)、長(zhǎng)達(dá)幾個(gè)月之久的展覽或是為期一天的論壇，這些穿梭于城市肌理內(nèi)部的即興行為，是城市未來(lái)必不可少的要素。它們所提供的暫停、反思和開(kāi)放對(duì)話的時(shí)間，在當(dāng)今信息過(guò)度的城市中是一種稀有品。盡管在城市的時(shí)間碎片化維度中運(yùn)行，它們也仍然成功地使機(jī)遇、理想和需求成為建筑實(shí)用主義的三大支柱，并通過(guò)一份集體想象將它們轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)椤皩?shí)施宣言”的集合。

Most poignantly though， with a growing osmosis among disciplines and the steadfast development of open-source technologies augmented by an acceleration in diagnosing impacts and delivering specialized services thanks to cloud-computing and the proliferation of the sharing-economy， the space and time of urban regeneration becomes ideologically associated with productive actions and responsiveness to the hierarchies of power and capital that fetishize the city as an object of global desire. The implicit premise to this assembly of positions that are growing across a transnational expanse， is the recognition that design performs today as a "metaproject" across disciplinary and systemic structures of both intangible and material nature， which must labour at the interplay of processes grounded in practical know-hows as much as empower culturally dispositional faculties of locational character that can reclaim the right to the city by way of small to medium scale forms of collective engagement. While their specificity of investigation employs modalities of production sourcing from digital knowledge， craft-thinking as much as grassroots intelligence， a common denominator of positive value-making， co-actualization and a light-weight awareness of ethical like-mindedness， drives their motivations. What draws shared significance to these creative enterprises is their dynamic positioning within generative networks of co-doing and combining of knowledge， their detouring within the remedial scale of actions that can rekindle broken or obsolete relations of production，inheritance and place into novel processes of mutuality and co-dependency. This has also been the subject of a recent exhibition presented in the context of the biennial Art & Shanghai Exhibition2）organized at Shanghai West Bund Art Centre， of which the author was one of the curators. Titled "Ideas in Action"， this themed part of the show presented relevant multidisciplinary design practices， sporting forms of integrated thinking found， inspired by or echoing across contemporary scenarios of change in China， that spanned from object-to-city making by way of rerouting connections across the social， cultural and spatial givens of uneven or unattended frameworks of development. Divided in four core sections -Infrastructural Matrix， Growth protocols， Infill and Materiality & Objecthood - they were laid out in a "dynamic masterplan" designed by Beijing-based reMIX Studio as a way to encourage an organic cross-reading among them and allow audiences to inhabit as a visual and spatial landscape.

The moral economy registered around these kinds of contemporary design practices and effusing the fields of design knowledge is the key to reassessments of Latour's and Easterling's approach and questions around the nature of the "social". These interrogations prove ever more essential in the context of China's urgent diversities， segmented demographics， eroding public fora and civic values，further aggravated by the game-changing paradigms with which its rampant private enterprises are swaying the labour and productivity system. These are issues that public cultural institutions and organizations must take as discursive horizons， and the author of this text has strived to engage firsthand while acting as the creative director of Beijing Design Week since its 2013 edition. Albeit divulging in nature，the temporary character of this largescale public event allowed for the emplacement of pragmatic overtures（physical and temporal openings） of both action and reflection to engage the city as a living laboratory， testing the possibilities for a form of collective intelligence to become enmeshed in its evolvement. The long-termed event platforms established with the collaboration of local developers in the historic districts of Dashilar since 2011 and in Baitasi in 2015 have attempted at conjuring this type of collaborative agency over sheer spatial manoeuvring， working with the existing life dynamics producing their contexts. Designers were invited to enter these dialogues with sensitivity to their intricate scales， inherited forms of sociality consumed across the streets or in gambling parlours as much as at dining tables， thus re-coding their extant formations with practical knowledge at hand and an interest to put that at the service of social needs in mind.

The provisional acts threaded within the urban fabric by way of such accessible， legible projects - be those semi-temporary interventions， months-long exhibitions or daylong forums， are vital for urban futures. The time of pause， reflection and openended dialogue they offer is rare currency in today's information-overflown cities. And while they work within cities' temporally shredded dimensionality they succeed in making opportunity， ambition and necessity equal mainstays of architectural pragmatism， and with a little bit of collective imagination， turning them into a constellation of "operative manifestos".

注釋/Notes：

1）作為這種長(zhǎng)達(dá)幾十年的藝術(shù)與建筑之間相互交流影響潮流的組成部分，2015年的透納獎(jiǎng)由聚合建筑師事務(wù)所獲得——這是一支由20多位設(shè)計(jì)師合作組成的年輕團(tuán)隊(duì)，以非正式、參與性的方式開(kāi)展工作，他們的許多項(xiàng)目都是社會(huì)參與的公眾主導(dǎo)干預(yù)措施，為對(duì)當(dāng)代文化語(yǔ)言背景下兩者發(fā)揮的作用與姿態(tài)提供了探討的延續(xù)性和挑戰(zhàn)。/As part of this decades-long intercourse between art and architecture，the 2015 Turner prize won by architecture practice Assemble - a young collective of more than 20 designers working along an informal， participatory model of mostly public-oriented interventions of social engagement - offers continuity of debate and a challenge to the role and positioning of both in contemporary cultural discourse.

2）2016上海藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)雙年展于2016年1月1日至3月15日在西外灘藝術(shù)中心舉辦。更多信息詳見(jiàn)www.artdesign-sh.co和《論行動(dòng)的思想》，詳見(jiàn)http://www.thebao.com/shanghai-artdesign-biennale-2016-ideas-in-action/The 2016 Shanghai Art & Design Exhibition was held at West Bund Art Centre from January 10 until March 15， 2016. For more information see www.artdesign-sh.com and on Ideas in Action specifically http://www.thebao.com/shanghaiartdesign-biennale-2016-ideas-in-action/.

/

［1］ Keller Easterling. Extrastatecraft - The power of Infrastructure Space. London: Verso， 2014.

［2］ Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social， an Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Clarendon， 2005.

［3］ Esther Choi. Sociable Realism， on Assemble. Artforum， 2015（11）: 133-134.

［4］ John D. Barrow. Where Things Happen That Don't: Staging the Infinite. paper on Infinities， last accessed at http://thalesandfriends.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/barrow_paper.pdf （March 22， 2016）.

［5］Giuliana Bruno. public Intimacy: Architecture and The Visual Arts. Cambridge， Mass: The MIT press，2007: 213.

［6］ Victor Buchli. An Anthropology of Architecture. London: Bloomsbury Academic， 2014. Institutions and Community: 89-116； Consumption Studies and the Home: 117-135.

［7］ Georges Teyssot. A Typology of Everyday Constellation. Cambridge: The MIT press， 2013.

Temperamental Voids: Curatorial Notations Around the City as Disposition

作者介紹：北京設(shè)計(jì)周創(chuàng)意總監(jiān)

2016-03-15