扎哈事务所总裁舒马赫：在威尼斯建筑双年展，我看到这门学科的“自我毁灭”

2023年5月20日，第18届威尼斯建筑双年展正式开幕，主题为“未来实验室”（The Laboratory of the Future）。威尼斯建筑双年展由三个部分组成：每个国家各自策展的国家馆展览，由每年双年展策展人举办的国际展展览，以及双年展策展人批准的岛上附属活动展览。本次展览包括89名参展者，其中一半以上来自非洲或非洲侨民。

在参观了部分展馆后，扎哈事务所总裁帕特里克·舒马赫（Patrik Schumacher）发布了一篇文章，表达自己对今年威尼斯建筑双年展的看法。以下是文章全文，由有方翻译。

——
Venice Biennale Blues

威尼斯建筑双年展也许不应该再加上“建筑”的标签，这个标签只会让人们感到困惑和失望，因为它并没有展示任何建筑。
The Venice "Architecture" Biennale is mislabelled and should stop laying claim to the title of architecture. This title is just generating confusion and disappointment with respect to an event that does not show any architecture.

威尼斯作为全球建筑之旅中最重要的一站，呈现建筑这门学科的整体话语体系；然而我们在这里看到的，却是这个学科的自我毁灭。
Assuming Venice to be not only the most important item on our global architectural itinery, but also representative of our discourse in general: What we are witnessing here is the discursive self-annihilation of the discipline.

大多数国家馆，像是德国、法国、西班牙、英国、比利时、荷兰、挪威/瑞典、芬兰等欧洲主要国家，或是日本、加拿大、澳大利亚和美国等国家的展馆，都没有呈现该国家建筑师的作品，甚至任何建筑作品。
Most national pavilions, including all major European nations like Germany, France, Spain, UK, Belgium, Holland, Norway/Sweden, Finnland, but also Japan, Canada, Australia and the USA, refuse to show the work of their architects, or any architecture whatsoever. I don't know about other national pavilions.

在看了12个展馆后，我停止了参观，因为没有一个展馆展示了建筑。（捷克馆似乎关闭了，入口前的屏幕展示着人们讨论低收入和长时间工作的视频。）
I gave up after seeing no architecture in 12 out of 12 pavilions. (The Czech pavilion seemed closed and a video screen in front of the closed entrance was displaying faces talking about low income and long hours of work.)

这说明了什么？难道在德国、法国等西方国家都没有值得关注的建筑作品吗？建筑设计和建造只是一种良心不安时的借口吗？ 这种不安是否是拒绝展示任何当代建筑的起因（这种现象到现在已经普遍存在十多年）？
What does this tell us? That there is no noteworthy architecture in Germany, France etc. etc .etc. or anywhere in the Western world? Is the design and construction of buildings only an occasion for bad conscience? Is this bad conscience the motive force behind the refusal (by now pervasive for more than a decade) to display any contemporary architecture whatsoever?

德国馆充斥着建筑材料，在那里停留超过两秒钟都是没有意义的。只需一眼，就可以知道整个展馆想要表达的内容（毕竟这个内容已经被反复强调多年）：材料回收的道德必要性。几年前也有一个非常相似的内容填充了空间（并消耗了预算）：不要建造，重复使用/翻新。馆内还填满了当前事务相关问题，例如难民危机的文献。总是有比建筑更重要和紧急的事情，但问题是，当我们已经在电视上看了几个月的难民危机，为什么我们来到威尼斯参加双年展时还需要看这些？这个显而易见的问题似乎从未被提及过。
The German pavilion is filled with piles of construction material. There is no point to spend more than two seconds in there. A single glance and you get the one-liner message (because this message had been reiterated for years): The moral (if not practical/economic) imperative of material recycling. There was also a very similar one-liner message filling the space (and consuming the budget) a few years ago: don't build, re-use/renovate. Inbetween the pavilion was filled with documentation of current affairs issues like the refugee crisis. There always seems to be something more important and urgent than architecture. The obvious question why we should look at documentations of the refugee crisis when coming to Venice for the Biennale after we have been hearing about the refugee crisis on television every day for months was apparently never asked.

德国建筑在威尼斯建筑双年展已经缺席多年，英国建筑同样如此；为什么这些国家的建筑师会容忍这一现象令人费解。他们难道是因为对自己的工作感到惭愧而不敢冒然出头？
German architecture has been absent in Venice for years. the same applies to British architecture. Why the architects of these countries put up with this seems puzzling. Are they too shamefaced about their work to raise their heads above the parapet?

以德国馆为例，德国建筑师协会主席今天在充满上届双年展废墟的德国馆前的一次谈话中，明确表示了目前建筑的缺席。所有这些策展人，到底期望前来参观建筑双年展的普通公众对此有何看法？
In the case of the German pavilion the current emphatic absence of architecture has been explicitly endorsed by the president of the German chamber of architects today in a conversation in front of the German pavilion filled with the rubble of the previous Biennale. What are all these curators expecting the unsuspecting general public who come to visit an architecture Biennale to make of this?

只有中国馆展示了建筑，大量的建筑。在国际展展览中，再次只有中国建筑师展示建筑作品：如恩设计研究室和张轲（标准营造建筑事务所）。另一个例外是由阿贾耶事务所呈现的一系列同样令人印象深刻的建筑项目。
Only the Chinese pavilion shows architecture, plenty of architecture. In the international show its again only Chinese architects who show work: Neru&Hu, and especially Zhang Ke (Standard Architecture) is showing an impressive suite of projects. The other fantastic exception is the suite of equally impressive projects by Adjaye Associates.

其他受邀者都在利用展览空间进行纪录片式的智力艺术暗示，以道德问题为主题，并配以自负的批判性语言；当然，他们从未真正提出明确的立场或建设性建议。
Everybody else invited has been playing along with using exhibition space for documentary-style intellectual-artistic allusions to moral issues, garnished with pretentious critical-speak, of course without ever taking the risk of really taking up an explicit position or offering constructive proposal.

这么做是为了什么，是为了激发对话吗？建筑师想要谈论（和看到）建筑。他们不会谈论去殖民化等议题。也许建筑教育家会谈论这些问题。也许这就是为什么建筑设计已经从大多数（尤其是最负盛名的）建筑学院中消失了。
What's the point of all this? Is it meant to inspire conversations? Architects want to talk about (and see) architecture. They won't talk about decolonising xyz. Perhaps architectural educators talk about such matters. Perhaps thats why architectural design has disappeared from most (especially the most prestigious) schools of architecture.

我曾多次在威尼斯目睹了建筑师们对这些“反建筑”双年展的反应。就像这次一样，他们都会抓住少数几个卓越的建筑实例来讨论，然后表示他们对双年展充斥着虚伪的概念符号装置感到沮丧。
I have been coming to Venice witnessing architects reactions to several of these anti-architectural biennales. Like this time too, they all cling to the few exceptional instances of architecture and talk about those, and then about their frustration with the swamping of the Biennale with virtue signalling conceptual-symbolic installations.

这个展会特意选取参展建筑师，使其50%以上是非洲建筑师或非洲侨民。然而如果没有大卫·阿贾耶的建筑作品，就不会有非洲建筑出现在展览中（我还没有找到弗朗西斯·凯雷的展品）。也许专注于小型工作室和没有作品的教育工作者是个错误。我对非洲建筑师和非洲建筑很感兴趣，但看完展览后，我并没有变得更了解他们；阿贾耶的项目是一个例外。我认为这是一个重要的事实，也是发展和愿景的信号，非洲大陆上现在存在着如此复杂的世界级建筑，这一事实对非洲大陆的重要性和影响不应被低估。
This show is meant to be at least to 50% featuring architects (at least originally) from Africa. Without David Adaye's work - which I would suspect is the only display at this Biennale that would fill a visitor from Africa with pride - there would be no African architecture in the show. (I did not find Francis Kéré's display). Perhaps it was a mistake to focus on small studios and educators who don't have work. I was curious about African architects and African architecture but I am no wiser after seeing the show. The notable exception are Adjaye's projects. I think it is a significant fact and signal of development and aspiration, that such sophisticated world class buildings now exist on the African continent, a fact the importance and impact of which for the continent should not be underestimated.

尽管西方建筑文化（以及整个西方文化）将其所有建筑排除在“建筑”双年展之外，让人惭愧与内疚；但与之形成鲜明对比的是，中国建筑文化以充分的力量和自信出现在这里。中国建筑师和中国国家馆（包括香港馆）几乎提供了整个双年展中的所有建筑（阿贾耶事务所的作品除外）。
While Western architectural culture (and Western culture in general) seems shamefaced and guilt ridden, excluding all its architecture from the "Architecture" Biennale, Chinese architectural culture, in positive contrast, is here in full force and self-confidence. Chinese architects and the Chinese national pavilion (including the Hong Kong pavilion) deliver virtually all the architecture (excepting Adjaye Associates) in the whole Biennale.

如果我期望在建筑双年展上看到建筑设计，我对建筑学的看法是否太狭隘了？我不这么认为。无论我们想要解决哪些社会、政治或道德问题，如何展示它们与建筑的关系，都应该通过对这些问题做出回应的项目来呈现。
Is my conception of architecture as discipline too narrow if I expect to see architectural design in an architecture biennale? I don't think so. Whatever social, political or moral issues we want to address, the way to show their relevance to architecture is via projects that claim to respond to these issues.

当99%的展览空间被纪录片、批判性艺术实践和象征性装置所主导，而建筑作品无处可见时，任何关于“建筑作为扩展场域”的讨论，都无法使我相信我们仍处于一个建筑展会中。
No talk about "architecture as expanded field" can convince me that we are still in an architectural event when the scene is dominated by documentaries, critical art practice and symbolic installations while architectural works are nowhere to be seen in 99% of the exhibition space.

如果世界上所有可悲的、不公正的、紧迫的事情现在都是建筑领域的当务之急，那么这不仅是与建筑学的能力毫无关系的荒谬过度，还是这门学科的解体和消失。在学术界、在西方建筑流派中，这一过程已经在威尼斯双年展中得到了推动。当然，尽管没有任何学术界的支持，也没有在任何双年展（包括威尼斯或芝加哥双年展）中得到呈现和讨论，建筑师的专业工作仍在继续。这些专业工作似乎已经被排除在讨论范围外，它们要么太平庸，要么在道德上太妥协，无法在一个批判性文化活动的崇高领域中获得平台。即使是专业建筑师，一旦被任命为策展人，似乎也会得出这样的结论。他们将日常工作和专业能力抛在脑后，成为业余的社会批评家/评论员。
If everything lamentable or unjust, or urgent in the world is now an urgent, overriding concern of architecture, then this is not only an absurd overreach unhinged from architecture's competency, but the very dissolution and disappearance of this discipline. In academia, in Western schools of architecture, this process has been driven as far as in the Venice Biennale. Of course, the professional work of architecture continues, albeit without any support from academia, or without any representation and discussion in any Biennale, be it Venice, or Chicago. The professional work of architects seems to be beyond the pale, either too banal or morally too compromised to receive a platform in the lofty realm of a critical cultural event. Even professional architects seem to reach this conclusion once they are appointed as curators. They leave their day job, their work and professional competence behind to become dilettante social critics/commentators.

到目前为止，将社会弊病主题化的方法已经成为标准的、意料之中的、不容置疑的、安全的选择；这也很容易组织和节约成本。与其冒险和艰难地选择、解释选择并与25个建筑师打交道，不如委托一个（或两到三个）艺术家来解释主题，并让他们独自完成。这太方便了，而且成本很低。对于国家馆的策展人来说，这是减轻策展负担最简单的方法，但这是一种懒惰、蹩脚和可预见的逃避。
By now the approach of thematising social ills has become the standard, the expected, unassailable, safe option. Its also easy to organise and cost effective. Instead of the risky and difficult task to select, explain the selection, and deal with 25 architects, a single artist can be commissioned (or two to three) to interpret the theme, and be left alone to do so. Its all too convenient and cost effected. For the curators of the national pavilions this is the easiest way to discharge the curatorial burden. But its such a lazy, lame and predictable cop out.

这种情况还将持续多久？多年来，威尼斯建筑双年展作为全球首屈一指的建筑盛会，已经建立了一个无可比拟的明星地位。然而，我认为该展会现在正在逐渐消耗其建立起来的声誉及其社会资本。如果它继续淡化，甚至主动回避或取代其作为建筑展会的使命，它最终也或将被取代。威尼斯建筑双年展多年来为我们学科所发挥的重要作用，也将被任何人获得或利用。
How long can this continue? The Venice Architecture Biennale, over many years, has built up a stellar, unrivalled position as #1 global architectural gathering. However, I think the event is now gradually consuming and drawing down its built up reputation. Its consuming its social capital. If the event keeps diluting, even actively avoiding or displacing its mission as architectural event, it becomes vulnerable to new possible contenders if they are delivering what is being expected by the silent majority of architects and I presume by the general public. There is nothing in sight here but the vital function the Venice Architecture Biennale used to fulfil for our discipline for many years (and that needs to be fulfilled) is up for grabs.

本文编排版权归有方空间所有。图片除注明外均来自网络，版权归原作者或来源机构所有。欢迎转发，禁止以有方版本转载。若有涉及任何版权问题，请及时和我们联系，我们将尽快妥善处理。邮箱info@archiposition.com