訪談：莫里斯 · 尼奧

導(dǎo)報(bào)：您的《看不見(jiàn)我悄悄溜走了》緊接著《獨(dú)立自主與標(biāo)新立異》，哪一個(gè)是您最成熟的作品？如果不得不在您的職業(yè)生涯中找到您的研究主題，可以說(shuō)所有的主題都已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)在您的作品中，而不是不斷出現(xiàn)的？我們可以談?wù)撘粋€(gè)不斷發(fā)展的語(yǔ)法嗎？

莫里斯·尼奧：你可能知道，1988年我翻譯了讓·鮑德里亞的《美國(guó)》（1986年出版）。這是一本充滿了瑣碎而爆炸性的、半夢(mèng)半醒、半新聞評(píng)論的書(shū)，一本偽裝成一個(gè)看似無(wú)目的隨想炸彈的書(shū)。讓·鮑德里亞他的《冷酷的記憶》（1987出版）中對(duì)《美國(guó)》這本書(shū)進(jìn)行了回顧：對(duì)于書(shū)《美國(guó)》只有一個(gè)辦法：一個(gè)特定的時(shí)間按一定數(shù)量收集的片段、筆記和故事，必須有一個(gè)解決方案把他們串聯(lián)成，不進(jìn)行任何添加或刪除（包括最平庸的）一個(gè)必要的整體：在表面之下，支配他們的收集非常必要。假定這是唯一的和最好的素材，因?yàn)樗怯上嗤乃季S秘密編排的，并假設(shè)作為相同的癡迷部分所隱藏的都有意義，并且重構(gòu)問(wèn)題必須有解決方案。作品確定，一切都已經(jīng)存在，只有找到解決問(wèn)題的鑰匙就夠了。當(dāng)我讀到這一點(diǎn)時(shí)，我就要畢業(yè)了，但直到許多年之后，我才開(kāi)始領(lǐng)悟那一句話的精髓。頓時(shí)我如釋重負(fù)，就是連貫性的問(wèn)題。畢竟，對(duì)于連貫性的欲望無(wú)處不在、伸手可及，尤其是在作家、藝術(shù)家、建筑師等的圈子中更是如此。因?yàn)槿绻悴辉O(shè)法處理一個(gè)連貫的作品，那你是什么??？正如鮑德里亞，在某一點(diǎn)上，我開(kāi)始想知道所有這些不同和所有的太多樣化項(xiàng)目，由一個(gè)（幾個(gè)）人完成的無(wú)與倫比的視頻制作，無(wú)與倫比的文本，無(wú)與倫比的圖形設(shè)計(jì)，無(wú)與倫比的建筑都有著共同的點(diǎn)。一個(gè)局外人無(wú)法理解。至少這是很好的想象，那種無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)的感覺(jué)開(kāi)始折磨我。大多數(shù)建筑師都設(shè)法建立一個(gè)美麗連貫的風(fēng)格，而我的每一個(gè)項(xiàng)目似乎都在抹去前一個(gè)項(xiàng)目的記憶和印象。就好像是你不斷地燃燒你所有建筑、電影、圖形和文本的船。幸運(yùn)的是，現(xiàn)在的連貫性的重要性不再困擾我了。在寫了《獨(dú)立自主與標(biāo)新立異》內(nèi)容之后，但實(shí)際上已經(jīng)在1988年（《美國(guó)》荷蘭翻譯版出現(xiàn)后10年）編寫《你有權(quán)保持沉默》中就有了。我明白在風(fēng)格、形式和明確表達(dá)中找不到連貫性，但可以在方法、結(jié)構(gòu)和含蓄表達(dá)中可以找到。這也正是概念如“主題”和“編碼”之間的確切區(qū)別。在《獨(dú)立自主與標(biāo)新立異》中，我反對(duì)他們互相對(duì)立。設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)主題的或隱喻，或故事依據(jù)，總是針對(duì)一個(gè)外部的連貫性，而設(shè)計(jì)編碼的依據(jù)時(shí)，針對(duì)的是內(nèi)部的連貫性，不是直接可見(jiàn)的連貫性。設(shè)計(jì)編碼依據(jù)無(wú)法在機(jī)構(gòu)上、因果關(guān)系上或明確的方法上完成。這個(gè)過(guò)程是異想天開(kāi)的、直觀的、沖動(dòng)的和含蓄的。因此，你不能說(shuō)一個(gè)進(jìn)化，因?yàn)闆](méi)有發(fā)展；設(shè)計(jì)總是在那里。它在那里等著你，盡管設(shè)計(jì)的過(guò)程需要很多年。所有你需要做的是找到設(shè)計(jì)和解開(kāi)其編碼。所有這些項(xiàng)目可以如此不同，因?yàn)樗麄冇邢嗤囊鈭D和動(dòng)機(jī)。

導(dǎo)報(bào)：你的建筑實(shí)踐主要發(fā)生在荷蘭，荷蘭一直是令人關(guān)注的建筑實(shí)驗(yàn)室之一。一般來(lái)說(shuō)，你可以列出建筑設(shè)計(jì)中的一些確切的荷蘭特點(diǎn)嗎？在他們當(dāng)中，你最關(guān)心的是哪些特點(diǎn)，并能識(shí)別出自己？

莫里斯·尼奧：我想、我希望，是想要區(qū)分的愿望?！胺蛛x”我指破壞、拙劣模仿、嘲笑、激進(jìn)；所有應(yīng)用于開(kāi)創(chuàng)新基礎(chǔ)的方法以創(chuàng)造新的可能性，打開(kāi)大門，而不是關(guān)閉大門。作為這一戰(zhàn)略的一個(gè)例子，你可以看看題為火皇帝帝的研究，在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上可以看到火皇帝帝的形象。我們已經(jīng)研究了食物在城市公共領(lǐng)域中的作用。食品和飲料的補(bǔ)給往往是走出房子進(jìn)入城市的一個(gè)理由。每個(gè)人每天都必須吃飯喝水。對(duì)于某些人來(lái)說(shuō)，這種日常的購(gòu)買，烹飪和飲食，甚至成為一種儀式。我們需要的所有這些慣例和現(xiàn)狀把我們緊密聯(lián)系在一起，所以食物的親密關(guān)系和文化的豐富性變得更清晰可見(jiàn)。這是公共和私人生活可以相互極好容忍的地方。我們已經(jīng)討論了食品供應(yīng)商和供應(yīng)商的空間提供者，并與他們?cè)谝黄?，我們制定了十種從非常簡(jiǎn)單到更復(fù)雜的、從非贏利的到商業(yè)上的和從薄利到利潤(rùn)豐厚的模型。

我們的建議，無(wú)論是市場(chǎng)大廳的設(shè)計(jì)，還是種植果樹(shù)的計(jì)劃，他們總是在公共和私人之間的區(qū)域進(jìn)行精確的操作。例如商場(chǎng)有私有化和合理化的公共空間的特點(diǎn)，我們用我們的模型來(lái)給空間不同的面孔。在公共空間，由于其通用性，失去了城市居民的參與，我們引進(jìn)當(dāng)?shù)赜H切感。

其中的一個(gè)模型是火皇帝，鹿特丹市中心的新面貌?；鸹实蹠?huì)是公共生活的支點(diǎn)。沒(méi)有人能逃離這個(gè)貪婪的建筑，白天和黑夜凝視任何靠近它的東西：天真的游客和經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的老饕、蒼白的土豆和新鮮的香菜、馴養(yǎng)的鴿子和活魷魚(yú)、邋遢的市場(chǎng)攤位和高級(jí)餐廳、衣衫不整的音樂(lè)家和色情服務(wù)、鹿特河水和女招待香味淡去的香水。一切都被消化，推進(jìn)和再次鏟出，但是已經(jīng)在高壓下進(jìn)行了實(shí)質(zhì)再造。因?yàn)樗切碌闹边_(dá)市場(chǎng)容納火皇帝的大廳。每個(gè)人都有東西要找，每個(gè)人和東西都準(zhǔn)備好了，要對(duì)抗火帝的廚房的熱。這就是城市沸騰的地方，人們沿著在異國(guó)風(fēng)味的菜肴的蒸汽前行的地方。

火皇帝里面沒(méi)有透明通風(fēng)的大廳，而是一個(gè)大的吞食機(jī)，腸道激發(fā)的享樂(lè)糾結(jié)的空間。提供的食物的令人眼花繚亂的多樣性，體現(xiàn)在室內(nèi)設(shè)計(jì)的節(jié)日精神。這好像是市場(chǎng)本身已經(jīng)被所有的各民族風(fēng)格的內(nèi)飾所充實(shí)豐滿。一個(gè)老掉牙的德國(guó)表現(xiàn)主義的空間正在被一種朦朧的泰國(guó)新時(shí)代間空間所替換。市場(chǎng)大廳來(lái)者不拒，食用另一種文體的絕技之后打薄嗝?；鸹实畚挥谒固垢?，在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)爆發(fā)前，曾是鹿特丹最神秘的地方之一，但現(xiàn)在看起來(lái)荒涼而失落。這就是為什么我們把不必要的大運(yùn)河進(jìn)入室內(nèi)，散落著火熱的舢板和著名的黑洞—入口到“格羅特市場(chǎng)”下的運(yùn)河被重新開(kāi)放，這樣市場(chǎng)大廳有了水平面入口。轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)它，你可以說(shuō)，火皇帝內(nèi)部在水中延續(xù)，所以戰(zhàn)前的饑餓城市，那深不可測(cè)的暴飲暴食的斯坦格，可以滿足了。改善的外部市場(chǎng)通過(guò)火皇帝改變成運(yùn)河上新浮動(dòng)市場(chǎng)，可以嘗到了運(yùn)河上小舢板上的食物流的秘密。

我喜歡以不常規(guī)的方式調(diào)查主題，從不同的角度收集所有的片段。我不知道這種設(shè)計(jì)政策是否可以被稱為典型的荷蘭，但我相信我不是唯一一個(gè)有這樣的感覺(jué)的人。

當(dāng)然，在荷蘭不是所有更新項(xiàng)目都是同樣成功，但我更喜歡（在這件事上我有話要說(shuō)）詢問(wèn)失敗的項(xiàng)目，而不是一個(gè)“成功”的建筑這個(gè)或那個(gè)問(wèn)題。

作品：火皇帝

導(dǎo)報(bào)：您的項(xiàng)目似乎來(lái)自一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的為項(xiàng)目提供抽象品質(zhì)的概念矩陣。他們賦予景觀的關(guān)系，還是賦予自然環(huán)境的關(guān)系？我們應(yīng)該說(shuō)，在您的作品中，自然環(huán)境只是發(fā)生，不影響項(xiàng)目？

莫里斯·尼奧：所有的項(xiàng)目，與你的想法相反，都與上下相關(guān)聯(lián)。對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)，上下文和代碼是兩個(gè)關(guān)鍵的概念。但是，如果你的意思是說(shuō)，項(xiàng)目不適應(yīng)環(huán)境，你是正確的。他們不把上下文為一個(gè)環(huán)境或背景對(duì)待，但作為一個(gè)對(duì)手，另一個(gè)球隊(duì)的隊(duì)員，你必須解決的問(wèn)題。是在上下文和代碼之間，在環(huán)境和項(xiàng)目之間建立緊張的唯一方法。在這種緊張關(guān)系中，作為一個(gè)用戶或路人，你可以獲得經(jīng)驗(yàn)。也許這就是為什么，對(duì)于你來(lái)說(shuō)，他們似乎是“抽象的”。

導(dǎo)報(bào)：你在建筑實(shí)踐中必須面對(duì)的最大的困難是什么？（與客戶打交道、政府機(jī)關(guān)、結(jié)構(gòu)問(wèn)題、靈感）另一方面，完美的項(xiàng)目需要完成哪種要求？

莫里斯·尼奧：這個(gè)問(wèn)題很難回答，因?yàn)轫?xiàng)目與項(xiàng)目之間會(huì)有所不同。問(wèn)題也會(huì)從意想不到的角度突然出現(xiàn)。但有兩個(gè)常見(jiàn)的問(wèn)題。第一個(gè)問(wèn)題是開(kāi)發(fā)商，開(kāi)發(fā)商的承包商，他們已經(jīng)成為建筑師的最大的敵人。作為未來(lái)的用戶和客戶的代表，他們服務(wù)的共同點(diǎn)，并扼殺所有的可能性和所有可能的萌芽狀態(tài)的新的計(jì)劃或生活形式。第二問(wèn)題咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)，作為項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理代理接管調(diào)試機(jī)構(gòu)，由于項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理缺乏調(diào)試知識(shí)。這些項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理的唯一目標(biāo)是按時(shí)和預(yù)算內(nèi)完成項(xiàng)目。這當(dāng)然是好的，但它完全忽略了建筑的文化方面。項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理也沒(méi)有能力給你信任。甚至也不允許他，因?yàn)椴恍湃谓ㄖ熎墼p或類似的，是項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理的任務(wù)。然而，信任始終是一個(gè)真正的好項(xiàng)目的基礎(chǔ)。

導(dǎo)報(bào)：你在建筑實(shí)踐中必須面對(duì)的最大的困難是什么？（與客戶打交道、政府機(jī)關(guān)、結(jié)構(gòu)問(wèn)題、靈感）另一方面，完美的項(xiàng)目需要完成哪種要求？

莫里斯·尼奧：這很簡(jiǎn)單。建筑學(xué)如果不是必需的也是重要的。因?yàn)樗c地心引力綁定，并能夠體現(xiàn)這個(gè)綁定結(jié)合。像素或頂點(diǎn)做不到。除了一些自然的山之外，建筑是外化引力的最佳媒介?？纯茨銈兊慕烫煤蛯m殿：多么強(qiáng)大的吸能顯示，地心引力多么美妙，地心多么什么艷麗。我個(gè)人認(rèn)為，建筑和重力之間的結(jié)合是感性空間的秘密。虛擬的一切都是無(wú)效的、膨脹的、不受影響的。一切真實(shí)的都是精力充沛的、至關(guān)重要的、致命的。像素和頂點(diǎn)是不性感的，也不是感性的。整個(gè)所謂的“性、政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)”領(lǐng)域的所謂虛擬“優(yōu)勢(shì)”，都是一個(gè)無(wú)聊的、呆板的混亂。我寧愿走在街上或在一個(gè)建筑內(nèi)，而不是在網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間中。你可以說(shuō)，建筑學(xué)只是當(dāng)今越來(lái)越重要，我們不得不精確布置建筑，作為一種媒介，作為一種手段，而不是尋找輕質(zhì)的，透明的，瘦小的，干燥的和民主的，而是沉重的，不透明的，這具有充分魯本斯特征，精力充沛的和主宰一切的。

作品：令人驚奇的鯨顎

WAR： Your book Unseen I SIipped Away opens with ‘Sovereignty & SinguIarity’， which is one of your most mature essays. If you had to trace up your research themes during your career， couId you say that aII the themes were aIready present in your works rather than they appeared time after time？ Can we speak about an evoIving grammar？

Maurice Nio： As you probably know， in 1988 I translated Jean Baudrillard’s book Amérique （1986）. It is a book full of small but explosive， half dream-like， half journalistic observations， a book disguised as a seemingly unaimed mental fragmentation bomb. In Cool Memories （1987） Baudrillard looks back on this book： ‘’For America， only one method： given a certain number of fragments， notes and stories collected over a given time， there must be a solution which integrates them all， including the most banal， into a necessary whole， without adding or removing any： the very necessity which， beneath the surface， presided over their collection. Making the supposition that this is the only material and the best， because it is secretly ordered by the same thinking， and assuming that everything conceived as part of the same obsession has a meaning and that there must necessarily be a solution to the problem of reconstituting it. The work starts out from the certainty that everything is already there and it will be sufficient simply to find the key.’’

When I read this， I was graduating， but it was not until many years later that the essence of that statement started to dawn on me. And immediately an enormous weight fell off my shoulders- the weight of coherence. After all， the desire for coherence is everywhere and always tangible， especially within the circle of writers， artists， architects etc. Because what is it that you are if you cannot even manage to build a coherent oeuvre？ Just like Baudrillard， at a certain point I started to wonder what all those different， all too diverse projects- incomparable video productions，incomparable texts， incomparable graphic designs， incomparable buildings- made by （or around） one person， had in common. An outsider cannot make any sense of it. At least that is very well imaginable， and that feeling of being unpursued started to gnaw at me. Where most architects have managed to build a beautifully coherent style， with me every project seems to erase the memory and the image of the previous one. As if you are constantly working on burning all your architectural， cinematic， graphic and textual boats. Fortunately， now the weight of coherence does not bother me anymore. After writing the text ‘Sovereignty & Singularity’， but actually already during the production of the book You Have the Right to Remain Silent in 1998 （ten years after the appearance of the Dutch translation of Amérique） I understood that coherence could not be found in style， form and the explicit， but in method， structure and the implicit. That is also precisely the difference between notions such as ‘theme’ and ‘code’. In ‘Sovereignty & Singularity’ I have opposed them against each other. To design on the basis of a theme- or metaphor， or story- is always aimed at an external coherence， while designing on the basis of a code is aimed at an internal coherence，a coherence that is not directly visible. To design on the basis of a code cannot be done in a structural， causal or explicit way. The process is whimsical， intuitive， impulsive， implicit. You can therefore not speak of an evolution because there is no development； the design was always there. It was there waiting for you， even though the process of designing can take many years. All you need to do is to find the design and decode its code. All these projects can thus be so different because they share the same intention and motive.

WAR： Your architecturaI practice takes pIace mostIy within the NetherIands that keep on being one of the most interesting architecturaI Iaboratory. In generaI， can you outIine some characters of undoutbfuIIy dutchness in architecturaI design？ Among them， which are those characters that you care mostIy of and in which you can recognize yourseIf？

Maurice Nio： I think， I hope， the desire to detach. And with ‘detach’ I mean to disrupt， to parody， to ridicule， to radicalise；all methods that are applied to break new ground， to create new possibilities， to open doors instead of closing them. As an example of this strategy you may look to the research entitled the Fire Emperor whose images can be seen in this issue. We have done research into the role that food plays in the urban public domain. The supply of food and drink are often a reason to go out of the house， into the city. Everybody has to eat every day. For some， this daily routine of buying，cooking and eating has even become a ritual. All these routines and actualities we want to bring closely together， so the intimacy and cultural richness of the food becomes clearer， more visible. That is where the public and the private life can tolerate each other wonderfully. We have talked to food suppliers and providers of space and together with them we drew up ten models varying from very simple to more complex， from non-profit to commercial， from lean to fat.

Our proposals， whether that is for the design of a market hall or for the plan for planting fruit trees， they always operate exactly on that area between public and private. Where for example shopping malls have the character to privatise and streamline the public space， we use our models to give the space different faces. And where the public space， because of its generic character， has lost the involvement of the townsman， we introduce local intimacy.

One of those models is the Fire Emperor， the new appearance in the heart of Rotterdam’s city centre. The Fire Emperor will be the pivot of public life. No-one can escape from this voracious building that day and night devours anything that comes near： innocent tourists and experienced gluttons， pale potatoes and fresh coriander， tame pigeons and live squid， raunchy market stalls and exclusive restaurants， worn-out musicians and erotic services，the water of the ‘Rotte’ and the faded perfumes of waitresses. Everything is being digested， pushed along and shovelled out again， but not before it has been substantially reshaped under high pressure. Because it is the new non-stop market hall that houses in the Fire Emperor. Everybody has something to look for here， and everybody and everything is prepared to defy the heat of the kitchen in the Fire Emperor. This is where the city boils and where people travel along on the vapours of exotic dishes.

The Fire Emperor has no transparent airy hall on the inside， but is one big devouring machine， a hedonic tangle of spaces inspired on intestines. The dazzling diversity of the food on offer is reflected in the festive spirit of the interior design. It is as if the market hall itself has been fattened with interiors that have all nationalities and styles. A corny German-expressionist space is being alternated with an obscure Thai-New Age room. It is a market hall that is not embarrassed of anything and that burps nicely after having consumed yet another stylistic tour de force.

The Fire Emperor is situated on ‘het Steiger’， a spot that， before the war， was one of Rotterdam’s most mysterious places but now looks desolate and deluded. That is why we have converted this needlessly broad canal into an interior， strewn with sizzling sampans， and the famous black hole- the entrance to the canal under the ‘Grote Markt’- that was re-opened so that there is an entrance to the market hall on water level. Turning it round， you can say that the interior of the Fire Emperor is being continued in the water， so the pre-war hunger， that unfathomable gluttony of‘het Steiger’， can be satisfied. The stream of food from the improved outside market is， as it where， being diverted via the Fire Emperor to the new floating market in the canal， where， on those sampans， the secret can be tasted again.

I like to investigate topics in not a conventional way， to collect all the fragments from different points of view. I don’t know if this design-politics could be called typically Dutch but I am sure I am not the only one who feels about it this way.

Of course not all renewing projects in the Netherlands are equally successful， but I prefer （insofar as I have something to say in this matter） a failed project in which questions were asked rather than a ‘successful’ building that is neither one thing nor the other.

作品：令作人品驚：奇巨的蟒鯨天顎橋

WAR： Your projects seem to come out from a strong conceptuaI matrix that gives to them an abstract character. Which is the reIationship that they endow with the Iandscape， the naturaI environment？ ShaII we say， in your works， that the naturaI environment simpIy happens and does not influence the projects？

Maurice Nio： All projects are， contrary to what you think， very contextual. To me， context and code are the two key notions. But of course you are right if you mean that the projects do not adjust to the environment. They do not treat the context as an environment or background， but as an opponent， a player of the other team， something you have to tackle. It is the only way to build up a tension between context and code， between environment and project. Within that tension， as a user or passer-by， you could acquire an experience. Maybe that is the reason why， to you，they seem ‘a(chǎn)bstract’.

WAR： Which are the greatest difficuIties that you have to cope in your architecturaI practice？ （deaIing with cIients， administrations，structuraI probIems， inspiration） And on the other hand， which kind of requirements shouId fuIfiII a perfect project？

Maurice Nio： That question is rather difficult to answer because this can change from one project to the other. Problems can also arise suddenly， from unexpected angles. But there are two general problems. The first problem are the developers， the developing contractors； they have become the architect’s biggest enemies. As representative of future users and clients， they serve the common denominator and nip all possibilities， all possible new programs or forms of living， in the bud. The second problem are the consultancies， the agents that as project managers have taken over the role of commissioning authority due to a lack of knowledge of the latter. These project managers’ sole aim is to realise the project in time and within the appointed budget. Which is fine of course， but it completely ignores the cultural aspects of architecture. A project manager is also not capable of giving you trust. He is not even allowed to， because it is his task to distrust the architect of fiddling， or something like that. Trust， however， is always the base for a real good project.

WAR： Facing our gIobaI age of overwheIming information， digitaI worIds， bits identities， virtuaI reaIities， which kind of roIe can Architecture stiII pIay？ Is Architecture stiII necessary？ I know that you are not a magician but which are your foresights about the future of the Architecture？

Maurice Nio： That is very simple. Architecture is important， if not essential， because it is bound to gravity and capable of embodying this union. A pixel or a vertex cannot do this. Apart from something as natural as mountains，architecture is the best medium to externalise gravity. Look at your churches and palaces： what an absorbing display of power， what a glorification of the gravity， what a voluptuous ode to the centre of the earth. I personally believe that this union between architecture and gravity is the secret of the sensual space. Everything virtual is impotent，inflationary， immune. Everything real is virile， vital， virulent. A pixel and a vertex are not sexy， not sensual. That entire so-called dominance of the virtual in the fields of sex， politics and economy is one boring， dead mess. I rather walk on the street or in a building than in cyberspace. You could say that architecture is only becoming more important nowadays， but then we have to deploy architecture very precisely as a medium， as a means， and not search for the light， the transparent， the lean， the dry and the democratic， but for the heavy， the turbid， the Rubenesque full， the lusty and the sovereign.

INTERVIEW： Maurice Nio

The Fire Emperor