网站地图关于我们

查看相册 View Gallery
遗产保存的证据第1张图片


Ritual Evidence

由专筑网雷军,刘庆新编译

“灰尘的伦理”是建筑师、历史学家和艺术家的豪尔赫正在进行的项目,该项目是关于解决污染问题的道德意蕴和清理古迹的实际意义。污染是永远无法根除的。我们共同的文化遗产,古迹和散文的结构相似,但它也是建筑生产残渣。此外,奥特罗说,我们可以设计所有我们喜欢的宏大结构并成为永久性的建筑——就像在他的Trajan’s Column项目中所论证的一样——但我们的主要作品作为一种形式,只不过是像毒素。

我认为污染是人类的主要问题。建筑显然是可以作为人类学的证据材料。这是一个新的地质时代的概念。对我来说,这是非常重要的,尤其是在最近的气候谈判中。他们能做的是寻找解决方案。但是,我们应该回归到一个什么时间,才是污染最小的时候呢?

令人惊奇的是,这个概念化的氛围成为一种以保护为目标的行为。我们一直在谈论建筑内部的设计,来适应周围的景观。现在我们讨论的不只是大气,而是一个需要被尊重的星球。回归原始的想法是令人怀疑的,但它却具有不确定的保护性。但污染就是全气候经过多方讨论后留下的证据。如果我们能做的最好的就是想象将环境回归到1985年?还是1995年?这是个问题。

这是一个巨大的挑战,为文明,为保护我们的环境,这不像很容易地就可以保护室内建筑、社区或公园。随着每一个增加的对象,我们不得不建立新的机构来进行保护。我们目前没有一个机构能够解决这个问题。

在保存方面,我们花了很长一段时间来提出这一要求——市民适当地削减财产。当你想到一个理想的棚屋,它装着很多人的私人财产,但它属于公共利益,这样来规范所有私人财产。没有人喜欢谈论监管这种事情,但事实上,必须承认这一规定是私有财产的自然属性。

我认为这是一个巨大的挑战,同时也是一个令人难以置信的机会——把大气的性质定义为一个对象。我们已经定义了它的技术,可以操纵或利用。我们甚至可以用技术来回溯到某个时间。但在保存方面,我们也以一种文化对象在处理大气——这一定义是有意义的,是遗产性的。我们不能用思维的技术来解决问题。有挑战性的是,我们没有在全球掀起这一热潮。这是跨年代公平的基础,让我们把一个最初的洁净世界留给我们的后代。

我们是消费者,所以我们消费。在食物链的顶端,我们是一个物种,没有捕食者,我们就不能自我调节,但我们必须生存下去。

对我来说,有趣的现象是对历史证据的篡改。所有的证据都要有准备,关心、操纵、特定的代码,等等。想想辛普森的手套,整个谈话是如何被警方处理手套。证据标准是什么?随着时间的推移,不同的对象,被认为是历史的证据。尽管如此,我们还是继续把证据看作是一种纯粹的东西。保护创造性的本质就得承认证据记录的必要性,但这同时也意味着被忽视。法医鉴定需要证据,这就如同保存遗产一样。如果你不是一个保护者,并且你开始操纵一个建筑,那么建筑不能被认为是一种保存对象。

这个世界是构建而成的,就像身体是由器官构建而成。当然,这会导致人们的焦虑。我们喜欢已经确定的事情,但我会告诉你,这并不意味着我们不能确定某些事。我们是可以的,但我们必须确信我们的世界是一个真相。真理是对现实的要求。我们对概念性和物理性的现实的要求,最令人兴奋的创造性就是保存。

有一个解决气候变化的方法是回收,但是Trajan’s Column项目是我看到的另一种现象。回收是一种物质形式,提醒我们现在的资源是有限的。我的作品展示艺术作品的理念,我尝试将新事物带到这里。最后,我的工作就是以今天讨论的新方式获取古迹。我们被告知,古迹应该做到唤起某种记忆或事件。但如果我们重新诠释的话,又会关联重重。

实验性的保存是一个理论上的做法,是关于假设保存的测试。它是由本试验性推动跨学科的概念,因为保存一直是跨学科性的。但是,今天与保存相关的学科是什么?这一领域的相关知识、技术和美学知识是什么?这是关于实验性保存对外展示,也是为了重申保存独特的学科。保存有一个非常稳定的轨迹,但它与世界有实际的接触。

我认为艺术家和艺术是非常需要保护,他们是最伟大的。但艺术却因为一种恐惧,制造了关于保护和其他关于创造之间的鸿沟。这是一个错误的二分法。正如艾薇微,他去买古木,就是为了阻止他们在市场上销售的房地产开发。这是同样的事情发生在20世纪20年代。但这是一个不受重视的问题,今天的主要艺术家都在认真地对保存的问题进行讨论。所以我们专业人员必须认真对待那些艺术家。

我从来没有想过自己会是一个积极分子,但我却是世界上真实的演员——因为我们都是演员。保存当然有着正能量的历史。

我认为保存作为关注的集合体,还处在一个非常基础的水平——如果你把一个天鹅绒绳子放在古迹前,人们就会排队。它是告诉你看什么,什么是重要的价值。它是世界上的一个框架。行动是一个版本,是一个连续的保存。在某种程度上,艺术之间没有国界,都是相通的,你的人生追求的是超越障碍。

建筑、保存、艺术等学科,都伴随工业革命被重新编入十九世纪。我认为这些学科正在从根本上转变成新的学科,所以我完全的适应了。将他们转移到我们所生活的新的现实世界,这是我们的责任。

我找到一个关于这个世界的有趣的话题,许多理论最终会成为正能量的东西,如机器人,也有负面的,如《世界末日》。基本上,我们似乎都放弃了人类。这当然不好,我们需要一个新计划。这与保存有关,因为我们谈论保存除了我们自己以外所有的东西--- --古迹、建筑、大气。正如William Richards所说,事事都是相互关联的。

“The Ethics of Dust,” an ongoing project by architect, historian, and artist Jorge Otero-Pailos, AIA, addresses both the moral implications of pollution and the practical implications of cleaning monuments. Pollution, he contends in the account that follows, can never be eradicated—it can only be displaced. Our shared cultural heritage, then, is about monuments and prosaic structures alike, but it is also about the residue of architectural production. Furthermore, says Otero-Pailos, we can design all the grand structures we like and even make copies of those structures in perpetuity—as his project for Trajan’s Column demonstrates—but our chief product as a species is nothing more (or less) than toxins.
I think of pollution as the chief product of the Anthropocene. It’s clearly the material that one can turn to as the evidence of the Anthropocene. It’s the anchor of this concept of a new geological era. That, to me, is really important, especially in light of the recent climate talks. The best they can do—the leaders—is look for solutions in preservation. But which date do we turn ourselves back to in terms of an ideal time when pollution was minimal?
What is amazing is this conceptualization of the atmosphere as an object of preservation. We have been talking about architecture as interior rooms—as buildings that go to a lot line, vistas, landscapes—and now we’re talking about not just air, but the entire atmosphere of the planet as one object that needs to be tended to. The idea of turning an object back to its original moment is suspect, though—it’s problematic for preservationists. But pollution is evidence of the lack of inventiveness and intellectual sophistication around the climate discussion. If the best we can do is to imagine the return of the atmosphere to some date in the past—1985? 1995?—that’s an issue.
This is a huge challenge for civilization to preserve our atmosphere, unlike the way you can easily preserve an interior or a building, a district or a park. With every increase in the size of the object to be preserved, we’ve had to imagine new institutions. We don’t currently have an institution in place capable to address this task for the atmosphere.
In preservation, we’ve made this claim for a very long time that the public good cuts across property. When you think about a view shed, it runs over many people’s private properties; but it’s in the interest of the public that we regulate all that private property. Nobody likes to talk about regulation, but, in fact, to recognize that regulation is in the nature of private property.
I think this is where the big challenge is, and it’s an incredible opportunity: to define the nature of atmosphere as an object. We have defined it in terms of technology—something that we can manipulate or exploit. We can even use technology to bring it back in time. But in terms of preservation, we are also dealing with the atmosphere as a cultural object— which by definition has significance across multiple generations. It’s about heritage. We cannot fix the problem by thinking just technologically. We do not have a global culture of understanding the atmosphere— and that’s the challenge. That is the basis of intergenerational equity—leaving the world to our children in the way we first found it.
We are consumers, so we consume. We are a species at the top of the food chain without a predator, and so we cannot regulate ourselves. But we must, and that’s where preservation comes in.
The interesting phenomenon for me is the idea that historical evidence is untampered. There really isn’t such a thing as untampered evidence. All evidence has to be prepared, cared for, manipulated to specific codes, and so on. Think about O.J. Simpson’s glove—the whole conversation was how that glove was handled by the police. What are the standards of evidence? They are culturally specific. Over time, different objects have been considered historical evidence, and the threshold for what disqualifies objects as evidence has been moving. Nevertheless, we continue to think of evidence as something pure. The nature of preservation creativity is acknowledging the necessary manipulation of the record of evidence that is extraordinarily obvious, but is meant to be ignored. Forensic experts qualify evidence. It’s the same thing with preservation. If you are not a preservationist and you begin manipulating a building, that building isn’t considered a preserved object.
The world is constructed, and so is physical evidence. Naturally, that leads to a great deal of anxiety for people. We like certainties, but—I will tell you—it doesn’t mean we cannot be certain about things. We can, but we have to be certain about the truth that our world is a constructed world. Truth is a claim on reality. We make claims on reality that are conceptual and physical, and one of the most exciting creative fields is preservation.
One of the ways to engage climate change is to recycle, but Trajan’s Column was another way in which I could look at that phenomenon. Recycling is a physical ritual and reminder of the limited resources that we have. In my work, the idea of exhibiting the work of preservation as art is one of the ways in which I try to bring objects into a new narrative. In the end, my work is concerned with engaging monuments in today’s conversation in a new way. We are told that monuments should mean a certain thing—evoke a certain memory or event. But they will have continued relevance if we can reinterpret them.
Experimental preservation is a theoretically informed practice that’s about testing hypotheses of what preservation can be. It is—by nature of this testing— pushing the notions of interdisciplinarity because preservation has always been interdisciplinary. But what are the relevant disciplines for preservation today? What is relevant knowledge and technology and aesthetics for the field? This push outward that experimental preservation is about is also a way to reaffirm the unique disciplinarity of preservation. Preservation has a very stable locus, but its borders are shifting through practical engagement with the world.
For example, I think artists and art are hugely important to preservation. They always have been; some of the greatest conservation scientists and restorers have been artists. But art has been pushed aside because of a fear that there is a divide between preservation and art—one being about conservation and the other about creation. That’s a false dichotomy. Look at Ai Weiwei, who is going out and buying ancient wooden temples and preventing them from being sold in the market for real estate development. It’s the same thing that happened in the 1920s—buying interiors and installing them in their homes. But that’s an aside from the point that the major artists of today are seriously engaged in questions of preservation. So we preservationists have to seriously engage those artists.
I’ve never thought of myself as an activist, but I certainly am an actor in the world—as are we all. Preservation has an activist history, certainly.
I think of preservation as the organization of attention—at a very basic level: If you put a velvet rope in front of a monument, people line up. It’s about telling you what to look at and what to value as important. It’s about putting a frame on the world. Activism is one version of that—and it is part of the continuum of preservation. At a certain level, there are no frontiers between the arts. They are all connected, and what you strive for in life is to transcend barriers.
Architecture, preservation, art, and so on were all disciplines that were re-codified in the 19th century and accompanied the industrial revolution. I think these disciplines are radically changing now into new ones, and so I’m perfectly comfortable with inhabiting all of them. It’s our responsibility to move them into the new reality—the world we live in.
One of the things I find interesting about our world is how many theories of the end that we have—positive theories, such as cyborgs, and negative ones, such as the Armageddon. Basically, we’ve all given up on human beings. That’s not good. We need a new plan. And it’s related to preservation because we talk about preserving everything except ourselves— monuments, buildings, the atmosphere. The thing is: We can’t do one without the other. —As told to William Richards

出处:本文译自www.architectmagazine.com/,转载请注明出处。


【专筑网版权与免责声明】:本网站注明“来源:专筑网”的所有内容版权属专筑网所有,如需转载,请注明出处

专于设计,筑就未来

无论您身在何方;无论您作品规模大小;无论您是否已在设计等相关领域小有名气;无论您是否已成功求学、步入职业设计师队伍;只要你有想法、有创意、有能力,专筑网都愿为您提供一个展示自己的舞台

投稿邮箱:submit@iarch.cn         如何向专筑投稿?

扫描二维码即可订阅『专筑

微信号:iarch-cn

登录专筑网  |  社交账号登录:

 匿名

没有了...
评论加载中,请稍后!

建筑 (13374 articles)


文化建筑 (1379 articles)


历史 (27 articles)