張利/ZHANG Li

在高度全球化的21世紀(jì)世界中，越來(lái)越多的國(guó)家不愿認(rèn)真面對(duì)身份認(rèn)同問(wèn)題，立陶宛是少數(shù)例外之一。今天，眾所周知，身份認(rèn)同是一個(gè)令人困擾的主題，特別是存在政治上的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。那么，明明可以安心地在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上傳遞為普羅大眾所喜聞樂(lè)見(jiàn)的內(nèi)容，為什么還要再固執(zhí)地在學(xué)術(shù)上去嘗試重新梳理有爭(zhēng)議的歷史進(jìn)程？立陶宛人對(duì)此的回答是明白無(wú)誤的：因?yàn)檫@是必須的，因?yàn)檫@是我們之所以成為我們的原因。

當(dāng)一個(gè)小國(guó)處于周邊強(qiáng)國(guó)區(qū)域影響力的邊際交集之下時(shí)，是無(wú)法擁有地緣政治的安全感的。但是，這樣一個(gè)國(guó)家常常同時(shí)受益于豐富和動(dòng)人的文化交融。立陶宛就是這樣一個(gè)例子。在過(guò)去的一個(gè)多世紀(jì)里，立陶宛一直在試圖解決多重因素交織在一起的身份認(rèn)同難題，其中包括歐洲傳統(tǒng)的糾葛、蘇維埃時(shí)代的記憶和重新建立的波羅的海獨(dú)立國(guó)家的期許。然而，正是這一充滿焦慮的探尋過(guò)程，賦予了立陶宛建筑以創(chuàng)作的激情、適應(yīng)的韌性和改變的勇氣。簡(jiǎn)要地回溯其一個(gè)多世紀(jì)現(xiàn)代性的轉(zhuǎn)變不難看到，它曾經(jīng)被追求，繼而被遺忘，然后又被重新發(fā)現(xiàn)。在建筑語(yǔ)言方面，我們必須接受立陶宛豐富的多面向的背景。在這里，最好的定義方式是通過(guò)它不是什么，而非它是什么——就像阿多諾的負(fù)向辯證法那樣。

考納斯在20世紀(jì)初的成功，是立陶宛現(xiàn)代性的一個(gè)驚艷綻放。它為當(dāng)下不少21世紀(jì)新興都市的大興土木樹(shù)立了先例——與今天相比，盡管資金有限，但知性更足。它獨(dú)一無(wú)二的特性在于與前工業(yè)工藝的密不可分的聯(lián)系：密斯式的技術(shù)至上與冷靜在此驟然變成了工業(yè)與前工業(yè)之間的一種舒緩的和解。在蘇聯(lián)時(shí)期，我們看到了在新古典主義表皮輝煌之下的對(duì)物質(zhì)和工藝情感的延續(xù)。1990年代后，當(dāng)立陶宛建筑語(yǔ)境回歸到自下而上的陣型時(shí)，對(duì)木、石頭和混凝土的癡迷出現(xiàn)在更多激動(dòng)人心的實(shí)驗(yàn)性探索里。在紋理、顏色和形狀的交織中尋找瞬時(shí)與永恒的建筑，自那時(shí)起成為了一個(gè)不斷被眷顧的話題。詩(shī)人馬利烏斯·布洛卡斯在他的作品《將我變?yōu)轺蛔印分行蜗蟮叵蛭覀冋宫F(xiàn)了立陶宛人感知事物、體察有形空間并賦予其意義的方式：

……

我溫順地低下我的頭

一切——都不屬于我——

自行車、早晨的面包店在愉悅中擱淺的身體，凝結(jié)的瀝青，

雜貨鋪

踩舊的地板，

鹿角蟲(chóng)

……

然后我們可以面面相對(duì)在鋪墊著紡布的桌上，在這里

我們占有全部的時(shí)間在每個(gè)人都淹沒(méi)以前在綻放的綠色里

這或許正是我們?cè)谶@次立陶宛建筑專輯中所試圖尋找的立陶宛方式。我們相信，立陶宛對(duì)身份認(rèn)同的探尋可以為中國(guó)的類似問(wèn)題帶來(lái)啟發(fā)。我們也相信，與立陶宛獨(dú)立百年同時(shí)出版的立陶宛建筑專輯將是今后一系列文化合作項(xiàng)目的第一步。

我們特別感謝立陶宛共和國(guó)駐中華人民共和國(guó)大使館、立陶宛建筑師學(xué)會(huì)、立陶宛文化學(xué)院、阿格涅·波琉奈特女士、魯塔·萊塔奈特女士?！?/p>

In a highly globalised 21st century world, more and more countries are getting reluctant to take the issue of identity seriously.Lithuania is one of the few exceptions. Today, it is not news that identity is a haunting subject, a politically dangerous one in particular.So why tackle the weight of contentious history processes while there is the reassuring easiness of circulating cheerful, universal stuff across the internet? The Lithuanian answer to this is an unmistakable one:because it is a must; because it is what we are.

A small nation sitting in the marginal overlays of regional powers is never blessed with geo-political security. However, such a nation is usually blessed with rich and exciting cultural cross fertilisation. Lithuania is such a case. In more than a century of the recent past, Lithuania has been trying to solve the identity conundrum upon the intertwining substrate consisting of European traditions, the Soviet years and the reestablishment of an independent Baltic nation. Nevertheless it is exactly this anxious quest that has given Lithuanian architecture a passion to make, a latitude to adapt and a courage to transform. A brief looking back would end up with a century of shifting modernity: once pursued, then forgotten, then re-discovered. In terms of architectural language, we have to embrace the richness of a multi-faceted milieu, best defined by what it is not rather than by what it is, in the typical Adorno's fashion.

The success of Kaunas in the early 20th century was a phenomenal opening of Lithuanian modernity. It well precedented the emerging capital cities of the 21st century, albeit with less money and more intellect. What made it unique was its inseverable connection with pre-industrial craft. The coolness of Miesian technocracy suddenly turned into a soothing reconciliation between what was industrial and what was not. We witness the same affection with material and craft continuing in the Soviet years, quietly residing beneath the neoclassical surface grandeurs. When Lithuanian architecture turned back to the more bottom-up discourse after the 1990s, the obsessions with wood, stones and concrete returned in even more exciting experiments.The architecture that seeks both time and timelessness among the orchestrations of textures, colours and shapes has since been prevailing.What the poet Marius Burokas wrote in his Turn me in to a Dice gives us a hint of the Lithuanian way of perceiving a tangible space of things and associating it with a meaning:

......

I meekly submit my head

and everything – that's not mine –

the bike, the bakery in the morning

with bodies smothered in pleasure,curdled asphalt,

the general store

with foot-worn floor,

stag-beetle

......

then we can face each other

over the cloth-covered table,

here while time is ours

before everyone drowns

in the roaring green

It is this Lithuanian way that we are seeking in our publication of Lithuanian architecture. We believe the Lithuanian quest in identity can lend some ideas and inspirations to our own in China.We also believe that this WA special issue on Lithuanian architecture,coinciding with the Lithuanian Centenary, would be the first step of a series of culture collaboration projects in the coming future.

Our special thanks to the Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania in People's Republic of China, Architects Association of Lithuania, Lithuanian Culture Institute, Ms. Agn? Biliūnait? and Ms. Rūta Leitanait?. □