徐衛(wèi)國，唐克揚(yáng)，菲利普·比斯利，邁克爾·?？怂?，亨利·?？怂?，魯伊里·格林，李 力，劉 潔

1 機(jī)器人場所及其互動I 徐衛(wèi)國

我們的生活已經(jīng)習(xí)慣于“人、建筑、環(huán)境”三者共處的場所，但事實(shí)上，已經(jīng)有第四者開始來到我們習(xí)以為常的場所，它就是機(jī)器人。各種機(jī)器人已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)在我們的身邊，工業(yè)機(jī)器人除了可以代替工人進(jìn)行裝配、打磨、焊接、包裝等復(fù)雜重復(fù)的工作外，還應(yīng)用在汽車制造、金屬成型、塑料工業(yè)、電子電氣、化工行業(yè)等；許多地方已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)直接服務(wù)于生活的各類機(jī)器人，安全類智能服務(wù)機(jī)器人如安保機(jī)器人、巡邏機(jī)器人[1]；健康類智能服務(wù)機(jī)器人如用于智慧養(yǎng)老地產(chǎn)項(xiàng)目的有陪伴娛樂、健康檢測、健康顧問、緊急報警機(jī)器人[2]；運(yùn)輸類智能服務(wù)機(jī)器人如移動式搬運(yùn)機(jī)器人、社區(qū)外部及室內(nèi)配送的機(jī)器人、餐廳送餐機(jī)器人[3]；娛樂類智能服務(wù)機(jī)器人如舞蹈機(jī)器人、足球機(jī)器人；管理類智能服務(wù)機(jī)器人如物業(yè)管理機(jī)器人、管家型機(jī)器人等等。這樣，我們正在面對“機(jī)器人、人、建筑、環(huán)境”這個新的四位一體的場所。在這一新系統(tǒng)中，建筑—機(jī)器人—人—環(huán)境如何持續(xù)進(jìn)行積極的互動，以維護(hù)人類聚居空間的合理性、舒適性及宜居性，這也成為建筑學(xué)科需要研究的新的基礎(chǔ)理論問題。

互動建筑或稱“建筑的互動”是基于傳統(tǒng)的場所理論提出的，場所由建筑、人、及環(huán)境三者組成[4]，這三者之間的積極互動才能營造宜居的建筑場所；但是，當(dāng)我們分別考察這三要素時發(fā)現(xiàn)，人在活動及參與事件過程中表現(xiàn)出的行為無疑是動態(tài)的，建筑環(huán)境隨著自然因素如日月星辰、風(fēng)霜雪雨、季節(jié)更替的變化而不斷地變化；可建筑一旦建成，就再也不會有豐富的動態(tài)表現(xiàn)，只能非常有限的部件可動如門窗；那么，如何能讓建筑（設(shè)計建造的結(jié)果）隨著人、環(huán)境的變化而變化，以便真正實(shí)現(xiàn)建筑—人—及環(huán)境三者之間的積極互動呢，互動建筑的發(fā)展正是為了解決這一問題[5]。另一方面，可持續(xù)發(fā)展已經(jīng)是人類共識，綠色建筑、生態(tài)建筑、建筑節(jié)能等等是建筑發(fā)展的必由之路，但是如何真正實(shí)現(xiàn)建筑的有效生態(tài)化，需要以建筑為載體和基本單位、將各種已有技術(shù)綜合到一起、創(chuàng)造一個新的建筑系統(tǒng)來完成這一使命，基于互動系統(tǒng)的互動建筑是一種潛在的有效途徑[6，7]。這一新的建筑系統(tǒng)涉及到建筑、結(jié)構(gòu)、水暖電、聲光熱，涉及到健康室內(nèi)、建材循環(huán)、能源系統(tǒng)等等，通過互動建筑的互動綜合系統(tǒng)可以統(tǒng)合各個專業(yè)完成這一使命。

事實(shí)上，我們還沒有來得及對傳統(tǒng)場所內(nèi)的建筑互動問題進(jìn)行深入研究，就已經(jīng)遇到了新的問題，那就是“機(jī)器人—人—建筑—環(huán)境”四位一體的機(jī)器人場所的互動問題，機(jī)器人場所的宜居性建立在機(jī)器人—人—建筑—環(huán)境四者之間積極互動的基礎(chǔ)上，這種積極互動包含了6種互動關(guān)系，其中3 種為我們前所未遇的新的互動關(guān)系，即機(jī)器人與人、機(jī)器人與建筑、機(jī)器人與環(huán)境的互動關(guān)系；另外3 種是對傳統(tǒng)場所中互動關(guān)系的更新，即人與智能建筑、人與新的環(huán)境、智能建筑與新的環(huán)境的互動。機(jī)器人可以給人帶來新的場所感覺，幫助場所形成新的特性、使人對環(huán)境產(chǎn)生新的認(rèn)知；機(jī)器人可以作為建筑空間的調(diào)和者，幫助建筑空間增加活力、并增加人際交流的可能性。

上述機(jī)器人場所關(guān)系中之所以用了“智能建筑”，這是因?yàn)樵跈C(jī)器人時代，傳統(tǒng)的建筑在智能技術(shù)及設(shè)備的武裝下也逐漸智能化，一方面，它初心不改持續(xù)實(shí)現(xiàn)傳統(tǒng)場所賦予它的發(fā)展使命、與“人—環(huán)境”積極互動；另一方面，在裝載各種智能系統(tǒng)的同時，它自身也越來越像一個建筑機(jī)器人了。建筑作為居住的機(jī)器人，隨著智能技術(shù)的不斷發(fā)展，它將以信息感知為基礎(chǔ)、以行為適應(yīng)為規(guī)則、以溝通交流為保證。建筑將由可變的結(jié)構(gòu)、可變的部件、可變的空間等組成，這些可變零件將由一個控制系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行自動控制，該系統(tǒng)包括了傳感系統(tǒng)、中樞系統(tǒng)、以及機(jī)械系統(tǒng)。傳感系統(tǒng)利用傳感器對外在環(huán)境信息進(jìn)行收集；中央處理系統(tǒng)通過相應(yīng)的程序?qū)κ占降男畔⑦M(jìn)行分析整合，再通過需求程序產(chǎn)生新的信息指令進(jìn)行傳遞；動力及機(jī)械系統(tǒng)接受中央處理系統(tǒng)的指令，推動建筑的結(jié)構(gòu)或構(gòu)件進(jìn)行運(yùn)動[8]，建筑可展現(xiàn)其最佳形態(tài)，滿足場所中其它各個存在者的要求，與它們和諧共處，以使場所處于最好的宜居狀態(tài)。這樣建筑也成為真正的智能建筑。

如此來看，對于建筑的互動問題我們不能僅僅著眼于傳統(tǒng)場所中建筑進(jìn)行研究，不應(yīng)僅僅滿足于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)的使用，而是應(yīng)該敏銳地看到影響人類聚居的傳統(tǒng)建筑學(xué)理論基礎(chǔ)發(fā)生了變化，即機(jī)器人及智能建筑作為有智能水平的角色打破了人類生活場所的平衡，急需對聚居場所理論進(jìn)行重新思考及完善，才能保證新的聚居場所的建設(shè)及運(yùn)維有理可依，從而正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)；因此應(yīng)該針對機(jī)器人場所的建筑進(jìn)行理論架構(gòu)及實(shí)施研發(fā)，也就是應(yīng)該進(jìn)行建筑機(jī)器人的場所理論研究，同時進(jìn)行該場所內(nèi)各個存在者之間積極互動條件的創(chuàng)造，以保證我們?nèi)祟惖纳钤絹碓礁哔|(zhì)量的進(jìn)行。機(jī)器人時代正在向我們走來，機(jī)器人及智能建筑將深度介入我們的社會和生活，它將重新定義建筑及社區(qū)，也正在重新定義互動建筑或“建筑的互動”。

2 運(yùn)動的建筑：空間“交互”的前提和方法論I 唐克揚(yáng)

建筑的關(guān)鍵詞之一是永固性（permanence），大多數(shù)人認(rèn)知的建筑是不可“變”的，但讓建筑活動起來并非當(dāng)代才有的夢想?！端鍟繁闾岬?，大興長安城的規(guī)劃者宇文愷曾為隋煬帝建造一座“觀風(fēng)行殿”，“上容侍衛(wèi)者數(shù)百人，離合為之，下施輪軸，推移倏忽，有若神功。[1]” 跨入現(xiàn)代，富勒（Buckminster Fuller）等人天才地提出將工業(yè)文明最重要的發(fā)明汽車和住宅結(jié)合在一起，空間從此可變[2]。和以往游牧民族的帳篷僅僅強(qiáng)調(diào)“可移動”不大一樣，我們時代的“活動建筑”，是將農(nóng)耕時代靜態(tài)空間文化特有的“居者有其屋”觀念，和全球化中涌現(xiàn)的“移動性”（mobility）無縫嫁接，正如房車使用的都是工業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的運(yùn)輸渠道和駁接裝置，而它的內(nèi)飾卻大多向傳統(tǒng)家居看齊[3]，僅僅考慮這樣的設(shè)計的建筑學(xué)特征，你并不會意識到自己是在路上，還是置身于游艇、飛機(jī)類似的空間中1）可以比擬的例子是20 世紀(jì)初的紐約劇院廣泛使用復(fù)雜機(jī)械裝置構(gòu)成的活動舞臺，表達(dá)時間和空間的運(yùn)動，現(xiàn)象和實(shí)質(zhì)沒有可見的聯(lián)系。或者，結(jié)構(gòu)和感受也可以沒有聯(lián)系，像把傳統(tǒng)住宅放置到摩天大樓的骨架中構(gòu)成一個超大尺度的“集合住宅”。參見雷姆·庫哈斯，《癲狂的紐約》，三聯(lián)書店，2013 年。。

從這個角度，我們領(lǐng)略到，某些表面上不可以移動的建筑其實(shí)也和“活動建筑”有關(guān)，比如火車站。火車站最核心的功能令得它的設(shè)計原則不大可能再依循古典慣例，不再是容器，而是一個運(yùn)動的起點(diǎn)。更有甚者，它還需要扮演“控制器”的角色，除了等候空間，大火車站往往還連帶著它的貨場、軌道、站臺和調(diào)度設(shè)施，主空間通過蛛網(wǎng)般的網(wǎng)絡(luò)和它們連接，這些貌似只是配套的設(shè)備空間才是“活動建筑”真正的主角[4，5]。

由此提出了一個重要的理論問題，它勢必成為“人屋交互”的基礎(chǔ)：如果假定建筑有可能成為某種響應(yīng)使用者的智慧體，那么交互并不一定局限于物理運(yùn)動層面的交互，空間的“活動”其實(shí)和“運(yùn)動”是不一樣的?；蛘?，這種運(yùn)動有可能是不那么引人注目的“微運(yùn)動”（micro-movement）。桑內(nèi)特（Richard Sennett）提到，當(dāng)代的運(yùn)動身體其實(shí)是一種被寧息（pacified）了的身體，就像一個開車的人一樣，我們的身體要么并不移動，要么只是消極地、按照一定規(guī)律機(jī)械運(yùn)動著——眼睛微微眨/轉(zhuǎn)動注視各個信息界面（前擋風(fēng)玻璃，儀表盤和導(dǎo)航裝置，后視鏡等），雙手小幅度轉(zhuǎn)動駕駛方向盤，腳尖輕踩油門和剎車，但是與此同時，這卻引起了汽車的顯著和快速的運(yùn)動，以上，和傳統(tǒng)馭手全身投入駕駛馬車的那種模式有著天壤之別[6]。

這種“微運(yùn)動”卻可以大大改變建筑之觀感和品性。不是整體移動房屋的一部分，普萊斯（Cedric Price）的“歡樂宮”（Fun Palace）改變的主要是空間的結(jié)構(gòu)，房屋作為一個整體自身沒有顯著的位移和形變，但構(gòu)成房屋的某些部件發(fā)生了質(zhì)的變化，不必表現(xiàn)為顯見的運(yùn)動，甚至不甚可見——比如只是相對關(guān)系的改變（結(jié)構(gòu)），空間品質(zhì)（溫濕度，聲環(huán)境）的提升，等等[7]。2021 年獲得普利茲克建筑獎的法國建筑師拉卡通和瓦薩爾（Lacaton&Vassal）的建筑理念，正是基于以上認(rèn)識針對日?？臻g進(jìn)行調(diào)適性設(shè)計，比如一座大建筑可以根據(jù)需求臨時區(qū)分、組裝為新的用途，推拉門關(guān)合之后，有人使用的小空間獲得上佳的舒適度，而建筑整體取得更出色的能耗表現(xiàn)。

在這個意義上筆者進(jìn)行了一系列的設(shè)計教學(xué)，與其說它們是時下常見的“人屋交互”操作不如說是為這一課題提供了基礎(chǔ)思維的訓(xùn)練。兩種作業(yè)類型，一種基于房屋本身要素的拆解、位移和重組；另外一種，空間自身可能未必顯形，只要有一個開放式的語境——可能是建筑、景觀和整個城市，使用者遵循著特定的指令和運(yùn)動路徑，就可以產(chǎn)生一個有復(fù)雜互動的空間，而且依理可以“層出不窮”。這樣做的好處是把單點(diǎn)式的和線性思維方式所導(dǎo)致的互動變成了更加系統(tǒng)的人和建成環(huán)境的關(guān)系，或者導(dǎo)致更具意義的建成環(huán)境[8]。

對于初學(xué)者而言，我們不能僅僅為了一種截然（arbitrary）的實(shí)用范式展開研究，也無法僅僅是為了凸顯特定技術(shù)的價值就為它指派一種空間具形，這樣才會有真正的創(chuàng)新。比如，為了方便儲存和取用圖書會使用緊縮書架（compact shelf），人踏入書架之間就會重新定義這個書架的結(jié)構(gòu)，但是這種模式對采用機(jī)器人取書的全自動書庫無效；與此同時，如果要服務(wù)更多人的通識閱讀，我們便無法厚此薄彼，仍需回到圖書館傳統(tǒng)的開架模式，而且，對于“通識”的任何詮釋，圖書館建筑母體的設(shè)計思想，都會對書架涉及的互動技術(shù)施加不可忽略的影響。無論如何，以上我們將意識到空間“具體”（actualized）的內(nèi)容和“本地”的形式對交互設(shè)計產(chǎn)生重大的意義。正如我們在著名的法國國家圖書館競賽中所看到的那樣：圖書館是一類典型的信息空間，信息將整體存在，并和多名用戶產(chǎn)生系統(tǒng)的關(guān)系；圖書館的空間形式又和不同時代對于學(xué)習(xí)、閱讀的定義有關(guān)。庫哈斯在上述競賽中提出的方案，是用九部電梯穿透建筑形體產(chǎn)生暫定的公共空間，這種關(guān)系“是機(jī)械的而不是建筑學(xué)的”，建筑的各要素之間靈活的新關(guān)系，釋放了原有的各種假設(shè)同時也造成新的意義問題[9]。

由此可見，空間交互的基本機(jī)制不止于我們平時所談到的視覺層面，進(jìn)而言之，空間領(lǐng)域的輸入和輸出也遠(yuǎn)沒有“動作（身體運(yùn)動）到抽象指令到動作（空間本身的物理運(yùn)動）”那般簡單[10]。按照交互領(lǐng)域?qū)W者的研究，實(shí)體性的用戶界面至少分為自驅(qū)動（actuated）的，非剛性（non-Rigid）的和模塊化（modular）的，翻譯成和我們的主題相關(guān)的話題：1）建筑可以有區(qū)別于整體的個體，每一部分都可以獨(dú)立地接受輸入并產(chǎn)生反饋；2）建筑的形式，主要是它整體的空間類型（type），具有和簡單的外貌（顏色，圖形）一樣重要的意義，比如一座環(huán)形的長廊，會在用戶和建筑之間產(chǎn)生與和一座直線的長廊完全不同的互動關(guān)系；如果說前兩者并不僅僅是建筑獨(dú)有，同樣存在整體局部關(guān)系的（類）平面媒介，具有類型屬性的活動雕塑等，都可能具有“自驅(qū)動”的屬性，很多空間造型亦具備“非剛性”的特點(diǎn)，那么“模塊化”確實(shí)是建筑師更熟悉的設(shè)計思想，類似、可復(fù)制且按復(fù)雜方式組裝的個體形式，協(xié)同后產(chǎn)生個體關(guān)系的變化，可以成為模塊化實(shí)物用戶界面（Modular Tangible User Interface）的一個起點(diǎn)[11]。

實(shí)體性的用戶界面主要是作為整體而發(fā)生交互意義，不像圖形界面（GUI）那樣可能僅僅是局部起作用[12]。更有甚者，真正的空間交互不大可能是一種獨(dú)立的技術(shù)，因?yàn)楹途唧w的用途有關(guān)，它大多以設(shè)計的形式存在——那就意味著空間交互會有確定的語境，這恰恰是建筑實(shí)踐的基本特點(diǎn)。

3 互動性的宣言：反對柏拉圖式建筑 I 菲利普·比斯利 I 胡寒陽 譯

柏拉圖（Plato）在他的《蒂邁歐篇》（Timaeus）中，用一個完美的球體描述宇宙的根源?！办`魂，從中心向邊緣漫延，充斥所有空間，也包裹了自己。她自我轉(zhuǎn)動，成為永恒、理性生命的神圣開端?！?/p>

傳統(tǒng)建筑設(shè)計常以柏拉圖描述的這類基本幾何體為原型。然而，除了邊界分明的幾何體，自然界還為建筑師展示了其他景象，火焰彌漫的煙霧、白云邊緣的絲絮、河流奔騰的波浪、甚至細(xì)胞滲透中的粉狀物。它們的特征是互聯(lián)、流動與開放，我們?yōu)槭裁床粎⒄者@類混雜、無邊界的景象呢？這種消散的概念又是如何幫助建筑師設(shè)計過渡空間的？由本文作者領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的動態(tài)建筑研究組（Living Architecture Systems Group）為2021 年威尼斯建筑雙年展設(shè)計的合作項(xiàng)目“Grove”試圖解答這些問題。Grove 借鑒自然界各類消散現(xiàn)象，呈現(xiàn)一個巨大的“天幕”，創(chuàng)造了沉浸式數(shù)字環(huán)境。

Grove 包含一個飄帶形巨型天幕和一個中庭。懸掛在橢圓形展廳上方的天幕點(diǎn)綴了多個柱狀物，它們帶有環(huán)繞式揚(yáng)聲器。參觀者可在中庭聚集或在柱子間自由穿行。該項(xiàng)目的主體結(jié)構(gòu)通過自動切割、熱加工、機(jī)械成型方式，將材料消耗降至最低。懸掛的柱狀物由數(shù)十萬個獨(dú)立的透明聚合物、聚酯薄膜、玻璃和膨脹聚合物組成，在參觀者和周圍環(huán)境間形成獨(dú)特的視覺屏障。各構(gòu)件根據(jù)振動規(guī)律以及不斷變化邊界的對稱幾何形進(jìn)行組合。

Grove 的設(shè)計者將薄片狀的原始材料組合成束，使其堅固，還可聚集成更大群體、形成網(wǎng)絡(luò)。各構(gòu)件具有柔性與穩(wěn)定性，能夠響應(yīng)重力和氣流的變化。通過設(shè)計，構(gòu)件的振動效果得到放大，逼近材料跨度和穩(wěn)定的極限。大面積去除體積也可保證材料的靈活度和彈性，使之自由扭曲。可拉伸的網(wǎng)狀作品中嵌入了小的支撐桿，形成有預(yù)應(yīng)力的整體架構(gòu)，保證穩(wěn)定性。這些開放結(jié)構(gòu)的設(shè)計和制作為設(shè)計柔性和響應(yīng)式建筑提供方法。

從建筑角度，Grove 項(xiàng)目的設(shè)計思路也為外墻和屋面提供了可選擇的方案，可將這些表面看作網(wǎng)狀散熱片，或調(diào)節(jié)內(nèi)外環(huán)境的分層膜布。這種追求材料極限、互動性的新型形式語言，意味著設(shè)計可以采用新的管理思路。它表現(xiàn)了土壤般肥沃的物質(zhì)世界，取代了貧瘠的、柏拉圖式的地平線感。這種理想狀態(tài)是用最小的屏障來尋求對周圍環(huán)境最大的參與。從設(shè)計角度，Grove 開啟了身體和環(huán)境之間交流互動的全新視角。

·支持自由集會

Grove 空間為公共性自由集會設(shè)計。走進(jìn)巨大、黑暗的展廳后，你會看到遠(yuǎn)處一個發(fā)光的橢圓形“水池”。這其實(shí)是投射到鑲嵌在地板上的水池一樣的橢圓形屏幕的投影。天幕在水池上方以不同姿態(tài)舞動，是空間的中心。閃爍的光線就像太陽在樹林縫隙里游走。水池的邊緣擴(kuò)大成座椅，供人們休憩、聚集，分享對沉浸式空間的感受。圍繞這個中心，參觀者可以自由地在柱子間行走，聆聽它們的細(xì)語。當(dāng)你在水池邊向下或向上看去，會發(fā)現(xiàn)若干單體組成的天幕。你會被水池邊成千上萬個裝滿液體的淚滴狀玻璃容器包圍著，透明液體里都含有結(jié)晶的合成細(xì)胞，像是透明的“葉子”。

俯瞰水池，你便進(jìn)入了夢幻般的世界。你周圍的一切，包括上方那個變換、呢喃的天幕都被投射到這個新世界的無限深處。水池中的影像描述了一個輪回，海洋般深邃的黑暗湖泊里出現(xiàn)一絲光線，然后又恢復(fù)黑暗。水池的物理環(huán)境被投射的圖像賦予意義，充滿夢想和無限可能，幻化成植物、動物和人類蓬勃的生命力量。這個影像慢慢從肥沃的生命轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樨汃さ?、沙漠般的寂靜，然后再次迎來新生。

·構(gòu)件交織創(chuàng)造柔性空間

該作品的概念是向外或內(nèi)延伸，表現(xiàn)了交織與穿梭。向外：葉片邊緣與空氣交錯。激光切割的半透明葉片通過分組和捆綁，使它們緊密的圍繞內(nèi)芯按角度排列。向內(nèi)：插入懸臂支撐，并將支撐這些葉片簇的透明亞克力構(gòu)件連接在一起，形成消散和柔性網(wǎng)絡(luò)。葉片輕輕地拍動，對觀眾的動作做出反應(yīng)。

和自然界雪花多變的幾何圖案一樣，對稱的幾何圖形是Grove 飄帶形架構(gòu)的組合依據(jù)?；ハ嗲短?、螺旋的半透明葉片具有柔性，可在其懸掛點(diǎn)進(jìn)行位移，因展廳內(nèi)的空氣流動而拉伸或收縮。架構(gòu)的六邊形框架與內(nèi)部排列方式相協(xié)調(diào)，遵循手性規(guī)律。每個單片都有對應(yīng)的旋轉(zhuǎn)中心，由交替出現(xiàn)的向上或下延伸的構(gòu)件環(huán)繞，螺旋著圍繞中心旋轉(zhuǎn)。相匹配的三角形連接件也包含類似的螺旋構(gòu)件，這些彎曲構(gòu)件的每一部分都有一束“葉子”，葉片邊緣有尖刺。每片都延伸到懸臂盡頭，并以振動來響應(yīng)周圍空氣中由機(jī)械和人類動作引發(fā)的輕微變化。尖刺在葉片下收縮，形成明顯的凹形輪廓。交錯的尖刺結(jié)構(gòu)形成了一個氣流閥，當(dāng)打開并放大向上的氣流時，便會關(guān)閉向下的氣流。相互連接的構(gòu)件跟著葉片邊緣一起規(guī)律地擺動，連續(xù)起伏的振動會延伸到整個架構(gòu)。

·氣候變化

Grove 還通過改善微環(huán)境來應(yīng)對氣候變化。Grove 的構(gòu)思來自富饒與肥沃的自然濕地。與常規(guī)墻體不同，柔性構(gòu)件可以緩慢地分解、吸收、消散力。這是一種類似水和空氣的力量，它四處游走并趨于平靜。

Grove 提出的再生方式，與傳統(tǒng)建筑堅硬、封閉的墻體形成對比。Grove 的消散思想遵循1978 年諾貝爾獎得主伊利亞·普里戈金（Ilya Prigogine）的創(chuàng)新物理學(xué)理論。普里戈金提出了創(chuàng)新觀點(diǎn)，即多層次系統(tǒng)如何剝離力量、放松、與周圍世界關(guān)聯(lián)，從而重組和自我更新。這與我們注重邊界并將自己與世界隔絕的觀點(diǎn)完全相反。相應(yīng)的，正是通過互動、尋求不穩(wěn)定性的嘗試，我們才能設(shè)計出柔性、持久的建筑。

圖1 我們將如何共同生活？我們是否將自己與周圍的環(huán)境隔離開來？

圖2 如果我們擴(kuò)展和開放我們的邊界呢？我們可以建立開放的、有生命力的邊界嗎？

圖3 Grove 代表了一種新的聚集場所，花邊狀 的邊界取代了堅硬的墻壁，具有非凡的耐久性和遮蔽性

·動態(tài)建筑

Grove 是動態(tài)建筑的原型之一，它參考物理世界的多種力量并模擬自然。當(dāng)人們體驗(yàn)Grove 時，就像穿過一片昏暗的森林，能看到無數(shù)微生物、植物的生長、動物、以及其他人類在那里的痕跡。我們不孤獨(dú)，空間也不空曠，而是充滿各種可能性，這是Grove 項(xiàng)目傳遞的基本思想。我們與無機(jī)、有機(jī)生物的世界都有深刻的聯(lián)系，應(yīng)從中感受到動力與希望。

Grove 有關(guān)哲學(xué)和物理、跨越了人文與自然。它包含的柔性天幕，可以應(yīng)對力的極限。在這個充滿變化的時代，人類會自然的傾向自我保護(hù)。為了建造住所，人類豎立最堅固的墻壁作為邊界。傳統(tǒng)建筑一直專注在城市中創(chuàng)造個人領(lǐng)地。這強(qiáng)調(diào)空間內(nèi)外的差異，對群體進(jìn)行分類，一部分屬于內(nèi)部，其他群體則排斥在外。然而，分隔內(nèi)外的邊界可能被扭曲，走向極端，造成不必要的沖突。那些表面上保護(hù)我們的墻也會放大我們的問題。

Grove 提供的不是封閉的墻，而是飄帶般的架構(gòu)，構(gòu)件聚集、交織、相互連接，與自然一起設(shè)計。在構(gòu)建動態(tài)建筑原型時，我們超越了不透明、封閉的狀態(tài)。以Grove 為例，它創(chuàng)造了森林般的空間，讓參觀者在無機(jī)、有機(jī)生物的多層次世界中思考社會生活的滲透與脆弱性。這些實(shí)驗(yàn)性作品所蘊(yùn)含的關(guān)系便是建筑設(shè)計的形式語言。新的建筑形式語言不應(yīng)自我封閉，而是促進(jìn)相互交流和最大限度的互動，使之充滿新生命的活力。

注：文章改編自菲利普·比斯利（Philip Beesley）《GROVE:面向活的建筑的開放系統(tǒng)》（GROVE: Open Systems for Living Architecture）一文，著于《人類、機(jī)器與微生物的共生》（Co-Corporeality of Humans,Machines,&Microbes）一 書，由Barbara Imhof、Daniela Mitterberger 和Tiziano Derme 共同編輯。

【英文原文】

Manifesto for Interactivity: Against Platonic Architecture | Philip Beesley

In his Timaeus,Plato described fundamental origins of the universe as embodied within a perfect sphere: " The soul,interfused everywhere from the centre to the circumference of heaven,of which also she is the external envelopment,herself turning in herself,began a divine beginning of never-ceasing and rational life enduring throughout all time."

The reductive geometries of elemental forms described by Plato lie at the core of long design traditions within built architecture.Yet,when we think of the myriad of forms that the natural world has offered architects,why should we prefer closed,pure,glossfaced cubes and spheres to tangled,dissipating,open fields? The opposite of reductive spheres and crystals could be found in veils of smoke billowing at the outer reaches of a fire,the barred,braided fields of clouds;torrents of spiraling liquids; mineral felts efflorescing within an osmotic cell reaction. Such sources are characterized by resonance,flux,and open boundaries. Seen in this nuanced way,how does this conception of dissipative form help architects build liminal space? Designed for the 2021 Venice Biennale for Architecture by the international team of the Living Architecture Systems Group led by the author,the collaborative project Grove attempted to offer practical answers to these questions.Grove drew upon the formlanguage of natural dissipative forms and translated those sources into a large,public canopy that framed an immersive digital environment.

Grove used the paradigms of dissipative structures and diffusion as guides for its design and fabrication.The structure of Grove includes a lace-like overhead canopy containing a centre void.Suspended above an elliptical gathering space the canopy is punctuated by multiple columnar forms containing omnidirectional custom speakers.Occupants can walk freely amidst the columns and gather around the centre.The structures within this project resulted in minimal material consumption -achieved by automated cutting as well as thermal and mechanical forming of expanded arrays of filamentary structures.A hovering filter environment composed of hundreds of thousands of individual laser cut transparent polymer,mylar,glass and expanded polymer elements created diffusive visual boundaries between occupants and the surrounding environment.The organisation of these components was characterised by punctuated oscillation and quasiperiodic geometries with shifting boundaries.

圖4 Grove 側(cè) 視圖—表 現(xiàn)天幕 和柱狀 揚(yáng)聲器

The makers of Grove worked by drawing and combining thin sheets and strands of primary materials into strong components,which were then massed together into larger groups.The massed groups crea intederconnected networks.Components were designed with reactive,poised dispositions that responded to gravity and shifts in airflow.Trembling and vibrating movement was enhanced and amplified by design that brings materials close to their limit of spanning and stability,creating measured precarity.Flexure and elasticity was retained by voiding out large surfaces and volumes,opening the components for deflection and compliance.Mesh works of relatively long tensile filaments were embedded with small compressive struts,creating tension-integrity networks carrying gentle prestressed forces,creating poise.The design and fabrication of these openwork scaffolds suggest methods for creating full-scale resilient and responsive architecture.

At the scale of architecture,the design principles shown within the Grove project might offer alternatives to the conception of enclosing walls and roof surface,reconceiving those surfaces as deeply reticulated heat sinks,and as layered interwoven membrane curtains that modulate the boundaries between inner and outer environments.A new form language of maximization and engagement implies that design may in turn embrace a renewed kind of stewardship[4].Such a role replaces the sense of a stripped,Platonic horizon with a soil-like generation of fertile material involvement with the world.This kind of optimum then seeks the utmost possible involvement with its surroundings with minimum defense.From a design perspective,Grove evokes an efflorescence of involvement and exchange between body and environment.

·Forum Supports Shared Gathering

The space of Grove provided a tangible public forum,designed for free assembly and informal gathering.When you entered the great dark columned hall housing Grove,in the distance you could see a glowing oval pool surrounded by islands of clustered sculptural fronds.Lace-like skeletal clouds spiraled upward through those floating,blooming forms.Clouds and islands were concentrated at the centre,moving in different choreographies over the pool.Shimmering light played constantly like sun edging its way around a copse of trees.The clearing at the centre of Grove was focused by a projection directed into a curved,pool-like oval screen set into the floor.The pool was bordered by a swell within the floor surface that invited lounging and relaxing along its edge.The incurving edge of the pool created a threshold where viewers gathered,assembling informally and sharing the experience of the immersive space. Around that centre,viewers walked freely amidst the columns,drawing close to each multichannel speaker to hear their individual emanating whispers and creating perceptions of an open composition determined by individual movement throughout the space.Standing and gazing down toward the pool,or reclining and looking upward,you looked into a sky of interwoven clouds and miniature islands. When you reached the pool,hanging transparent fronds encrusted with thousands of teardrop-shaped liquidfilled glass vessels surrounded you,each holding crystalline synthetic cells within their clear liquids.

Looking down into the pool,a dream-world opened up.The shifting,whispering world around and above you was projected into the infinite depths of a newly transformed shadow-world below. A continuous looping film projected into the pool depicted a cycle that moved from marine-like lagoons of deep darkness into brilliant light and back into darkness.In that depth,the physical environment was transformed by a layer of moving images,becoming a realm of dreams and possibility where presences implied in the physical elements above transformed into living forces of plant,animal and human actors.The interwoven field of evoked by this filmcycle shifted slowly from fertile life into sterile,desert-like stillness,and then into life arising again.

·Interwoven Components Create Resilient Space

The work followed a conception of architecture that extends outward and inward from boundaries,encouraging crossing and passage.Outward: tendrils and plumes interweave with surrounding layers of air.Clusters of lasercut translucent polymer fronds were arranged by grouping and bundling their angled geometries around close-fitting inner sheath structures.Inward,cantilevered resilient stays were inserted,and arrays of individual impact-resistant acrylic chevron links supporting these bundles were chained together with elastic joints to form a diagrid of corrugated mesh with diffusive,viscous performance.Leaf-like tines within each frond gently fluttered and stirred,responding to gentle air movements created by the movements of viewers.

圖5 Grove 細(xì)節(jié)圖—表現(xiàn)觀眾、定制的柱狀揚(yáng)聲器和懸掛的天幕

圖6 Grove 細(xì)節(jié)圖—表現(xiàn)天幕、投影“水池”和多個柱狀揚(yáng)聲器

圖7 Grove 蟲眼視圖

Like the geometric systems that result in innumerable variations within natural snowflakes,a 'quasiperiodic'fluctuating geometry organized the billowing skeletal membranes floated above the ground level of Grove.The nested spiral fabric membrane was highly elastic,accommodating large displacements within its hung tentwork placement.This elastic performance was dynamic,creating infinitesimally varying stretching and contracting motions in response to air movements within the hall,and amplifying increments of pressure produced within the individual comb-cell filters.Skeletal hexagonal frames followed tiled arrangements harmonized with the inner cores.Large sections of the outer membrane showed additional chiral organization.In these sections,each tile contained a rotated core encircled by alternating upward and lower-reaching flexible curved arms,creating voided helical rosettes that spiral around their centre.Matching triangular couplers contained similar spiraling arms.Each arm of these curved skeletons carried a curving frond with extended combs of individual needleshaped mylar filaments.Each needle form was extended close to its cantilevered span limit,and reacted with trembling vibration to slight shifts in the surrounding atmosphere created by mechanical and human produced air movement.Individual filaments followed contractions latent within the lower sides of sheet-formed polyester material,creating pronounced concave profiles.Intersecting combs that follow these profiles created a toothed valving structure which tends to close against downward drafts of air while opening and amplifying upward currents.The composite structure performed as a gentle mechanical pump,amplifying upward convection.Supporting this turf-like interwoven layer,the linked spring skeletal structure followed a tracery of oscillating filaments whose continuous undulating paths extend throughout the entire canopy.

·Climate change

Grove addressed climate change by demonstrating how architecture can help to heal the environment.The construction of Grove drew its forms from the kind of fertile relationships that we can see in a natural wetland that lines a river.Instead of unintended destructive forces that come from sealed walls,resilient interwoven components can gently break down,absorb and dissipate,similar to the forces of water and air,which allows benign forces through and between separate areas while at the same time calming them.

Grove proposed a kind of regeneration that contrasts with the hard,closed surfaces of traditional urban building while still offering shelter and sanctuary.Grove's dissipative adaptation follows innovative physics revealed by the 1978 Nobel Prize-winning insights of Ilya Prigogine. Prigogine offered innovative views that explained how multiple layered systems can continually reorganize and refresh themselves by shedding forces,relaxing,and interconnecting with the surrounding world.This is far from the view that says we need to concentrate our boundaries and close ourselves off from the world.Instead,it is by encouraging sensitive interactions and by pursuing precarious gentle and unapologetically fragile dimensions of work that we can make a resilient,durable architecture.

·Living Architecture

Grove is a prototype of "living architecture" that works with nature by interconnecting and embracing the myriad forces of the physical world.When people experienced Grove,they could feel some of the sensations they do walking through a deep twilight forest,seeing the myriad of tiny organisms,plant growths,animals and the memory of other people that have passed there.The sense that we are not alone,and that space is not empty but rather full of possibility,was a fundamental sensation that the Grove project intended to impart.The message of this work was that we are deeply interconnected with the animate and inanimate world and we should feel motivated and hopeful by this fact.When we look at life as something that connects us all,we can begin to see how our world can heal,full of renewed possibility.

Grove was a philosophical and physical essay that meditates on how thresholds can be open.Grove crossed both social and natural worlds in demonstrating how thresholds can heal and regenerate.It demonstrated a model of mutual sharing.The openings within Grove offered resilient layers that handled the widest possible range of forces.In this fundamentally insecure time,there is a natural human tendency towards self-protection.This can translate into a desire to build the strongest possible walls and boundaries to create sanctuaries.Traditional architecture has been preoccupied with classical values that are concerned with making a maximum of individual territory within cities.Classical order emphasizes differences between the inside and outside of space,sorting between the groups that belong within and leaving the others "outside". Yet,boundaries that create sheltering order can be distorted and polarize us,creating unnecessary conflict.The same walls that apparently protect us can amplify our problems.

Instead of closed walls,Grove offered a multitude of gentle lace-like filtering layers gathered together,interweaving and interconnecting.By creating expanded,open thresholds,we design with nature.In prototyping "living architecture" we move past the opaque and closed.In the example of Grove this gesture opened into a forest-like glade that invited visitors to think about porous,fragile ways of sociality and livingwithin an expanded world enfolding both mineral and living beings.The intimate dimensions implied by these experimental works imply form-languages for designing buildings.Instead of valuing resistance and closure,new form-languages for architecture could foster mutual relationships and maximum interaction brimming with new forms of life.

This essay is adapted fromGROVE: Open Systems for Living Architectureby Philip Beesley withinCo-Corporeality of Humans,Machines,&Microbes,edited by Barbara Imhof,Daniela Mitterberger and Tiziano Derme.

4 交互視野 I 邁克爾·?？怂?I 劉潔、冷延鵬 譯

最近，一些交互建筑項(xiàng)目的建造規(guī)模已經(jīng)不僅超越了建筑展覽作為試驗(yàn)臺的范圍，而且在材料性能、聯(lián)結(jié)度和操控方式等方面也突破了我們原有的思維界限。該領(lǐng)域的迅速拓展得益于大量的研究人員和設(shè)計師不斷地對最前沿技術(shù)的探索和應(yīng)用。同時，在這一過程中，建筑行業(yè)設(shè)計和制作原型所需工具技術(shù)的易用性和經(jīng)濟(jì)性也起到了至關(guān)重要的作用。作為建筑師，我們上下求索，探賾索隱。尤其是交互式建筑的設(shè)計并非憑空發(fā)明，而是探索并駕馭已有技術(shù)，并將其推演至一種適合建筑語境的狀態(tài)。

如今，研究交互式建筑所需要掌握的技術(shù)非常簡單，以至于一個非計算機(jī)科學(xué)或機(jī)械設(shè)計專業(yè)的設(shè)計師也可以輕松地將他們的設(shè)計想法推進(jìn)到原型階段進(jìn)而清晰地傳達(dá)其設(shè)計意圖。在整個交互設(shè)計過程中，建筑師或設(shè)計師并非單打獨(dú)斗，但是他們需要掌握足夠的相關(guān)學(xué)科基礎(chǔ)知識來推進(jìn)設(shè)計。這就如同盡管建筑結(jié)構(gòu)設(shè)計是由結(jié)構(gòu)工程師而非建筑師完成，建筑師依然需要在學(xué)校學(xué)習(xí)結(jié)構(gòu)工程一樣。就定義而言，交互式建筑環(huán)境需要以嵌入式計算系統(tǒng)和與之對應(yīng)的實(shí)體構(gòu)件為基礎(chǔ)，進(jìn)而通過交互的方式來實(shí)現(xiàn)其適應(yīng)性。

·機(jī)器人技術(shù)的演變

長久以來交互式建筑的探討語境基于之前對機(jī)器人的定義，即“由程序引導(dǎo)的機(jī)械代理”。然而最近我們看到建筑領(lǐng)域機(jī)器人技術(shù)的應(yīng)用有了質(zhì)的改變（圖1）。

圖1 機(jī)器人技術(shù)的演變：（1）標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的拾取與放置，（2）模塊化機(jī)器人技術(shù)，（3）微型和納米級機(jī)器人技術(shù)，以及（4）軟機(jī)器人技術(shù)。

同時，通過機(jī)器人領(lǐng)域中的相關(guān)項(xiàng)目我們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)人們設(shè)計和理解機(jī)器人的方式也發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)變。在這里，尺度變成了最重要的影響因子。如今在探討諸如智能模塊單元尺度及智能響應(yīng)復(fù)雜度的變形、進(jìn)化和自組織機(jī)器人方面的研究進(jìn)展正在制定機(jī)器人技術(shù)發(fā)展的新標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。諷刺的是，機(jī)器人技術(shù)的進(jìn)步往往被視為一個交叉領(lǐng)域，其尺度的改變也受到材料科學(xué)和生物仿生學(xué)發(fā)展的重要影響，而這些發(fā)展又同時很大程度上影響著建筑設(shè)計的其他方面。總體而言，研究人員不再從“有腿”機(jī)器人的視角來研究機(jī)器人運(yùn)動，而是開發(fā)由模塊化部件組成的機(jī)器人，作為一個系統(tǒng)來解釋和表達(dá)信息[1]。

在以下學(xué)生項(xiàng)目中，模塊作為模塊化自主機(jī)器人組件被創(chuàng)建并應(yīng)用于不同規(guī)模大小的空間制作場景中（圖2、圖3）。物理模型展示了實(shí)際的機(jī)器人技術(shù)、結(jié)構(gòu)與材料。學(xué)生項(xiàng)目中也探討了幾種去中心化控制的策略，規(guī)定了系統(tǒng)的各個部分應(yīng)該采用何種個體行為，以及如何通過各個模塊之間的局部交互產(chǎn)生全局行為。這些項(xiàng)目成功地展示了多種機(jī)械設(shè)計、運(yùn)動和控制的策略。

圖2 使用模塊化機(jī)器人技術(shù)的建筑應(yīng)用

圖3 機(jī)器人運(yùn)動的狀態(tài)變化

在軟體機(jī)器人系統(tǒng)研究方面，也許（與建筑）最相關(guān)的研究是軟體與可變形結(jié)構(gòu)的科學(xué)原理和技術(shù)實(shí)現(xiàn)。從機(jī)器人技術(shù)的角度來看，柔性和可變形結(jié)構(gòu)在處理模糊和動態(tài)的任務(wù)條件、在粗糙地形中的運(yùn)動以及與活體細(xì)胞和人體物理接觸等方面扮演著至關(guān)重要的角色。此外，軟體材料對于自我修復(fù)、生長和自我復(fù)制等相關(guān)課題的研究也非常重要。

·不斷發(fā)展的影響

直到最近，我們看到機(jī)器人變得越來越小，但其仍然依賴于最微小的傳統(tǒng)機(jī)械部件。各類物質(zhì)所表現(xiàn)出來的豐富可能性使得傳統(tǒng)機(jī)械范式在還未充分展現(xiàn)其特性的時候就已然顯得過時了。正如邁克爾-溫斯托克（Michael Weinstock）詩意地指出，“材料不再服從于強(qiáng)加給它的形式，而是服從形式本身的起源”[2]。

為了更加深入理解，我們需要了解生物體生長和發(fā)展的過程。這一研究領(lǐng)域被稱為發(fā)育生物學(xué)，包括生長、分化和形態(tài)生成。一個有用的定義依賴于一個更大的可以涵蓋所有設(shè)計的系統(tǒng)框架。在這個層面上，生物仿生學(xué)從本質(zhì)上影響著材料的表現(xiàn)性能和操控尺度，其與在設(shè)計和建造環(huán)境方面應(yīng)對迭代需求的創(chuàng)新材料有著異曲同工的作用。

基于這種生長和發(fā)展的邏輯系統(tǒng)，我的學(xué)生構(gòu)建了許多建筑空間設(shè)計。其中一個項(xiàng)目選擇將骨骼重塑的過程應(yīng)用于建筑表皮系統(tǒng)（圖4）。具體而言，細(xì)胞會重建結(jié)構(gòu)以適應(yīng)它所承載的負(fù)荷；骨頭在骨折愈合后可以改變其物理形狀，以充分承載負(fù)荷。這樣一個不斷周轉(zhuǎn)的過程動態(tài)地保證了骨架在一段時間內(nèi)的機(jī)械完整性。

圖4 模仿骨質(zhì)重塑的過程

·用戶控制

年輕的設(shè)計師們已經(jīng)開始意識到他們有可能感知任何想象中的東西。如今的傳感器幾乎可以辨別任何東西，從復(fù)雜的手勢到二氧化碳排放再到頭發(fā)的顏色。一個互聯(lián)的數(shù)字世界意味著，在擁有感知能力基礎(chǔ)之上，數(shù)據(jù)集（從互聯(lián)網(wǎng)使用習(xí)慣到交通圖譜和人群行為）可以成為交互建筑環(huán)境的驅(qū)動力。在對人相關(guān)因素的感知方面，交互界面設(shè)計領(lǐng)域的最新發(fā)展終將發(fā)揮重要作用。將交互界面嵌入建筑中，讓用戶與環(huán)境交互，可能很快就會成為一種普遍現(xiàn)象，我們相信手勢語言是實(shí)現(xiàn)真正物理交互的最有力的控制手段（圖5）。

圖5 使用Leap 傳感器的精確手勢控制的學(xué)生模型

多點(diǎn)觸控硬件技術(shù)的進(jìn)步對建筑學(xué)來說意義重大，因?yàn)樵谠S多情況下，用來控制界面的手勢與在現(xiàn)實(shí)空間中用對實(shí)體物體進(jìn)行這些相同操作的手勢最為相似。對建筑構(gòu)件和物理空間本身的操作更適合由其用戶采用手勢，而非設(shè)備、語言、認(rèn)知等方式完成實(shí)體操控（圖6）。

圖6 大型交互展覽，用近似手勢控制行為

·增強(qiáng)型仿生學(xué)技術(shù)

由此，前文所簡述的無論機(jī)器人技術(shù)還是新材料的應(yīng)用均表現(xiàn)的是一種小尺度操控的整體性適應(yīng)行為。下文所列舉的建筑立面設(shè)計學(xué)生作品則更強(qiáng)調(diào)通過控制機(jī)器人而間接實(shí)現(xiàn)的增強(qiáng)型仿生學(xué)技術(shù)。

在增強(qiáng)型粘液霉生物幕墻（圖7）設(shè)計中，設(shè)計希望使用具有某種特定特性的材料以盡量減少能源的使用和機(jī)械的復(fù)雜性。通過機(jī)械操控調(diào)節(jié)霉菌培養(yǎng)基和食物的數(shù)量和位置肌理，從而控制立面紋理的生長周期及美學(xué)表現(xiàn)。

圖7 增強(qiáng)型粘液霉生物幕墻

西西弗斯幕墻系統(tǒng)（電磁強(qiáng)化立面）的實(shí)現(xiàn)基于對丙烯酸表皮上的電磁陣列的特定控制（圖8）。通過控制網(wǎng)格使表皮上不斷脫落的微型金屬球能夠在表面上聚集。它實(shí)現(xiàn)了一種通用機(jī)器人控制的效果，能夠在受到系統(tǒng)自然隨機(jī)效應(yīng)的影響后，在相同的控制效果下，創(chuàng)造出略微不同的肌理紋路。

圖8 增強(qiáng)的電磁立面（西西弗斯立面）

·催化劑設(shè)計

這里值得一提的是這種被控制但又在另一層面自控的催化劑設(shè)計系統(tǒng)有可能重新定位設(shè)計師的角色。不同于分毫不差地確定建筑對人和環(huán)境需求的響應(yīng)表現(xiàn)，該系統(tǒng)呈現(xiàn)的結(jié)果是出乎意料的，建筑被允許以一種自下而上設(shè)計的角色來參與自己的塑造。正如戈登-帕斯克所說：“我認(rèn)為，建筑師在這里的作用與其說是設(shè)計建筑或城市，不如說是催化它們：為它們的發(fā)展采取行動”[3]。

建筑師應(yīng)該知曉眾多領(lǐng)域的先進(jìn)技術(shù)，并從中推斷哪些技術(shù)有可能進(jìn)一步構(gòu)建他們職業(yè)的未來愿景。雖然在編程、生成式設(shè)計、進(jìn)化式設(shè)計等概念出現(xiàn)之后，這種想法在建筑界早已存在，但這次所帶來的可能性卻又似乎非常與眾不同，因?yàn)樗鼈冇袧摿ǔ珊蟮慕ㄖ廊划a(chǎn)生影響作用。

注：本文的英文版將會于袁烽、尼爾·林奇、比納茲·法拉利編輯的《交互未來》一書中出版。

【英文原文】

Interactive Horizons I Michael Fox

In the recent past a number of interactive architecture projects have been built at scales that both move beyond the scope of the architectural exhibit as test bed and push the boundaries of our thinking in terms of material performance,connectivity,and control.Fueling the growth of exploration in this area is the number of researchers and designers working within the rapidly evolving technologies.Perhaps equally as important as the rapid advance of the technologies necessary for interactive design is the technological and economical accessibility of the design and prototyping tools available to the profession of architecture.We in architecture usurp what we can.Designing interactive architecture in particular is not inventing,but appreciating and marshalling the technology that exists,and extrapolating it to suit an architectural vision.

The requisite technologies are now simple enough to enable designers who are not experts in computer science or mechanical design to prototype their ideas in an affordable way and communicate their design intent.Architects and designers are not expected to execute their interactive designs alone;they are expected rather to possess enough foundational knowledge in the area to contribute.In the same way that architects need to learn structural engineering in school,it is rarely assumed that architects will do the structural calculations for the buildings they design;that work is carried out by professional structural engineers.As a matter of definition,interactive architectural environments are built upon the convergence of embedded computation and a physical counterpart that satisfies adaptation within the framework of interaction.

·The Evolution of Robotics

The approach to interactive architecture has relied on an historical definition of robotics as a "mechanical agent guided by a program".In the recent past,however,we have seen a dramatic evolution of robotics as applied to architecture (Fig.1): (1) standard pick-and-place,which has been applied to numerous architectural systems and fa?ade systems in particular,(2) modular robotics,(3) micro and nano-scale robotics,and (4) soft robotics.

The landscape of projects that makes up the field of robotics is also seeing a shift in the way that we both design robots and understand robots.Here,the overriding influence is that of scale.

Current advancements in metamorphic,evolutionary,and self-assembling robots,specifically dealing with the scale of the building block and the amount of intelligent responsiveness that can be embedded in these modules,are setting new standards for the construction of robotics.

Ironically,advancements in robotics are viewed as a transitional area where scale is also heavily influenced by the same developments in material science and biomimetics that are also heavily influencing other areas of architectural design.In general,researchers are moving away from looking at robotic locomotion through "legged" robots and are instead developing robots made up of modular parts that work as a system to interpret and act upon information[1].

In the following student projects,modules were created as modular autonomous robotic components and applied to scenarios of space making at various scales (Fig.2,3).Physical models demonstrated actual robotics,structure and materials.Several strategies for decentralized control were explored dictating how individual parts of a system should behave and how local interactions between individual modules can lead to the emergence of global behavior.The projects successfully demonstrate various strategies for mechanical design,locomotion and control.

Perhaps the most relevant research lies in the area of soft robotics which is the science and engineering of soft and deformable structures in the robotic systems.From a robotics standpoint,soft and deformable structures are crucial in the systems that deal with uncertain and dynamic taskenvironments,locomotion in rough terrains,and physical contacts with living cells and human bodies.Further,soft materials are also necessary for the more visionary research topics mentioned above such as self-repairing,growing,and self-replication.

· Evolving Influences

Until recently,we have seen robots getting smaller and smaller yet still relying on the tiniest of conventional mechanical parts.The possibilities from the vantage point of a materiality make the mechanical paradigm seem dated,ironically before it ever had a chance to fully manifest itself.As Michael Weinstock poetically states,"Material is no longer subservient to a form imposed upon it but is instead the very genesis of the form itself."[2]

Diving a bit deeper requires an understanding of the process by which organisms grow and develop.This area of study is called developmental biology and includes growth,differentiation,and morphogenesis.A useful definition relies on a framework of recognizing the larger systems in which all design resides.Biomimicry then at this level is intrinsically tied to such performative aspects of the operational scale and the inherent behavior of materials,as well as the role that innovative materials may play in designing and building environments that address changing needs.

My students have done a number of projects in which scenarios of growth and development have been applied to systems that make up architectural space.One of the projects uses the process of bone remodeling as applied to an architectural building skin (Fig.4).In particular,the cells will rebuild the structure to adapt to the load it carries;a bone can change its physical shape after a fracture that heals out of position,so that the load is adequately supported.Such a process of continuous turnover dynamically ensures the mechanical integrity of the skeleton over time.

·User Control

Young designers have started to realize that it is possible to sense anything they can imagine.Sensors available today can discern almost anything from complex gestures to CO2emissions to hair color.An interconnected digital world means,in addition to having sensory perception,that data sets—ranging from Internet usage to traffic patterns and crowd behaviors—can be drivers of interactive buildings or environments.In terms of a resolution with respect to the sensing of human factors,recent developments in the area of interface design will eventually play a major role.It may soon be commonplace to embed architecture with interfaces to allow users to interact with their environments and we believe that gestural language (Fig.5) is the most powerful means control through enabling real physical interactions.

Advancements in multi-touch hardware technology is significant to architecture because in many cases the gestures used to control an interface are the most similar to gestures that would be used to replicate these activities in real space with tangible objects.The manipulation of physical building components and physical space itself is more suited to gestural physical manipulation by its users instead of control via device,speech,cognition,or other (Fig.6).

·Augmenting Biomimetics

What has been outlined so far are advancements in both robotics and new materials whereby the adaptation becomes much more holistic,and operates on a very small internal scale.In the following series of student projects focused on fa?ade designs,biomimetic systems were augmented with a secondary means of robotic control.

In Augmented Slime Mold Bio-Fa?ade (Fig.7) the goal is to use materials with specific characteristics in order to minimize energy use and mechanical complexity.The growth cycle,and consequently aesthetic effects and patterns,are controlled through the robotic manipulation of depositing and retrieving a regulated texture of growth medium,and food quantity,to specific locations.

The Sisyphus Fa?ade system (Augmented Electro-Magnetic Fa?ade) relies on the specific control of an electromagnetic array on the acrylic skin (Fig.8).Through control of the grid,tiny metallic balls that are constantly falling down the skin are allowed to congregate on the surface.The effect has a sense of generalized robotic control that is influenced by the natural random effects of the system creating a slightly different pattern every time with the same controlled effect.

· Catalyst Design

The important thing here is that such systems that are controlled but yet control themselves on another level have the potential to reposition the role of the designer.What results is the emergence of unexpected designs rather than an architecture that literally interprets and responds to human and environmental desires;the architecture is allowed to take a bottom-up role in configuring itself in a malleable way.As Gordon Pask states "The role of the architect here,I think,is not so much to design a building or city as to catalyze them: to act that they may evolve."[3]

Architects should be informed of the many areas of technological advance to understand what is possible to extrapolate from these ideas in the creation of a vision to direct the future of their profession.While such ideas have been around for quite some time in the architectural world in terms of scripting,generative design,evolutionary design etc.,the possibilities seem very different -they have the potential to affect the architecture itself after it is built.

A version of this paper will be published in the bookInteractive Futuresedited by Philip Yuan,Neil Leach and Behnaz Farahi.

5 交互式建筑：建筑學(xué)的新理論疆域 I 亨利·?？怂?I 何沐菲 譯

自從開始居住在建筑物中，人們就希望改造居住的建筑物從而適應(yīng)自己不斷變化的需求和居住條件，而技術(shù)和材料的進(jìn)步使得這種改變越來越容易。隨著 “交互式建筑”這一概念的出現(xiàn)，更多的“智能”和“自主性”被添加進(jìn)了建筑領(lǐng)域，這一改變在很大程度上豐富了改造建筑的可能性——以至于人們需要改變自己對于“建筑”本質(zhì)的理解。這篇文章將講述關(guān)于 “交互式建筑 ”這一主題的一些思考和想法。

“交互式建筑”可以被理解為多種含義，一些相關(guān)概念都體現(xiàn)了與其類似的含義，但又不盡相同：如建筑自主系統(tǒng)、智能家居、感知建筑、自適應(yīng)建筑、動態(tài)建筑、智能建筑和可移動建筑。它們有一個共識，即建筑必須適應(yīng)不同的需求，從而可以更好地達(dá)成其目的。雖然引入另一個術(shù)語有一定的風(fēng)險，但我們可以把所有這些技術(shù)一起稱為 “響應(yīng)式建筑”。而所有響應(yīng)式建筑都應(yīng)該具有以下共同點(diǎn)：

·集成型適應(yīng)：建筑的一部分可以被改變，并且這些改變從一開始就被納入建筑組成中。例如：可移動的墻板、百葉窗或座椅排布。綜合性適應(yīng)預(yù)測了未來將進(jìn)行的變化，并通過組成部件的設(shè)計使改變更加容易。

·感應(yīng)：存在某種監(jiān)測系統(tǒng)，可以檢查建筑物的狀況。例如：運(yùn)動傳感器、溫度計、光傳感器等等。

·決定：對于建筑 "可響應(yīng)部分" 的變化的執(zhí)行和實(shí)踐。本文開頭提到的大多數(shù)技術(shù)中，決定部分都以某種自動化的形式存在，最常見的案例有遮陽系統(tǒng)、自動門等等。然而，在自適應(yīng)和可移動建筑中，感知和決定的主體也可能是居住者本人。

在確定了共同特征之后，我們現(xiàn)在可以更準(zhǔn)確地說出交互式建筑是什么。那么下一步需要思考的是，交互式建筑如何區(qū)別于其他響應(yīng)式建筑？

解決這個問題的關(guān)鍵字顯然是 "交互"——即兩個代理主體之間的信息交流。這里的代理主體可以是人，也可以是自動或機(jī)械系統(tǒng)，但在大部分情況下，我們談?wù)摰氖侨伺c建筑之間的交互。由于在信息的基礎(chǔ)上，變化可能發(fā)生在一個或兩個代理主體中，因此，信息交流必須是有意義的。

其他大多數(shù)響應(yīng)式建筑旨在盡可能消除或減少信息交流。例如，自動滑動門對接近門的身體作出反應(yīng)。它們是反應(yīng)式的，即完全基于接近傳感器的輸入來進(jìn)行開門和關(guān)門的動作。這也意味著在許多情況下，即使附近的人只是路過而沒有進(jìn)入的意圖，門也會隨之打開。另外，一些更先進(jìn)的自動門系統(tǒng)已經(jīng)將“建筑智能”應(yīng)用到系統(tǒng)中，從而判斷出路人和意圖進(jìn)門的人。然而，參與交互的人是“被排斥在外”的，他們不能主動表達(dá)自己想要進(jìn)入建筑物的愿望。

在這個自動門系統(tǒng)中，只有允許或不允許進(jìn)入兩個操作，其中的交互也只限于一個方面：門是否應(yīng)該打開。但是，對于遮陽設(shè)備等，交互過程將會變得更加復(fù)雜。遮陽設(shè)備基于室內(nèi)光照相關(guān)的客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作出相應(yīng)反應(yīng)，比如通過對陽光直射量的限制避免房間中過熱和眩光。然而，在室內(nèi)的人也有主觀愿景，比如：他們是否想看到外面的風(fēng)景，遮陽板升起或落下時是否可以通風(fēng)換氣，遮陽設(shè)備在運(yùn)行時是否會產(chǎn)生很大的噪音，百葉窗是否移動過度、太快或太慢，它是否可以由人控制等等。因此，遮陽系統(tǒng)的感應(yīng)和反饋的內(nèi)容都要比自動滑門的情況多得多。另一個因素就是人的數(shù)量：每個人對于舒適或好的都可能有不同的偏好，所以人的這些需求也必須在一個公平的系統(tǒng)中得到平衡和滿足。

自動滑門、遮陽設(shè)備和空調(diào)等普遍被歸于建筑服務(wù)系統(tǒng)，因此，它們一般以自己的首要功能被人們認(rèn)知。在大多數(shù)情況下，人們并不認(rèn)為這些系統(tǒng)需要更多的交互，并與居住者進(jìn)行信息交流。但正是由于這種對于 “服務(wù)”的觀念，才使得這些系統(tǒng)從屬于建筑自動化系統(tǒng)、智能家居、智能建筑等類別。

空調(diào)和遮陽設(shè)備并不占據(jù)我們的個人空間，它們位于我們生活和工作的外圍空間。而自動滑門相對來說和我們的身體體驗(yàn)結(jié)合更為緊密（這種情況很容易想象，比如當(dāng)你想進(jìn)去時門卻沒有打開，或者當(dāng)門關(guān)閉時你卻還在室內(nèi)）。不過，如前面所論證的，和自動門的交互是相當(dāng)有限和簡單的，稍后我們將討論一個例子來講述不同的情況。

當(dāng)交互物體開始占據(jù)我們的個人空間時會發(fā)生什么？這種情況下，交互過程就會發(fā)生相當(dāng)大的變化。讓我們以來自魯汶大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院Andrew Vande Moere 所領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的研究[x]設(shè)計小組中博士生Alex Nguyen 的工作作為一個具體的例子。Alex Nguyen 開發(fā)了一種可移動的墻板，可以自主地改變它在空間中的位置。該墻板的尺寸大約為：寬度1.5m，高度1.8m，厚度0.3m，它的尺寸與人體尺度較為接近。這個墻板可以放置于任何位置，因此它既可以作為一個側(cè)墻，也可以位于某個空間的中心?；诒环胖玫奈恢?，它可以改變自己的特性——可以成為座椅排布的背景、工作區(qū)域的分隔，或者引導(dǎo)人移動的屏障（圖1）。

圖1 博士研究項(xiàng)目 "人屋交互的建筑協(xié)調(diào)"（注：源自魯汶大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院研究[x]設(shè)計組（2022））

為了項(xiàng)目完整敘述，在這里必須說明面板的移動是被遠(yuǎn)程控制的（所謂的“綠野仙蹤”的控制系統(tǒng)）。這個控制系統(tǒng)可以達(dá)到此墻板的設(shè)計目的：由于在墻板附近的居住者的視線范圍內(nèi)沒有遠(yuǎn)程操作者，所以在居住者看來，就好像是墻板在自己移動。

我們在傳統(tǒng)的建筑設(shè)計方法中非常了解，墻板在空間中的靜態(tài)位置可以促進(jìn)某些空間和功能的安排。此外，可以放置在不同位置上的可移動墻板也不是新想法，這種靈活的空間隔斷已經(jīng)存在了很長時間，并在許多地方使用。所以，對于在一個空間中不同場合被放置在不同位置的墻板，人們已經(jīng)司空見慣，并且不認(rèn)為有任何奇怪或不尋常的地方。

可以說，游戲規(guī)則的變化之處在于，墻板是可以自主移動的。一個可以被放置到不同地點(diǎn)的普通墻板是一個由人們操縱的被動物體，人們將自己的意志強(qiáng)加于該物體上。然而，在墻板自我移動的情況下，意志力被轉(zhuǎn)移到了墻板上，即墻板獲得了代理權(quán)（代理權(quán)，即一種能力，可以自主為自己決定，參與對外部世界的操縱，并進(jìn)行交流）。如前所述，墻板的尺寸和人體尺度比較接近，這意味著移動的面板與同一空間中的人有一種非常直接的物理關(guān)系——它成為一個可以與我們碰撞的物體，引導(dǎo)我們的路徑和視野，并占據(jù)我們可能的運(yùn)動空間。于是，它不再是空間中那種被看到然后被忽略的物體，而成為了空間中的另一個生活表演者，人們將不再忽視它的存在。

在物理層面上，人和物體之間會有相互作用。例如，Alex Nguyen 在項(xiàng)目中，研究了諸如“點(diǎn)頭”這樣的交互行為，從而探索如何對墻板進(jìn)行微調(diào)。人們在與物體交互的時候，對物體的決策機(jī)制幾乎沒有洞察力，對他們來說，物體的決策就是一個黑盒子。然而，為了使其有意義，他們很可能將“意圖性”（由美國哲學(xué)家丹尼爾·丹內(nèi)特定義）歸于交互對象。當(dāng)我們把交互式建筑看成是由許多交互式物體共同組成的一個協(xié)調(diào)的整體時，設(shè)計或組成這個由相關(guān)交互物理組成的整體就需要敘事設(shè)計——通過講述有意義的故事，使人們對交互式建筑的體驗(yàn)更加具有連貫性。

Alex Nguyen 的移動墻板非常直接地表明了，在建筑學(xué)中，我們?nèi)狈?jīng)驗(yàn)、理論、詞匯和設(shè)計傳統(tǒng)來處理像自動移動的墻板這樣簡單的交互案例。雖然目前還很難想象，但是進(jìn)一步來說，當(dāng)這樣的物體越來越多并成為建筑環(huán)境的一部分時又會發(fā)生什么？在我看來，它的確將會發(fā)生——因此作為建筑師，我們在掌握和控制這些問題上，正在面臨挑戰(zhàn)。

總結(jié)一下，未來的任何對交互式建筑的解釋都應(yīng)該擴(kuò)展我們的建筑詞匯：包括“代理”、“意圖”、“系統(tǒng)動力學(xué)”、“模擬”、“預(yù)測”和“敘事”等現(xiàn)在我們的建筑語言中還缺乏這樣的術(shù)語，如果沒有它們，我們將很難理解交互式建筑的潛力和未來。

【英文原文】

Interactive architecture: A new theoretical frontier for architecture I Henri Achten

Ever since people inhabit buildings,they desire to change or adapt the buildings to suit their changing needs and conditions.Advances in technology and materials have made such changes increasingly easily.With the advent of"interactive architecture",more intelligence and autonomy is added,which can dramatically change the possibilities of changing buildings -up to the point that we must revise our understanding of architecture itself.This essay outlines a number of considerations on the topic of "interactive architecture."

The term "interactive architecture",is understood in a wide variety of meanings.Other labels such as Building Automation Systems,Smart Homes,Sentient Buildings,Adaptive Buildings,Dynamic Buildings,Intelligent Buildings,and Portable Buildings,capture related intentions,but are not identical.They all share a common understanding,that buildings must be adaptable to better serve their purposes.At the risk of introducing yet another term,let's call all these technologies together "Responsive Buildings".All responsive buildings have the following in common:

Integrated adaptation: parts of the building can be changed.These changes are incorporated from the outset in the building (parts).Examples are movable wall panels,window blinds,or seating arrangements.Integrated adaptation anticipates future changes and makes it easier through the design of the parts.

Sensing: some kind of monitoring system that checks the conditions of the building.Examples are movement sensors,thermometers,light sensors,and so on.

Deciding: setting into action the changes that need to be made for the adaptable part(s).Most technologies mentioned at the start of this text,have this in some automated form.In most examples we see this in the handling of shading systems,automatic doors,However,in the case of Adaptive and Portable Buildings,the one who senses and decides may also be the inhabitant.

With the common characteristics identified,we can now more precisely say what interactive architecture is about.How does interactive architecture distinguish itself from the other responsive buildings?

The keyword obviously is interaction.Interaction is an exchange of information between two agents.The agents can be people,but also automated or mechanical systems.In many cases,we talk about the interaction between people and the building.On the basis of the information,some changes occur in one or both agents.Thus,the information exchange has to be meaningful.

Most other responsive buildings aim to eliminate or minimize the information exchange.For example,automatic sliding doors react to proximity of a body to the doors.They are reactive.They will open and close the doors solely based on the input of the proximity sensors.This also means that in many cases,they will open the doors,also if the person nearby is just passing by and has no intention to enter.More advanced automatic door systems already apply some intelligence to determine who is a passer-by and who wants to pass through the doors.Nevertheless,the person involved in the interaction is outside the loop;he or she cannot communicate a desire to enter the building.

In the case of doors allowing access or not,the interaction moment is limited to one aspect: should the door open or not.With shading devices,for example,it becomes more complex.Shading devices respond to objective criteria like limiting the amount of direct sunlight to avoid overheating and glare.The people in the interior however,also have subjective criteria:do they want an outside view? Is it possible to ventilate with the shades up or down? Does the shading device make a lot of noise when in operation? Does it move too much,too fast,or too slow? Can it be controlled by the people or not? Thus,the repertoire of both intentions and responses is much larger than the case of automatic sliding doors.Another factor is the amount of people.Each person can have different preferences what they feel is comfortable or nice,so accommodating these desires also has to balance out in a fair mix.

Things like automatic sliding door,shading devices,and air-conditioning are perceived as building services.Thus they are often seen as primarily functional.In most cases there is no perceived need of these systems to be more interactive and engage in an information exchange with the inhabitants.It is exactly because of this "servicing" perception,that such systems fall in the categories of Building Automation Systems,Smart Homes,Intelligent Buildings,and so on.

Air-conditioning and shading devices do not occupy our personal space.They are located in the periphery of the space where we live and work.An automatic sliding door is already much closer related to our bodily experience (something which you can verify very easily when the door does not open when you want to enter,or when it closes and you are still in the door space).Still,as argued earlier,the interaction moment with a door is rather limited and simple.Later we will discuss a hypothetical example how this could be different though.

What happens,when the interactive objects start to occupy our personal space also? Things then change quite dramatically.Let's give a concrete example,from KU Leuven,Faculty of Architecture in the Research[x]Design group headed by Andrew Vande Moere,concerning work by PhD student Alex Nguyen.Alex Nguyen has developed a moveable wall panel that can autonomously change its location within the space where it is placed.The panel measures roughly 1,5m width,1,8m height,and 0,3m thickness,so it has dimensions that are closely related to the human body.It can position itself in any arbitrary location,thus it can act as a side wall,but it can also be located in the centre of the space.Given its position,it therefore changes its character as a backdrop for a seating arrangement,a divider for a work area,or a barrier controlling the movement of people (Fig.1).

For completeness sake,it must be stated that the movement of the panel is controlled remotely (a so-called Wizard of Oz setup).For all purposes though,since the human operator is out of view of the people inhabiting the same space as the panel,it is as if the panel moves on its own accord.

The static position of the panel in the space facilitates certain spatial and functional arrangements that we understand very well in our traditional architectural approaches.Also,the fact that it is a moveable wall panel that can be on various positions is nothing new.Such flexible space dividers are around for a very long time and in use in many places.Having a panel that is found on different occasion on different locations is not deemed strange or extraordinary in any way by people in that same space.

Where the game changes,so to speak,is when the panel is moving by itself.A regular panel that can be placed to different locations is a passive object manipulated by people,who are imposing their will on said object.In the case of the self-moving panel,the will is transferred to the panel.In other words,the panel obtains agency (agency: the ability to autonomously decide for yourself,engage in manipulations of the outside world and have communications).As stated earlier,the size of the panel is closely related to the size of a person.That means that the moving panel takes on a very direct corporeal relationship with the people in the space.It becomes an object that can collide with us,direct our path and vision,and which occupies the space of possible movement.Suddenly,rather than being the object in the space that can be seen and then ignored,it becomes yet another actor in the space,and something surely not to be ignored.

On the level of the object itself,there will be interactions between the people and the object.In the research by Alex Nguyen for example,an interaction aspect like nudging is investigated to see how this can afford micro-adaptations of the wall panel.People interacting with the object have no insight in the decision mechanisms,for them it is a black box.To make sense of it however,they will most likely attribute intentionality (as defined by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett) to the interactive objects.When we look at interactive architecture as an orchestrated whole of many interactive objects together,then designing or composing this whole of related interactions requires the design of narratives-meaningful stories that give coherence to our experience with the interactive architecture.

The moving wall panel by Alex Nguyen demonstrates very directly,that in architecture we lack the experience,theory,vocabulary,and design tradition to deal even with such simple examples as a self-moving wall panel.What happens when such objects increasingly become part of our built environment is at the moment quite unimaginable.That it will happen,seems certain to me -thus as architects we face to challenge to take these matters in our own hands.

To conclude,any future explanation of interactive architecture should expand our architectural dictionary to include agency,intentionality,system dynamics,simulation,prediction,and narratives.Such terms are today lacking in our discourse,and without it,we cannot begin to understand the potential of interactive architecture.

6 表演與交互設(shè)計的新型建筑實(shí)踐 I 魯伊里·格林 I 徐占一 譯

數(shù)字網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒體、智能材料、機(jī)器人和人工智能等領(lǐng)域的融合，正在創(chuàng)造新形式的人工智能體，使我們的建筑環(huán)境充滿活力。這些進(jìn)步正在催生全新的跨越建筑、藝術(shù)、設(shè)計、表演和工程學(xué)的創(chuàng)意實(shí)踐形式。從管理城市基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施性能的傳感器網(wǎng)絡(luò)，到響應(yīng)人類居住和環(huán)境條件的建筑系統(tǒng)，再到提供個性化體驗(yàn)的情境感知可穿戴和移動技術(shù)，我們與周圍環(huán)境接觸的媒介規(guī)模各不相同。如同一個數(shù)據(jù)量豐富的“日常劇場（theatre of the everyday）”供人互動，同時這樣直觀的通信服務(wù)也正在塑造著從個人到全球的社會關(guān)系。源于這種對社會、空間和技術(shù)關(guān)系的戲劇性重構(gòu)的理解，倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院（UCL）的巴特萊特建筑學(xué)院（Bartlett School of Architecture）于2017 年推出了表演與交互設(shè)計（DfPI）作為建筑學(xué)碩士課程，以批判性地參與這些加速的轉(zhuǎn)變。課程的核心原則是通過對新興技術(shù)的解構(gòu)，以共生設(shè)計的理念創(chuàng)造表演空間和在其中的表演。

計算的糾纏

經(jīng)典的學(xué)科制度規(guī)范出純粹而穩(wěn)定的知識分支，并進(jìn)行合理的劃分和組織。但實(shí)際上，學(xué)科類別是易變的、具有歷史偶然性的分類，時而增長時而萎縮，時而異質(zhì)時而分裂。在傳統(tǒng)的機(jī)構(gòu)模式中，當(dāng)各部門發(fā)現(xiàn)共同的挑戰(zhàn)時，多學(xué)科的方法將問題分解成子部分并由學(xué)科專家來解決。這種分割會導(dǎo)致研究的地域化，并且更容易將學(xué)科間的傳統(tǒng)隔閡增強(qiáng)而非打破。

在早期人工智能（AI）和自主機(jī)器人的多學(xué)科發(fā)展的歷史中，可以看到這種做法阻礙了研究進(jìn)展的案例。機(jī)械、電氣和計算設(shè)計的挑戰(zhàn)被分解，并作為獨(dú)立的模塊問題來逐步處理（Brooks，1999）[1]。社會科學(xué)（如心理學(xué)）的納入則進(jìn)一步將各研究孤立開，使得人文社科和數(shù)理科學(xué)之間的對話不足。菲爾-阿格瑞（Phil Agre）對早期人工智能研究的批判，闡明了具有自我強(qiáng)化概念模式的學(xué)科結(jié)構(gòu)是如何限制了新興領(lǐng)域內(nèi)自我批判的范圍。他描述了 “學(xué)科分類文化，比我們意識到的更深”，并且“僅使用先有領(lǐng)域的解決方法是幾乎不可能得到激進(jìn)的突破?！保?997）[2]

科目分項(xiàng)在本質(zhì)上幾乎是保守的，因此近幾十年來，交叉學(xué)科（inter-disciplinary）的方法開始流行，以創(chuàng)造富有成效的合作空間；各個學(xué)科在不同程度上可以重疊，分享方法和內(nèi)容，并且與多學(xué)科方法的非部門化性質(zhì)相比，交叉學(xué)科研究整合了各種實(shí)踐，其動機(jī)通常是共同認(rèn)為現(xiàn)有的工作模式無法或不便于應(yīng)對新的挑戰(zhàn)。更具反思性和批判性的交叉學(xué)科還可以進(jìn)一步推動在認(rèn)識論層面的關(guān)注，揭示固有的結(jié)構(gòu)（如自我強(qiáng)化的概念模式）和學(xué)科關(guān)系。當(dāng)學(xué)科實(shí)踐之間的角色和界限變得難以區(qū)分時，一些從業(yè)者就會完全超越學(xué)科，尋找非離散的歷史知識組織的模式。

在《設(shè)計與科學(xué)》雜志的首篇文章中，建筑師兼研究員Neri Oxman 認(rèn)為 "知識不能再被學(xué)科為邊界歸類，也不能以學(xué)科為邊界由內(nèi)產(chǎn)生，而是完全糾纏在一起"（2016）[3]。她指出麻省理工學(xué)院媒體實(shí)驗(yàn)室使用 "反學(xué)科（antidisciplinary）"一詞來證明其無視知識的體制分支，大力參與復(fù)雜交織的主題。值得注意的是媒體實(shí)驗(yàn)室從麻省理工學(xué)院的建筑學(xué)院中產(chǎn)生，孵化出的合作在當(dāng)時遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了建筑學(xué)的傳統(tǒng)主題。它的創(chuàng)始人尼古拉斯-尼葛洛龐帝（Nicholas Negroponte）在一次簡報中闡述了實(shí)驗(yàn)室的議程，他將媒體實(shí)驗(yàn)室描述為 “一個為背景迥異的人們同時使用和發(fā)明新媒體的地方，在這里，計算機(jī)本身被視為一種媒介——人和機(jī)器的通信網(wǎng)絡(luò)的一部分——而不僅僅是一個人坐在前面的物體”(Rowan,2012)[4]。然而，對于計算機(jī)的理解并不是一個新的想法。在媒體實(shí)驗(yàn)室成立之前的十年中，計算機(jī)作為媒介的概念一直在吸引著尋求新表達(dá)形式的藝術(shù)家。早期的例子包括1968 年在倫敦當(dāng)代藝術(shù)學(xué)院舉辦的 “控制論的偶然性”（Cybernetic Serendipity）展覽，以及1970 年威尼斯藝術(shù)雙年展上弗里德-納克（Frieder Nake）、喬治-尼斯（Georg Nees）和赫伯特-弗蘭克（Herbert Franke）的計算機(jī)生成圖形作品的展示。

在討論學(xué)科性的背景下，媒體藝術(shù)的出現(xiàn)是很重要的，因?yàn)樗碇囆g(shù)中最鮮明的跨學(xué)科案例。在網(wǎng)絡(luò)化和開源社區(qū)的支持下，不斷擴(kuò)大的計算知識推動了可互用工具的發(fā)展，這些工具融合了以前不同的聲音和音樂制作、插圖和圖形、運(yùn)動和表演、生物學(xué)和機(jī)器人學(xué)、裝置和建筑設(shè)計的實(shí)踐。這種計算的流動性具有消解學(xué)科邊界的效果，不僅發(fā)展了現(xiàn)有實(shí)踐的混合形式，而且還出現(xiàn)了根本性的新實(shí)踐形式。這就是我在交叉學(xué)科（interdisciplinarity）和跨學(xué)科性（transdisciplinarity）之間做出的區(qū)分。

跨學(xué)科項(xiàng)目的基礎(chǔ)

DfPI（Design for Performance and Interaction）的構(gòu)想始于建立一個由從事表演、媒體和空間實(shí)踐的巴特萊特核心成員組成的工作組[5]。同時，我們致力于成為倫敦領(lǐng)先的表演和互動專項(xiàng)工作室，身體力行了植根于建筑方法論的跨學(xué)科實(shí)踐。這些工作室包括Umbrellium,Bompas and Parr,Scanlab Projects,Stufish 和Jason Bruges Studio。不同于倫敦大學(xué)布魯姆斯伯里（Bloomsbury）校區(qū)典型的緊湊型工作室環(huán)境，位于Here East的校區(qū)是2012年倫敦奧運(yùn)會的前媒體綜合體，為創(chuàng)意和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)重新改造后提供超過一百萬平方英尺的多功能空間。與該設(shè)施相鄰的是哈克尼威克（Hackney Wick），聚集了歐洲最密集的藝術(shù)家工作室。這種多樣化的創(chuàng)意和技術(shù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)是巴特萊特與倫敦大學(xué)工程科學(xué)學(xué)院合作的理想條件，他們將在Here East 駐扎并開發(fā)新的教育課程和研究，以從這一背景中受益。

與DfPI 的核心宗旨相一致的是，創(chuàng)造表演空間和創(chuàng)造在其中的表演可以是共生的設(shè)計活動，我們不僅在設(shè)計課程方面發(fā)揮了積極作用，而且還設(shè)計了課程中的設(shè)施。核心設(shè)施包括一個帶有劇院燈光和舞池的大型 “黑匣子 ”工作室、12 通道環(huán)繞聲室、“人造天空 ”燈光工作室、帶有高性能GPU 計算的虛擬和增強(qiáng)現(xiàn)實(shí)工作室，以及一個有330 座的多功能禮堂（圖1）。該校區(qū)的所有研究人員和項(xiàng)目組都可以使用最先進(jìn)的數(shù)字制造設(shè)施，包括數(shù)控制造設(shè)備和工業(yè)機(jī)器人。UCL 的所有機(jī)器人研究也都從校園周圍的小塊區(qū)域轉(zhuǎn)移被安置在這個寬敞的新場地，使巴特萊特和工程科學(xué)學(xué)院能夠分享其用于制造、檢查和測試的大批量機(jī)器人設(shè)備，以及計算機(jī)科學(xué)目前在自主多代理移動機(jī)器人和手術(shù)機(jī)器人方面的研究成果（圖2）。這樣的設(shè)施在英國是獨(dú)一無二的，在國際上也很少有類似的條件，這為建立一個跨學(xué)科的項(xiàng)目提供了非常有利的環(huán)境。

圖1 Here East 設(shè)施的激光雷達(dá)掃描圖，由ScanLab 項(xiàng)目拍攝。上面是一個大禮堂，下面是專門的研究實(shí)驗(yàn)室空間。

圖2 英國倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院巴特萊特建筑學(xué)院表演與交互設(shè)計碩士項(xiàng)目互動裝置原型設(shè)計作品Phonon（學(xué)生：Luyang Zou，Yildiz Tufan）

結(jié)論

www.interactivearchitecture.org 官網(wǎng)記載了有關(guān)工作的詳細(xì)信息，以及通過這一獨(dú)特的跨學(xué)科教學(xué)法實(shí)驗(yàn)而產(chǎn)生的理論討論。[6]

英國在歷史上一直保持著嚴(yán)格專業(yè)認(rèn)證的垂直建筑教育模式。然而從我們開始看到專業(yè)課程相交叉的需求，特別是在研究生階段，建筑學(xué)在歷史上一直保持著藝術(shù)和工程之間的整體特性，雖然隨著設(shè)計和建造建筑環(huán)境的復(fù)雜性增加，對專業(yè)化的要求越來越強(qiáng)烈，我們的課程并不遵循這一呼吁，而是抵制分門別類的策略，利用交叉學(xué)科擴(kuò)大建筑作為一種創(chuàng)造性實(shí)踐的內(nèi)容。

編碼、電子傳感和機(jī)器人驅(qū)動、動畫、數(shù)字模擬和制造技術(shù)方面的知識使學(xué)生能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)物理和虛擬原型，并在公共場合進(jìn)行測試，包括泰特不列顛畫廊（Tate Britain Gallery）、巴比肯中心（The Barbican Centre）和奧地利林茲藝術(shù)節(jié)（Ars Electronica）。這些材料以及與新興技術(shù)的接觸鼓勵了對塑造技術(shù)設(shè)計的意識形態(tài)、隱藏的假設(shè)和價值觀的批判性反思。我們相信，這種材料的實(shí)踐和批判性的參與為駕馭當(dāng)今復(fù)雜的文化、技術(shù)和社會經(jīng)濟(jì)景觀提供了一種有意義的手段。

【英文原文】

Emerging Architectural Practices of Performance and Interaction Design I Ruairi Glynn

Converging fields of digital networked media,smart materials,robotics,and artificial intelligence,are creating novel forms of synthetic agency that animate our built environment.These advances are precipitating entirely new forms of creative practice that span across architecture,art,design,performance and engineering.They span from the scale of urban sensor networks governing the performance of our city infrastructure,to building systems responding to human occupation and environmental conditions,to context-aware wearable and mobile technologies providing personalised experiences,mediating our engagement with the built environment.The "theatre of the everyday" is now a data rich environment for interaction and today's intuitive communications services are shaping social relations from the interpersonal to the global.As a consequence of this dramatic reformulation of social,spatial and technological relations,in 2017 The Bartlett School of Architecture,at University College London (UCL) launched Design for Performance and Interaction (DfPI),a Master's in architecture programme to critically engage these accelerating transformations.The disruption of emerging technologies are explored through the programme's central tenet that the creation of spaces for performance and the creation of performances within them can be symbiotic design activities.

Computational Entanglements

A classical view of the disciplinary institutions imagines pure and stable branches of knowledge,divided and organised rationally.In practice,disciplines are mutable,historically contingent organisations,growing and shrinking,heterogenous and fractious at times.In a traditional institutional model,when common challenges are found across departments,a multi-disciplinary approach decomposes problems into sub-parts that are addressed by disciplinary expertise.This compartmentalisation can lead to a territorialising of research,and often reinforcing disciplinary traditions rather than challenging them.A historical example of where this hampered progress in research can be found in the multi-disciplinary development of early artificial intelligence(AI) and autonomous robotics.Mechanical,electrical,and computational design challenges were decomposed and dealt with as modular problems independently of one another(Brooks,1999)[1].The incorporation of social sciences such as psychology further siloed study with insufficient dialogue between the humanities and sciences.Phil Agre's critique of early AI research illuminates how disciplinary structures with their own self-reinforcing conceptual schemata had limited the scope for self-critical practices within the emerging field.He describes how "disciplinary culture,runs deeper than we are aware" and can make it "actually impossible to achieve a radical break with the existing methods of the field."(1997)[2]

Disciplines are almost by nature conservative and so in recent decades,inter-disciplinary approaches have become popular to create productive spaces of collaboration.Disciplines to varying degrees can overlap,sharing methods and content and by contrast with the decompartmentalising nature of multi-disciplinary approaches,inter-disciplinary research integrates practices,often motivated by a shared view that existing modes of working are unable or unwilling to tackle emerging challenges.In its basic form,interdisciplinarity allows for a task to be addressed by a novel arrangement of overlapping expertise.A more reflexive,critical interdisciplinarity can also further epistemological concerns,revealing inherent structures (such as self-reinforcing conceptual schemata) and disciplinary relations that uncover potentially productive new areas of research and practice.When roles and boundaries between disciplinary practices become indistinguishable,some practitioners look beyond disciplines entirely for models that reject discrete historical organisations of knowledge.

In the inaugural essay for the Journal of Design and Science,architect and researcher,Neri Oxman argues "that knowledge can no longer be ascribed to,or produced within,disciplinary boundaries,but is entirely entangled"(2016)[3].She points to MIT Media Lab's use of the term "antidisciplinary"to demonstrate its disregard for institutional branches of knowledge,engaging vigorously in complex intertwined subject matter.It is notable that the Media Lab emerged out of MIT's architecture school,incubating collaborations that for the time stretched far beyond architecture's traditional subject matter.Its founder Nicholas Negroponte set out its agenda in a briefing where he described the Media Lab as"designed to be a place where people of dramatically different backgrounds can simultaneously use and invent new media,and where the computer itself is seen as a medium -part of a communications network of people and machines -not just an object in front of which one sits." (Rowan,2012)[4].This was not a new idea however.Decade's before the founding of the Media Lab,the notion of the computer as media has been enticing artists seeking novel forms of expression.Early examples include the exhibitions Cybernetic Serendipity in London in at the Institute of Contemporary Art in 1968,and the presentation of computer generated graphical works by Frieder Nake,Georg Nees,and Herbert Franke at the 1970 Venice Art Biennale.

The emergence of media arts in the context of a discussion of disciplinarity is important,as it represents the clearest example in the arts,of explicit transdisciplinarity.Widening computational literacy,enabled by networked and open source communities has driven the development of interoperable tools that blend previously distinct practices of sound and music production,illustration and graphics,movement and performance,biology and robotics,installation and architectural design.This computational fluidity has the effect of dissolving disciplinary boundaries,and developing not only hybrid forms of existing practices,but also the emergence of radically new forms of practice.This is the distinction I make between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

Foundations of a Transdisciplinary Programme

The formulation of DfPI began with establishing a working group consisting of key Bartlett staff working in performance,media and spatial practices[5].In parallel we turned to London's leading studios specialising in performance and interaction who exemplify transdisciplinary practices rooted in architectural methodologies.These included Umbrellium,Bompas and Parr,Scanlab Projects,Stufish,and Jason Bruges Studio.Principle aims and requirements were mapped out including the need for space to fabricate,test and perform interactive installations and performances.The typically compact central London studio environments of UCL's Bloomsbury campus were unsuitable and so the Faculty took the opportunity to add to its estate by becoming a resident of Here East,the former media complex of the 2012 London Olympics that had been regenerated after the games to provide over a million square feet of versatile spaces for creative and technology companies and institutions.Adjacent to the facility is Hackney Wick,the densest concentration of artist studios in Europe.This diverse ecosystem of creativity and technology were ideal conditions for The Bartlett to partner with UCL's Faculty of Engineering Science to take up residency at Here East and develop new educational programmes and research to benefit from this context.

Inline with the central tenet of DfPI -that the creation of spaces for performance and the creation of performances within them can be symbiotic design activities -we took an active role in not only designing the course but also the facility it would take place within. Core facilities include a large scale 'Black Box' Studio with theatre lighting and a dance floor,a 12 Channel Surround Sound Chamber,'Artifical Sky'Lighting Studio,a Virtual and Augmented Reality Studio with high performance GPU Computing,and a 330-seat multifunctional auditorium (Fig.1).All researchers and programmes at the facility share access to a state-of-the-art digital fabrication facility including CNC manufacturing equipment and industrial robotics.All of UCL's robotics research,that previously occurred in pockets around campus were housed at the spacious new site allowing The Bartlett and Faculty of Engineering Science to share its large-volume robotics for manufacture,inspection and testing,alongside Computer Sciences current research in autonomous multi-agent mobile robotics and surgical robotics(Fig.2).Such a facility is unique in the UK,and with few international equivalents making it an exceptionally fertile environment for the establishing of a transdisciplinary programme.

Conclusions

It is beyond the scope of this article to chronicle the wide diversity of student and staff projects that have emerged from the first 5 years of the masters programme.These are documented at www.interactivearchitecture.org where there is detailed information on the work,and the theoretical discourses that have emerged though this unique experiment in transdisciplinary pedagogy[6].

The UK has historically maintained a rigidly vertical model to architectural education defined by professional accreditation.However we are beginning to see bifurcation of specialist programmes,particularly at postgraduate level,that one could compare to the carving up of medicine at the turn of the 20th into distinct areas of expertise.Architecture has historically held a holistic identity between the arts and engineering but it seems quite certain that as the complexity of designing and constructing the built environment increases,the calls for specialisation will only grow stronger.Our programme does not follow that call but rather resists the strategy of compartmentalisation,instead reaching beyond the discipline to expand what architecture can be as a creative practice.

Literacy in coding,electronic sensing and robotic actuation,animation,digital simulation and fabrication techniques empowers students to realise physical and virtual prototypes that are tested in public settings including the Tate Britain Gallery,The Barbican Centre and Ars Electronica Festival.These material and situated engagements with emerging technologies encourage critical reflection on the ideologies,hidden assumptions and values shaping technological design.This practice of material and critical engagement we believe provides a means for navigating the todays complex cultural,technological and socio-economic landscape.

7 互動技術(shù)在建筑中的應(yīng)用 I 李力

互動概念源于人機(jī)互動技術(shù)（Human-Computer Interaction Techniques，HCI），通過豐富的輸入輸出設(shè)備來加強(qiáng)人與計算機(jī)之間的信息交互方式。近些年信息技術(shù)發(fā)展，豐富了數(shù)字化感知的途徑，在數(shù)據(jù)種類、數(shù)據(jù)顆粒度及數(shù)據(jù)處理性能上都有了極大的提升，拓展了互動技術(shù)的應(yīng)用場景

根據(jù)現(xiàn)有實(shí)踐和研究，互動在建筑領(lǐng)域應(yīng)用根據(jù)作用對象的不同，可分為交互式建筑設(shè)計（Interactive Architectural Design）和互動建筑（Interactive Architecture）兩大類。交互式建筑設(shè)計作用于建筑設(shè)計過程中，而互動建筑則著眼于如何將互動技術(shù)應(yīng)用于建成環(huán)境之中（圖 1）。

圖1 物理計算在建筑中的應(yīng)用方式

交互式建筑設(shè)計過程

桌面電腦時代，人只能通過鼠標(biāo)、鍵盤、顯示器與計算機(jī)發(fā)生交互，表達(dá)和感知都受到限制。建筑計算機(jī)制圖從二維CAD 繪圖到三維建模，都受到桌面電腦的限制。近年在輸入和輸出端出現(xiàn)的越來越多的人機(jī)交互設(shè)備正在逐漸突破這些限制。例如，有Leap Motion、MYO、Gest 等手勢輸入設(shè)備；如Kinect、激光定位系統(tǒng)等動作捕捉設(shè)備；乃至用于腦波監(jiān)測的便攜式EEG 設(shè)備，這些對于計算機(jī)輸入端的增強(qiáng)，使得人能以更直覺的方式進(jìn)行表達(dá)。如ETH 的Landscape Architecture 的Digital Terrain Modelling 課程（圖 2），學(xué)生在沙盤上對地形進(jìn)行修改（A），通過雙攝像頭采集獲取三維模型的高程信息，并轉(zhuǎn)換成三維模型（B）。在數(shù)字三維模型上使用仿真模擬程序進(jìn)行可視度、坡度、匯水等分析，分析結(jié)果實(shí)時反饋給學(xué)生，學(xué)生根據(jù)分析結(jié)果進(jìn)一步修正自己的設(shè)計（C）。在計算機(jī)輸出端，已消費(fèi)產(chǎn)品化了的虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)（Virtual Reality,VR）和增強(qiáng)現(xiàn)實(shí)（Augmented Reality，AR）眼鏡等產(chǎn)品，使得參與設(shè)計者能以更身臨其境的方式體驗(yàn)設(shè)計方案。如東南大學(xué)五年級公眾參與城市設(shè)計課程項(xiàng)目，在VR 環(huán)境中開發(fā)了一套漫游行為監(jiān)測系統(tǒng)，對被試者在設(shè)計方案的虛擬環(huán)境中的行進(jìn)路線、視線停留、主觀評價等數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行實(shí)時統(tǒng)計分析，檢測設(shè)計意圖是否被有效落實(shí)（圖 3）。

圖2 Digital Terrain modelling 課程設(shè)計流程

圖3 VR 環(huán)境中采集的漫游及視線數(shù)據(jù)

互動建筑

互動建筑指直接將互動技術(shù)應(yīng)用于建成環(huán)境中?；釉O(shè)計中有個由人、傳感器、控制器、執(zhí)行器構(gòu)成的經(jīng)典閉環(huán)。對應(yīng)到建筑領(lǐng)域，除了人的活動以外，還包括建筑內(nèi)、外的物理環(huán)境，涉及的傳感器包括溫度、濕度、照度傳感器，門、窗及各種建筑設(shè)備狀態(tài)傳感器，定位系統(tǒng)等。執(zhí)行器包括能調(diào)節(jié)物理環(huán)境的建筑設(shè)備，例如暖通空調(diào)系統(tǒng)、燈光系統(tǒng)、遮陽通風(fēng)系統(tǒng)、媒體系統(tǒng)等?？刂破骺梢允羌惺降幕蚴欠植际降?。集中式控制可以綜合分析環(huán)境狀況，控制多個執(zhí)行器切換不同場景模式。分布式控制可利用小型的閉環(huán)做出快速靈活的局部響應(yīng)。根據(jù)使用技術(shù)和設(shè)計側(cè)重點(diǎn)的不同，在此可進(jìn)一步分為以下幾類：互動裝置、互聯(lián)建筑、智能建筑。

互動裝置

互動裝置（Interactive Installation）指通過賦予建筑構(gòu)件、元素以互動的功能來提供新的服務(wù)，營造新的空間體驗(yàn)，或提高建筑性能。在建筑表皮、空間、結(jié)構(gòu)、媒體中都有應(yīng)用的案例[1]。例如，東南大學(xué)互動課程設(shè)計作品“弦下”（圖4）通過感知人員分布來實(shí)時調(diào)節(jié)高大空間中的吊頂高度?！盎幼巍表?xiàng)目，通過在座椅中植入無線通信芯片，使之相互之間可以通過內(nèi)部光影及振動來反應(yīng)傳遞使用信息，活躍氣氛，打破公共空間中冷漠的人際關(guān)系（圖 5）。

圖4 東南大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院本科四年級互動設(shè)計課程學(xué)生作業(yè)“弦下”

圖5 東南大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院本科四年級互動設(shè)計課程學(xué)生作業(yè)“互動座椅”

互聯(lián)建筑

互聯(lián)建筑（Connected Building）是指將建筑內(nèi)的電子電器設(shè)備及傳感器相互連接實(shí)現(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)的互通?；赪iFi、BLE、Zigbee 的無線傳感網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)的出現(xiàn)，使得智能設(shè)備可以不依賴有線網(wǎng)絡(luò)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，隨時被加入和移除網(wǎng)絡(luò)，并且可以通過網(wǎng)關(guān)接入互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，實(shí)現(xiàn)遠(yuǎn)程監(jiān)控。傳感器體積和成本的降低，可以更高顆粒度和精度來對室內(nèi)空間環(huán)境進(jìn)行認(rèn)知，如對于圖書館空間環(huán)境行為的研究，通過高密度的傳感器分布，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)單一大空間中環(huán)境行為不均勻分布，從而進(jìn)行更精細(xì)化的調(diào)控（圖 6）。

圖6 由無線傳感網(wǎng)絡(luò)采集的室內(nèi)空間溫度分布數(shù)據(jù)可視化

智能建筑

智能建筑（Smart Building）領(lǐng)域的互動技術(shù)應(yīng)用旨在進(jìn)一步提高建筑的智能化程度。隨著嵌入式處理器及云計算技術(shù)在算力上的提升。計算單元可以處理更為復(fù)雜的任務(wù)，尤其是機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)相關(guān)算法的運(yùn)算，從而實(shí)現(xiàn)模式識別和模式挖掘，讓控制器從簡單的模式切換，轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榭梢愿鶕?jù)行為模式特征及需求變化進(jìn)行實(shí)時策略調(diào)整的智能化調(diào)控。如室內(nèi)行為研究中通過序列模式挖掘算法，對行為中的頻繁序列模式進(jìn)行提取（圖 7）。通過深度自編碼神經(jīng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)對于行為軌跡進(jìn)行相似度分析等（圖 8）。

圖7 室內(nèi)數(shù)據(jù)序列模式挖掘可視化界面

圖8 室內(nèi)軌跡相似度分析

展望

計算機(jī)和建筑相互融合的技術(shù)難度正在逐步降低。從建筑設(shè)計的角度出發(fā)，這些數(shù)字電器設(shè)備不應(yīng)該再被視作建筑的附屬物，而應(yīng)當(dāng)做是一種新的數(shù)字建材（Digitalized Materials）。Mikael Wiberg 將其稱為互動材質(zhì)（Interactive Texture），即以物質(zhì)化地形式呈現(xiàn)，并具有傳遞信息與互動能力的材料[2]。在信息化和智能時代，建筑不僅提供空間場所，也不僅是柯布西耶所謂的機(jī)械美學(xué)機(jī)器，而應(yīng)是一個與人互動的居住服務(wù)提供者。路易斯·沙里文曾說“形式追隨功能”，那么在新的功能定位下，也應(yīng)產(chǎn)生相匹配的新的建筑形式，而不是形式與技術(shù)之間的割裂。在“詩意地棲居”環(huán)境背后，是高速交互的數(shù)據(jù)、信息和運(yùn)算，也就是Mark Weiser所指的平靜技術(shù)（Calm Technology）[3]。

8 邁向系統(tǒng)化和情感化的人屋交互設(shè)計 I 劉潔

“人屋交互（Human-Architecture Interaction）”這個概念在建筑學(xué)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)屬于一個新興名詞，它指的是人和建筑之間的信息交換過程。這里的“屋”特指的是帶有計算機(jī)和機(jī)器特點(diǎn)的可以感知、處理、反饋信息的建筑。人屋交互設(shè)計可以看作是“人機(jī)交互（Human-Computer Interaction）”與建筑設(shè)計的融合，其主要是設(shè)計人與建筑之間交互的信息內(nèi)容和信息形式，包括人和建筑之間應(yīng)該交流什么信息，以哪種形式來進(jìn)行交流，怎么樣交流才能讓信息可達(dá)的效率更高，以及如何促進(jìn)信息交流的行為產(chǎn)生和延續(xù)[1]（圖 1）。

圖1 人屋交互中的信息流通過程（注：作者繪制）

人屋交互設(shè)計的概念變遷

雖然人和建筑之間交互的概念可以追溯到20 世紀(jì)60 年代英國建筑師塞德里克·普萊斯（Cedric Price）的“歡樂宮（Fun Palace）”設(shè)計[2]，但是“人屋交互設(shè)計”這個概念的明確和建構(gòu)卻是近十余年的事情。不同于交互建筑對于空間的強(qiáng)調(diào)，人屋交互設(shè)計更強(qiáng)調(diào)對信息的思考。人屋交互設(shè)計一開始被明確提出是從提升建筑性能角度出發(fā)的，南加州大學(xué)的法羅赫·賈齊扎德（Farrokh Jazizadeh）等人提出通過增加“人屋交互設(shè)計（Human-Building Interaction Design）”的方式來幫助房間使用者平衡房間關(guān)環(huán)境舒適度和照明能耗的關(guān)系[3]。后來，“人屋交互設(shè)計”的概念變得更為具體。瑞士弗雷堡大學(xué)的哈米德·阿拉維（Hamed S.Alavi）提出“人屋交互設(shè)計”主要研究和設(shè)計的是空間中的人以一種交互的模式塑造建筑的實(shí)體構(gòu)成、空間組織及內(nèi)部社會活動的可能性[4]。阿拉維借鑒了比爾·希利爾（Bill Hillier）在《空間是機(jī)器》一書中提到的建筑概念，將交互的客體從建筑物實(shí)體本身轉(zhuǎn)向?yàn)橛山ㄖ獗砥ぐ恼麄€建筑及內(nèi)部的活動[5]。這其實(shí)是把人屋交互設(shè)計的研究范疇從建筑設(shè)備自動化的角度拓展到了建筑設(shè)計的視角。但是這個時候的“屋”還是“building”的概念。后來，隨著虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)、增強(qiáng)現(xiàn)實(shí)、混合現(xiàn)實(shí)技術(shù)的增強(qiáng)，研究領(lǐng)域?qū)τ谌宋萁换サ难芯坑诌M(jìn)一步擴(kuò)展到了虛擬的建筑空間。但這個時候也出現(xiàn)了概念定義模糊，建筑與建筑的附屬物（裝飾、設(shè)備等）、建筑的孿生體（建筑模型等）都成為了“屋”的一部分。與此同時，“屋”究竟是“building”還是“architecture”也成為了討論的另一個問題。考慮到在建筑學(xué)的理論范疇中，人屋交互并非只是尋求一種如機(jī)器般功能型的一種交互，而更希望能夠構(gòu)建一種美感的、詩意的交互形式，因此，“人屋交互設(shè)計”便進(jìn)一步定義為了“Human-Architecture Interaction Design”。

人屋交互設(shè)計的發(fā)展趨勢

人屋交互設(shè)計目前僅僅是處在一個萌芽階段，諸多學(xué)者的普遍共識是人屋交互設(shè)計的發(fā)展是為了提高建筑的適應(yīng)性水平，讓建筑可以能夠自主地與空間者交流，并根據(jù)空間者的需求來改變空間的狀態(tài)。目前該領(lǐng)域的設(shè)計研究還是以技術(shù)應(yīng)用為主要方向，以實(shí)現(xiàn)建筑從靜態(tài)信息輸出者到動態(tài)的、個性化的信息輸出者的轉(zhuǎn)變。然而建筑作為科技和藝術(shù)的結(jié)合，人們對它的需求并非單純的是一種功能需求，而是一種個性化的、聯(lián)結(jié)感的、美觀得體的空間氛圍狀態(tài)或者說場所精神的需求[6]。因此，在這個背景下，我們需要站在更高的維度來思考建筑設(shè)計，思考交互設(shè)計，并從信息的維度重新思考建筑的本質(zhì)和相關(guān)概念，進(jìn)而將建筑設(shè)計從空間設(shè)計演變成一種“氛圍場”的設(shè)計。要達(dá)到這個狀態(tài)，人屋交互設(shè)計需要向系統(tǒng)化和情感化兩個維度進(jìn)一步發(fā)展。

人屋交互設(shè)計的系統(tǒng)化發(fā)展是為了提高建筑的智商，它包括空間的系統(tǒng)化和信息的系統(tǒng)化。空間的系統(tǒng)化要求我們重新審視建筑各個構(gòu)件的存在意義和可能形式。如果窗的存在是為了通風(fēng)采光，那么不需要通風(fēng)采光的時候窗是否還有存在的意義？如果門的存在是為了通行，那么無人通行的時候，門與墻之間的區(qū)別是什么？正如海德格爾關(guān)于“存在”的理論，認(rèn)為只有有人使用的空間才具有“存在”的意義，那么建筑的空間以及各種構(gòu)件只需要在人需要的時候再出現(xiàn)。這時，空間的各個組成部分將會變得一體化和系統(tǒng)化，并處于一種動態(tài)變化的過程中。墻壁在人需要采光通風(fēng)、視線通達(dá)的時候裂開孔洞變成窗戶，地面在人需要辦公或休息的時候升起變成家具。信息的系統(tǒng)化要求人屋交互設(shè)計跳出單點(diǎn)化、片段化的空間設(shè)計模式，將建筑看做整個社會信息系統(tǒng)的一個終端來思考人和建筑之間可以交換信息內(nèi)容及形式。建筑與社會中的各種信息終端之間可以信息共享，并實(shí)現(xiàn)交互邏輯的自我更新、升級和進(jìn)化，進(jìn)而構(gòu)建一種城市、建筑、家具、產(chǎn)品一體化的信息系統(tǒng)服務(wù)形態(tài)。

人屋交互設(shè)計的情感化發(fā)展是為了提高建筑的情商，它包括場所的情感聯(lián)結(jié)和空間的情緒調(diào)節(jié)。場所的情感聯(lián)結(jié)是諾伯格·舒爾茨的“場所精神”中經(jīng)常提到的概念[7]。人對于空間的認(rèn)知建立在相似環(huán)境記憶之上，比如空間中的某個形態(tài)讓人聯(lián)想到了山峰，某種味道讓人聯(lián)想到了兒時的環(huán)境。這種信息的匹配讓空間與人之間形成了情感聯(lián)結(jié)。正如認(rèn)知心理學(xué)家唐納德·諾曼（Donald Norman）所強(qiáng)調(diào)的設(shè)計“……實(shí)際上是在設(shè)計使用者的情緒感受……”[8]，未來的人屋交互交互設(shè)計可以根據(jù)每個人的體驗(yàn)經(jīng)歷來個性化地調(diào)整空間中的相關(guān)信息，從而可以打通空間和人之間的情感聯(lián)結(jié)通道，提升人的情緒體驗(yàn)感受。空間的情緒調(diào)節(jié)則是需要思考該如何充分利用空間中的各種信息來為人們提供更有利于人的心理健康的空間環(huán)境狀態(tài)。人的情緒是波動的、變化的。尤其是隨著社會壓力的增加，越來越多人受到負(fù)面情緒的困擾[9]。未來的人屋交互設(shè)計需要將情緒調(diào)節(jié)作為設(shè)計重點(diǎn)，實(shí)時感知使用者的情緒，并循序漸進(jìn)地改變空間的形狀、色彩、氣味、肌理等信息，進(jìn)而提供給人因人而異的、隨著情緒緩慢變化的空間氛圍，以促進(jìn)積極情緒的產(chǎn)生，減緩消極情緒的合成。

這時候，我們也需要借助認(rèn)知科學(xué)的知識，通過用戶實(shí)驗(yàn)等科學(xué)手段，更科學(xué)地來探討人屋交互設(shè)計的設(shè)計方法的有效性、空間的豐富度和合理性，以創(chuàng)造一種更為宜居的人因環(huán)境。