作者：Bas ten Brinke，70F建筑事務所

By Bas ten Brinke, 70F architecture

從全方面考慮，建筑的本質(zhì)是一種感知。而真實也是如此。換言之，你眼中的真實與我眼中的真實是不同的，所以說是基于感知的。當代社會中，物理實在的重要性日漸減弱，同時“地點”也不再是一種物理性限制，而是被賦予了全新的自由感。因此在這樣的時代背景下，建筑行業(yè)也正在努力提升其自身的價值?；蛘哒f，至少我們是在為此而努力的。

丟失真實

上世紀初，人們開始擔心會丟失真實，擔心的原因是由于技術(shù)流動性逐漸增強，技術(shù)復制開始出現(xiàn)，更準確地說，就是地域限制的突破以及圖像技術(shù)的變革。(1)后來就出現(xiàn)了電視機，我們突然可以通過圖像看到其它地方的真實情形。過去我們一般是在現(xiàn)場或是同一個地點觀看演出，突然之間可以在另一個地方通過電視機觀看了。

很明顯，這就出現(xiàn)了一個關(guān)于真實的問題。與我們親眼所見的相比，以真實情景為基礎(chǔ)的圖像是否有所不同，或者說是否沒那么“真實”呢？換言之，與劇院里看的表演相比，在電視上看到的節(jié)目是否沒那么“真實”呢？

這個問題目前仍未能找到答案，反而變得更加深刻。因為即使是我們的思想，似乎也已處于迷失的危險之中。

丟失你的思想

隨著智能手機的上市，我們突然之間得以與世界各地相聯(lián)系，而且這種聯(lián)系并非暫時的，而是持久的。在日常生活中，我們也總是會不時翻看臉書，照片墻，和WhatsApp等應用程序，看看別人都在做些什么，有沒有人想和自己聊聊天。所以，不僅我們的身體和眼界已經(jīng)突破了地域限制，就連我們的思緒似乎也常常飄游到遠方，這在歷史上還是第一次。

眼見為實

然而，問題仍未得到解答——什么是真實的，什么是不真實的？或者說，某件物體是不是真實的？或許，根本就沒有答案。我們得出的結(jié)論應該是：最有意思的也是唯一真實的就是每個個體對事物的不同感知。我們可以將現(xiàn)實情景復制為圖像，或者說我們可以足不出戶就了解任何地方的真實情景，然而圖像記錄與現(xiàn)實生活，隔屏觀賞與親身體驗之間，始終是存在差距的。

你是否曾立足于Rothko的畫作之前？拋開你腦海中想象的畫面。拋開你曾在書中看到的描述。親身觀看的確是另一種體驗。那才是你該追尋的真實?；蛘撸缰娙笋R瑟斯三世寫道：

快速回到現(xiàn)實中。噢，地心引力來了……(2)

你會感覺到一種從頭到腳的震撼。你也會沉浸于其中。你會很享受在那里的每一秒。

“真實”的建筑

我們第一次近距離感受這一關(guān)于真實的理論是在2007年為當?shù)匾粋€表演“藝術(shù)”(3)的劇組設(shè)計劇院時。劇組表演的是三個朋友的故事。其中一個花了200.000法郎買了一副白色繪畫。另兩個人就十分氣憤，他們不明白怎么會有人花這么多錢買一副畫，還是一副似乎只有白色的畫。

我們在自己的建筑作品中給出了答案。觀眾席位于舞臺正對面，四周包裹的嚴嚴實實，就像是兩面垂直和水平方向都相向而立的U型墻。從稍遠一些的地方看，建筑就像一個白色的箱體，上面還有一個大洞。透過建筑外框，可以直接看到后面的景象，也就是，分別位于劇場兩邊的觀眾與演員。建筑上的洞，如同一個相框，而這個相框內(nèi)所展示的，不是單一的觀眾席或舞臺，而是整個劇場的一切。因而也涵蓋了觀眾與演員之間的無形互動。

此外，建筑選址于公園之內(nèi)，聽上去似乎有些荒唐。其方位的設(shè)計，使得演出結(jié)束之時，觀眾正好可以看到建筑一側(cè)的日落美景。如果我告訴你這座臨時建筑僅樹立了半年之久，你可能就會明白我們這個項目的諷刺意味和美感了。

建筑的真實感

沒有什么工具能夠創(chuàng)造真實。我也不可能寫完這本手冊之后，就告訴你，只要你按我的方法去做，你就可以通過建筑設(shè)計去創(chuàng)造出真實。我唯一能做的就是告訴你我們設(shè)計了什么，為什么要這么設(shè)計，材料有哪些。目前，后者的答案已經(jīng)清楚。

實踐中，我們只采用“真實的”材料。也就是說，我們選用某種材料是因為其自身特有的品質(zhì)。有些人可能認為，木材是“真”材料，塑料是“假”材料，但我們不這么認為。塑料和木材一樣，都是真實的材料，不需要刻意隱藏。而應該予以重視、突出、接納和完善。使其成為建筑的一部分，但不要濫用。

不是非常必要的情況下，我們通常不會給木材染色。這樣可以欣賞并感受到木材的原生態(tài)紋理?；炷烈彩侨绱恕Ｍ可项伾喼本褪菍υ鷳B(tài)美感的褻瀆。我們設(shè)計的項目會采用大量單板。對我們來說，單板與木材圖片之間存在明顯差異，常用于防火板產(chǎn)品中。如果是純粹主義者，可能要求更高，他們認為只有實木才稱得上“真材實料”。中密度纖維板只用薄薄的一層是不夠的。我們不這樣認為。我們的觀點是，無論木材多薄，木材的圖片和實物仍然存在差異。

然而對于這一存在爭議的問題，更直觀更全面的答案可能是：通過所選用的材料，人們可以欣賞并感受得到你在設(shè)計中所花費的心思和時間。設(shè)計的作品也可以在眾多建筑中脫穎而出。

感受建筑

前幾日，我和妻子受邀去阿姆斯特丹一家新開業(yè)的高級餐廳就餐。我們知道這家餐廳是印度尼西亞風格的，所以猜想它的設(shè)計應該比較常見，至少在我們國家是比較常見的。但事實并非如此。這家餐廳(4)設(shè)計精妙，匠心獨運。餐桌上的菜肴大都是尋常菜，我感覺很好。

我們原本的猜想源于我們家鄉(xiāng)一家印度尼西亞餐廳。我們曾經(jīng)去過那里一次，我對那家餐廳的設(shè)計抱怨重重。我不喜歡那家餐廳?？傆X得缺少點什么。雖然我也給妻子解釋了其中原委，但她還是不能完全理解。餐廳里面裝飾過多，而菜品缺乏新意。太糟糕了。

而這次我和朋友去的這家餐廳，讓我感覺到了明顯的區(qū)別。這里有其獨到之處，讓我感覺很不錯。如果讓我概括它的特點，我想應該是簡單，是設(shè)計師的熱愛。

唯一美中不足的是餐廳的洗手間?；蛘哒f，是洗手間的位置。我妻子覺得洗手間太遠了，我還好。因為我愿意多走走，可以欣賞餐廳內(nèi)部設(shè)計，還有周邊的酒店。這也讓我想起了另一個建筑學上的關(guān)鍵點——功能。

建筑功能性

我們的建筑，或者應該說是我的建筑，都是從功能設(shè)計開始的。任何建筑最先要確定的就是功能，也就是說保證其具有功能性。我們會花大量的時間和精力去制定完善的平面布置圖，因為我們以及我們的作品都是為客戶服務的，而不是我們自己。正門入口在哪里?太陽在哪個方位？廚房在哪里，廚房里的爐灶又在哪里？臥室和浴室在哪里？我的外套要放在哪里？

鑰匙放在哪里？平面圖如何反映我們的日常活動？這座建筑是客戶要長期或短期居住的地方，因此最重要的是保證其完整的功能性。而在明確功能之前，還有一個需要認真思考的重要問題——環(huán)境。

熟悉背景

我們的任何設(shè)計過程的結(jié)果都是以背景開始和結(jié)束的。建筑的時間和地點對我們的設(shè)計來說都至關(guān)重要。我們不崇尚所謂的“地標性”建筑。因為這些建筑一般與周邊背景不相容，也不符合近鄰社區(qū)和用戶們的需求，其關(guān)注的只有自身。

任何建筑的有效參數(shù)都是時間、地點、功能，是這樣嗎？我們認為是這樣的，并且也是這樣做的。環(huán)境參數(shù)有很多，我們要做的就是將這些參數(shù)精簡到可接受的數(shù)量。對此，我們采用的方法是——對話。與員工對話，與客戶對話，與自己對話。我們工作中多數(shù)時間都是在進行對話商討，確定任何環(huán)節(jié)之前，我們都會先進行討論。我們會一邊討論，一邊繪草圖，或制作實體模型。對話商討和背景明確都進行完之后，就要開始選擇材料了，這是我們最后一步——細節(jié)設(shè)計。

生活在于細節(jié)

嚴格意義上來說，我們在任何設(shè)計環(huán)節(jié)中所投入的體力和腦力精力，最終都歸結(jié)為一件事情——細節(jié)設(shè)計。細節(jié)設(shè)計是一項工藝，而且是一項很費時的工藝。要保證所有細節(jié)都相融合，四個維度都要考慮到。三個維度是不夠的，因為不同事物的融合要有一定順序。我們在關(guān)注邊邊角角、各類材料、以及切實可行的設(shè)計方案時，都會去思考，我們距離構(gòu)想的和最終作品還有多遠？這就是我們想要的答案嗎？這一處細節(jié)是否完全體現(xiàn)出我們的構(gòu)思？這在建造過程中是否可行呢？或者說，我們能否讓建筑方相信，這是可行的呢？或許對這些問題我們還沒有答案，但至少我們清楚，這就是我們所愛。并且我們熱愛它的全部。

很多人喜歡數(shù)字版出現(xiàn)之前的模擬錄制音樂。兩者的區(qū)別很明顯，數(shù)字音樂只能說是斷斷續(xù)續(xù)的曲線圖，而模擬音樂卻是非常流暢的。數(shù)字音樂是將真實音樂以階梯式曲線表現(xiàn)出來，以數(shù)字格式存儲。

想象一下，一個建筑設(shè)計有圓角。那么圓角處的窗戶就要采用整塊弧度玻璃，否則就只能將窗戶分段建造，以仿造出弧度。這也是模擬音樂與數(shù)字音樂之間的差別。數(shù)字音樂總會少些什么。我們能聽得出來嗎？我們聽不出來。我們能感受得到嗎？沒錯，雖然聽不出，但我們可以感受得到。

熱愛

我想，我們已經(jīng)找到了答案。就是內(nèi)心的熱愛。我們熱愛建筑。而且不止是我們。仔細看看Peter Zumthor在Juhani Pallasmaa等處的諸多作品。你會發(fā)現(xiàn)，它們都是源于對建筑的熱愛，不摻任何雜念。

如何判斷某些事物是否真實，仍未得到解答。盡管我知道，這樣的問題只在上世紀初期出現(xiàn)過，但我也相信以后還會出現(xiàn)。大概20年前，我自己在進行研究的時候就遇到過這樣的問題，現(xiàn)在我的學生和員工們在生活中也會遇到這樣的問題。什么是真實，我們該如何處理真實？這個問題問得好，但到目前為止，我認為這是個學術(shù)性問題。答案可能有很多。作為建筑師，我們唯一能做的就是堅持本心，為用戶創(chuàng)造我們所構(gòu)想的體驗。

唯一令人信服的解答，是你在工作中投入的熱愛之情。這種情感是可以感受到的，也必將贏得贊賞。塑料這樣的材料盡管用，但要保證使用的方式恰當。木材也盡管用，但要體現(xiàn)出來?；炷帘M管用，但要滿懷感情地使用。熱愛是唯一可以助你實現(xiàn)最終目標的方法。而你的最終目標就是——建筑。

建筑

如果說，有什么可以實現(xiàn)無法復制的體驗，那么我想應該就是建筑了。這些體驗包括聽音樂、賞藝術(shù)、感受大自然等等。在這些短暫的時間內(nèi)，似乎一切都變得有意義。觀眾與演員之間的無形互動，飄蕩在劇場上空，形成一種微妙的聯(lián)系，在短暫的時間里呈現(xiàn)著另一個世界。我想把這段時間定義為真實。

這就是建筑能做的，也是應該做的——創(chuàng)造這種真實。

注釋：

1.——引自1935年Walter Benjamin的《機械復制時代中的藝術(shù)作品》。

2.——引自2002年Eminem歌曲《迷失自我》。

3.——1994年Yasmina Reza《藝術(shù)》。

4.——阿姆斯特丹Spinozastraat 61號，Mama Makan

Architecture is, all things considered, about perception. The same goes for reality.Your reality is different from mine. In a world where physical reality seems to be losing its importance and ‘place’ is no longer a physical restriction but a new found freedom, architecture is trying to find its importance in all of this. Or at least our architecture is.

Losing Reality

At the beginning of the previous century people were worried to lose reality because of increased mobility and the introduction of technical reproduction. Or, to put it more clearly; place and image.(1)Later, they came together in television; we suddenly saw an image of some reality of a place other than our own. As we used to watch a play live and on the same spot, suddenly we were watching it on a tube, on a different spot.

Apparently the question became one of reality; is an image of reality different or less‘real’ than looking at it irl, with our own eyes? And is watching a play on television less ‘real’ than watching it live in a theatre?

The question remains unanswered. But it has become a more profound one.Because now even our minds seem to be at stake.

Losing your mind

With the introduction of the smartphone, we are suddenly connected to the whole world continuously, not sporadically. As we go about to live our lives, we are checking Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp to see how others are doing, what they are doing and checking to see of any of them wants to speak to us. So, for the first time in history, not only our bodies or vision are somewhere else, now even our minds seem to be somewhere else continuously.

Seeing is believing

But the question remains; what is real and what is not? Or is it? Maybe there is no answer and we should conclude that the only interesting and real thing is; our personal perception of it. We can reproduce or be somewhere else all we want but there will always be a difference between the record and live, between being there or looking at it on screen;

Have you ever stood in front of a Rothko painting? Forget the image of it you will find online. Forget the book you have read about it. Seeing it live is an experience.There’s reality for you. Or, as the well-known poet Marshall Bruce Mathers III puts it:...Snap back to reality. Oh, there goes gravity...(2)

You will be swept off your feet. You will lose yourself. And you will love every second of it.

The architecture of reality

Our first project that had a closer look at this reality-theory was a theatre we made for a local theatre group playing ‘a(chǎn)rt’(3)in 2007; a play about three friends of which one of them buys a white painting for 200.000 French Francs. The friends go nuts as they do not understand why someone would do such a thing, especially for something that appears to be just a painting of the colour white.

We gave the answer in our building; it puts the audience opposite the scene clearly and definitely, covered from all sides, like two U-shaped walls opposite each other,vertically and horizontally. Looking at the building from a little distance, you will see a white box with a large hole in it. You can look straight through the building to the scenery behind it, seeing the audience on the one side and the actors on the other. The hole shows, like a picture frame, not the audience, not the actors, but everything that happens between them. The invisible interaction is framed.

Additionally, the building is put in a park like a folly, rotated in such a way the audience will see the sun set next to the building as they are watching the end of the play. You will understand the complete irony and beauty of the project when I tell you the building was only a temporary one; it existed for only half a year.

The reality of architecture

There are no tools for creating reality. I cannot write a handbook and tell you; if you do it this way, you will be creating reality with your architecture. The only thing I can do is tell you what we do, why we do it and where it all comes from. The latter should be clear by now.

In our practice, we only use ‘real’ materials. What it means is, we use materials because of their own qualities. Where some people might consider wood a ‘real’material and plastic a ‘fake’ one, we do not. Plastic is as real as wood, just don’t try to hide it. Emphasize it, love it, use it, challenge it. Make it part of your architecture,but don’t waste it.

We don’t paint wood if we don’t have to. You should see and feel the grain of the wood. The same goes for concrete. Painting it would be sheer blasphemy. We use a lot of veneer in our projects. For us there is an apparent difference between veneer or a picture of wood, which is used in many HPL products. A purist might go even further and claim only solid wood is the ‘real thing’. A thin layer of it on MDF will not suffice. We don’t agree. For us there is a real difference between a picture of wood and wood itself, no matter how thin.

But the even more apparent and overall answer to this discussion would be; the thought and time you put into the design will be appreciated and felt. It will be the thing that makes it stick out from all the rest.

Feeling it

Recently, my wife and I were invited for dinner in a new fancy restaurant in Amsterdam. Beforehand we knew it would be Indonesian which has the presumption of being generic, at least in our country. This turned out not to be true.The restaurant(4)was carefully designed and crafted, and the food was nothing but ordinary. It was good.

Our reference was an Indonesian restaurant we have in our home town. We went there once, and I was complaining about the design of it. I hated it. It lacked something. My wife did not understand despite my efforts to explain the horror. It was all décor and the food was generic. It was bad.

Sitting there having dinner with some of our friends, the difference became apparent. There was something different about the place, something good. The answer to what it was, was simple; it was love.

The only thing left to complain about was the toilets. Or at least the position of them.As I loved the walk all the way there, appreciating the interior of the restaurant and the adjacent hotel, my wife was less lucky; she thought they were located too far away. Which brings us to another interesting architectural top; function

Making it work

Our architecture, or should I say mine, starts with function. Before anything else, a building should submit to its function and be just that; functional. We put a lot of time and effort into creating a perfect floorplan, as we and our architecture are serving the clients, not ourselves. Where is the main entrance? Where is the sun? Where is the kitchen and once in it, where is the stove? Where is the bedroom and where is the bathroom? Where can I put my coat? And my keys? And how does the floorplan reflect our daily rituals? The building becomes the clients machine to live in or live with. It should be absolutely clear and without nonsense. But before function, there is another major architectural component to be reckoned with; context

Settling down

The result of any of our design processes starts and ends with context. The place and time a specific building will be put in, is of paramount importance to our architecture. We do not believe in so called ‘iconic’ architecture; buildings that are not connected to the surroundings and disrespect the neighbourhood and the user,since this architecture only seems interested in itself.

Aren’t the only interesting parameters in any building place, time and function? We think so, so that’s where we start. The number of contextual parameters is huge; our task is to bring them down to an acceptable few. Which we do by dialogue. Dialogue with our crew, with our clients and with ourselves. A great deal of time in our office goes into dialogue. We talk before we do. This talking goes hand in hand with sketching and making physical models. And after this process and defining context and function, the choice of materials results in our final task; detailing.

Life is in the detail

Technically, the sum of all we do and think in any design process, boils down to one thing; details. Detailing is a craft, a time consuming craft. Everything has to fit and all four dimension have to be considered. Three is not enough, because there is a sequence in which things have to be put together. And as we go about looking at corners, edges, materials and practical solutions we wonder how far or close to our concept and architecture we are. Is this the real answer? Does this detail represent all we had in mind? And is it buildable? Or can we convince the builder that it is? We don’t know yet, but we do know one thing. We love it. We love all of it.

There are many people that prefer analogue recorded music before the digital version. The difference should be clear; digital music can only be described as a blocked curve, where analogue music is an absolutely fluent one. Digital music is a stepped interpretation of the real thing, a sample defined in bits.

Imagine a building with a rounded corner. The windows in the rounded corner could be made of one perfect piece of curved glass, or the windows could be segmented in order to fake the curve. That’s the difference between analogue and digital music.There is always something missing in digital music. Can we hear the difference? No,we cannot. Can we feel it? Yes, we can.

Love

So, there you have it. Love is the answer; we simply love architecture. And we are not the only ones. Have a closer look at Peter Zumthor’s work, at Juhani Pallasmaa’s or many others. It is driven by love and nothing else.

The question of something being real or not will always be there. Although I am sure it only popped up at the beginning of the previous century, I am also sure it will be alive for the rest of times. I see it in my own study some twenty years ago, and in the life of my students and employees today. What is reality and how shall we deal with it? It is a good question, but by now I feel an academic one. The answer is redundant. The only thing we can do as architects, is to stay true to ourselves and the experience we want to offer to the people using our buildings.

The only convincing argument in all of this, is the love you will put into your work. It will be felt, it will be appreciated. Use plastic all you want, but use it the right way.Use wood all you want, but show it. Use concrete all you want, but cherish it. But love is the only thing that will bring you to your final goal; architecture.

Architecture

I guess architecture, if anything, should create the conditions for uncopiable experience. The experience we sometimes have listening to music, looking at art or experiencing nature. That short moment in time when suddenly everything makes sense. That ungrabable interaction that happens sometimes between spectator and actor, the thing in the middle that floats in the air, that beautiful connection, which makes the rest of the world disappear for a short moment in time. That moment that I would like to define as real.

That’s what architecture can and should do; Create that kind of reality.

1 – From ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ by Walter Benjamin, 1935

2 – From the song ‘Lose Yourself’ by Eminem, 2002

3 – ‘Art’ by Yasmina Reza, 1994

4 – Mama Makan, Spinozastraat 61, Amsterdam