/

【转】坂本一成 《住宅的建筑性》

转自: https://site.douban.com/271387/widget/notes/191289352/note/542214254/

翻译:Edie 原文:坂本一成 《住宅——日常的诗学》第一章 封闭的箱体


《代田の町家》 1976年

在1976年的今天甚至更早,我常常气愤自己不能简要直接地说出住宅建筑的基本问题,例如“住宅是什么”,“理想的住宅是什么样的”以及住宅应该是什么样的。我只有通过我设计的住宅或我的设计方法才能表述一个住宅应该的样子。如果我们现在来探讨住宅,那就只能讨论与我住宅设计相关的设计理念和建成方式,并分析其内在内容的含义。

自云野流山之家以来,我设计了一些住宅,其中一个正在施工。又一次,我对实现代田的町家过程中的表达感到困惑,但想不生气却很难。但是,住宅提前竣工了,我想我有必要去处理如何将“建筑“完全真实呈现的问题。屋脊升起了,框架完成了,墙壁、地板和屋顶、外墙的毛坯都已建好。此时此刻,我对该住宅的施工职责已经完成了。我想,如果可能的话,我会阻止这个房子竣工,而让它继续施工下去。随着建筑框架和毛坯状态的完成,在某种意义上,平面也算完成了,我的建筑服务业同时完成了,我只能做到这里了。因此,我非常犹豫接下来粉刷完成室内,室外以及建筑造型。诚然,设计项目的施工已经完成,但最终的状态对我来说却不那么重要了。

换一个稍微不同的角度来看,这个住宅是由一个中心的“主室”向外到其他“室”并由“间室”联系起来。我觉得,由其他设计师来设计各个房间的室内也是可以的,我也就没要必要深化到每个细节,甚至他可以依据需要选择材料完成最后的表皮。另外,居住者可根据自己的生活添置家具。这些家具和生活表达出的理念,并不是我对住宅的主要态度,将会开始设计这个空间。当然,“空间”会基于墙面、天花和楼板的装饰面以及增添的家具呈现。这个空间将成为一个符号化空间(symbolic space)。

我一直觉得建筑师的中心任务是营造“空间”。但是,在这个住宅里,我并没有太多兴趣去有意识地考虑这样的空间。如果这篇论文的出发点是思考物质空间的类型或空间意义会更好。甚至,我觉得如果这变成一种方法,可以使得我其他住宅的组织结构更易理解,并阐明我对它们的陈述,那真的很好。

Today, in 1976-actually, even before that-I feel irritation at my inability to express directly or simply the base of residential architecture: that is “what is a dwelling” or “what is an ideal dwelling”‘, as well as what should dwelling be. It must be thought that I cannot convey what a dwelling should be unless through the dwellings I have designed and the method of their design. Therefore, if I am now to talk about dwellings, it can be thought there is no other method than to talk with respect to the inescapable intention, and the method of making it concrete, related to my dwelling designs, as well to analyze the content of what these mean.

I have designed several houses since my Kumono-Nagareyama House, and now, finally, one of them is being built. Here again, I am confused by the expression that accompanies the realization of the house (Machiya in Daita), and feel unease at being unable to escape my irritation. Within this, however, with the completion of this house ahead, I feel I have to dispose of how “architecture” can achieve a definite reality. The ridge has been raised, the framework completed, the base for the finishes of the wall, floor, and ceiling, as well as roof and exterior walls, has been laid. At this point, I feel my responsibilities to the construction of the dwelling are finished. I thought, if possible, I would stop the completion of the dwelling at this point, and would have this construction continue to be as it is on the ground. In short, with the state of the framework and base for the finishes completed, this plan was in a sense finished, and my architectural activity was completed at this point, and I thought that this is how far it should go. With that, I greatly hesitated in applying the finishes and completing the interior, as well as finishing the exterior and therefore completing the building’s form. Of course, construction of the building as designed was completed, but I felt that its final condition was not a matter of such importance to me.

To look at if from a slightly different angle: this dwelling is organized outward from a central room, which I call the “main room” to the several “rooms” and the “connecting rooms” that link them. I felt that it would be okay if other people were asked to design each of the interior surfaces of these rooms, that there was no need for me to design down to that level of detail. Rather, materials would be left to acquire their own finishes, and these would become the finished surface. In addition, furniture would be added as appropriate for the inhabitants’ lifestyle. And with furniture and inhabitation, a particular intention towards these things that was not central to my attitude towards this house would begin to design the space. Certainly, then “space” would appear based on the finishing of the wall, ceiling, and floor, or on the addition of furniture. That space, might then become a symbolic space.

I have thought for a long time that the central activity of the architect is to bring forth “space”. However, in this dwelling, I didn’t have that much interest in consciously determining such a space. I thought it would be good if the starting point of this essay was looking at what type of matter space was, or what it meant. Further, I thought it would be good if it became a method to make accessible the organization of my other houses, and to clarify my words in relation to them.

关于空间

自我开始学习建筑相当长一段时间里,住宅或建筑中最重要的主题就是“空间”。然而,我现在发觉建筑中“空间”的涵义在我的意识中已经大部分消失了。我有段时间有意去设计空间,但我发现我不过是在拒绝或去除“空间”。这趋势在我的工作,设计方法,住宅本身,甚至这些项目的设计说明中都有所体现。我突然意识到我对空间的理解是建立在各种不同的误解上。所以我必须解释我是如何理解“空间”,以及我现在对它的认识。

首先,我将空间定义成一个由几个要素集合组成的有意义的内容,物理上建立了一个特定的空间(如室内部分是由不同的地板,墙壁,天花等要素构成)。然后我意识到这样可以成为一种“范例”。因此这是一个非常抽象的内容,并没有脱离文字的领域,因为意义是文字。从这种方式看,我们可以认为应该被重视,不管它是否与“空间”有关。我开始意识到想只追求空间的模式而避免增加其新涵义是不大可能的。这样思考之后,我真正追求的是作为符号化的“空间”(symbolic space)感知。

当然,我会在一些地方使用“空间”这词,比如“枯空间”,“平淡空间”,“无情空间”,“静谧空间”,“无机空间”,“即物空间”,“无性空间”,“符号的空间”。但所有这些修改的空间真是“空间”吗?用天花,墙壁和地板简单围合成一个物理体量,并称之为“空间”,这我已做到了。但是,在抽象的文字范畴,那指的是符号形式的空间(symbolic space),我似乎并没有创造空间。拿去那些我附加在空间上的形容词,如“枯”,“不重要的”和“空的”等,是否暗示一种拒绝和抹去有涵义的空间的“空间性”的尝试呢?换一种方式来解释,我的建筑工作的意识都是去营造“空间”,我也挣扎着去否定和删除空间承载的相反涵义。

社会和历史角度提出的概念和语言给我们抽象的“空间性”一个涵义,也定义了建筑。然而这却是一个巨大的压力。我们周围各样的条件、文化、语言的意义,不也与建筑紧密相关吗?这难道不是建筑的悲哀吗?如果不是这样,它的内容又会是怎样的?可能建筑领域的内容的推理无法现在说出来。或者,这个内容无法用语言简易地说出或交流。但是,我用负面的词形容他,是为了去除纠缠建筑论述的涵义,并不是一个对立面。通过额外增加涵义带来的建筑内容不能被称为“空间”吗?依据这些,我明白我在挣扎着去除空间的涵义,试图去营造空间。当然,这类涵义被删除的空间可能制造了另一种涵义。我之后会谈谈这点。对我来说,“空间”不是建筑中一个不可缺少的重要部分,基于此,探讨我不断试图去除它也是件有益的事情。

With respect to space

As I stated, in the long time since I began to study architecture, I felt that the most important theme of residences or architecture was the content called “space”. However, I now feel that the meaning of “space” within architecture is largely disappearing from my consciousness. While I have for a long time been trying consciously to make “space”. I find upon inspection that I have nevertheless worked to deny or erase that “space”. The tendency appears in my activity and methods of design, the dwelling themselves, and even in the words recorded with those projects. And I have come to feel that my own understanding of space is based on a variety of misunderstandings. With that, I must explain how I came to interpret “space”, as well as how I think about it now.

First, simply, I position space as the meaning content revealed from the gathering of several elements that physically establish a particular space (for the interior of a room it would be the individual construction elements of the floor, wall, ceiling). Having done that, I realized that it might be called a “paradigm”. Therefore, it is an extremely abstract content, not separated from the realm of words. Because meanings are words. Looked at in this way, it can be thought that one must deal with symbolic content regardless of whether one is concerned with “space” or not. That is, I became aware that if one pursues the paradigm of space, it seems impossible to avoid the addition of new meaning. If one thinks in this way, what I was really pursuing was the sense of “space” as symbolic space.

Certainly, I have used the word “space” in several places. For example “dry space”, “plain space”, “cruel space”, “mute space”, “inorganic space”, “as-is space”, “characterless space”, “semiotic space”. However, are all of these modified spaces really “space”? Certainly, if one calls a physical volume simply enclosed by a ceiling, walls and a floor “space” then I have certainly created that. However, in the abstract realm of words, that is to speak of space in a symbolic form, it doesn’t seem as if I have created it. Haven’t the adjectives like “dry”, “insignificant”, and “empty” that I have attached to space, indicated an attempt to deny or erase the “spatiality” as a space of meaning? To say it differently, the consciousness of my architectural activity up to now has been to build “space”, and my struggle was caught up in the denial or erasure of the opposite meaning that space equally holds.

The concepts and words brought forth within society and history give us the abstract “spatiality” as a meaning, and give position to architecture. However, I felt that this was an unbearable pressure. Aren’t the various conditions that surround us, the culture, and the meaning held by words too tied up with architecture as well? Isn’t that a tragic problem for architecture? What then is content that is not like that? Perhaps it is content that the field of architecture holds a priori, but that can’t be spoken of now. Rather, it is not a content that can simply be spoken of in words, or exchanged for words. However, my use of negative adjective is the erasure of meaning as a region of words that have come to be entangled with the discourse of architecture, and perhaps not a negation. Cannot the content that carries over into architecture by the addition of meaning moreover be called “space”? Given these terms, I can discern in my own attempt to make space the struggle to erase the meaning of space. Of course, the type of space that erases meaning probably produces an alternative type of meaning. I will pass on that until later. To me, “space” became a not necessarily important aspect of architecture. This being the case, I thought it would be good to discuss that I tried over and over to erase it.


《水無瀬の町家》 1970年

关于形式

就像我讲空间一样,我也得解释下我对形式的理解及处理手法。就我设计的住宅,我认为外表面是最没有必要令人心烦的。直至如今,我都没有机会,或者说没有理由去讨论建筑的外表面。这也被外人理解为我意识里缺少对外表面的考虑。现实中有一些关于我的住宅根本没有外观或者我根本不关心外观的评论。事实当然不是这样,我一直在建筑的外观上有意识地倾注全力,并且我也认为我做得很不错。这类评论也说明了我的理念自然地体现出来。是不是可以说,外壳将我的建筑上附加的涵义进行了最完全的否定和删除呢?关于这些没有太多附加涵义内容的事,我将就以下两点更深层次的探讨我的设计。

现在,我不会设计出对称的里面,对称所体现出的张力和绝对性是不可忍受的吸引力。事实上,这种对称经常出现在我的速写本上。至今我已经不能忍受对称所具有的涵义,神秘的张力,以及后续性和不恰当性。换句话说,对称具有的涵义就是我现在就像抹去的。如果将来他对我来说不再具有这种涵义,或超越这种涵义,我还是有可能会使用对称的。简单的几何形体也和对称一样,是令人心动的。但是,我也不能直接使用。

不管我如何尝试和思考,形式总是直接表现出形式本身,如果形式被置于最首要的位置,自然就成为了一种困扰。几何形式真的会否定人为赋予给它的涵义吗?如果是这样,哪怕只是可能,那对我而言将是一种非常有效的方式。现在,就像对称形式一样,几何图形也具有其形式带来的强烈的涵义,我也不会使用它们。

通过谈论建筑的外观,我也谈了建筑的形式。当然,不是说建筑的外观等同于形式,但形式决定了外观。通过表现形式视觉化是不合适的,即形式主义中在建筑可视的外表面赋予张力的涵义也是不合适的。

With respect to form

As with “space”, I must explain how I think about and have dealt with form. Regarding my residences, the exterior appearance has been where I felt it most unnecessary to be irritated. Until now, I have had almost no opportunity to speak about the exterior appearance of the residences. Or, rather, it could be said that there was no reason to. Perhaps that was interpreted as my lack of my consciousness with respect to the exterior appearance. In reality, I have heard criticism that in my residences there is no exterior, or that I am ignoring it. Of course not. The exterior appearance is that to which I am consciously applying my power, and which I think is going the best. However, that kind of criticism might mean that my intentions are being interpreted naively. In short, can it not be said that exterior shell is what has best erased or denied the attached meaning with respect to my architecture? With respect to the matter of not having much concern for meaning, I would like to explain my work a bit further by looking at the two points below.

At the present time, I cannot build a symmetrical elevation. The power and absoluteness that symmetry holds is unbearably appealing. Actually, within my sketchbook such symmetry often appears. Until now I have been unable to bear the meaning, the mysterious power, and subsequently, the indecency that symmetry holds. In other words, the meaning that symmetry holds is content that now, at the present time, I want to erase. If in the future it comes to no longer hold that meaning for me, or if it comes to transcend that meaning, then perhaps I will be able to use symmetry. Like symmetry, simple geometrical form has its appeal. However, I can’t naively take it up, either. However I try, or however I think. the form directly expresses itself as that form itself. If that form comes out to the forefront, then naturally it is troubling. Does geometric form really deny the addition of meaning by humans? If so, or if it were possible, then it would be a very effective method for me. At the present, like symmetry, because of the strong absolute meaning held by the shape itself of primary geometric forms, I am unable to use them.

Here, by speaking about the exterior appearance of the building, I have spoken about the form of architecture. Of course, it is not necessarily the case that exterior appearance equals form. However, form directly manifests an exterior appearance. It is unbearable that through the manifestation form becomes visible. In other words, there is something unbearable in the formalism that attaches the meaning of strength to what is visible as the exterior of a building.

关于剖面

我常常使用平面剖这些正交投影图,作为一种思考住宅设计的方法。我从不用那些粘土模型来思考,尽管我也做模型。我对轴测图,透视图也很感兴趣,但我也不画他们。因此,我的建筑可以视为平立剖的集合。而这三者中,剖面是最基本的。更准确的说,我是在画剖面同时思考平面和立面,而不是画平面时思考剖面和立面。画草图时,我通过剖面思考空间体量。如果这种体量不能被称为“空间”,那我的方法也就不叫做“空间”了。因此,我想剖面可能并不是服务于空间的,剖面仅仅是剖面而已。剖面的形式和尺度才是最明确的内容。那形式又是如何确定的呢?

现在我画一个长10.8米宽5.7米的长方形带山墙住宅,如同我上文所述,我主要的构思方法是剖面。我在草图上画了一个平行于山墙的纵剖面,有一个坡屋顶的形式。从几幅草图中,我决定坡屋面倾斜角度从7.5到10。刚开始,我要构思的是坡度,然后我绘制了从3:10到5:10甚至更陡的坡度。比7.5到10越来越高时,我创造了一个高耸而富有张力的空见。我觉得这太“哥特”了。用同样的方法,我降低7.5到10的倾斜角度,剖面中的空间温和而亲切,有一些围合感,这很“罗马式”。5:10坡度也展示了一个几何形式所具有的吸引力。5:10的屋顶,“哥特式”屋顶,“罗马式”屋顶,都是吸引人的,然而我不会从中选择任何一个屋顶。“罗马式”屋顶给人的美是令人不安的,“哥特式”屋顶创造了一个高耸的空间,5:10屋顶营造了一个更富有张力的空间。这些都不能出现,我也不知道,是否有一个剖面不会产生一种有涵义的空间。我不希望,一个需要解释的,被历史意义色彩画的,显示出一个代表性空间的空间存在。如果剖面只是一个建筑语汇而没有任何涵义,那就最好不过了。

With respect to section

As a method of thinking about residential design, I use the typical orthographic projections of the plan, section and elevation. I definitely do not think with models made from things like clay (although I do make models). And of course I don’t sketch using isometric sketches like axometrics or perspectives or oblique axometrics (although I am interested in them). Therefore, it is probably correct to think that the accumulation of my architecture is plans, sections, and elevations. Among these three, the section is the most fundamental. Rather than thinking of the section and elevation while I do the plan, it is almost certainly correct to say that I think of the plan and elevation while I work on the section. While sketching I consider the volume of space held by the section, and if I don’t call that volume itself “space”, then I tend not to think of my method as “space”. Therefore it might be said that I don’t think the section necessarily serves space. The section is nothing more than the section. The form and scale of the section are its most definite content. Therefore, how is the form decided?

Now I am working on a sketch of a rectangular gabled house 10.8 meters along the eaves by 5.7 meters along the gables. As explained above, my central sketch method is the section. Thus, in my sketch book I draw the gabled section and it takes the form of a gabled roof frame. From those several sketches I decided on one section, and the pitch of the sloped part was 7.5 to 10. However initially, the sketch I began intuitively was about the ratio. Then I sketched slopes ranging from 3:10 to 5:10 and steeper. Going more and more above 7.5 to 10, I produced an austere, strong space. At that time I felt it was “Gothic”. In the same manner, by lessening the 7.5 to 10 slope, the space expressed by the section became gentle and warm, and could be thought to be somehow enclosing. I realized it was “Romanesque”. Further, the 5:10 slope definitely express an appealing power held by geometric forms. The 5:10 slope, the “Gothic” slope, and the “Romanesque” slope were all appealing. However, I wasn’t able to choose pitch from among them. That is, the production of the good feeling “Romanesque” was troubling. So was the “Gothic” that manifested an austere space. And so the even stronger space produced by the 5:10 slope. All these had to disappear. I don’t know if there is a section that doesn’t produce a space of meaning. However, I didn’t want to allow the appearance of a space that enables explanation or one that is colored by historical meaning, the manifestation of a representative space. I thought it would be best if the section was just an architectural vocabulary where the meaning disappeared.


代田の町家 平面图/剖面图

关于平面

很长时间以来,我一直认为住宅平面在建筑中的表达是一种处理空间的方法。和剖面一样,平面也和“空间”有着紧密的联系。然而我回顾过去,我开始怀疑我的平面是否真如此相关。平面是设计师的理念和条件转化成的设计语汇,这种转化也是最恰当,最清晰地表现了设计的态度。我说我们将其转化成设计语汇,但这中转化并不是件必须要做的事情。举个例子,他也可以转化成为有功能和生活的构筑物,或是建筑技术,或是建立有意设计的空间理念的方法,或者是他们的合集。就像我刚开始说的那样,我认为平面是一种能让我达到目标的空间方法。然而,我突然发觉,并未被注意到,平面和它的转化对我不再适用了。首先,我们来探讨下我设计的住宅平面中的房间名称。

在第一个项目中,中心房间被称为“大房间”,后面几个住宅中被称为“起居室”,在我最近的所有项目中,都被称为“主室”。最初的“大房间”,作为一个单一空间,是根据这个词的历史涵义有意这样命名的。这是符合我对空间的理念,就像该文章前面提到的空间的章节中。我只是那一个住宅中使用了“大房间”,然后我将那个中心房间改成了起居室。我原以为这种类型的房间都是按习惯而非生活方式命名的。按习惯取一个极为普通的名字,这种手法抹去了“大房间”这个名字赋予的涵义。这不也是我下意识中一直在尝试删除“空间性”问题的方法吗?后来,我明白了,起居室也不仅仅是一个空洞的名字。就以生活方式决定内容而言,这个普通的名字也已进入我的潜意识,我也开始领悟到,它用一种我之前认为不恰当的涵义影响了我。最后,我发觉,一个名字的抽象性应该直面它的空间。随着我自己对空间的意识越来越弱,我无趣地思考住宅的室内是所有无意义的房间的集合,它们成为了日常,中性的体量构成。我平面图上的“主室”、“室”、“中等室”都是这个结论的体现。因此在这种程度上,也可以说明我平面图本身即是一种实现空间的方法,我之前提过剖面只是剖面。同样,平面根本上也是平面。平面是水平的剖面,我也不乐意赋予平面更多涵义了。

With respect to plan

I had thought for a long time that the floor plan of the residence expressed in the architectural plan functioned as a method toward space. The plan, like the section, has a direct relation to “space”. However, if I now look back and think, I feel several doubts about whether my plans were actually so related. That is, the plan proposes that the intention and conditions of the designer which must be translated into an architectural vocabulary. The action best and most clearly expresses the attitude of the designer. I stated that we translate into architectural vocabulary, but that is not necessarily the usual circumstance. For example, it can be translated as a construction of the function and style of life, or as a housing technology that supports it, or as a method to establish its intentional spatial conception, or as a conglomeration of these. As I myself said in the beginning, it can be thought that I came to see the plan as the spatial method to achieve my goal. However, I have come to feel that, unnoticed, the plan and its translation has ceased to be that for me. First, let’s consider the room names on the residence plans I have designed.

In my first residence I called the central room the “great room”. After that, in several residences I called it the “living room”, and in all my recent residences I have called it the “main room”. The initial great room was probably intended, as the historical meaning of the word suggests, as a single space. That matches my intentions towards “space” as indicated in the previous section on space in this essay. And I only used great room in that single residence, and after that I changed the room that was central to living room. I thought that type of room was usually called that, that is, convention and not lifestyle determined the naming. That is, by conveniently picking the most commonly used name, in a strategy to erase the spatial method as the meaning bestowed by the name great room, can it not be thought that I was trying unconsciously to erase the problem of “spatiality”? Later, I realized, in the end, that “living room” wasn’t just an empty name. To the extent that a lifestyle determines content, the usual name that had entered my unconsciousness, I came to realize, had influenced me with the very meaning that I had previously thought irrelevant. In the end, I feel that the abstraction of a name must confront its space. After that, with my own consciousness of space growing thinner, I came dryly to think of the interior of the residence as a collection of “rooms” that were entirely empty of meaning; they became ordinary, neutral composition – volumes. The names “main room”, “room”, and “intermediate room” written on my plans are the reflection of this conclusion. It is therefore correct to a certain degree to suggest that my plan was itself a method towards space. I mentioned earlier that the section was just a section. In accord with that, let me state here that the plan is ultimately just the plan. That is, the plan is just a horizontal section, I am reluctant to put any more meaning into the plan.

关于墙壁,地板和天花

我前面对空间和形式,以及剖面和平面的表述,并不直接与材料相关联。如果建筑不是一个物体,而是一个抽象的概念,那么组成其各元素即材料的问题可能就是最不合适的内容了。过去,我曾经写到,设计的平面中有“建筑”,然后,我又在这篇文章中陈述,我觉得我的“建筑”是在框架和基础中,那么,墙壁、地板、天花以及它们的材质又是建筑的什么呢?

当我设计一个简单的空间,例如一个由墙,地板,天花围合成的物理空间,它通过一系列建筑元素表达。然而我意识到,当一个环境被建筑材质分离出来,将会出现一个新的内容,并且当这内容自我表达时,材质实际上就消失了。因此,我开始认为建筑元素(当然也包括材质)是一种辅助空间的方式。然后,我尽力避免了建筑元素的直接表达,并且去抹除他们,这也是我过去想以最寻常的方式使用最普通的材质的大概原因。我有意识地用一种暧昧的方式删除了墙壁、天花和地板的涵义。

后来,我对建筑材质的意识发生了一些变化;运用它们成为了我新认知的试验场。即,墙壁就是墙壁,地板就是地板,天花就是天花,过去这是我称之为“空间即物性”的要素,是一种删除那种即使用很普通的材质也能吸引注意的那种“表达”的方式,我不得不这么考虑。

我曾经思考过一个问题,一面墙,不管是内墙还是外墙,都能产生一个“建筑”。如果仅因为墙本身是一种建筑语汇而认为“墙就是墙”,那么由墙本身产生一个“建筑”这种想法肯定是错误的。我自己在感情上也不能同意是墙(或壁板等任何东西)产生了“建筑”。即我不能忍受墙本身有这么绝对的涵义。如果这样,认为“建筑”是概念的想法是没错的。如果建筑的概念不具有空间性,那由建筑材料建成的建筑也不具有空间性。

对我来说,我这么阐述的有关建筑材料和要素是建筑中最令我沮丧的部分。我花费了大量的时间和精力去处理那么不可避免的“表达”和无法抹去的“涵义”,那些我不能抹去的表法和涵义,可能也不是那么轻易就能被完全抹去的吧。

With respect to the wall, floor and ceiling

What I have just expressed about space and form, as well as section and plan, doesn’t directly relate to materials. If architecture was not a thing, but an abstract conceptual field, then the problem of materials that are the elements that organize it would be perhaps of almost irrelevant content. In the past I have written that there is “architecture” in the design plans. Further, in this essay I stated that I felt my “architecture” was in the framework and base. Thus, with respect to architecture, what are the wall, floor, and ceiling, as well as their materials?

In the time when I intended a single space, the space was, for example, a physical space enclosed by walls, floor, and ceiling, and expressed by the sum of the construction elements. However, I realized that a content appeared, a condition separate from the construction materials, and when the content manifest itself, the materials actually disappeared. Because of that, I came to think of the construction elements (and of course their materials) as a method to support space. Therefore, I think I tried to avoid the direct expression of the construction elements, and thought to erase them. That is probably why in the past I have stated I wanted to use ordinary materials in the most ordinary way possible. Therefore, I came consciously yet in a vague way to attempt to erase the meaning of the wall, the meaning held by the ceiling, and the type of meaning expressed by the floor.

Afterward, there occurred a change in my consciousness towards the construction materials; their use became the testing ground of my new understanding. That is, the wall was a wall, the floor was a floor, and the ceiling was nothing more than a ceiling. In the past that has been one element of what I called the “literalness of space”, and as a method towards the erasure of the “expression” that comes to the forefront even in mundane construction materials; I had to think this way.

At one time I considered the problem of whether, for example, a wall (either interior or exterior) could produce “architecture”. Certainly, if one thinks “a wall is a wall”, because the wall itself becomes architectural vocabulary itself, then thinking that the wall itself produces “architecture” will not prove logically contradictory. However, I myself could not emotionally agree with the wall (or the floor, or whatever) producing “architecture”. In short, I could not bear to allow the wall to have that kind of absolute meaning. With this content, it is probably okay to read “architecture” here as concept. If it is a concept of architecture that cannot bear spatiality, then the architecture that is produced by the construction materials like the walls and floor similarly can’t bear it.

What I have stated here about the construction elements and their materials is to me a most frustrating aspect of architecture. I think I have spent much time and effort trying to deal with the “expression” that inevitably appears, as well as the “meaning” that I cannot erase. However, I unfortunately couldn’t erase the expression or the meaning, and perhaps they simply cannot be completely erased.


《水無瀬の町家》 1970年

住宅的消失

在这篇文章中,我一直在重申我想否定和抹去那些附加在空间、形式、住宅内容上的东西,这是想说明什么呢?或者说,对于建筑和住宅而言,这种行为意味着什么呢?为结束该文章,我必须细想这个观点。

直到现在,我都一直很喜欢摄影师中平卓马的一本书名《为了该有的语汇》,因为我认为概念(语汇)的获得是创造物体这个行为中很重要的内容,我认为在建筑中让意义内容清晰的行为已经不可获得了,这使得新概念的提出成为一种可能。我想那时,在我们的世界中,那概念会成为一个新词。不幸的是,那些我们意识中的概念和语汇之间有共同的联系,或许概念本身就是语汇。就像无法避免的建筑概念一样。根据这个,建筑是生成涵义的机制吗?建筑的主题常常被称为语言,主题是概念建筑化生成的,反之同样。称为技术的建筑方法是用语言来解释的,这些言语可以被认为是建筑自身的表达,“空间”和涵义的产物,建筑的中心内容。实际上,如果建筑希望在文化、社会中获得一个清晰的定位,很好奇它并没有在这个方面给予自己适当的评估。建筑传达的内容可能就是“涵义”。如果确实如此,我可能因为建筑具有的涵义,或其形式,或其表达涵义方法,而担心一个不可接受建筑的自己。

对我来说,住宅设计可能就是为了让我在世界中寻找存在的意义。它占据了我意识的一部分。在这个意义如魔术般散播的世界中并没有为我的思想和精神提供一个中庸的场所,太多的智慧和信息交织一起搭建了框架,我精神的中庸并没有安身之处。物质世界是这个状况的反映,甚至我们身处的建筑本身,也拒绝一个中庸的场所。这双重涵义向我们呈现了一个不可忍受的世界。我无法表达,我想去除和删去的“涵义”是否是生产一切的“涵义”,还是它只是构成那“涵义”的一部分,还是它是那“涵义”的表达方式,或是它是与“涵义”相关联的“结构”里不同变换。对现在的我而言,我只能思考我如何可以抹去这不恰当的“涵义”的暧昧内容。

可能建筑全部是由社会的涵义组成的,这样的话,我可能必须删除建筑本身。如果建筑中有一个先天变独立于文化,日常感之外的部分,那抹去或否认之前的涵义,我们便可以希望其他部分后来居上。假设该部分真实存在,让我们称之为“建筑性”。很自然地我一定希望它存在,而且如果我这么想,我也一定认为它在语汇世界中遥远的一方。因此,那个遥远部分只能从对“结构”探索的行为那面获得,并属于“建筑性”中的建筑语汇。如果这么思考,建筑的主题和语汇成为了探索方法,而不是目的,当然主题,语汇和概念一定会消失。

这里我所论述的是我对我有意无意思考内容的倾向。有很多部分缺少组织,但也可以认为是暧昧的组织。这种类型的组织会实现一种新的独立的可能性。然而在我的言语中似乎不允许一个(基于建筑语汇的)结构的探索,这是因为我只能从建造建筑一方面实现建筑性。因此,言语对我而言是延续了我自己未完成建筑的挣扎和请求。如今1976年,我想声明的是“住宅是为了建筑的最显而易见的方式,然而反过来,也可能最有可能会失去建筑。”(1976年)

The disappearance of the residence

In this essay, with respect to space and form and the content of the residence that attaches to them, I have come repeat that I want to erase them or deny them. What does that mean? Moreover, what is the meaning of such an action of architecture and for residences. At the close to this essay, I must now consider this point.

Until fairly recently, I really liked the title of a book of a certain photographer, Nakahira Takuma, “In order for the words that will come”. It is because I have come to think even now the acquisition of concept (words) is the central content even in the action of making objects, and I have thought that the act of architecture by making clear meaning content that has up to now been un-obtainable, makes possible the attachment of new concepts. And I thought that concept at that time became a new word, and appeared in our world. Unfortunately, the concepts we are conscious of have a mutual relation with words. Or it is perhaps that concepts are words themselves. Even with architectural concepts this is inescapable. Given that, is architecture a mechanism for producing meaning? The subject of architecture is often positioned as words. The subject is discovered as the architecturalization (kentiku-ka) of the language concept, or perhaps the inverse. Yet the architectural method called technique is explained with words which can be thought of as expressing architecture itself as the product of meaning and “space” as architecture’s main content. Actually, if architecture attempts to maintain a clear position within culture and society, it is curious that it has not lent itself to evaluation on this point. The content that architecture manifests might be “meaning”. If so, I dread an unbearable self, perhaps due to the meaning architecture holds, or its form or method of expressing that meaning.

Residential design is perhaps for the benefit of my existence caught up in this world. It occupies a section of my consciousness. The magic spread of meaning in this world will not support a place of moderation for my mind and spirit. Much intelligence and information, as well as the bind that forms their frame, do not allow for the preservation of our spiritual moderation. Further, the material world, which is a projection of this state, and even the architecture itself that enfolds us, refuses a place of moderation. This double meaning manifests to us an unbearable world. Within that, I cannot express if the “meaning” that I hope to erase, that I hope to disappear, is the “meaning” that forms everything, or if it makes up only a portion of that “meaning”, or if it is the way “meaning” is manifest, or if it is a separate transformation in a “structure” that lies within a relationship of “meaning”. To myself at this time, I can only consider how the vague content of that unbearable meaning might be erased.

Perhaps architecture is composed almost totally of societal meaning. If so, to me, it is probable that I must erase architecture itself. However, if within architecture there is an a priori region independent from culture or form daily sense, then with the erasure or denial of the former meaning, one can expect that other region to come to the front. If this region is hypothetically existent, let us call that “architecturality”. And it is natural that I must hope that such a region exists, and if I think this way, I must think it is on the far side of the world of words. Therefore, the distant region can only be approached from this side through the activity of discovery of a “structure” that can only be taken as belonging to an architecture vocabulary within “architecturality”. If one thinks this way, the subject of architecture, and words, becomes not the purpose but that method of discovery. Of course, that subject, and those words, as well as that concept, must disappear.

What I have expressed there is my own disposition of the content that I have been thinking about for a long time, consciously and unconsciously. The unorganized parts are many, and the parts that might be thought of as organized are vague. The repetition of this type of organization may allow the possibility of a new development. However, my words don’t seem to allow the discovery of a structure (based on architectural vocabulary). This is because I can only approach architecturality from this side, the side that builds architecture. Therefore, to me, what words can do is continue the struggle and pleas of my own unfulfilled architecture. Even then, in the current 1976, what might be stated clearly is that “Residences are the most certain method towards architecture. However, opposite that, they also have the greatest possibility to lose architecture.” (1976)