張利/ZHANG Li

窗無惡
No Window Is Bad

張利/ZHANG Li

窗是建筑得以成立的基本要素之一。我們今天還在引用的“……鑿戶牗以為室，有室之用……”足以證明先人在文明之初給予窗的重視。在不同時代與不同文化的建筑中，如果審視墻、柱、頂、臺階、門、窗等這些建筑基本要素，不難發(fā)現(xiàn)窗是幾乎唯一的總與正向的事物聯(lián)系在一起的要素。當(dāng)墻與割裂、柱與恥辱、頂與壓迫、臺階與距離、門與特權(quán)可以產(chǎn)生各種暗淡的社會文化糾葛時，窗似乎是完全幸免的。

窗的積極意義可以從形而下與形而上兩個層面來觀察。

從形而下層面觀察，窗當(dāng)然就是對窗的物質(zhì)形態(tài)的考量，而這種考量又可以分成兩組基本矛盾的分析：其一，透與不透；其二，看與被看。

透與不透，即物理上的通透與隔絕，即窗對建成空間物理環(huán)境的作用。任何一扇窗都不可避免地在建筑中承擔(dān)著雙重角色：一方面，它是采光與通風(fēng)的最有利因素，越“透”越好；另一方面，它又是保溫與隔熱的最不利因素，越“不透”越好。正是這一進退兩難的境地定義了建筑的最古老話題之一，即開窗與立面的比例關(guān)系，它同時也提供了建筑形態(tài)風(fēng)格演進的明顯標(biāo)尺。西方的經(jīng)典建筑法則與中國傳統(tǒng)木構(gòu)法式都不約而同地研究這一矛盾的“最佳”折衷點，而這種難以證明或證偽的主觀臆斷在勞吉埃的時代達到極端。有趣的是，正是對所有這些結(jié)論的顛覆——格羅庇烏斯用于廠房的角窗——在20世紀(jì)之交宣告了建筑改朝換代的到來。至于21世紀(jì)之交的昂貴的呼吸幕墻體系，則可以看成是對透與不透的矛盾進行一次一勞永逸解答的輕狂企圖，在這里，最大限度的通透同樣可以實現(xiàn)最大限度的隔絕，至少在紙面計算上如此。

與透與不透的實證理性相比，看與被看是一個貌似圓融得多的問題，雖然其本質(zhì)仍然是充滿沖突的?！翱础?，即通過窗所完成的對窗后世界的觀看，其審美體驗的對象是窗所采集的窗后信息?！氨豢础保磳Υ氨旧淼挠^看，其審美體驗的對象是窗的所有物質(zhì)形式，包括窗玻璃（紙）、窗楣、窗欞、窗臺、窗套、五金構(gòu)件，等等。 “看”強調(diào)建筑對建筑以外事物的吸納，其最高境界是人、窗、景的對位連接，因而窗本身的形式在建筑體驗中基本削減為邊框。而“被看”則是強調(diào)建筑本身的物性自主，其最高境界是窗先于其他空間存在的完美與精致。顯然，“看”與“被看”的沖突遠比透與不透的矛盾難于調(diào)和，而且各自的代表實例也無一不是采用了一邊倒的作法。在“看”的方面，網(wǎng)師園的景窗、斯卡帕的城堡美術(shù)館的凸窗及美爾尼科夫別墅的蜂巢窗均與其后的景物相互依存，融為一體；而在被看的方面，洛桑大教堂的玫瑰窗（窗玻璃）、故宮景仁宮的花窗（窗欞）、高平萬壽宮的壓窗石（窗下楣）、霍爾的MIT學(xué)生宿舍的彩色窗洞側(cè)壁（窗套），則均可以作為獨立的藝術(shù)品存在，它們把觀者的視線錨固在了窗本身，而不是窗后的世界上。

除去物質(zhì)空間的價值外，窗還明顯具備著形而上的意義——那句深入人心的“眼睛是心靈的窗戶”充分表達了窗在營造精神對話方面的作用。在這里，我們針對的是廣義的窗的原型，即它所帶來的對另一世界的抽象抵達。從原型上講，雖然“門”“窗”都是在兩個被阻隔的世界之間造就聯(lián)結(jié)，但與“門”相比，“窗”因為放棄觀者身體的實際可達性，而具備了更為豐富的潛力：陳繼儒的“小窗”被用來建構(gòu)文人的自省，蘇軾的“小軒窗”被用來建構(gòu)生命跨越死亡的交融，薩特的“看得見風(fēng)景的窗”則被用來建構(gòu)靈魂對桎棝的破除。當(dāng)窗出離采光、通風(fēng)的功用而升華時，其形而上的意義總是能形成更為長久的價值：龍門石窟與莫高窟把其所依附的巖壁變?yōu)榱宋镔|(zhì)世界與信仰世界之間的屏嶂，而數(shù)以百千計的洞窟恰恰是連接兩個世界的窗口；同樣利用窗洞口來表現(xiàn)宗教力量的（當(dāng)然在此是依賴光的質(zhì)量）還有柯布西耶的朗香教堂與弗德勒的圣十字教堂；MVRDV在阿姆斯特丹的社會住宅利用空中花園的洞口形成巨“窗”的隱喻，創(chuàng)造了板式住宅前后社區(qū)空間的聯(lián)系；UN Studio的奔馳博物館則是利用夾層的水平框景特性，在不同的汽車年代陳列之間形成了不僅是跨越空間、也是跨越時間的“窗”。

每一扇窗（或“窗”）都是一個美好的存在，也都是耐人尋味的?！?/p>

The window is a fundamental architectural element.The quote of Lao-tzu which is still vastly popular today，you make a chamber by carving its windows and start to use it as a room，is an early evidence of our ancestors expressing the signifcance of the window.Across cultures and times，out of building fundamentals those of the wall，the column，the roof，the stair，the gate and the window，it is rather clear that the window is the only one that has not got signifcant negative associations.While the wall is constantly linked with segregation，the column with shame，the roof with oppression，the stair with distance，the gate with privilege，the window seems to have remained immune.

The positive image of the window can be investigated from two directions: the physical，and the metaphysical.

The physical investigation on the window consists of two pairs of contradictions: transparency versus opaqueness，frame versus form.

Transparency and opaqueness concern the physics of a window in a built environment.Unfortunately every window takes a schizophrenic role here: on one hand，to gather more day light and to facilitate better ventilation，the bigger a window is the better；on the other hand，to insulate the interior and maintain thermal comfort，the smaller a window is the better.It is this dilemma that underlies one of the most debated subjects and the most conspicuous style markers in architecture history: fenestration.Both classical principles in the west and Fa-Shi in China have tried to arbitrate the best compromise，and it was in Laugier that this type of assumption went to its extreme.Interestingly，it was the overhaul of all these assumptions - by Gropius' transparent corners in factories - that manifested the arrival of the new era at the turn of the 20th century.The turn of the 21st century witnesses another similar attempt，albeit not as successful，in which doubleskin curtain wall systems try to settle the question of transparency versus opaqueness once and for all.On paper，calculations may tell us that it is now possible to have the best of both worlds，in real life，the story is just different.

At first sight，the question of frame versus form may not appear as divisive as the transparency-opaqueness one.Deep inside，however，it is more difcult.The frame school gives priority to what you see through the window，i.e.，the object of beauty is the world behind the window.On the contrary，the form school gives priority to the window itself，i.e.，the object（s） of beauty are now its glass，its mullions，its sill，its reveal，and its handles.While the frame school would reduce the significance of the physicality of a window to its border，the form school would take every detail into account.The best examples of either school don't make any compromise at all.Cases of the frame school，be it the Net Master's Garden in Soochow，Castelvecchio by Carlo Scarpa，or the Melnikov house，perfectly anchor the featured windows into their contexts by careful alignments.Cases of the form school，be it the Lausanne Cathedral（the stained glass），Jing-Ren Palace in the Forbidden City（the mullions），Wan-Shou Temple in Gaoping（the sill），or Steven Holl's Simon Hall in MIT（the reveals），are self-referential objects of art，showing very little interest to their locations，if any at all.

It has long been known that the window has metaphysical meaning.The proverb（or cliché），eyes are windows to souls，proves at least the spiritual capacity of the window.We are talking about the window as an abstract archetype here.Comparing with the gate（also as an abstract archetype），the window hosts more freedom of imagination due to the elimination of any need for body access.CHEN Jiru used his window to construct intellectual refection.SU Shi used his window to build up a dialogue across life and death.Sartre used his window to break the quarantine of souls.When the window transcends the function of daylighting and ventilation，its metaphysical meaning becomes even more perpetual.In both the Mogao and Longmen，the grottos are the de-facto windows in the walls between the world of matters and the world of beliefs.Windows in Corbusier's Ronchamp and Foerderer's Heiligkreuz convey similar religious power through the quality of light.MVRDV's social housing in Amsterdam features large open terraces in the building，giving the image of giant windows connecting different community spaces.UN Studio's Mercedes-Benz Museum utilises the framing capacities of the mezzanines and created windows linking displays of different periods along the car-making giant's history.

No window is bad.Not a single window is to be taken for granted.□

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2016-08-09