張利/ZHANG Li

從整體名聲上說，我們的時代不是個對基本事物感興趣的時代。隨著量子物理學與混沌理論蔓延到我們?nèi)粘Ｉ畹狞c點滴滴——或者至少被智者們聲稱是這樣——似乎任何與絕對或基本有關的事物都變得過時了。正如基阿尼·瓦蒂莫所說，在后現(xiàn)代，一切都只是一種闡釋而非結論，包括這個論點自身。

建筑學也發(fā)生了變化。寬泛的語義學聯(lián)想總是試圖讓建筑學遠離物質空間的純粹喜悅；而且無論這些聯(lián)想多么牽強，總在事實上被認為是學術新領域的定義。設計實踐本身越來越接近文藝批評而不再是空間干預。

然而，還是有些人試圖拒絕這種潮流的——張軻便是其中之一，他選擇重新審視基本。在過去的20年中，他和他的同事長期致力于基于句法學的設計實踐探索。無論是在密集的中國城市還是在廣袤的中國鄉(xiāng)村，他們的空間實驗一直在延續(xù)。

張軻自主、中立的取向賦予了他的作品以一種頗具識別性的語言。對材料和空間的抽象、不涉及倫理（或接近不涉及倫理）的操作使他的作品對任何評述而言都是開放的。它們有時在中國和西方會得到截然不同的解釋，這恰恰證明了這種抽象性和中立性。正是建筑學的基本，而不是別的任何任何東西，讓張軻的作品成就其本身。在張軻的作品中能夠看到幾何：理性的、但令人愉快的多邊形幾何。它既不同于正統(tǒng)現(xiàn)代主義者的多米諾原型，又無視死硬派參數(shù)化主義者的炫技翹曲。那些相信歐幾里德幾何必然會導致無聊的人可能需要重新考慮一下自己的主張了，因為張軻的幾何游戲確實取得了一定的有機復雜性，很容易讓人聯(lián)想到像沃爾特·弗德爾那樣的非正統(tǒng)現(xiàn)代先鋒試驗。

在張軻的作品中能夠看到光：充足，甚至過度的日光從四面八方渲染著通常十分狹促的室內(nèi)空間，呈現(xiàn)出令人印象深刻的氛圍。正是在由建筑的開口（窗戶、隧道、光井，隨便你怎么稱呼它）帶來的光暈下，張軻把他最大膽的冒險應用到材料與身體空間的互動之中。

在張軻的作品中能夠看到材料：對巨石意象的癡迷使張軻致力于對不同的材料進行各種各樣的實驗，以試圖模仿混凝土的三維塑性。其結果有時精彩絕倫，有時毀譽參半，但無論如何，從未枯燥乏味。

在張軻的作品中能夠看到功能：或更準確地說，類似于功能的目的性。張軻的建筑通常突出泛化、柔性、粗獷但具有社會性企圖的功能。它們從來不是其建筑的目的，而是支持其建筑邏輯的方法。在張軻的建筑中，有時我們很難找到具體的業(yè)主或最終使用者。但是，必須說明的是，既然功能中立性可以有助于讓建筑保持更明確的設計自主性聚焦，那么何樂而不為呢？

最后，在張軻的建筑中能夠看到樂觀：對設計干預的樂觀。與一些西方評論完全相反的是，對于過去的30年中國發(fā)生的超高速城市化，張軻的回應既不是抵抗也不是叛逆。他可以選擇適應，但拒絕折衷純粹的、由設計產(chǎn)生的價值。他試圖在所有類型的建筑中找到合適的切入點，從那開始通過設計導致正向的改變。也許有人會說，張軻的設計樂觀主義既是一種結果又是一種對他設計作品所處環(huán)境的適應性機制：很明顯，在中國，最大的挑戰(zhàn)與最大的興奮長期共存。

我們在為一期專輯中瀏覽張軻的作品，希望通過它們重溫建筑的基本。當然，對任何的基本而言，重溫永遠好于忘卻?！?/p>

Our time is not known for its interest for the basics.With quantum physics and chaos theory flexing their muscles in our daily life, or at least said to be so, anything with hints to the absolute or the essential seems outdated.As Vattimo puts it, in the post-modern age, everything is just an interpretation rather than a conclusion, even this argument itself.

There has been shifts in Architecture as well. Broad semantic associations pulling architecture away from the pure joy of physicality of space, no matter how far-fetched,have become the de-facto definitions of new scopes that are widely celebrated. The practice of design itself is becoming more of critique than of intervention.

There are though, a few people trying to resist the trend. ZHANG Ke for one, chooses to revisit the basics.Over the past two decades, he and his colleagues have been committed to syntactical design enquiries and have been taking continuous experiments, both in the dense of superhigh-rise Chinese cities and in the thin of the vast Chinese countryside.

The autonomous, neutral approach of ZHANG Ke has imparted his works with an identifiable language. The abstract, ethics-free (or quasi-ethics-free) treatments of material and space are open to all kinds of commentaries.The fact that ZHANG Ke's works are sometimes interpreted dramatically differently in China and in the west is a proof of this abstraction and neutrality. It is exactly the basics of architecture, more than anything else, that make ZHANG Ke's work what they are.

There is geometry. Rational, yet delightful polygonal geometry that defies both the Domino of the orthodox modernists and the warping of the die-hard parametricists.Those who believe Euclidean geometry is only destined for boredom may have a second thought. ZHANG Ke has certainly achieved some organic complexity in his play of geometry, reminiscent of some non-orthodox modern pioneers those of Walter Foerderer.

There is light. Ample, even excessive daylight from all directions renders the usually humble interior spaces with an impressive aura. It is by the openings (windows, tunnels,wells, you name it) of light that ZHANG Ke take his boldest adventures into materiality and body space.

There is material. An obsession with monolithic quality drives ZHANG Ke to a variety of experiments, trying to mimic the 3D plasticity of concrete in all kinds of materials.The results are sometimes sound, sometimes arguable, but never boring.

There is the programme, sort of. General, flexible,broad-brush-definition yet social programmes are usually used to support ZHANG Ke's buildings. They are not the ends of the buildings, but the means. Sometimes it is even hard to find specific owners or users of certain buildings.After all, being programme-neutral helps to maintain more autonomous design focuses, so why not?

Finally, there is optimism: the optimism of design interventions. Quite contrary to some western observations,ZHANG Ke is neither resistant nor rebellious in his reaction to the super-fast urbanisation taking place in China in the past 30 years. What he cannot compromise, however, is the value generated purely by design. He tries to find the anchor point in all typologies from where he can deliver a positive change through design. One may argue that the design optimism of ZHANG Ke is both a product of and an adaptive mechanism to the environment his practice is in:the challenging and exciting situations in China.

Do let ZHANG Ke's works in this special issue take us to some basics of architecture. When it comes to the basics, it's always better to revisit than forget.□