可乐乐园——程大鹏个展 Wonderful Wonderland—Solo Exhibition of Cheng dapeng

主办：今日美术馆
协办单位：雅昌艺术网 度联体建筑事务所
策展人：谢素贞

Organizer: Today Art Museum
Co-organizer：www.Artron.net                                                               
Curator:XieSuzhen

---

展览简介

“可乐”是程大鹏这个时代的艺术家所持有的社会价值观；没有大讽刺，大批判。展览涵盖机械装置，类建筑装置，文创产业的衍生品。

在此程大鹏创造的乐园里有：
可乐建筑——摘去所有城市的混凝土外壳，可以看到由世间万象所有有机物构成的城市内核，柔软，混乱，缤纷，狰狞地共融。
可乐绘画——迂回表意的新姿态文人画。
可乐装置——体现城市对人生存影响的变态夸张和娱乐性放大展示。
可乐文创——打破常规创意的独创设计。
这样的例外美学集中体现了职业建筑师程大鹏“可乐”的处事观：对于当下无可回避的现实的嘲弄态度以及玩弄式的参与。

Being Wonderful is the social value of Cheng Dapeng, born in a family of generations of artists. There is no big sarcasm or big critique. The exhibits include mechanical installation, analogous construction installation, derivatives from cultural innovation.

You will find the following objects in the paradise built by Cheng Dapeng:

Wonderful Construction – The core of city, made of all kinds of organisms in the universe, will be revealed after the removal of its concrete shell. Everything is fused together softly, chaotically, riotously & ferociously.

Wonderful Painting – Painting of Man-of-Letters with new presentation & tortuous ideography.

Wonderful Installation –An abnormal, exaggerated & entertaining presentation of influences on human existence imposed by the city.

Wonderful Cultural Innovation – Untraditional and unique designs.

The exceptional aesthetics depicts the Wonderful value of Cheng Dapeng, a professional architect: a sarcastic attitude towards & playful participation in the inevitable real life.

---

艺术家自述

可乐装置 防火PVF纤维布

构成城市的建筑是多方面利益共谋的结果，展现的往往是虚假的城市文化、虚假的城市历史、虚假的城市生活，作为个体的人是无从逃避和选择的，环绕身边的是狰狞的风景带来的视觉快乐。我把展厅的整个顶部做成一个互动的装置，将一个常规空间改变后创造出非常规体验，试图探寻建筑与雕塑或装置之间的另一种存在关系。装置本身的不确定性和变化的复杂性可以改变建筑空间几乎一切固定的元素。


The buildingsforming the city come from a multi-party compromise. They are representative of fake urban culture, fake city history & fake city life. As an individual, the human being has nowhere to go & nothing to choose from. They have to be entertained by the visual pleasure conveyed by the ferocious scenes around them. The ceiling of the hall is transformed into an interactive installation to create unusual experience from a changed normal space. In turn, another relationship between the building & sculpture or installation is experimentally explored. The uncertainty & complexity of changes belonging to the installation itself can change almost every fixed element in the constructing space.

建筑师和城市

我们这一代建筑师，享受着由于高速城市化带来的繁荣；
我们的生活，因为城市的高效而被一遍遍地格式化；
我们消费高效率的发展带来的效益；
我们制造高效集约的城市；
我们把城市变成干瘪的数字化的躯壳，高效而无趣。
我们有很多理想，顽强地想用自己architecture的歌声软化这赤裸裸的城市化革命运动，纠结在阴谋与阳谋之间。

可乐城市

类似迪士尼这样的儿童乐园多有旋转木马，转台上的木马和吊顶的流苏让人回到欧洲的宫廷生活，随着上下起伏的木马我们可以暂时告别眼前的现实，沉寂在拂面清风带来的短暂快感中。
作为我的家乡，六朝古都，北京应该是个可以轮回的生命体，可他的再生却是一个怪胎。那些英文转译的楼盘名称和国际化长相的公共建筑，让我联想到有旋转木马的迪士尼。如同古都西安，一次次类似格式化的建筑运动让北京充斥着清晰的符号。现代建筑和伪现代建筑，微量的历史遗存和整条街的假古董乱七八糟的混杂，统一在横平竖直的现代规划中，无处不流露出一个充斥着伪文化的简单与粗糙的城市景观。文化的厚度很难通过再生的城市肌理体现出来。城市的丰富表皮只是简单化的视觉堆砌，无处可寻细腻享受和体验，可乐而无趣。

————程大鹏

---

作品评论

可乐绘画 布面线描

不要输给可乐

辣椒，通任督渗肺腑，嗜食者无辣不欢。过度者伤胃伤神，连带性情燥烈，影响行事人生；辅以猛火爆炒，姜蒜重油，乍食愉悦，让人动容，易起暴食姿态，与道禅相悖。今之社会巨变，凡所求皆为欲望冲积累和而成，尤以建筑为征，触目所见，狰狞建物相互辉耀，皆为筑于人兽情事的祭典，如暴食辣椒于人生。

当代艺术所呈现的实验精神，是基于传统母体之上所发展出来的态度，不是偶发的创意，而是立于当代社会互动的沉淀概念，以不同材质来表达。展出的软机械装置、机械枯山水、立体输出的人兽混生建物及文化创意产业的衍生品，都是无数的实验结果，欢喜如此的不顾现实的拼命，感动的是大鹏的过程实验姿态，以建筑之心，行艺术之实。

日子再如何充忙，大树也不会加速成长，百余个工作与理想交错的事迹，大鹏不批判，不怨怼，记录在手绘的画布上，这种可乐态度是这个时代知识分子的忘却手段，诚邀一同认真忘忧，小辣而已。

————谢素贞

Don't Lose to Amusement

Accessible to the Ren and Du meridian vessels and the lung, chili pepper is a must-have for those obsessed with it. Too much chili pepper harms the stomach and the nerve, producing hot blood and fiery temper and affecting the behavior. Fast fried on big fire with ginger, garlic and lots of oil, it is rather delicious and enjoyable in the beginning and people tend to eat too much of it, though against the doctrines of the Tao and Zen. In the greatly changing society of today, what one wishes is actually the accumulation of desires, a typical example of which is architecture – everywhere one looks, voracious buildings abound, as if rituals of human-animal love, just like having had too much chili pepper in life.

The spirit of experiment presented in contemporary art is an attitude evolved from traditional matrix. It is not an idea of chance, but a precipitated concept founded on the interactions of contemporary society as expressed by different materials. All the exhibits - the soft mechanical installations, mechanical dry landscapes, 3D printout half-human-half-animal structures and derivatives of the cultural and creative industries - are results of countless experiments. What I like is the dedication without realistic concerns, and what touches me is the experimental process of Cheng Dapeng the architect – making art in the form of architecture.

Life might be busy, but the tree won’t grow a little faster. Some one hundred experiments of work and dreams intertwined, Dapeng has documented with hand drawing on the canvas, with no criticism or complaints. This amusement attitude is one way of the contemporary intellectuals to forget, so why not come for a visit and forget the worries – it is just a bit hot.

————Hsieh SuChen

现实的虚妄与变异的虚置

在中国，我们今天的城市似乎是一个从未来借来的城市。几乎到中国所有城市去参观，或者当你购买住宅的时候，我们都会发现每一个介绍情况的人或房地产销售人员都在用完整的Powerpoint和沙盘模型向我们指点江山，介绍正在建设中小镇、社区的未来规划。许多尚未建成的城市象征性地标，在软件中变成了比真实的城市空间更为真实的承诺——这个城市无比的光洁，通透，没有任何一点混乱和喧嚣，具有高度的合理性。它让我们看到的似乎是一种奇怪的“未来主义”，一个在头脑中虚置的城市。这好像正是电影《黑客帝国》的反面，黑客帝国里的人们对于电脑中虚拟的世界有了疑惧，宁愿历经千辛万苦回到“真实的废墟”，而我们的城市化却需要虚拟的世界来帮助我们超越当下城市化的悖论，以“花园城市”的理想概括为一个相互吸引的磁体和容器（参见《城市发展史》，刘易斯·芒福德著，宋俊岭、倪文彦译，中国建筑工业出版社2005年版）。

作为建筑师和艺术家的程大鹏，他在北京今日美术馆个展中的新作《可乐乐园》是有意地将中国城市化过程的历史、现实与未来虚妄的特质，即将我们现在习惯的Powerpoint城市景观，从电脑软件的虚拟中，利用3D打印的技术手段，置换为近距离的实在性作品，既有装置、雕塑艺术的细节，又有城市建筑模型的样态。或者说他是将他日常城市建筑设计工作，视作一个借代，一种象征与隐喻，表现的却是我们城市建设规模逐渐扩大后的被城市化遮蔽的城市性问题中混杂的无序和矛盾的张力。甚至可以看出大鹏的针对性用意是通过一系列恶心、荒诞、滑稽的人兽同体、人鬼同形的装置作品，在生物学和物种学的层面上来审视我们身临其境的存在。从而为我们提供了一个有趣而独特的艺术想像、转换，以及敏锐的观察和思考。

可乐城市  三维树脂打印

这些装置新作以《可乐乐园》命名，来源于他早期创作的《都市山水》绘画作品，但在作品呈现上他却将建筑模型的结构完全处理成散落、畸形的碎片，建筑也只是物是人非地依稀可辨。其细节与视觉是立体写实的，包括类似的建筑模型里生长出来的肢体、尸骨、蠕虫、残骸和吸附、缠绕着的“恶之花”，具有建筑沙盘模型变异的现实依存。或者说大鹏在“重塑、重构”的建筑模型里，勾勒出经过他个人处理、过滤、残留下来的“考古”碎片。在我看来，大鹏作品的高妙之处或其艺术的魅力，在于他对构成城市化过程中的主要元素——建筑节点的现实与他臆想的虚构图像之间的虚置。因此，这些装置不是简单地可以让你“按图索骥”地去抵达某个具体的城市建筑空间，而是假借建筑的样式——所谓的以具体城市化为背景的艺术想象。当这些废墟与残骸，黑暗与扭曲的支离破碎景象，魔幻般乖张地充盈在观者的面前，或张牙舞爪地在从柱础上横空出世时，意味着对中国时代变迁过程中产生的冲突、碰撞的一种真实与直接的记录和写照。这是他和我们正在生活的环境中生存经验的直接性展开，使我们在现实与虚拟的错位和差异对比中，凭添出亦真亦幻的玄目，具象与抽象的混淆，从而将自我的主观艺术创造和空间意识凸现在虚置的维度之上，并又强制性地将我们带回到社会的现实处境当中。同时，大鹏的这种方式还赋予了作品内容和形式方面的最大效果，这种效果具有戏剧化和象征意义，把我们现今社会日益膨胀的物质消费的欲望、情景，通过系列怪异形象符号化和现实化了，于是视觉的图像从非现实的层面进入到一个现实的层面，以此来表达他对当下现实社会的深刻关注。反映了他对中国传统和社会现实问题恣肆的想象力和质疑的态度。尽管大鹏是一位建筑师，从事着城市化的建筑设计，但他绝不是一个盲目乐观的社会达尔文主义者。

城市的本质特点在于它磁场般的吸附力，由于磁场的强大力量导致了城市无限蔓延，实际上城市也是人的欲望和利益无节制泛滥的大容器。这正是中国现代城市的现状与共识之一。大鹏通过一种所谓的艺术方式，提出的反诘也似乎在回答人们对于城市性与城市化的不同及差异的疑问。当你进入到由这些变异的元素所营造的虚置场景时，也正是这种表层真实后面的寓言意味，才揭示了隐藏的更为深刻的真实，才能够引起我们心理认同、心灵共鸣。它不仅告诉了人们发生了怎样的事实，而且勾勒了事实背后的因果关系。其意义在于使人在自以为是的状态中突然发现，自己距离真实是多么遥远。而我们或许可以强烈地感受到这些“可乐”的装置所凝固的瞬间，而这些令人心颤的现象、事件却仍在继续生发着。

由此，我们得到了什么启示呢？也许，就是避免那种纯粹以物质形态的观点来判断城市状态，或者纯粹以经济指标为鹄的来规定城市发展的片面做法，而把人们的精神生活放到更加重要的位置上去。须知，在一个经济持续快速增长、城市每天都在发生着“翻天覆地”的变化的社会里，人倒是最容易被忽视和异化的。除了飙升的GDP和同样飙升的高楼大厦以外，我们需要的其实还有很多。然而“豪宅”、“巨筑”、“巅峰巨献”这样的房地产广告字眼却显示，我们想要的其实又很少。也许，一个物质形态上远非理想的城市，却可以因为拥有理想的市民而变得光华灿烂呢？

在我看来，如果说作为物质形式的城市容器最终因其强大的稳定性和保护性而取得了对精神因素的决定性力量，这只能说是城市这种人类特有的组织形式因高度发达而带来的不可避免的负面效果。这是一切组织机构成熟以后必须承担的代价。抑或，大鹏的生存体验、见证，并艺术化地夸张、提示出了这种代价的荒谬之处

。

————冯博一

可乐装置 防火PVE纤维布

Invention of Reality and Virtual Placement of Variations

In China, the city seems to be borrowed from the future. When you go to any Chinese city to have a tour or buy a house, you will find that every tour guide or real estate agent is introducing the planning of a town or a community that is under construction with powerpoint or a scaled model. A city’s symbolic landmark, though unfinished, has become a promise truer than the real city space. The virtual city, clean, bright, transparent, lack of chaos and noises, is highly reasonable. We are shown a strange futurism, and an unreal city is placed in our brains. Contrary to the status in the film The Matrix, where people try hard to go back to the “real ruins” with doubts to the virtual computer world, we surpass the paradox of urbanization by describing the city as a magnet or container having attractive interaction with an idea of a virtual “garden city” (see Lewis Murnford’sThe City in History).

Cheng Dapeng, an architect and an artist, is exhibiting his new works wonderful wonderland at Beijing’s Today Art Museum. The works means to change the virtual city landscape, which shows the history, reality and future in Chinese urbanization, from the software to a real substance with 3D printing. It contains installations, sculptures, and architectural models. Or you can say, he is regarding his daily urban architecture and design as a metonymy, a symbol, or a metaphor, to express the disorder and paradox in the urban problems concealed by enlarging urbanization. You even can find that Cheng is using a group of disgusting, absurd and funny installations of human-animal or human-ghost isomorph to examine our existence biologically and speciologically. The works provides for us not only an interesting and unique artistic imagination and transformation, but also a keen observation and thinking.

The works’ name wonderful wonderlandoriginates from his early paintings in “Urban Nature” series, but in his architectural models are formed by scattered and freaky fragments, in which buildings are almost unseen. The details are stereo and true, like the limbs, skeletons, worms, and “devil’s flowers” in the models, which are, though variant, all have practical reference. Or in another way, he is making his disposed and filtered “archaeological” fragments in the “rebuilt or restructured” models. His exquisiteness or artistic charm lies in the placement between the real building nods and his virtual images. So, these installations won’t remind you of any true city space, but artistic imagination through architectural styles or the said urbanization. The ruins, skeletons, and black or twisty fragments from column bases are direct and true records or expression of contrasts and collisions during Chinese transformation. The direct reflection of the survival experience in our living environment creates confusion between realness and illusion, between virtuality and reality, and then highlights a subjective artistic creation and space consciousness on a virtually placed dimension, and draws us back into the social reality again. At the same time he is giving a dramatic and symbolic effect from contents and forms, that is, symbolizing and realizing groups of strange images from the increasing desire for material consumption. The visual images are changed to reality to express his deep focus on the modern society, and his bold imagination and doubt to Chinese tradition and reality. As a architect involved in urban architecture design, he is never a blindly optimistic social Darwinist.

A city’s essence is its magnetic absorptive power, which leads its limitless extension, so a city is also a big container of human’s increasing desires and profits. This is the current status and common character of Chinese modern cities. Through an artistic way, Dapeng retorts as an answer of people’s doubt to the difference of urbanization. When you go into the virtually placed scene constructed by variant elements, the allegorical meaning behind the surface will cause our mental identity and resonance, because it reveals the truth hidden deeply. It not only tells us the happened facts, but also the cause and effect behind the facts, which makes us find ourselves having escaped from the truth far far away. We may have a strong feeling that at the moment the “joyous” solidified installations are displayed, the thrilling phenomena are still happening.

Maybe we will get an inspiration that, we shall avoid judging a city purely by physical form or developing a city simply according to economic indicators, and people’s spiritual life shall get more attention. In a society where economy is growing rapidly and city is changing every day, people are the easiest one to be ignored and alienated. We need more than the growing GDP and rising buildings. However, the words like “villa”, “luxury home”, or “the last magnificence” in real estate advertisements show that we want few. Perhaps a physically imperfect city will be glorious owing to its perfect citizens.

In my opinion, if a city’s physical form as a container finally conquers spirit owing to its instability and protecting function, it’s a negative effect of high development of city, an organization specially owned by humans. Or it’s a cost all organizations will undertake after maturing. Dapeng’s survival experience and witness artistically exaggerate and imply the absurdity of the cost.

————FengBoyi

可乐文化 鳄鱼头和人手布偶

欲望栖居的城国奇观──对于程大鹏作品的一些观察

德国哲学家海德格尔（Martin Heidegger, 1889-1976）曾在1951年一场「人与空间」的研讨会中，发表他对「营造」／「建筑」（building）作为手段，「栖居」／「安顿」（dwelling）作为目的的精辟思惟。他指出，是「安顿」使「建筑」获得真正的意义；前者是后者的依归，更是后者的本质所在。海德格尔反复强调，建筑是为了让人安顿；同时，惟有当我们得以安顿，才能论及建筑及其实践。

尽管在当时，海德格尔见证的是二次世界大战之后，百废待举，迫切需要建设的德国，他仍不忘提醒，「安顿的真正困境并不仅仅在于住房匮乏。」在海德格尔看来，栖居／安顿是为了保护与存续。人生在世及启蒙，在穹苍之下，在大地之上，在神灵之前；天、地、神、人这四者的涵构关系，形成合而为一的四重整体性。栖居／安顿的真谛，就是让天、地、神、人得以在自由与平和之中，受到蓄养及维护。因此，海德格尔写道：「比起世界大战及其带来的毁灭，安顿的真正困境其实是更古老的问题，也比全球人口增加及工厂劳工的处境问题，来得更加久远。」不但如此，他更以修辞性的反诘语气点明：「今日人类无家可归（homelessness）的状态，就在于根本还不把安顿的『真正』困境视为『困境』来思考。」

针对「建筑」及其实践，海德格尔提醒我们，不应该把「生产」窄化为一种仅止于产品制造的「活动」；若然，最后即使完成了建物结构，却未触及「建筑」的「本质」。进入当代，随着晚期资本主义所带动的消费主义文化，建筑原本作为文艺创造的一环，没有例外地已经伴随全球化的金融炒作，快速沦为德国批评理论家阿多诺（Theodor Adorno, 1903–1969）和霍克海默（Max Horkheimer, 1895–1973）早在1944年就已批判的「文化工业」（culture industry）概念下的「商品」。ii  诚如阿多诺和霍克海默所言，「文化工业」挟其商品化的手段，创造了一种「惑人」（illusory）的「奇观」（spectacle）。臣服于商品暨其消费逻辑，晚期资本主义操作下的当代建筑，也早已衍化为工业化／标准化的量产商品。具有文化意义或艺术美学的建筑已属少数，量贩批发式的建物成了投机性的金融目标，而且，粗制滥造的产品比比皆是。

以当代中国的大都会城市为讨论对象，曾有来自北京的建筑评论者于2002年2月初在上海美术馆的一场座谈会中直言，上海的建筑正朝「自我妖魔化」的道路前进。iii言谈之中，该位评论者对于上海今日演变为一座建筑奇观的城市，不但深表不以为然，亦不无批判全球资本主义的用意。言犹在耳，北京作为国家的京畿首都，尽管较受节制，却也在短短数年内步入了相同的建设逻辑与经济循环。「建筑」思考的并非天、地、神、人如何荟萃于此的本质问题，而是变身屈膝于全球资本主义的经济商贸活动，沦为刺激或促销商品交易的资本空间与平台。至此，建筑与人身、心、灵的安顿关系已然脱钩，更物化为商品──亦即以交易为目的的建筑对象。建筑商品化的趋势，同步鼓励了建物工业化与量产化的制程。这类产品不是从「安顿」的设想出发，而是作为商业市场的交易目标，没有例外地以诱惑人的物欲作为营销手段。就文化意义的创造及贡献而论，这样的建筑逻辑已无启蒙人心的价值，更造成人性与人文价值的「异化」（alienation）。

建筑物化以后，奇观城市的惑人壮景随之浮现，既真且幻，也如海市蜃楼，更予人超现实之感。面对当代中国城市的建筑奇观，自幼生长于北京，本身即是建筑专业背景，而且拥有建筑事务所的青年建筑师程大鹏（1968-），却极耐人寻味地从2007年起，几度采取视觉艺术的形式，运用填充氦气的巨型软雕塑造型，以悬宕或飘浮的方式，将其定置在空中或半空中，藉此表达他对当代中国城市及现实的看法，而且，不无反思和评论的意图。

2007年元月，程大鹏首次发表的《失重》，以北京西城区的「墨臣建筑事务所」为基地，在离地8米高的空中，施放一具长达60米的鲸鱼骨骸造型。同年五月的《失控》，则是以北京「KU艺术中心」作为基地，在户外的田地上装置了一件从地面腾空升起，看起来像是仿生物形体的黑色连环锁链结构。明显可见的是，锁链构造中的部份环节已经断裂而松弛，营造了彷佛即将脱逸且飘飞而去的视觉效果。2008年五月，在北京农展馆户外基地发表的《坠落》，则是以同样长达数十米的羽毛造型，定置在广场中央，使其呈现出即将飘落，却仍悬宕，暗寓生命之轻的状态。事实上，从「失重」、「失控」、「坠落」的命名，已经可以清楚地读出一种关于结构脱轨、伦理失序，甚至价值失落的感怀、忧郁，甚至死亡意味。就作品与其发表空间的涵构关系来看，程大鹏这几件装置都以城市空间为基地，而且，刻意与周遭或接邻的建筑形成对话或互为文本的关系。当2008年《失重》再次于中国其他城市──深圳和成都──展出时，程大鹏明确地表达了自己的创作动机：「北京的城市格局每天都在发生变化，我就想表达城市建设带给人们心理的一种巨大冲击。」iv透过他定置在城市空间中的软雕塑装置，程大鹏以自己的艺术奇观，正面响应了中国当代城市的奇观，同时影射了一种「失乐园」的情境。

近日在与策展人谢素贞的一席对谈当中，程大鹏自觉地提出，「城市化」其实是一种「揠苗助长」的过程，中国今日「大面积搞城市化」，「改变的只是硬件，是在格式化人的生活。」因此，「急速而且巨大」的「大规模开发过程」，总就造成了一种「丑陋」的「现状风景」，亦即中国当代的城市奇观。面对这样的现实，程大鹏有意以艺术的手段，揭露居住在这些建筑内部的人们。他指出，「建筑的无机物的外壳去掉以后，每一栋楼都是里边一组组人的行为，我想把这里边人的行为形象化。」他进一步强调：「表达一个城市，是表达建筑内部的人。」

以视觉艺术的形式进行表现，程大鹏在这个名为「可乐乐园」的个展当中，明显是以超现实主义的语法为主，结合图腾造型，谱织出虚构与虚拟合体的风景舆图。畸形、突变、扭曲、残缺的人体，连同水生物种，譬如鱼、蛙、蟹的形体，制造了混生、交媾，甚至变体之后的新物种，不只诡奇怪异，更盘据大地，塑造成令人目不暇给的华丽山水幻景。耐人寻味的是，经过程大鹏的凝视与转化之后，人的异化并不是以机械性的疏离、冷酷及无感的意象进行再现，反而是回到原始与浑沌，甚至刻意反理性。他的画面或所制造的空间场景，举目尽是人在与低等动物合体变种之后的肉身解放，使人感觉彷佛置身理性内爆之后，底层欲望赤裸横溢的超现实情境。更为可怪的是，明明揭露的是人在「失乐园」之后的虚无、沈沦与颓废，艺术家再现的世界却像回到了图腾神话的洪荒年代──因此，反倒凸显了一种重返伊甸园的虚幻假象。

程大鹏的「可乐乐园」拟造了看似「创世纪」的伪形，实际却更接近「世纪末」或「末世」的异象。在艺术史上，以「救赎」和「堕落」作为辨别天堂与地狱的意象象征，最经典的莫过于出身荷兰的北方文艺复兴画家博斯（Hieronymus Bosch, c. 1450-1516）于16世纪初期所完成的《人间乐园》（Garden of Earthly Delights）巨作。无论从创世到末世，从伊甸园到失乐园，这整套人类因原罪与堕落，而必须等待终极救赎的大叙事，没有例外地都是出于天主教神学的图像系谱。程大鹏的「可乐乐园」倒是看不出这样的信仰要求或议题演绎。事实上，他所编造的各种图腾式的人形变体，更多地是他在面对中国当代城市的现实时，极为个人而直观的感受。

放回中国文化史的脉络来看，程大鹏所创的这些人与动物混生合体的形象，不难让人想起古籍《山海经》中所描述的各种从神话时代到传说时代的神怪异兽。然而，「可乐乐园」对应的却还是当代奇观城市中，居住在建筑内部空间的人生百态。而且，这百态的再现，刻意地是以欲望的姿形表态。所以，也可以看成是理性昏睡之后，欲望夜行的百态。再者，这些欲望的形体，绝大多数是人与较低等生物的杂交变种，隐喻着更原始更低下的欲望，甚至近似中国传统文学所称的「妖怪」。成书于六朝的志怪小说经典《搜神记》，就有这样的说法：「妖怪者，盖精气之依物者也。气乱于中，物变于外……。」用于检视程大鹏在「可乐乐园」中各种物化与异化之后的变体人种，说他们已成「气乱于中，物变于外」的「妖怪」，似乎也颇为贴切。

或许可以更直接地说，程大鹏藉「可乐乐园」揭露的正是欲望的原神及其分身。在此界域之中，欲望凝聚为一种新肉身，塑造了新拜物教的氛围，而且，已然具有城国之形，更蔚为当代物质主义世界的奇观。

可乐文化 心脏茶壶和人体茶杯

City Spectacles Lost in Material Desire—Some Observations on Cheng Dapeng’s Works

In a colloquium in 1951, German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) gave out his incisive thought that building is the means and dwelling is the goal. He pointed out that dwelling shows the real purposes of building; the latter, building, has the former, dwelling, as its goal and its essence. Heidegger repeatedly emphasized that “[t]he nature of building is letting dwell,” and “[o]nly if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build.”

Although it was after the World War II and Germany was in ruins, with a lot of reconstructions to be done, Heidegger still reminded that “the real plight of dwelling does not lie merely in a lack of houses.” In Heidegger’s view, the nature of dwelling is to protect and to preserve. Mangrows and gets initiated under the sky, on the earth, and before the divinities. The relationship between the sky, earth, divinities, and man forms the oneness of the four, which we call the fourfold. The basic character of dwelling is to spare and preserve the sky, the earth, the divinities, and man in freedom and peace. So Heidegger wrote that “the real plight of dwelling is indeed older than the world wars with their destruction, older also than the increase of the earth’s population and the condition of the industrial workers.” Nevertheless, he also pointed out rhetorically that “man’s homelessness consisted in that man still does not even think of the real plight of dwelling as the plight.”

Regarding building and the process of its making, Heidegger reminded us not to simply consider “producing” only as the “activity” to make productions; if so, even though we finish the structure, we miss grasping its nature. When it came to modern times, along with the culture of consumerism which was spurred by the late capitalism, and with global financial speculation, building, originally part of artistic creation, soon and without exception became “the commodities” of “the culture industry,” which was critiqued by the German critical theorists Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) in 1944. As Adorno and Horkheimer commented, along with its commercializationprocess, “the culture industry” created an illusory spectacle. Being subordinate to commodities and the logic of consumption, modern architecture, in the charge of late capitalism, has turned into industrialized and standardized commodities throughmass production. There are few architectural projects that remain culturally meaningful or artistically aesthetic. Architecturefalls prey to financial speculation to construct large numbers of buildings, and low-quality buildings are seen everywhere.

During a panel discussion on the metropolises in China held in Shanghai Art Museum in February 2002, an architecture critic from Beijing frankly brought up that the architecture in Shanghai was marching on the way of “self-demonization.” Besides refusing to buy the fact that Shanghai had turned into a city full of architecture spectacles, the critic also insinuated the dark side of global capitalism. With his words still being heard, despite the fact that there have been plenty of restrictions as being the capital city of China, Beijing still has set foot in the same architecture logic and economic circulation. Architecture is not solving the essential problem of how to make the sky, the earth, the divinities, and man belong together as one. Instead, it has succumbed to commercial activities of global capitalism, and becomethe platform to stimulate or promote commodity transactions. Until now, building has been separated from the dwelling relationship with the human body, the heart, and the spirit; it is more likely to be commodities, which are built to be traded. The commercialization of building also boosts its industrialization and mass production. These productions are not designed out of the aim of dwelling, but as the trading objects of the commercial market, and all use tantalizing material desire as marketing strategies without an exception. In terms of cultural significance and contribution, rather than enlightening the public mind, this kind of building logic causes the alienation between humanity and humanistic values.

When building is lost in material desires, the cities with architecture spectacles show a kind of enchanting sight, which is both real andvisionary; and it transcends the reality like a mirage. Facing the architecture spectacles in contemporary Chinese cities, Cheng Dapeng, having been brought up in Beijing, trained in architecture, and currently running an architecture firm, expressed his views on contemporary Chinese cities and their reality once and again since 2007. Exploring from the perspective of visual arts, he employed immensely large,soft sculpturalshapes made of helium balloon and had them suspended or floated in the air or in midair. By doing so, he meant to think back and comment on the reality.

In January 2007, Cheng Dapeng released his work titled “Weightlessness” in Mochen Architects& Engineers in Xicheng District, Beijing for the first time, showcasing a 60-meter-long balloon in the shape of a whaleskeleton, set 8 meters high above in the sky. In May that year, another work titled “Out-of-Control” was released, in the shape of a black, biomorphic chain structure, tied to the ground and suspending into midair at the outdoor field ofthe Ku Art Center in Beijing. It was obvious that certainlinkages of the chain structure were nearly broken or loosened, creating a visual effect that the links wereseemingly going to fly away. In May 2008, his new work “Landing,” a structure in the shape of a feather with dozens of meters long, was released on the outdoor base of the National Agricultural Exhibition Centre in Beijing. The feather-shaped balloon was placed in the center of the square, as if it was going to land on the floor, but was still drifting in the air--metaphorically hinting the lightness of life. In fact, judging from the titles of the works, “Weightlessness,” “Out-of-Control,” and “Landing,” one already senses the thought or gloom resulted from the digressions of structures, disorders in ethics, or even the loss of values and sentiment of death. Seen from the contextual relationship between Cheng’s works and the locations where they were released, those installations were all based in city spaces, and intentionally formed a kind of dialogue or inter-textual relationship with nearby buildings. When “Weightlessness” was exhibited again in 2008 in other cities in China — Shenzhen and Chengdu — Cheng Dapeng stated his creative motivation clearly: “With Beijing’s city facade changing every day, I just want to express the great shock that the city construction brings to people’s mentalities.” Through the soft sculpture installations he set in the city spaces, Cheng Dapeng confronted the spectacles ofcontemporary Chinese cities with his own artistic spectacles, which at the same time reveal a “paradise lost” condition.

Recently, in his conversation with the curator Xie Suzhen, Cheng consciously pointed out that “urbanization” in fact is “an excessive way of development.” “Urbanization is prevailing” now in China, and “urbanization can only change hardware; it’s formatting people’s life.” Thus, according to Cheng, rapid and immense large-scale development process yields an “ugly” everyday view, which is the spectacle of cities in contemporary China. Given such circumstances, Cheng Dapeng adopts artistic means to unveil people who live inside the buildings. He pointed out that “every building is in fact sets of behaviors of people living in it, after removing the shell of inorganic substance from each individual building; I want to visualize the human behavior.” He emphasized further that “the way to show a city is to show the people living in the buildings of the city.”

As a visual artist, Cheng mainly takes advantage of the language of surrealism and combines with totemic forms. In this solo exhibition, titled “Wonderful Wonderland,” he has interwoven the imaginary as well as virtual sceneries into a topographical landscape. Mixing with aquatic species such as fish, frog and crab, the deformed, mutated, distorted, malformed human bodies are interbred into new species created from variant of the gene. It is more than fantastic and extraordinary. The new creatures even procreate and expand into a magnificently amazing dreamscape occupying the earth, filling the viewer’s eyes with unprecedented visual glamour. Somewhat intriguing is that through the gaze and transformation of the artist, the alienation is not shown by images of human mechanization, hostility and indifference; instead, it returns back to primitiveness and chaos, even in a purposefulanti-reason manner. What fill the space and scenery are all releases of flesh of varieties from the hybrid of human and lower species. It makes one feel like being placed in the midst of surreal scene full of primitive and bare desires. Even more peculiar is thatthe artist appears to depict human beings as having fallen into emptiness, corruption, and decadence, namely, a  “post-paradise lost” state; however, what he has represented makes one feel as though he or she is back in the time of great antiquity, in which mythology and totems still rule. Thus, it hideously features a false impression of return to the Garden of Eden.

Cheng Dapentg’s “Wonderful Wonderland” gives out a simulated vision which seems like “Genesis”, but, in fact, resembles more “the end of the world.” In the history of art, the most classic and greatest work dealing with the themes of “redemption” and “depravation,” in an attempt to distinguish paradise from hell, is the “Garden of Earthly Delights,” which was completed in the early 16 century by the Northern Renaissance painterin Holland, Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450-1516). No matter from the creation of the world to the end of the world, or from Garden of Eden to Paradise Lost, the whole narrative of Man waiting for ultimate redemption resulted inthe original sin and depravation is part ofthe iconographical tradition of Catholic theology. However, inthe “Wonderful Wonderland,” one cannot find such religious belief or agenda. As a matter of fact, the various deformed human images delineated by Cheng Dapeng emanate more from his personal,intuitive feelings when facing the reality of contemporary cities in China.

Looking back at the history of Chinese culture, it’s not hard to associate the images of mixed fauna and combination of human and animals to various genies and monsters from the mythological age to the era of legendarysagas,as narrated in the ancient classic, such as Shanhai Jing(The Classic of Mountains and Rivers). Nevertheless, the “Wonderful Wonderland” is set in the contemporary city of spectacle to show various walks of human life in theinner space of buildings. And the multitudinous walks of life are purposely represented in the form of desires. Therefore, it can also be seen as a situation where desires go wild at night whilehuman reason falls asleep. Moreover, those materialized forms of desires are in the majority hybrids of human and lower creatures. Images as such also metaphorically connotes the more primitive and lower desires, which are reminiscent of the similar beings called yaoguai(monsters) as seen in traditional Chinese literature. There is the saying in the classic compilation of legends, short stories and hearsay concerning ghost fiction and all sorts of supernatural phenomenon, titled“Soushen Ji” (“In Search of the Supernatural”),written in the Six Dynasties (4th century AD): “A monster is the materialization of the negative and positive spirits; when the spirit in it is in disorder, the shape of it changes.” It is equally appropriate to describe the variant mutated human species as monsters in Cheng Dapeng’s “Wonderful Wonderland,” for they indeed demonstrate monstrous beings that have changed shapes due to theirdisorder in spirit.

Or one could say even more directly that Cheng Dapeng’s “Wonderful Wonderland” has embodied the spirit of desire and its incarnation. In this peculiar realm, desire acquires a new flesh, which becomes a new cult of fetishism, and consequently transforms intothe shape of a city-state. In the end, the “Wonderful Wonderland” has presenteditself as a spectacle of contemporary materialist world.

————Chia Chi Jason WANG

---

程大鹏与谢素贞的访谈录

可乐文化  系列绘画 布面线描

艺术与建筑的对话：谈可乐乐园的精神性与时代美学的转变

谢素贞：古罗马维特努威（Marcus Virtuvius Pollio）的“建筑十书”主张「实用、坚固、美观」,在文艺复兴之后成为建筑的金科玉律,你觉得哪项是你在建筑上面首先考虑的？  

程大鹏：我觉得在中国这一点不太好回答，因为语境不一样。私人业主是以营利为目的，政府是以扩大城市影响为目的，这些对建筑师的判断会有影响，所以中国会有很多很怪的和违反建筑伦理的建筑。比如大量的仿真的欧洲古典建筑，或者违反文化秩序的建筑，这些跟建筑学本身是相左的。每一个业主对于项目都是不一样的。对于建筑师自己来说，第一点考虑则是是建筑学基本的规律性东西：实用美观，很难分开。而对于其它的要求来说则是相对，比如私人项目或是政府项目的项目本身的特殊性。

所有建筑师在中国大的系统里工作就像拍电影，如果拍明代的，所有演员都要穿着明代的衣服。

谢素贞：你对于目前现城市的发展有什么看法？

程大鹏：这是一个大题，我觉得现在存在的一切，我不能说现状发展中的中国是糟糕的或者说是不可原谅的，这就是中国社会发展到这当下的一个必然的情况，作为一个建筑师必然要在这个语境下工作，（你拍一个清朝电影所有人要穿着清朝的衣服在里边这个环境中工作），所以在这种情况下，很多东西不是接受不接受，而是以什么方式来接受，或者接受的时候能把个人理想主义的东西放进去。这一点跟艺术家是不一样的，艺术家是可以想做自己的就做自己，建筑师要开发票的，属于服务业。

目前中国大面积搞城市化，城市化是人类历史发展过程中拔苗助长的一个过程，造城运动改变的只是硬件，是在格式化人的生活。

虽然做这个事从大逻辑来讲不是一个合理的事，但是建筑师不太可能不做。

谢素贞：你刚才谈到很多甲方跟乙方的现实问题，还有一些建筑师无奈的问题，当建筑师面临的竞争牵扯到的权利跟利益，与做艺术家相比而言你觉得有什么异同？因为艺术家只要你到某一个程度的时候，也是出现权利跟利益的妥协问题。

程大鹏：建筑师面临这个情况比艺术家更尖锐，而且明确，更加难受得多，因为他做完一个建筑之后，这个建筑一直存在成为社会整个城市的一部分，所以很多问题随时间消失不了。比如最简单的好看不好看的问题，所以暴露的矛盾比艺术家要强烈得多。相对艺术家，单个艺术作品流通渠道是有限的，通过媒体、通过杂志、通过博物馆、通过展览，但是建筑不是，建筑是直接放在大街上。

谢素贞：社会审美舆论的问题？

程大鹏：它的水平、纵深，包括实践上都跟一般的普通艺术作品有很大的区别，所以多数建筑师不知不觉地被推到这个火山口上，可能意识不到，像北京西客站那个设计师，即使他拿了很多奖，即使他工作的时候再任劳任怨、再勤快、对同事关系再好、对于建筑行业再热爱，可是他最终与其他参与者互动最终设计出了一个现在西客站，这对北京城市潜移默化的影响是长远而且是严重的。

所以相比世界上一个城市建设成熟的城市，北京不得不做很多努力，从落后的对建筑的理解方式和判断方式来一点点改变出来。

谢素贞：你刚才提及，设计出一个特殊建筑物似乎成了现在建筑师主要的工作，你如何看待一个建筑师对待土地、对待历史还有社会的应有的价值观？

程大鹏：您说这些是作为建筑师来说历史上要求建筑师的一个必答题，你要成为建筑师会遇到这些问题，就跟当一个医生似的，当一个医生要理解人体、所有的脂肪、所有的构造，这是一个必答题。实际上建筑师和医生面临同样一个问题，比如医生，坏人你治不治？不该活的人你治不治？建筑师面临同样的问题，一个明显对城市有破坏行为的开发方式和建筑方式你参与不参与？即使是在这个大语境情况下，对于建筑学本身解决得再精确，如果你站错了位置，这个事你就反不了身。

谢素贞：希特勒时期建造了许多所谓历史记忆的建筑，事实上对于城市景观，历史尊重就引起了很大的争议。

程大鹏：社会的复杂和有趣是因为它是多元化的，这个多元化并不是说好的多元化，是什么情况都会存在的，包括历史也不会一如既往按照理想情况来发展，所以每个阶段都出现很多问题，历史发展是一个人类发展的过程，是人类能力会不断的增长的过程。我认为，人类只要发展，就对自然产生持续的破坏，这是肯定的。

谢素贞：罗兰巴特曾经说过建筑的梦想与求变双向运动中，功能跟用处除了演示其意义的功能之外，其实一无所有，你如何处理建筑案子实际操作跟梦想的完成？如您刚才所说除了妥协以外，你如何用智慧跟专业来解决这些问题？

程大鹏：在一个成熟发展的国家，所谓先进国家，建筑师所有的努力基本上可以按照正常的行为逻辑来判断和实现的，但是在中国不行，不是说因为中国多落后，是因为中国在快速畸形地发展。作为建筑师认为，我认为这种发展出现的问题基本是必须面对且无法回避的。

谢素贞：是不是这些所谓无奈的接受或妥协，让你一定要从艺术创作变成一个“出口”？

程大鹏：没有无奈的过程，实践的过程其实很快乐。没有什么情况让我特别难受如果还有实现不了的属于梦想的东西，当然要努力通过别的方式来实现。

谢素贞：你为什么要做艺术？

程大鹏：对于建筑来说牵扯到大量的时间，大量的社会资源，你很难凭借自己的一个个人主导整个项目的发展，动辄一个项目投资几千万，而且时间长达五、六年。

谢素贞：所以你没有妥协？

程大鹏：哪方面妥协？

谢素贞：比如说业主，他必须给我加一个斜梁歪柱，我要一个怎么样叙事宏大的东西，彰显他的一些与你品位不合的美学的时候。

程大鹏：业主要求你建筑功能上妥协的东西，谈不上叫妥协。如果项目有悖社会的主流价值观，或是违反政策法规，比如文化保护核心区突然出现高密度或者明显与本地文化逻辑不符的一些建筑符号出现，才是问题。

可乐城市  三维树脂打印
谢素贞：我应该再重申妥协这两个字，就是当你心里有一个梦想的创作物，好像一个艺术家，他在从事一件雕塑作品，可能因为有收藏家的介入，而做出与原意违背的作品，在历史上比比皆是。你会做这样的妥协吗？

程大鹏：有时候会。

谢素贞：这个妥协会不会因为你拿到了案子以后的快乐胜过这个妥协？

程大鹏：一般直观的反应是不愿意，但你不做有人做。

谢素贞：这个问题在其他已开发的国家就是很重要的原则问题，业主到底对专业信任多少，对专业既有的品位美学信任多少，而少干预。其实也显现甲方的社会教育水准。

程大鹏：中国大规模开发过程是急速而且巨大，它不像国外是一个微循环的过程，可以培养出有质量的机构、有能量有经验的甲方，与建筑师可以形成良好的互动。但在中国，因为房地产行业是最近十年才突然快速的发展起来的，建设大量的城市名片式的建筑，也是最近十年才开始的，多数的业主是没有经验的

谢素贞：你只能用你的专业或者你的一些沟通能力去达到。你曾经说过我们这一代把房子都盖完了、盖尽了，下一代真的不知道还能做什么。现在建筑师的野心，表现在这个时代，其实是一个个人宣扬他自己力气，也是想要赋予时代经验的一个纪念碑。你觉得建筑师所能够给这个历史传递的信息是什么？像你说中国大量快速的演变，我还是用妥协这两个字，所以不得不去接受妥协，甲方业主所提出来极为可能不符合这个时代场域的建筑要求的时候，我们的信念变成什么呢？

程大鹏：还是要看什么情况，这个情况不能用一句话来回答。针对什么样的项目，作出什么样的选择。如果作为一个公众瞩目的项目来说，可能会听到不同的声音，比如像北京的几个地标性的建筑（只说北京的），大致来说符合中国现代城市的需要，比如面向未来等等，不管说这“未来”是不是中国的未来，但是绝对不会朝后看，或者别朝的别的国家的后面看。这样的项目建筑师的主导性会多一些。而对于普通的项目来说，对于城市的破坏不是说像在天安门上建一个古罗马的建筑一眼能看出来的。实际上大量的建筑项目，处在三、四线城市，甚至北京的郊区，很多的建筑并不一定马上显示出对城市的破坏。多数时候，建筑可以确实地改变当地人的生活或者当地的城市品质。所以我觉得，如果有设计的机会，一定的妥协或是共谋还是有必要的。

谢素贞：你刚才说的已经涉及到城市规划了，是一个相当大的问题，而不只是单独建筑师的问题，城市规划的问题。我在微博上看到一则信息：“北京2030年以后二环以内不能行车了，只能是绿色环境，全部是走路和脚踏车。”我觉得北京城有非常好的风景，但是我们知道不太可能，因为巴黎跟伦敦都做不到。其实你讲的这个问题，虽然我们把很多问题都归咎于建筑师的良心、理想或者是道德水准，最后还是牵扯到很多现实的问题。问一下你最欣赏的中外建筑师是谁？

程大鹏：我最欣赏的建筑师，第一点，首先是个有个性的人，具备充足的建筑师的特征，比如像让·努维尔（Jean Nouvel），他的设计不是从建筑本身来开始的，比如文化、历史、艺术方面的探索。

很多出色的建筑师并不是建筑基本功有多好，第一点是他的生活经验有趣，我觉得有趣比专业性更重要，中国整个社会缺少趣味，有趣的人太少了。以前很多建筑师我很喜欢，但是由于他们来到中国之后，我觉得他们似乎作出的妥协非常令人恶心，因为他们有巨大的话语权，所以危害更大。

谢素贞：这个妥协是因为有期待值。

程大鹏：我看见一些国外大牌建筑师在中国做的项目都极其恶劣而且糟糕。

谢素贞：这是甲方的问题。

程大鹏：不光是建筑师，人性的问题，这已经不是建筑师本身的问题了。

谢素贞：甲方的问题。

可乐文化 系列绘画 布面线描
程大鹏：不一定，你可以不干。社会对中国建筑师的态度是要么你不干，要么你干好。但对国外的建筑师却不这么说。他们同样面对中国社会亢fen的建设热情和低劣的完成度，同样浪费如此巨大的资源，却为什么还要积极地干？每次大型的城市招标找的都是国外一线品牌的建筑师团队，却很难找到一个鲁迅，如果出现一种像库哈斯那样的鲁迅，对整个社会有批判精神的建筑师。问题是现在是这样，库哈斯到中国来说也把马甲穿上了，他深刻知道中国是在做什么，需要什么。由鲁迅变成演员了。

谢素贞：成功的建筑师像是社会沟通学家？

程大鹏：像庖丁解牛，刀在这个缝里游走，就可以利用所有的资源。很多重要的建筑师对社会作出的妥协比小建筑师对社会的妥协作出的危害还要大，就像名人说假话是很危险的。

谢素贞：我知道这是你非常强调的，名人对社会的危害比一般普通人还大。

程大鹏：大得多。上电视的人说假话比不上电视的人说假话危害还要大。

谢素贞：努维尔做的建筑物是你最喜欢的国内外的建筑物吗？

程大鹏：我觉得不一定是最喜欢的，我觉得他这个人生活方式，对我们这一代建筑师是最需要的。

谢素贞：有没有喜欢哪一个特定的建筑或者社区？

程大鹏：有很多喜欢的好的建筑，我觉得多数大师在国外，在自己国家做的建筑，多数是不错的。起码是在一个严肃的、理性的、设计环境中做出来的东西。他的一切都是有分寸的。

谢素贞：我们刚才说一个城市现在成为许多旅游的盛典就是著名的建筑物，这已经成为不可避免的城市行销的手法。建筑师如果是城市的重要形象工程师的话，全世界范围内你最留恋的城市是哪个城市？

程大鹏：我最喜欢的城市是纽约，因为足够丰富。

谢素贞：不单只是因为建筑。

程大鹏：因为它丰富，信息量大，不只是建筑，人的行为足够丰富，能看出很多不同，并不是一个大饼一样的雷同社会：人对生活态度，声音都是一样的。好的城市应该是一个大果篮，果篮里什么水果都有。

谢素贞：所以你对建筑师、建筑物、城市最后的终结点还是回到人文的丰富？

程大鹏：这是对的，我对建筑师的喜爱就是这样的。

谢素贞：你自己有满意的作品吗？

程大鹏：没有。

谢素贞：最近有没有一些更有挑战性的作品？

程大鹏：有，应该是挺有意思的，我们在做西安当代艺术馆，挺有意思的。这件事充满了对抗，西安是中国传统文化、中国表象文化、浅文化聚集的一个场所。西安说是千年古都，实际上是被恶劣的文化氛围和假的文化符号包围的一个城市，在那儿生活肯定特痛苦，到处都是假的文物，假的符号。西安城市尺幅巨大，但整个城市设计规划都错了。

可乐城市单体  三维树脂打印

谢素贞：你为什么觉得它有挑战？是因为跟甲方的沟通有挑战，还是可以达成你自己要达成的东西？

程大鹏：在这么一个虚伪的环境城市下发出自己的声音，如果能够正常情况下说出自己的意思来有点儿小清新的感觉。

谢素贞：你的早期创作都是一些新语汇的装置作品，身为建筑师的你与艺术界有一些特殊的关联吗？还是有一些什么历史的渊源？

程大鹏：因为我老师从小带我学画画，我觉得画画只是艺术的一部分，艺术还有更多的延展的方向。

谢素贞：就是这个原因让你一直都跟艺术有不解之缘吗？其实训练手的技巧跟心的连接是建筑系的必修课程。但是并不是很多人最后都将艺术跟自己的生活、生命联结在一起。像台湾早期的成功大学建筑系，系主任是前辈艺术家郭柏川，现在那一代教出来的建筑师，艺术丰富度很够，上课都要画油画，画不好就拿藤条打。他们那一代好些都在著名大学担当重要的精神导师，都是那几代艺术家教出来的。他们或许最后转到了城市规划或者其他部分，可是他们对艺术的爱好还有跟艺术界的渊源是相当深，在谈吐和文学创意上就跟一般的建筑师，纯粹盖房子的建筑师就有一些差别，这是艺术跟建筑当中一种互补，互相服务的关系。

程大鹏：特别对，艺术因为主要是对人的精神世界的一个挖掘，当建筑师，如果光是从技术上解决，如此复杂的一个问题是没有可能解决好的，所以我们现在招的学生明显艺术院校毕业的建筑学生比工科院校毕业的明显好得多，不光是艺术上的，明显技术上也好。
谢素贞：近几十年来全世界的建筑分成两派：荷兰跟日本，尤其是日本是一个特别特殊的民族，他们做了一系列日本新锐建筑师的研究，出书、发表，向全世界的运行。库哈斯还建立一个团队，也在研究日本新锐建筑师。我想说我们在这些新锐建筑师的体系里边可以看到，比如安腾忠雄在还没有出名的时候盖了一个小小的住宅，就已经有了他后面成名时代的风格，矶崎新当然也有他自己的一个富丽堂皇的语汇，你自己有没有尝试要建立一个自己的语汇？

程大鹏：我对这个问题是这么看的，中国建筑师所有现在做的东西，包括研究方法、研究目标，未来的榜样，就跟中国的当代艺术对于国外的当代艺术一样。从现代建筑学在中国是一个小弟弟，包括跟日本也是无法比的。

谢素贞：这种没有办法建立自己的语汇是不是你在妥协，我们刚才讲过出资方或者权贵审美要求的价值矛盾的时候，没有办法出现你自己的特定语汇？

程大鹏：我觉得也不是，特殊的是中国的语境跟国外的语境是不一样的。

谢素贞：出现了中国建筑师的特色。

程大鹏：对，中国建筑师在国外是一个专有名词，叫Chinese－ Architects，这是一个积极的参与整个社会改造的，不断地参与出高效率的低质作品的。很难说现在这个词是好是坏，因为中国现在大的生态逻辑是一定要让多数人极早的，拔苗助长的进入所谓的现代化，提高土地使用效率，因为中国土地使用效率比较低。

谢素贞：建筑图腾的追求已然成为政治跟城市行销的一部分，我们在北京和上海都可以看到这个部分的呈现与持续性，在二、三级城市也延续首都的风格开始找曾经在首都承接项目的大师级建筑师，帮助他们建造公共建筑；建筑师最常见的一个主题就是普遍的期待值跟追逐的美梦，就是他盖了一个什么样地标性建筑，每座城市都希望有最轰动的建筑，每一个建筑必须推翻之前的建筑，出现了很多我们觉得古怪及哗众取宠的建筑物充斥在城市里明显的角落，对于这样的「形象工程」，还有这一类追逐奇观的状况你如何看待？

程大鹏：这也是中国特色的一个部分，包括哈迪德也参与进来了，哈迪德在中国做的项目跟在欧洲做的项目是不一样的，充满了符号化，充满了简单的符号感，像一个成名艺术家卖自己符号性的作品一样，这是整个社会的需要，各个城市对这样新、古、怪、奇的建筑的需要。2、3线城市大型公共建筑的投招标，中国建筑师只参与部分，50%以上是国外建筑师或者是在中国有挂名的国外建筑师的机构以名利为目的实施的。这些地标类项目设计过程中，很难是慎重地参考社会利益的，参考政府的利益，参考建筑师本人的想法，做的东西基本都是畸形的，或者大而空洞无物的东西。很多体育馆做完都放在那儿了，过两天做展销会，平常。使用效率很低。所有地标建筑都是有武警站岗的，都是有围墙的，本身这种建筑出现就不是一个好事。

谢素贞：中国发展的现况，不管是充满期待还是无奈，还是妥协，都是这个时代的表征，其实建筑已经可以作为你的主要创作，你为什么现在想要做艺术？

程大鹏：是这样，建筑本身探索还没有完，因为我也不愿意甘心这么妥协，所以一旦有好的机会还是想看看这个事怎么往前走，起码往一百分里走，一百分最后打完折是三十分，也比刚开始定位为三十分走走五分的建筑要好得多，这是第一；

第二，建筑设计本身的探索远远不够，建筑本身能够做得更有趣的。比如这个展览，建筑的某个局部是在动的，有雕塑的形态融到建筑里头。

谢素贞：我记得前一阵子阿拉伯世界已经设计了一座建筑物，可以是随风变动，所以外观不断地在改变。

程大鹏：那个建筑没有建，但我觉得这个建筑的出发点很高，与科技、环保等等一些东西结合，这是建筑未来发展的方向，建筑不再是常规常态的形态，是一个有效率、有审美功能的一个壳，可能把人类对社会更多的希望给实现了，所以未来的建筑可能会融汇更多的东西，未来的建筑，光靠建筑师肯定是不够的

。

可乐城市单体  三维树脂打印

谢素贞：艺术是给你一个另外创造的机会，还是可以充分表达自我的东西？

程大鹏：我觉得艺术相对来说，第一点相对建筑，相对易于直接表达自我。

谢素贞：可以解释成另一个发现的窗户。

程大鹏：因为它不开发票。我就是我的甲方，我想要什么我就做什么，现阶段起码在创作的时候是这样的，这跟建筑创作的环境是完全不一样的。

谢素贞：从早期的工程浩大的软雕塑，到目前展览的“机械装置”成为你创作的主轴，或者是架上绘画来创作，跟你的职业有关吗？

程大鹏：没有什么关系，平面的很多东西目前从我这个方面来表达，我觉得可能对我个人来说展示方式有限，并不是说架上的东西不好，因为我毕竟画了大量的架上作品，艺术与建筑之间从技术本身来说也会有一个清晰的结合点。

谢素贞：我们看到你的架上绘画大部分都是变形的社会百态，扭曲的人，残缺的肢体，放大的器官，各式各样的动物或者是人类的交媾姿态，再到最后组成为中国的“伪山水”或者是“类汉字”；在细部来看，是整个社会上一些每天发生的事情，也是你所面对的生活，这些画既非漫画，也不是动漫画，也不是油画，也不是建筑，也不是素描，为什么要以这样的形式作为你创作的根源呢？

程大鹏：我觉得丑陋的东西一样可以形成风景。这跟建筑师不一样，在各种不同的情况下做出来的很多东西是合理的、不合理的，有趣的、无趣的，是审美的或者不符合审美的，很多东西已经构成了现状的一个风景。

谢素贞：初次去看你的平面作品的时候，你给我一种很新奇又淡然的姿态在谈及你的画作。你告诉我你所面对的现实环境就是“可乐”两个字，表达出一个新时代的艺术家面对自己创作，以及面对艰难环境所表现出的心态。上一辈的文人用一种嘲讽、叛逆、消极的态度来面对整个社会环境，例如说我们看到的所有诗词、文人画都有消极避世的语汇在里边。可是你用“可乐”两个字的时候，就变成你刚刚说的它是日常的东西，欣然接受，也坦然面对，是一个完全不同的姿态。

程大鹏：这一点来说是建筑与纯艺术根本上的不一样之处。艺术家是想干的事可以干，不想干的事就不干，只要解决了温饱的问题。建筑师不是，建筑师面临两个问题，要么你干或不干，多数建筑师选择是干，或者把一个刚开始不想干的建筑尽可能给干好，因为建筑师的活动是参与社会实践的一部分，并不能因为这个建筑不符合自己的初衷或者不符合建筑逻辑，你就不干了，否则你连改变它的机会都没有。

谢素贞：谈完平面，再谈谈你的机械装置，还有类建筑装置，还有文化创意衍生品三个部分。在机械装置部分呈现了巨大轻且重的形式，其实就像你之前的软雕塑是一样的。在类建筑的机械装置作品上面，你为什么会一直采用机械装置或者是工程浩大的形式来做艺术品？

程大鹏：我想以后针对建筑做这个探索，因为每个建筑对我来说都是耗时、耗工、耗钱的，建筑如果你不去改造它，基本上是长时间静态的，观察角度即使人在动，建筑也不动的，是相对静止的。我想通过这样的探索来改变建筑，希望将来建筑有装置的变化。

谢素贞：艺术家一般做机械装置，大多是画一个草稿，开始找工匠研究，但还是有发生错误的极大的可能性，像你这个巨大的机械装置，你有没有事先做什么样的准备或者什么样的工作，让现场展览不至于发生巨大的失误或差异？

程大鹏：我们就是做1：1的模型，跟做建筑一样，整个做的过程是一个建筑实施的过程，有创意先画图，然后做实验。

谢素贞：你租了巨大的工厂，1：1的去做，从选机械，买材料，研究效果，再到现场装设，这一类的装置作品跟你预期的呈现效果差异大吗？

程大鹏：不大，跟做建筑是一样的，在技术范围内就没有什么难题了，跟做建筑一样，建筑难根本不是在技术范围内。

谢素贞：你还是将你从事建筑的准确度应用到了你的艺术创作里边。

程大鹏：是的。

谢素贞：第二个部分是类建筑的装置，它的材质跟创作过程可不可以解释一下，我觉得据您的描绘，是出现类似像哈利波特梦幻的一个城市，他可以变成真的建筑物吗？

程大鹏：不是的，我觉得这是一个意象。主意的意。我想这是一个每一栋建筑抽出来之后，把混凝土、玻璃等构成建筑的无机物的外壳去掉以后，每一栋楼都是里边一组组人的行为，我想把这里边人的行为形象化。

谢素贞：壳抽掉了只剩下人的行为？

程大鹏：我觉得表达一个城市，是表达建筑内部的人。

可乐装置 枯山水 三维打印树脂材ABS

谢素贞：你想建筑物内的居住动物行为把它变成建筑化？

程大鹏：对，是的，我给它建筑化。而且我用建筑的方式来表达出来，因为我是用建筑的模型打印出来的，这套方式是做建筑模型的方式。

谢素贞：现在艺术圈流行回归中国文化的传统元素，包括绘画、很多装置，国际成名的中国艺术家大概都采取这样的方式。你的另一件机械装置《枯山水》为何以日本的著名庭院形式来呈现，而不是用苏州庭院的方式呈现，标示我是中国建筑师、我是中国艺术家？

程大鹏：我觉得未来中国符号化的元素可能就很难找了。比如在建筑上找全是失败的，中国元素简单的应用必是是失败的。只有与中国有一定距离的人能够做出来，比如像贝聿铭他做出很多有中国符号的现代建筑。。其他对于中国元素的投机性使用，在以后会是比较难的。因为中国文化特点也不能再靠几个符号来比较显现的做出来，包括贝聿铭做的那些建筑，他对于中国传统的尺度和符号也非常慎重的，很难看到他三层以上的大楼还有中国概念中的符号，比如什么灰砖、瓦之类的东西。符号化的使用基本都跟商业目的有的直接关系。符号性强，标识性就强，标签性就强。

谢素贞：文化创意产业在欧美发展数十年，是基于民族、地方文化、传统产业特质，在加以改善，创造成为一个新兴的产业，在附着以行销的方式来创造资本、策略，整个行为是将价值转换为价格的一个战略，你如何看待文创？

程大鹏：我觉得文创是会改变，尤其是像中国可以改变，从小的来说可以改变人的生活质量，从大的来说可以改变城市的质量，所以文创因为它不像建筑一样，很多东西与人从审美角度来讲，人是可看而不可控的，对于文创来说多数人可以参与，包括现在淘宝上卖的东西，多数参与设计，多数人使用，这些多数人就可以主导。

谢素贞：在这一次的展览当中你设计了一些日常用品，作为建筑师在设计小件物品上有什么样的不同的思维？与你从事建筑上面，他所展现的方式或者创造的技巧有什么不同？

程大鹏：第一点是功能性要好，这跟艺术品最大的区别第一它是有功能性的，如果是灯它要能够亮，使用起来方便也不会着火，如果是茶壶，倒水要方便，基本的功能要有，其次文创其他特征要表现出来，多数的文创产品实际上对生活另一方面的解释，让人觉得生活有更多的方面可以享受到，生活质量提高了，是非常有意义的。

谢素贞：整个展览中基本上全部都是白色，这跟一般美术馆的展览空间有雷同之处，但是跟建筑可能又有所区别，为什么会采用白色作为主要色系？

程大鹏：因为艺术对建筑师是另外一部分的工作，他基本上每天跟各种人打交道，每天干各种各样的活，他看到社会整个一个剖面，从投资商，一直到底下基层干活的工人、厂家，你会接触整个社会的横断面。所以从展览层面希望整个周围环境尽可能的相对单纯，与周围平常的工作尽可能多的反差。

谢素贞：作为一个建筑师，侵略性较强，因为他必须将环境都在他的掌握之中，作为艺术家其实是自我性比较强，这一次展览起名叫“可乐乐园”，你觉得是建筑师的乐园还是艺术家的乐园？

程大鹏：“可乐乐园”是针对在城市生活中或者目前的语境之下，所有人的生活方式，所有人感受的环境。我认为这个环境是对所有人的，不管环境是什么样，人都应该清新地活着，甭管是参与社会改造的建筑师，或者是不得不助纣为虐的建筑师，都应该采取积极的态度，都应该采取一种更阳光的方式来接受，如果能够用自己的方式改变就应该改变。

谢素贞：你的创作已经是过滤掉很多的东西，其实剩下一个现象，从画面引申过来变成伪雕塑或者是类雕塑这样的奇形怪状的异物来讲，对于你将来把它放到建筑物上面，或者是在建筑物里边呈现，其实是对业主很大的一个审美挑战。

程大鹏：我觉得中国现在的问题有一点优势，对新、奇、特，对一个新的体验的追求始终是不遗余力的。而且多数业主是越来越年轻，我们遇见的业主有80后的，这代人对于整个社会的看法我觉得跟上一代人是完全不一样的，没有那么多沉重，他只是对于财富突然增加的快感，所以未来会有很多很极端的建筑。

谢素贞：我期待见到你的乐园。给我一个残酷的童话世界的感觉。我觉得它具有独特的美学思维，跟惯有的优雅美学或者是童趣美学，或者是简易美学，代表艺术史上的审美观有些不太一样。其实对艺术家佛洛依德的推崇，就已经表征了大众对于传统审美的疲劳，如果我们看惯了优雅或者欧式的极简或者是美式的波普以后，东方主义的东方特色，其实并没有出现其他的美学，从弗朗西斯·培根（Francis Bacon）开始就是另外一种邪恶美学的兴起，佛洛依德表现壅肿的躯体横跨在画面上的美学可以被世人所接受的时候，另类美学里面的隐喻所带来的社会表征回到人性，这一直是永远不变的美学。如果你的雕塑可以展现中国所有的社会问题就是一个时代的标的物，就不是我们现在看到的母与子的、英雄骑马的传统雕塑，因为那样的传统美学其实已经不能告诉时代的美学象征了。

程大鹏：我觉得这个社会呈现给所有人的，从艺术角度来看，远远不如网络上虚拟世界上感觉到的，虚拟世界是一个庞大的世界，这个虚拟世界没有一个虚拟世界的空间是常规常态的。

谢素贞：艺术史向来是由学院以及精英所撰写，知识与美学是来基于传统的美术史，文字是用来阐述视觉的感受及教育推广，中国需要自身的社会艺术史观，再度呼吁什么是新时代的美学是我们所期待的。

程大鹏：未来大量80后、90后主导社会，他的虚拟世界是非常庞大的，牵扯到方方面面，牵扯到体育、文化、文学、艺术、音乐，这个世界也是通过常规手段难以表达的。

谢素贞：建筑师能长持艺术家的创作精神，期待你的雕塑变成一个建筑物，期待你能建造会移动、会呼吸的建筑物，期待你的可乐乐

园。    

可乐乐园装置局部 三维打印树脂材料

Dialogue Between Art and Architecture: On the Spirit of Wonderful Wonderland and the Transformation of Modern Aesthetics

Xie Suzhen: The Roman Marcus Virtuvius Pollio asserted in his Ten Books on Architecture that a structure must exhibit the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas — that is, it must be solid, useful, beautiful. And this became the golden rule of architecture after the Renaissance. Which of the three qualities is your priority on architecture?

Cheng Dapeng: I don’t think it’s easy to answer that in China, because of the different situations: the private proprietors want to make money, while the government wants to increase the influence of the cities. That will influence the architects’ judgment, and that’s why there are many weird buildings and buildings which are against the ethics of architecture in China — such as so many replicas of classical European buildings, or buildings against the cultural orders. All of these conflict with architecture. Each proprietor has his own special intentions. And for architects, the first thing to consider is the basic discipline of architecture: being useful and being beautiful shouldn’t be separated easily. And other requirements should be considered depending on the specialties of the situation, like whether it’s a project for a private proprietor or a project for the government. In China, all architects are working in a similar way of making movies: when making a movie about the Ming Dynasty, all actors should dress clothes of the Ming Dynasty.

Xie Suzhen: What are your opinions on the development of modern cities?

Cheng Dapeng: It’s a huge question. It’s improper to say that everything we have now, the present China is terrible or unforgivable, for it’s the inevitable result of China’s development. And as an architect you’ve got to work in this situation — just like when you’re making a Qing Dynasty movie, everyone should dress the Qing Clothes and work in this environment. So under this kind of situation, for a lot of things, it’s not about whether to accept or not, it’s about how to accept, or whether you can put your own ideas into it when accepting it. In this way we’re different than artists, for artists can persist with their own ideas, but architects need invoices, and we’re part of the service industry.Urbanization is prevailing now in China, and it’s an excessive way of development in the human history. Urbanization can only change hardware; it’s formatting people’s life.Although basically it’s not proper to do this, it’s hard for architects to avoid it.

Xie Suzhen: You just talked about many actual problems between Party A and Party B, and some problems architects can’t solve. The competitions architects face are involved with rights and benefits, and what’s the difference between your rights and benefits and those of the artists’? Because to some extent, artists will also face the problem of compromising between rights and benefits.

Cheng Dapeng: What the architects are facing is sharper, clearer, and much tougher. That’s because when he finishes a building, it will become part of the whole city, and many problems won’t vanish as the time goes by — such as the simplest problem: Whether it’s beautiful or not. There will be much more problems to be exposed than the artists. And for an artist, the circulation channels of a single artwork are limited — through media, magazines, museums, exhibitions — but buildings are different, they’re standing in the streets.

Xie Suzhen: Is it about the social public opinions on aesthetics?

Cheng Dapeng: There’s a lot of difference between it and general artworks on extent, and in the process of creating. So most architects are put in this dilemma unconsciously. Like the designer who designed the Beijing West Railway Station, who got many prizes for this work, no matter how hard he worked, how well he treated his coworkers, or how much he loved the architecture industry, he designed the present Beijing West Railway Station through his cooperation with others. Its imperceptible impact on the city of Beijing is long-term and strong.So compared with the well-built cities in the world, Beijing still has a long way to go to gradually liberate itself from the poor understanding and judgment about architecture.

Xie Suzhen: You just said that it seems to be architects’ main job to design a special building. What are the basic values an architect should have on land, history and society in your opinion?

Cheng Dapeng: It’s a required question for architects in history, and if you want to be an architect, you will confront this question. It’s similar to be a doctor: you must know the human body, all the fat and structures, it’s a required question. In fact, both architects and doctors are facing the same question. As a doctor, should you treat bad guys, or people that shouldn’t be treated? As an architect, should you participate in the exploitation and construction that’s clearly destructive to the city? Even in this situation, however well you deal with architecture, if you choose the wrong side, you will be wrong forever.

Xie Suzhen: Many so-called historic buildings were created during the Hitler times. As a matter of fact, in the field of city view, it causes a lot of controversies to respect history.

Cheng Dapeng: Society is complicated and interesting because of its pluralism. It’s not to say that this pluralism is only about good things, it’s about everything, including the fact that history doesn’t go smoothly as planned all the time. So there will be many problems in each phase. The history is the course of humans’ development, during which humans continually promote their skills. I think it’s for sure that as long as humans are developing, they will do nonstop harm to nature.

Xie Suzhen: Roland Barthes used to say that during the mutual motion between architecture’s dreams and the search for changing, the only use of function is just to demonstrate its meanings. How do you deal with the operation of architecture cases and the completion of dreams? As you just said, apart from compromise, how do you solve this problem with wisdom and specialty?

Cheng Dapeng: In well-developed countries — so-called advanced countries, almost all the hard work of architects can be judged and realized through normal logic, but it can’t be done in China. It’s not to say China is too underdeveloped, but because China is developing rapidly in a distorted way. As an architect, I think the problems of this kind of development have to be faced and you can’t ignore them.

Xie Suzhen: Is this so-called obligatory acceptance or comprise the reason that makes you use art as an exit?

Cheng Dapeng: There isn’t any obligatory process; the practicing process is in fact very enjoyable. Nothing makes me really sad. If there’s something about dreams you can’t realize, you surely should realize it in another way.

Xie Suzhen: Why do you get involved in art?

Cheng Dapeng: Architecture is involved with plenty of time and social resources, and you can’t control the whole process of a project all by yourself. The project is always about tens of millions of RMB’s investment, and usually takes five to six years to finish.

Xie Suzhen: So you haven’t compromised?

Cheng Dapeng: In what aspects do you mean?

Xie Suzhen: For example, if the proprietor requires you to use an extra askew beam or pillar, what will you do to show the difference between his tastes in aesthetics with yours?

Cheng Dapeng: What the proprietor requires to do on the function of the building isn’t about compromise. If the project is against the mainstream social values or the laws, it will be a problem — like you’re required to build high density of buildings or something that doesn’t comply with the local cultural logics in a heritage reserve.

Xie Suzhen: I need to explain the meaning of compromise: let’s say you’re an artist, and there is already something ideal in your mind you want to create, but because of what the collector requires, you have to create a different artwork — history is full of this kind of stuff. Will you make this kind of compromise?

Cheng Dapeng: Sometimes I will.

Xie Suzhen: Because the joy of doing it is more important than the compromise?

Cheng Dapeng: Usually my first response is that I don’t want to do it. But if you don’t do it, someone else will.

Xie Suzhen: It’s an important matter of principle in developed countries: the proprietor trust the professionals and their tastes in aesthetics, so they seldom interfere with them. In fact this also shows the social education levels of Party A.

Cheng Dapeng: China’s large-scale development process is rapid and immense; that is different than other countries’ step-by-step process, in which appeared superior agencies and experienced Party A’s, and they can interact well with architects. But here in China, the real estate industry only began to develop rapidly since the last decade, and the making of many specific buildings of a city also began in the last decade, so most of the proprietors are inexperienced.

Xie Suzhen: You can only do that with your professional knowledge or your communication skills. You’ve said that our generation has created all the buildings that can be built, and the next generation will have nothing to build. Today’s architects’ ambitions are actually to show their strength, and build a monument for history. What messages do you think architects can tell history? When the proprietor’s requirements are probably against this era’s architecture standards, what will happen to your faith?

Cheng Dapeng: It depends. I can’t explain it in just one sentence. Different projects have different options. For a remarkable project, you may hear many different opinions. Like some landmark buildings in Beijing — here we just talk about Beijing — generally speaking, they comply with what a modern city in China requires, such as representing the future — whether it’s China’s future or not, they don’t stand for the past — the past of other dynasties or other countries. In this situation, the architects can take more leading roles. But for ordinary projects, the harm they do to cities is not as obvious as creating a Roman building in the Tiananmen Square. As a matter of fact, many construction projects’ harms to the city can’t be seen right away in small cities or even in Beijing’s suburbs. Architecture can really improve local people’s life quality of the city’s quality most of the times. So I think if you have a chance of design work, certain amount of compromise or cooperation is necessary.

Xie Suzhen: You just talk about city planning, a huge problem that doesn’t just concern architects. I saw this message in Weibo: after the year 2030, no automobiles will be allowed within the 2nd ring road in Beijing; people will only be allowed to walk or ride bicycles in this area. Beijing has a wonderful view, but we all know that’s not likely to happen, because even in Paris or London they can’t succeed doing it. Although we attribute many problems to architects’ conscience, dreams, or morals, they’re related to many realistic problems. May I ask who your favorite architect is in the world?

Cheng Dapeng: What I like most about an architect is he must be a person of great personality, with plenty of architects’ characteristics, like Jean Nouvel — he doesn’t begin his design with the building itself, but with cultural, historical and artistic exploration.Many architects are outstanding not because of their perfect architecture knowledge, but because of their interesting life experience. I think it is more important to be interesting than to be professional. The whole society in China is boring, and there are few interesting people. In the past there were plenty of architects that I like, but after they came to China, the compromise they made is really disgusting to me. They’ll make more harm because of their high prestige.

Xie Suzhen: You make the compromise because there is an expectation.

Cheng Dapeng: I’ve seen some really terrible projects in China conducted by some chief foreign architects.

Xie Suzhen: It’s a problem of the Party A.

Cheng Dapeng: It’s not a problem only about architects; it’s about the human nature.

Xie Suzhen: Party A’s fault.

Cheng Dapeng: Not necessarily. You could have refused. The society usually provide Chinese architects two choices: leave it, or do it well. But they don’t do the same thing to foreign architects. They are facing the same construction passion and low-grade achievement, and they waste the same huge amount of resources, so why will they work vigorously? Each time they find first-class foreign architects’ organizations for the city’s great projects, but can hardly find an architect like Koolhaas, who will criticize the whole society just like the great Chinese writer Lu Xun did in his writings. Now the problem is, even when Koolhaas came to China, he said “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. He truly knows what Chinese people are doing and what they need. He has transferred to be an actor from being a Lu Xun.

Xie Suzhen: Are successful architects like experts in social communications?

Cheng Dapeng: Just like dismembering an ox as skillfully as a good butcher, if you coordinate with others well, you can make use of all the resources. Many important architects do much more harm than ordinary architects when they make compromises to the society; just like if a celebrity tells a lie, it could be very dangerous.

Xie Suzhen: I know you want to emphasize that celebrities can do more harm than ordinary people.

Cheng Dapeng: A lot more. The people telling lies on TV do more harm than the people who don’t get on TV.

Xie Suzhen: Are Nouvel’s buildings your favorite in the whole world?

Cheng Dapeng: I think they’re not necessarily my favorite. What I mean is, his life style is what the architects of our generation need most.

Xie Suzhen: Is there any special building or neighborhood that you like?

Cheng Dapeng: There’re many good buildings that I like. I think most masters’ buildings are fine, whether they are in or out of their own countries. They were at least being designed in a serious, rational designing environment. Everything they do has a good reason.

Xie Suzhen: We just said that many famous buildings in a city have become tourists’ favorites, which has become an inevitable way for a city to promote itself. If architects are important image engineers for a city, which city do you like best in the world?

Cheng Dapeng: My favorite city is New York, because of its richness.

Xie Suzhen: Not only because of the buildings.

Cheng Dapeng: Because of its richness, with plenty of information; not only the buildings, people’s activities are also various, from which you can see many different things rather than a society where people have the same attitudes towards life, and the same voices. A good city should be like a big fruit basket, with all kinds of fruits in it.

Xie Suzhen: So your judgments on architects, buildings, and cities are eventually based on the humanity richness?

Cheng Dapeng: Yes, that’s right. That’s the way how I like architects.

Xie Suzhen: Is there any work of your own that you’re satisfied with?

Cheng Dapeng: No.

Xie Suzhen: Are you working on something more challenging recently?

Cheng Dapeng: Yes, I am. It’s something that should be interesting. We’re working on the Museum of Contemporary Art of Xi’an. The job is full of confrontation, for Xi’an is a place where Chinese traditional culture, superficial culture, and shallow culture come across. It’s called the ancient capital city with a history of more than 1000 years, but actually it’s a city surrounded by wicked cultural atmosphere and fake cultural symbols. It must be terrible to live there, facing fake cultural relics and fake symbols everywhere. Xi’an is a big city, but the whole city planning is incorrect.

Xie Suzhen: Why do you think it’s challenging? Is it because it’s challenging to communicate with Party A, or because you can get what you want?

Cheng Dapeng: In such a city full of pretense, it will be really cool to normally make your voice heard.

Xie Suzhen: Your early creations were some installations about your new concept; is there any connection between you — an architect — and the art world? Or is there some historical reasons?

Cheng Dapeng: Because my teacher began to teach me to draw pictures when I was a little child. I think drawing is only part of art, and there’re many more directions to go in art.

Xie Suzhen: Is it the reason why you’re always connected with art? In fact it’s a required course to practice the coordination between hand skills and the mind. But not many people ended up connecting their life with art. Senior artist Guo Baichuan was the former dean of Depart of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan. Architects who graduated that time are good enough in art: they were asked to draw pictures in class, and if they didn’t draw well, they would be punished. Many of them are spiritual mentors in famous universities. Perhaps finally they transferred to city planning work or something else, but their interest in art and connection with the art world is strong. Their words and creativity are different with those of ordinary architects, who only know how to build houses. It’s a kind of mutual complement and service between art and architecture.

Cheng Dapeng: Absolutely right. Art is mainly about exploring human’s mental world. It’s impossible for an architect to solve such a complicated problem only with techniques. So right now our students of art are clearly much better than those of science, not only better in art, but also better in techniques.

Xie Suzhen: The world’s architecture is divided into two branches in the last decades: the Dutch branch and the Japanese branch. The Japanese is a particularly special people; they conducted a study about young and energetic architects in Japan. And they have published the study in books and exposed the young architects to the whole world. Even Koolhaas has organized a team to study the young and energetic Japanese architects. We can see that before becoming famous, Tadao Ando built a small house that was of the same style after he became famous. And definitely Arata Isozaki has his own fabulous vocabulary. Have you ever tried to create your own words?

Cheng Dapeng: Here is my opinion. Everything Chinese architects are doing now — including methods of study, objects of study, and samples for the future — is just like what contemporary Chinese art is to foreign temporary art. Temporary Chinese architecture is only a little brother of the world’s temporary architecture — even Japanese architecture is superior to China’s.

Xie Suzhen: Are you compromising when you can’t create your own vocabulary? We just said if the investor or the authority has different tastes in aesthetics with yours, you can’t create your own special vocabulary.

Cheng Dapeng: I don’t think so. China has a different situation with foreign countries.

Xie Suzhen: There’re some special characteristics of Chinese architects.

Cheng Dapeng: Yes. Chinese-Architect is a proper name abroad. They are known as those who take part in social reform actively with high efficiency but low quality works. It’s hard to say now whether this is a good name or not, for the main logic of ecological environment in China nowadays is to make sure to enable most Chinese to live a modern life as soon as possible, even though it’s just like making the rice shoots grow by pulling them up, and to increase the land utilization rate while the rate is very low in China.

Xie Suzhen: The pursuit for architecture totems has already become a part of politics marketing and city marketing. And we can see that such totems are constantly shown in Beijing and Shanghai. The second-grade and third-grade cities also seek after the architecture style in Beijing and start to ask help from master architects who have ever worked there to do public construction for them. The most common concern of architect is public expectation and his dreams. That is what kind of a landmark building he built. Every city wants to have the architecture which can make the greatest stir. As a result, every new building is supposed to surpass the last one, which causes all the obvious corners of a city full of strange looking and publicity seeking buildings. So, how do you look at the phenomenon — the “image project” and such pursuit of spectacle?

Cheng Dapeng: This is also a part of Chinese characteristics, and attracts Hadid’s participation. Hadid’s architecture in China, which is full of simple symbols, is different from that in Europe. Just like a famous artist selling his symbol work. This is the need of the whole society. Each city has its own need for such new, strange, and bizarre buildings.In the second-grade and third-grade cities, Chinese architects participate in only part of the tender and bid activities for large scale public construction, while foreign architects or foreign architect organizations with sinecures in China whose purpose is fame and gain carry out more than 50% of them. In the process of designing of these landmark projects, it’s hard to take social benefit, governmental benefit and architect’s idea into consideration prudently, so the work results are all buildings which are distorted or have nothing to show at all. Many gymnasiums lie idle after they’re built, and are commonly used for trade fair every few days. Normally they're seldom used. All the landmark buildings have armed policemen standing guard over them, with high walls surrounded. This kind of fact isn't normal in essence.

Xie Suzhen: The current situation of China’s development is still the token of this era, no matter whether it’s hopeful, pitiful, or compromising. In fact, architecture can already be your main creation, why do you want to do art now?

Cheng Dapeng: The fact is there is no end to the architecture exploration for me, because I don’t want to compromise just like this. So, once there is a good chance, I still want to grasp it to go forward and improve, and try to make it perfect. Even though it will never be perfect, it will still be much better than what it’s like before. This is the first thing.The second thing is that the exploration to architecture and designing will be never enough, and architecture can be made more interesting. Take this exhibition for example, you can see that some part of it is motional — there’s sculpture form blending into architecture.

Xie Suzhen: It occurs to me that Arabdom designed one building recently, which can change with wind. So it has constantly changing appearance.

Cheng Dapeng: That building hasn’t been built. But I think it has a very high starting point. It needs to combine with technologies, environment, and other things. This should be the direction of the development of architecture in the future. Architecture can no longer be in normal state, but a shell with efficiency and aesthetic function. It can achieve more dreams that human have to society. So, the future architecture may incorporate more things, and you can’t only count on architects to make it true any more.

Xie Suzhen: Does art mean another opportunity for your creation, or the thing that you can use to fully express yourself?

Cheng Dapeng: I think when compared with architecture, art is easier to express oneself.

Xie Suzhen: It can be described as another window to discover.

Cheng Dapeng: Since it doesn’t need to be invoiced.I’m my party A, I do what I want. At least that’s it in the creation stage at present. This is completely different from the situation in architectural creation.

Xie Suzhen: From the early soft sculpture which is on gigantic scale, to the “mechanical installation” on exhibition at present which has become the principal axis of your creation, or creation of easel paintings, does this has something to do with your profession?

Cheng Dapeng: Nothing. Personally speaking, plane art has limits to me on expressing. It doesn’t mean that things on easel are not good, for I did lots of easel paintings after all. Art and architecture also have a clear combined point in terms of technology.

Xie Suzhen: We see that most of your easel paintings are about various deformed aspects of society — from twisty people to physical deformities, to enlarged organs and various sexual positions of animals or human beings, and at last form the “Fake Chinese Landscape” or “similar Chinese characters”. To see from the detail, they are everyday activities of the whole society, also the life you’re living. Those paintings are not caricatures or animations, not oil paintings or architecture, or sketches. Why do you use this manner as the source of your creation?

Cheng Dapeng: I think things that are ugly can also form a view. This is different from what you do as an architect. In different situations, the art work can be rational or irrational, interesting or uninteresting, beautiful or not. And many things have formed everyday view.

Xie Suzhen: The first time I saw your plane works, you impressed me with your novel and casual attitude when talking about your paintings. You told me that the actual environment you’re facing can be described with the word "wonderful", which shows the mind-set of an artist of the new age when facing his own creation and difficult situation. The literati of last generation faced the whole social situation with ironic, traitorous and negative attitudes. For instance, from all their poetries and paintings we can see passive words and retiring moods, and they faced the whole social situation passively. However, when you use the word “wonderful”, it changes into everyday thing, which you just mentioned. You accept it readily, and face it frankly. This is a totally different attitude.

Cheng Dapeng: This is the fundamental difference between architecture and pure art. An artist can do what they want to do, and don’t do what they don’t want to do, as long as they have no problem of food and clothing. That’s not the case for an architect. An architect has two options — to do or not to do. Most architects choose to do, or try to do the best in the project they don’t want to do at first, for an architect’s action is part of social practice, and you can’t refuse to do it just because it doesn’t look like what you thought originally, or it's against the architecture logic. Or else, you won’t even have a chance to change it.

Xie Suzhen: After the plane part, let’s talk about your mechanical installation, analogous architecture installation, and derivatives of culture and creation. In the mechanical installation part, you present a huge, light yet heavy form, just like your soft sculpture before. And in the analogous architecture installation part, why do you always use mechanical installation or gigantic scale form to do artwork?

Cheng Dapeng: I want to do such exploration to architecture. Every building is time-consuming, labor-consuming, and money-consuming to me. If you don’t change it, it basically is still for a very long time. Even though the people who view it are moving, the building won’t move, it is still. So I want to change architecture through such kind of exploration. I hope that architecture can have different installation in the future.

Xie Suzhen: Generally, artists do mechanical installation this way: they make a draft, then look for workmen to do research. Still, it has a great chance to make mistakes. When it comes to such huge mechanical installation of yours, did you do some preparation work beforehand, in order to avoid any big error or discrepancy during the exhibition?

Cheng Dapeng: What we did in fact is make a same-size ratio model, just like constructing. The whole process was a building process. You have an idea, you draw it down first, then you do experiments.   

Xie Suzhen: You rent a huge factory and did it with the same-size ratio. From machinery choosing to effect researching, down to installing on the spot, does such kind of installation works have the same display effect as you expected? Is there any big difference?

Cheng Dapeng: No big difference. Just like doing construction, there’s no difficult problem in terms of technology. What’s difficult in construction is not about technology at all.

Xie Suzhen: You applied the high accuracy required by doing construction into your art creation.

Cheng Dapeng: Yes.

Xie Suzhen: The second part is about analogous architecture installation. Can you explain its creation process and its materials? According to your description, I think it is like a dreamlike city where Harry Potter lives. Can you transform it into real architecture?

Cheng Dapeng: No, it’s not like that. I think it’s the Imago, an idealized mental image. I think every building is in fact sets of behavior of people living in it, after removing the shell of inorganic substance like concrete, glass, etc. from each individual building. I want to visualize the human behavior.

Xie Suzhen: Only human behavior left after removing the shell?

Cheng Dapeng: In my opinion, the way to show a city is to show the people living in the buildings of the city.

Xie Suzhen: You want to build the moving behaviors of the creatures living in the buildings?

Cheng Dapeng: Yes. That’s it. I build it. And I show it with architectural method, for I print it out as architectural model and the method is the very one used in making architectural model.

Xie Suzhen: It’s popular now in the artistic circles that to return to the traditional elements of Chinese culture, including paintings and many installations. And many Chinese artists who are internationally famous all use such methods. However, when it comes to another piece of your mechanical installation — “Dry Landscape”, you present it in the form of well-known Japanese courtyard. Why not in the form of Suzhou courtyard to mark that you're a Chinese architect, or a Chinese artist?

Cheng Dapeng: I think it may be hard to find Chinese symbolic elements in the future. Chinese elements must lead to failure. Only people who have a distance from China can make it, such as Leoh Ming Pei who made much modern architecture with Chinese symbols. And other speculative use of Chinese elements will be harder in future. Because Chinese cultural features can no longer be presented obviously with only a couple of symbols, including those architecture from Leoh Ming Pei, who is also very prudent about Chinese traditional dimension and symbols. It’s hard to find any of his buildings, which has more than 3 floors, still with symbols from Chinese concept, such as grey bricks and tiles. Symbolic use basically has some direct relationship with commercial purposes. Strong symbolism brings along clear identification, and remarkable label.

Xie Suzhen: Cultural and creative industry has been developing for decades in Europe and USA, based on nationalities, local cultures and traditional industry traits, then improved, and became a new industry, and attached with marketing methods to produce capital and strategy. The whole process is a strategy to transform value to price. So, what do you think of cultural and creative industry?

Cheng Dapeng: I think cultural and creative industry can change things, especially in China. From the narrow sense, it can change people’s living quality; from the broad sense, it can change a city’s condition. Cultural and creative industry is different from architecture which is like many other things that are viewable but not controllable by people from the aesthetic aspect. While people can take part in cultural and creative industry, just like the items sold on Taobao which can be designed and used by most people. So, most people predominate.

Xie Suzhen: You designed some everyday objects during this exhibition. Do you have any different thoughts on designing small things as an architect? What’re the differences on the presenting forms or creating skills between designing small things and the architecture you’ve always engaged in?

Cheng Dapeng: In the first place, it must have good function. Function is the biggest difference between cultural and creative industry and artwork. For example, if you design a lamp, it must be able to give out light, easy to use, and it can’t catch fire; if you design a teapot, it must be easy to pour water with, so basic function is a necessity. And in the second place, other features of cultural and creative industry should be shown. Most cultural and creative products in fact have another explanation to life. They let people feel that they have more to enjoy in life, thus to improve the quality of life. This has extraordinary meanings.

Xie Suzhen: The basic color of this exhibition is white. This is similar to the general exhibition space from art galleries, but may be different from architecture to some extent. Why do you use white as the prevailing hue?

Cheng Dapeng: Because art is another part of work for an architect. An architect deals with all kinds of people and does all sorts of work every day. He sees the profile of the whole society, from investors, down to the workmen from grass roots, to factories. He touches the cross section of the whole society. So, from the exhibition level, an architect wishes the whole surrounding environment could be as pure as possible, and have as more contrasts to the ordinary work as possible.  

Xie Suzhen: An architect features aggressiveness, for he has to put the environment under his control; while an artist features selfness. This exhibition is named “Wonderful Wonderland”, so whose wonderland do you think it is? The architects’ or the artists’?

Cheng Dapeng: “Wonderful Wonderland” is about all people’s living style and the environment all people feel in the city life or in the current contest. I think environment is about everyone. No matter what the environment is like, people should live a fresh life; no matter what kind of architect, actively participating in social reform or abetted in his activities, he should have positive attitude and accept with an optimistic way. If he can change things in his own manner, he should change.

Xie Suzhen: Many things have been filtered in your creation, with only one phenomenon left in fact. When it comes to the strange-looking pseudo sculpture or analogous sculpture, if you want to present it on or in the building, it is really a great challenge to the proprietor’s aesthetic sense.

Cheng Dapeng: I think the fact of China has an advantage in China — that is new, peculiar, and special. Nothing is spared to pursue a new experience all along. And we have younger and younger proprietors. Some of them were born in the 1980s. In my opinion, this generation has completely different view of the whole society from the last generation. They don’t have that much oppressiveness. They just enjoy the pleasures produced by the sudden increase in wealth. So there will be lots of so called extremely strange buildings in the future.

Xie Suzhen: I’m looking forward to seeing your wonderland. It gives me feelings of a cruel fairy-tale world. I think it has unique aesthetic thinking, which is different from the usual elegant aesthetics or playful aesthetics, or simple aesthetics, or other aesthetic views presenting the art history. In fact, the admiration of artist Freud has already characterized the popular aesthetic fatigue of tradition. If we are used to elegance or European extreme simplification, or American pop art, we can see that oriental characteristics of orientalism involve no aesthetics of other kinds. Starting from Francis Bacon, another evil aesthetics grew up. When people can accept Floyd's aesthetics of putting fat bodies on the pictures, the social tokens brought by the metaphor of other aesthetics return to humanity — that is everlasting aesthetics. If your sculptures can display all social problems in China, they are the subject matter of this era, and they are not the traditional sculptures we are seeing now of mother and children, or of a hero riding on the horse, because that kind of traditional aesthetics can no longer show us aesthetics' symbols of the time.

Cheng Dapeng: In artistic terms, I think what this society shows to all people can’t be compared with what people feel from virtual world on the internet. The virtual world is a huge world, there’s no space in this world is in normal state.

Xie Suzhen: Art history has always been written by academies and elites, aesthetics came from history of traditional art, and words are used to elaborate visual feelings and to popularize education. China needs its own view on social art history. Calling again for the new era aesthetics is what we are expecting.

Cheng Dapeng: There will be a large number of people who were born in 1980s and 1990s to dominate the society in the future. Their visual world is extremely huge, involving all aspects like sports, culture, literature, art, and music. This world can’t be presented through normal channels, either.

Xie Suzhen: Architect can hold the creation spirit of artist long. Looking forward to the transformation from sculptures of yours to buildings; looking forward to the movable and breathable buildings; and looking forward to your Wonderful Wonderland.

---

程大鹏简介

程大鹏
程大鹏 ，1968年生于北京。1990年毕业于天津大学建筑系。2000年成立度联体建筑事务所并作为事务所主持建筑师。作为当代建筑师，程大鹏设计出西安当代艺术中心、云冈石窟博物馆、北大汉画博物馆、用友展示会议中心、复星国际中心等作品。在当代艺术创作上自成一格，他对中国城市化、现代化过程衍生的社会问题有着极为深切的体验，代表装置作品《失重》、《坠落》等皆体现其对人与社会的关系、无法遏制的城市化进程等问题的深层思索与观察。

展览信息：

2007年1月    北京“失重” 个展   
举办地点：    墨臣建筑事务所

2007年6月    北京“意外”/ 联展
举办地点：    KU ART 中心

2008年3月    深圳第六届雕塑展
举办地点：    深圳华侨城

2008年5月    北京农展馆 行为艺术 “坠落”
举办地点：    北京农展馆      

2008年10     深圳雕塑展成都巡展
举办地点：    华侨城艺术馆

2009年4月  雅昌“艺术中国”颁奖圣典 装置“空洞”

举办地点：北京中央美院美术馆

2010年9月 “两岸汉字艺术节”联展雕塑“汉子龙灯”

举办地点：北京今日美术馆

English Version：

Cheng dapeng, architector, artist. Born in Beijing ,1968.Graduated from Architecture Department of Tianjin University ,1990. Since 2000, started Do Union Architecture Studio and be the Chief Architect. In design area, he has designed Yungang Grottoes Museum、Chinese Painting Museum of Beijing university、YongYou Group Exhibition and Meeting center、Fuxing international commercial center , and so on. In contemporary area, he has his own special concept, focus on demotics、urbanization，especially through his representative huge installation works “Zero-Gravity”and “Fall”.

Exhibition:

2007.1 “Zero-Gravity” solo exhibition, MoChen Architects, Beijing

2007.6  “Accident” Group Exhibition, KU ART Center, Beijing

2008.3 The 6th Shenzhen Sculpture Festival, Shenzhen Huaqiao Town

2008.5  “Fall” performance and installation art，Agriculture Exhibition，Beijing  

2008.10 The 6th Shenzhen Sculpture Festival Exhibition Tour，Chengdu

2009.4  “Artron Art China” Contemporary Art Award, Central Academy of Fine Arts Gallery, Beijing

2010.9   Chinese Character Art Festival, Today Art Museum, Beijing

---

度联体建筑事务所简介

度联体建筑事务所由程大鹏创办，位于798艺术区占地1000平米的创意空间，专注于创造可以连接当下与未来的建筑景观及城市空间设计，是坚持用作品诠释实验精神的综合性事务所。

事务所建筑师：

主持建筑师：程大鹏

合伙建筑师：樊军

合伙建筑师：姜成君

建筑师：João Trigo（葡萄牙）

建筑师：Alexandre Liberato（葡萄牙）

建筑师：Tony Brown（法国）

事务所代表建筑设计项目：云冈石窟博物馆、北大汉画博物馆、中央美院学生宿舍、用友展览馆、复星国际大厦、铜陵体育中心、鄂尔多斯老干部活动中心、鄂尔多斯文化广场、广州天湖酒店、廊和坊、成都五凤古镇设计等。

事务所网站：www.dodododo.net

事务所微博：http://e.weibo.com/u/2387098077

Introduction of the Studio:

Do Union Architecture Studio, founded by Cheng Dapeng, takes a creative space of 1000 square kilometers at 798 Art Zone. Focusing on creating architectural scenes and city space design connecting the current and the future, the studio insists on expressing experimental spirit with works.

Group member: Cheng Dapeng, Fan Jun, Jiang Chengjun, Joao Trigo, Alexandre Liberato, and Tony Brown

Design Projects：Yungang Grottoes Museum, Han Art Institute of Peking University, CAFA Student’s Dormitory, UFIDA Exhibition Center, Fosun International Center, Tongling Sports Center, Erdos Seniors Center, Erdos Culture Square, Guangzhou Tianhu Hotel, Lang+Fang Financial Center, and the design of Chengdu Wufeng Town.

Studio website：www.dodododo.net

Studio weibo：http://e.weibo.com/u/2387098077