罗马当代艺术中心_罗马_意大利

3 1女性·建筑/WOMEN IN ARCHITECTURE 罗马当代艺术中心，罗马，意大利 ROME CONTEMPORARY ARTS CENTRE, ROME, ITALY, 2008 建筑：扎哈·哈迪德建筑事务所 ARCHITECTS: Zaha Hadid Architects “我在1970年代早期从贝鲁特来伦敦学习建筑学。 也许正是因为我的大胆，而非作为女性的本分给了我这 样的意志力取得成功，不过，我从来都是很坚强果断的。 我现在取得了成功，但这需要一直以来艰苦的努力。 我获得普利策奖的荣誉，是否属于建筑界男性主导 的传统规则之例外还有待观察。但传统上，女性确实更 加倾向于从事室内装饰和纺织品等。这是很久以前的事 了。我们的事务所不存在任何与性别有关的简单分类。 我不相信建筑学应该是男性而非女性的职业：50%的建 筑学学生是女性。因此，女性当然不会接受这一 职业不适合她们性别的观点。然而，可能不像在其他的 许多领域，在求学过程的后来几年以及职业工作中，她 们的人数缩水还是相当严重的。” ——扎哈·哈迪德 “I came to London from Beirut in the early 1970's to study architecture. Perhaps it was my flamboyance rather than being a woman that gave me such determination to succeed, but I have always been extremely determined. Now I've achieved the success, but it’s always been a very long struggle. Whether the honour of winning the Pritzker Prize was the exception to the traditional rule of male domination in architecture is yet to be seen. It's true that traditionally women were more oriented towards interior decoration and textile, etc.. This is a long time ago. In our office we have no stereotypical categories that relate to gender at all. I don't believe that much remains of the stereotype that architecture should be a male rather than a female career. 50% of first year architectural students are women. So, women certainly don't perceive this career as alien to their gender. However, perhaps unlike in some other professions, in the later years of study and then professional work, the ranks thin out considerably.” ——Zaha M. Hadid 扎哈·哈迪德 Zaha M. Hadid 1977年毕业于伦敦AA学院，并加入OMA事务所工 作。1980年开始独自执业以来，一直处于建筑与城市设 计的前沿。她实验着新的空间概念，追求一种视觉美感， 设计领域从城市一直到产品、室内和家俱。她赢得过多 次重要的国际竞赛，作品获得多个国际奖项，在全世界 被广泛地出版和展览。她还曾在伦敦AA学院、哈佛大 学等多个院校执教。2004年，她获得普利策建筑奖，是 目前为止唯一获得该奖项的女性建筑师。 1 2 1 扎哈·哈迪德/Zaha M. Hadid（摄影/Photo: Steve Double） 2 鸟瞰透视/Aerial view perspective 3 2 世界建筑 2007/11 演绎地段的多种可能性 通过与地段上曾有过的兵营保持索引性，当代艺 术中心的项目提出了关于其城市环境的问。它没有 尝试在拓扑关系上进行模仿，而是在地段周边街区建 筑相对较高的背景下，对地段上建筑高度较低的城市 肌理进行了延续。由此看来，艺术中心更像是一次“城 市移植”，是地段的第二层表皮。有时候，它紧贴着地 面，成为新的地面层，然而，有时候也向上攀升、相互 缠绕，在必要之处形成巨大的体量。整个建筑具有城市 的特征：它预示着一条直接从台伯河通往圭多·雷尼路 的通道，其所包含的交通模式，既有现在的，也有预期 中的，既有内部的，也有外部的。这一通道的方向限定 了最主要的建筑入口。通过交通流线与城市环境的相 互结合，建筑物与城市在公共层面上彼此共享，卷须一 样的道路或开放空间交叠在一起。除了交通组织上的 联系，建筑的各元素也和与地段相结合的城市网格取 得几何形式上的统一。由此部分地从周边环境中引出 建筑的方向和外观，使它更进一步地融入地段的特定 环境之中。 空间还是实体 我们的设计了一处准城市的场地，它是一个可 以深入其中的“世界”，而不是作为识别标志的建筑实 体。整个场地的组织和设计以具有方向感的流动和密度 的变化——而非关键节点——为基础。 这一点显示了艺术中心的整体特征：多孔的，交互 式的，一处场地空间。建筑体量被交通流线的各种方向 搅乱。内部和外部的交通流线都遵从着整个几何形状的 改变。垂直和倾斜的交通要素则被布置在了空间彼此汇 合、冲突和扰动的位置上。 从实体到场地的变化，对于理解建筑同将要保存 于其中的艺术品之间的关系是十分重要的。同时，在阐 释展厅与展览专家们的贡献之前，我们在这里必须说 明，作为先决条件的建筑设计剥夺了以“实体”为导向 的展厅空间的特权。相反的是，“流动”的概念以具体 化的形式得到了呈现。因此，流动出现了，既作为建筑 的母题，同时也是贯穿整个博物馆的主线。这种观点在 艺术创作中已经被人们理解，但在建筑创作中却依旧十 分陌生。我们把握住了这次机会，冒险设计了这样一个 具有前卫造型的机构，直面1960年代末以来被艺术实 践唤醒的材料和观念上的冲突。这条通道背离了“实 体”及与其相关的神圣感，而转向了具有多种联系并预 示着变化可能性的场地。 3 4 3 3女性·建筑/WOMEN IN ARCHITECTURE 机构的刺激 同样地，我们认为在体现这一机构对21世纪多元 性的渴望的同时，在形成该新建机构（同时包含艺术和 建筑的）可能具有的身份特质的过程中，具有重要意义 的是，要重新建立许多关于空间和暂存性的概念。现代 主义的乌托邦空间致使20世纪中诞生了大量白色的 “中性”博物馆。现在，这一倾向必须得到挑战。这不 是简单的任性否定的结果，而是源自于建筑学必须延 续其与当代社会和美学范畴的批判性关系。既然绝对 主义已经在关于艺术表现问题的当代思潮中被搁置， “最大化展览”的观念正是我们所要转变的方向。在这 一背景下，艺术中心着重展现了艺术和建筑的多种可 能性，也刺激着对其未来的探讨。这个机构又一次由此 升华成了更加灵活、更具渗透性的有机体，促成了多种 形式的产生。 墙/非墙：面向一种当代的空间性 在建筑方面，“墙”的外形实现了这一切。在传统 的博物馆中，“墙”作为享有特殊地位的、永恒的垂直支 架，用来展示绘画，或者限定空间，以构建“秩序”和 线性的“叙述”方式。在这里，我们将其解放而提出了 另一种批判性的手法。“墙”成为了呈现展览效果的通用 引擎。在各种各样的姿态中——实墙、投影屏幕、画布、 向城市开敞的窗户——展墙正是空间营造的主要手段。 各种线条的延伸贯穿整个场地，纷繁潦草，姿态各异，内 外穿梭。城市空间与展厅空间同时存在，建筑与庭院连 续地交替出现。对古典墙体设计更进一步的背离，则体 现在如墙体变成地面、或扭转成为天花、抑或被掏空后 成为向外眺望的巨大窗户的情景中。通过频繁地改变维 度和几何形状，它们可以适应各种展览线路。多样的展 览体系，也可以通过从展厅屋顶肋梁上悬挂下来的一系 列可能的分隔装置得到实现。组织和空间的营造就存在 于墙体与天花板结构梁相呼应的韵律中，天顶的结构梁 也同时过滤了各种强度的光线。 思想的舞台/戏剧化的艺术 建筑正是以这种方式表现出其如何作为艺术的“舞 台”，其中可移动的元素适应多种功能需要。从展厅的各 种概念性元素中可以建立起“舞台布景”。它们可与展览 的特点相协调，相应地变得有形或者无形。 贯穿艺术中心的流动转变是一条穿越各种环境、被 过滤的景像和不同照明度的轨迹。它同时还为管理者提 供了新的自由，同时也使参观者能够在这里实现与艺术 品和环境的自由对话。□（徐知兰 译） 5 3 二层平面/Second floor plan 4 草图/Sketches 5 中/Under construction（摄影/Photo: Helene Binet） 3 4 世界建筑 2007/11 Staging the Field of Possibilities The Centre for Contemporary Arts addresses the question of its urban context by maintaining an indexicality to the former army barracks. This is in no way an attempt at topological pastiche, but instead continues the low-level urban texture set against the higher level blocks on the surrounding sides of the site. In this way, the Centre is more like an‘urban graft’, a second skin to the site. At times, it affiliates with the ground to become new ground, yet also ascends and coalesces to become massivity where needed. The entire building has an urban character: prefiguring upon a directional route connecting the River to Via Guido Reni, the Centre encompasses both movement patterns extant and desired, contained within and outside. This vector defines the primary entry route into the building. By intertwining the circulation with the urban context, the building shares a public dimension with the city, overlapping tendril like paths and open space. In addition to the circulatory relationship, the architectural elements are also geometrically aligned with the urban grids that join at the site. In thus partly deriving its orientation and physiognomy from the context, it further assimilates itself to the specific conditions of the site. Space vs Object Our proposal offers a quasi-urban field, a ‘world’ to dive into rather than a building as signature object. The Campus is organised and navigated on the basis of directional drifts and the distribution of densities rather than key points. This is indicative of the character of the Centre as a whole: porous, immersive, a field space. An inferred mass is subverted by vectors of circulation. The external as well as internal circulation follows the overall drift of the geometry. Vertical and oblique circulation elements are located at areas of confluence, interference and turbulence. The move from object to field is critical in understanding the relationship the architecture will have to the content of the artwork it will house. Whilst this is further expounded by the contributions of our Gallery and Exhibitions Experts below, it is important here to state that the premise of the architectural design promotes a disinheriting of the‘object’ orientated gallery space. Instead, the notion of a ‘drift’ takes on an embodied form. The drifting emerges, therefore, as both architectural motif, and also as a way to navigate experientially through the museum. It is an argument that, for art practice is well understood, but in architectural hegemony has remained alien. We take this opportunity, in the adventure of designing such a forward looking institution, to confront the material and conceptual dissonance evoked by art practice since the late 1960’s. The path leads away from the‘object’and its correlative sanctifying, towards fields of multiple associations that are anticipative of the necessity to change. Institutional Catalyst As such, it is deemed significant that in configuring the possible identity of this newly established institution (housing both Art and Architecture), with its aspiration towards the polyvalent density of the 21st century, conceptions of space and indeed temporality are reworked. Modernist Utopian space fuelled the white ‘neutrality’ of most 20th century museums. Now, this disposition must be challenged, not simply out of wilful negation, but by the necessity for architecture to continue its critical relationship with contemporary social and aesthetic categories. Since absolutism has been indefinitely suspended from current thought on the issue of art presentation, it is towards the idea of the ‘maximising exhibition’ that we gravitate. In this scenario, the Centre makes primary the manifold possibilities for the divergence in showing art and architecture as well as catalysing the discourse on its future. Again, the ‘signature’ aspect of an institution of this calibre is sublimated into a more pliable and porous organism that promotes several forms of identification at once. Walls/Not-Walls: Towards a Contemporary Spatiality In architectural terms, this is most virulently executed by the figure of the‘wall’. Against the traditional coding of the ‘wall’ in the museum as the privileged and immutable vertical armature for the display of paintings, or delineating discrete spaces to 6 3 5女性·建筑/WOMEN IN ARCHITECTURE construct ‘order’ and linear ‘narrative’, we propose a critique of it through its emancipation. The ‘wall’ becomes the versatile engine for the staging of exhibition effects. In its various guises－solid wall, projection screen, canvas, window to the city－the exhibition wall is the primary space-making device. By running extensively across the site, cursively and gesturally, the lines traverse inside and out. Urban space is coincidental with gallery space, exchanging pavilion and court in a continuous oscillation under the same operation. And further deviations from the Classical composition of the wall emerge as incidents where the walls become floor, or twist to become ceiling, or are voided to become a large window looking out. By constantly changing dimension and geometry, they adapt themselves to whatever curatorial role is needed. By setting within the gallery spaces a series of potential partitions that hang from the ceiling ribs, a versatile exhibition system is created. Organisational and spatial invention is thus dealt with simultaneously amidst a rhythm found in the echo of the walls to the structural ribs in the ceiling that also filter the light in varying intensities. Stage for Thought/Art as Drama It is in this way that the architecture performs the ‘staging’ of art, with moveable elements that allow for the drama to change.‘Sets’can be constructed from the notional elements of the gallery spaces. These are attuned to the particularities of the exhibition in question, materialising or dematerialising accordingly. The drift through the Centre is a trajectory through varied ambiences, filtered spectacles and differentiated luminosity. Whilst offering a new freedom in the curators’ palette, this in turn digests and recomposes the experience of art spectatorship as liberated dialogue with artefact and environment. □ (The Office of Zaha Hadid) 业主/Client: Ministero per I Beni e le Attivit?Culturali 项目建筑师/Project Architect: Gianluca Racana 竞赛团队/Competition Team: Ali Mangera, Oliver Domeisen, Christos Passas, Sonia Villaseca, Jee-Eun Lee, James Lim, Julia Hansel, Sara Klomps. Shumon Basar, Bergendy Cooke, Jorge Ortega,Stéphane Hof, Markus Dochantschi, Woody K.T. Yao, Graham Modlen, Jim Heverin, Barbara Kuit, Ana Sotrel, Hemendra Kothari, Zahira El Nazel, Florian Migsch, Kathy Wright, Jin Wananabe, Helmut Kinzer, Thomas Knuvener, Sara Kamalvand 设计团队/Design Team: Fabio Ceci, Paolo Matteuzzi, Anja Simons, Ana M. Cajao, Matteo Grimaldi, Mario Mattia, Maurizio Meossi, Luca Peralta, Barbara Pfenningstorff, Maria Velceva, Paolo Zilli, Gianluca Ruggeri, Luca Segarelli 合作建筑师/Associate Architect: ABT－David Sabatello, Piercarlo Rampini, Paolo Olivi, Marco Valerio Faggiani, Paolo Bisogni 结构设计/Structure: Anthony Hunt Associates－ Les Postawa; OK Design Group－Simone Di Cintio 机电设计/M & E: Max Fordham and Partners－Henry Luker, Neil Smith; OK Design Group－Carlo Rossi, Pete Fanelli, Domenico Raponi 照明设计/Lighting: Equation Lighting－Mark Hensman, Paolo Giovane 声学设计/Acoustic: Paul Gilleron Acoustic－Paul Gilleron 7 8 6 鸟瞰透视/Aerial view perspective 7 剖面/Section 8 透视/Perspective