|
Image Courtesy of RCR Arquitectes
建筑界的诺尔贝——普利兹克奖大讨论
Is the Pritzker Prize Still Relevant Today?
由专筑网李韧，lj编译
“建筑界的诺贝尔奖。”“专业最高荣誉。”这些都是人们对于普利兹克建筑奖的描述，在2018年普利兹克建筑奖获得者揭晓之前，ArchDaily的编辑们共同探讨了关于该奖项的现实意义。
普利兹克建筑奖于1979年由Jay A. Pritzker和他的妻子Cindy共同创立，该奖项每年颁发给一名在世的建筑设计师，这位建筑师的作品必须综合才智、洞察力与社会责任于一体，同时通过将艺术与环境的结合，为人类社会的进步作出贡献。
至今为止，普利兹克建筑奖已经颁发了39届，获奖者来自世界各地。去年，获得该奖项的是RCR Arquitectes的三位建筑师Rafael Aranda、Carme Pigem和 Ramón Vilalta，这是该奖项首次颁发给三人组合。在2016年，获奖者是来自智利的建筑师Alejandro Aravena，2015年的获奖者则是德国建筑师Frei Otto。
每年的获奖者公布时总会引起轰动，该奖项难道没有女性获奖者吗？或者，这位建筑师是谁？为什么获胜的是他？
我们的编辑对此进行了讨论。
普利兹克建筑奖在当今社会是否还适用？
Becky Quintal：我的感觉是普利兹克建筑奖无法获得各界的一致认同，未来的事情很难说，这也许是好事，但是它有点过于繁琐了。
Rory Stott：我认为至少在评审团内部，他们会考虑到社会相关原则。
Nicolás Valencia：我认为这个奖项很有意义，但是它也面临着认同危机，因为很难看出这些获奖者具有哪些共同点。
Patrick Lynch：近年来的评判标准似乎有些变化，但是不可否认的是，该奖项在建筑界仍然非常有影响力。对于建筑师或者某个项目来说，“普利兹克建筑奖获得者”的名号是极高荣誉。
Rory Stott：其实很高兴看到评审团正在努力改善该奖项，虽然现在这个奖项还没有明确的方向，它也是唯一能够影响建筑界以外的建筑奖项，因此它不会被轻易埋没。
Patrick Lynch：评审团成员的名声也能够确保其社会意义。
Nicolás Valencia：这个奖项获得者很难预测的原因是几乎每个建筑项目的建筑师都能够被提名，这是个公开的过程。如果回到10年前，那时我还在读大一，我们就通常认为普利兹克奖意味着建筑师的终身荣誉，关于之前的观点“评审团成员的名声也能够确保其社会意义”，其实我认为有的评审人员和评审过程与建筑并不相关。
Patrick Lynch：回顾以往的获奖者，通常有2种不同类型，其一是用于表彰某位建筑师事业的最高荣誉（例如Frei Otto等建筑师），第二是成为建筑师思维的新方向（例如扎哈）。而RCR则不属于以上分类。
Becky Quintal：正是如此，诚实地说，对于评审团的选择，我认为并不合理。
Rory Stott：但是我并不认为将关注点放在职业生涯中期的建筑师身上是件坏事，例如王澍、Aravena、RCR这些建筑师在获奖之前已经足够优秀，但他们还有很大的潜力让自己变得更完美，普利兹克奖能够为他们职业生涯带来又一大飞跃。
Patrick Lynch：其实RCR的获奖表明普利兹克奖也能对两人以上的建筑师团队开放。
Rory Stott：是的，只是当时普利兹克组委会在宣布他们获奖时，却要求媒体不要称呼他们为RCR Arquitectes，这一点让我觉得很奇怪。
Becky Quintal：我认为这是因为主委会在打破原有规则之前，仍然希望能与以往的习惯相一致。
Rory Stott：他们也考虑到了以往热门的个人主义在现代社会已经不再流行。
Becky Quintal：我认为普利兹克奖仍然可以按照一贯的理念来选择获奖建筑，例如Aravena和坂茂。
Nicolás Valencia：Aravena于2016年获奖之后，智利发生了一件有趣的事，在这之前，建筑师常常抱怨这个奖项的获奖者有地域限制，似乎偏爱第一世界、并且有着众多项目的老建筑师。但是在那之后，建筑师们开始抱怨评审团再也不关注那些多产的建筑师了。
Rory Stott：但是，王澍也是这样吗？或者你认为人们只需要花几年时间就能接受那些批评？
Nicolás Valencia：是的，我认为这是来自拉丁美洲的虚伪说话。当伊东丰雄获奖时，我就没有看到诸如此类的批评，这也是2013年获得普利兹克奖的大师。
Becky Quintal：如果说今年的获得者并不是一位大师，我可以说大师级的建筑师将不在评审团的考虑范围之内吗？
Patrick Lynch：该奖项将“荣誉颁发给那些拥有杰出建筑作品的在世建筑师，这些作品拥有极高的才智、洞察力，与社会责任感，通过对建筑艺术与建筑环境的塑造，为人类的发展做出巨大贡献”，其中对我来说最能打动我的话便是“为人类的发展做出巨大贡献”。
Rory Stott：对我来说，这个概念很模糊，尤其是这些概念在很早之前就已经提出，我们可以针对“为人类的发展做出巨大贡献”这句话进行单独的讨论。
Nicolás Valencia：普利兹克奖很开放，针对任何群体，所以现在的问题是有资格获得普利兹克奖的人太多了。
Rory Stott：我同意。
Patrick Lynch：我也认为这个概念有一些模糊，但是这也解释了为什么评审团偏爱一些文化与社会层面的设计作品。
Nicolás Valencia：那么这大概就是认同危机的原因了，对比RCR和屈米、Aravena和Libeskind就一目了然了。
Rory Stott：同时，这也是许多人对自己的目标感到困惑的原因，我认为关键问题在于此，评审团决定了奖项的走向，例如，很多人认为当年Frei Otto的获奖并非巧合，这对于普利兹克奖组织者来说是一种更好的方式，相比起以往的方向来说具有更加清晰的目标。
Patrick Lynch：有人担心普利兹克将成为一个“好学生”俱乐部，我个人认为，评判标准的扩大化是一件好事情，我希望看到建筑的更多表达方式，同时也给予更多人机会。
Rory Stott：也许他们正在向那个方向过渡。
Nicolás Valencia：另外，我认为评审团成员不应该获得该奖项。
Becky Quintal：这很有趣，那么前任评审团成员呢？
Nicolás Valencia：我认同这个逻辑，但是这看起来很奇怪，这恰恰称为了一个“好孩子俱乐部”。
Rory Stott：所以我们认为获奖者和评审团成员不能混为一谈，尤其是在你批评以前并不是建筑师的评审团成员之后，这看起来就很具挑战。因为你无法从建筑师中区分出谁“适合获奖”、谁“适合当评审”。
Nicolás Valencia：我觉得开始思考谁是评审团成员这个问题并不太好，因为大多数人都无法精通各个领域，当然你可以私底下给评审团成员贴标签，但是如果你想要“通过对建筑艺术与建筑环境的塑造，为人类的发展做出巨大贡献”，那么为什么不把这个概念最大化呢？至于谁“适合获奖”、谁“适合当评审”，这个问题由主办方决定。
Patrick Lynch：我们是否可以预测今年谁能获奖？
Rory Stott：这是一个大问题，我无法确定。
Patrick Lynch：（笑）只要你喜欢你可以列出一串名单。
Becky Quintal：我的心目中没有特定的建筑师，我只是希望这次的获奖者的风格不同于RCR，我觉得很难理解他们的想法。
Rory Stott：那你为什么不说说你的想法？Patrick。（笑）
Patrick Lynch：我认同Kére和Steven Holl，另外，如果获奖者是Diller Scofidio + Renfro也顺理成章，因为他们拥有独一无二的背景，并且他们的合伙人来自四面八方，有着不同的思维方式，同时他们的作品也足够创新。
Rory Stott：我认同Francis Kéré，我认为这是一个合适的人选，或者是Steven Holl？但如果我必须选出一个符合DS+R模式，也符合普利兹克奖的近年获奖逻辑的人，我会选择Jeanne Gang，我认为她近期的一些例如Polis-Station、Arcus Center等项目，真正做到了“为人类的发展做出巨大贡献”。
Becky Quintal：我希望这次的获奖者是一位勇于奉献的的建筑师，并且乐于与人分享。
Nicolás Valencia：纵观近几年的获奖者，除了伊东丰雄，普利兹克奖好像都授予给那些作品具有社会性的建筑师。因此，墨西哥女性建筑师也许具有一定的潜力。
Rory Stott：Tatiana Bilbao?
Nicolás Valencia：也许是吧。
关于参与讨论的编辑们：
Becky Quintal是ArchDaily的总编辑，她负责ArchDaily的英语、西班牙语、葡萄牙语，以及中文板块的出版。在来到ArchDaily之前，Becky分别于OMA/AMO、BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group)、Reiser + Umemoto以及普林斯顿大学建筑学院担任过编辑。
Patrick Lynch是ArchDaily的新闻编辑。在这之前，他是ArchDaily的实习编辑，同时也为水彩艺术家担任助理。Patrick持有宾夕法尼亚大学的学士学位，师从建筑师Paolo Soleri，目前他的工作重心在纽约。
Rory Stott自2014年7月以来担任ArchDaily的主编，曾经也是ArchDaily的实习生。他拥有纽卡斯尔大学的建筑学学士学位，并且对于媒体、竞赛、设计过程等建筑文化中常年被忽视部分的研究与探讨很有兴趣，因为这些元素甚至能够改变最终的设计方案。
Nicolás Valencia是ArchDaily的西班牙语编辑，2013年，他毕业于智利大学建筑学系，2017年，他和合作伙伴共同拟写了策略观点《Idea Política Pública》
小编注：本次讨论产生于2018年普利兹克奖获得者公布之前，而普利兹克建筑奖 2018 年获奖者已于北京时间 3 月 7 日晚上 11 点正式公布，获奖者为印度建筑师——巴克里希纳•多西。
“The Nobel Prize in Architecture.” “The profession’s highest honor.” These are some of the terms used to describe the Pritzker Prize. One day before the 2018 Pritzker Prize winner is to be revealed, ArchDaily’s editors discuss whether the prize still lives up to its hype.
The Pritzker Prize was founded in 1979 by Jay A. Pritzker and his wife Cindy. It is awarded every year "to honor a living architect or architects whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture."
The Pritzker has been awarded 39 times to date, and the winners come from all over. Last year, the accolade was given to Rafael Aranda, Carme Pigem, and Ramón Vilalta of RCR Arquitectes—the first trio to win the award. In 2016, the prize was given to Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena, and in 2015, to the German architect Frei Otto.
These announcements undoubtedly cause some furor every year. No female representation in architecture? Another starchitect?—or, on the other hand—who is this architect, and why did they deserve to win?
Our editors discuss the point of the Pritzker Prize today.
Has the Pritzker lost its relevance today?
Becky Quintal: My feeling is that the Pritzker is suffering from a bit of an identity crisis. It’s what makes it difficult to predict what is coming next. I suppose that could be intentional and perhaps even good? But I have a nagging feeling that it’s not intentional.
Rory Stott: I think that it seems like, internally at least, they are worried about their relevance.
Nicolás Valencia: I agree. I think the Prize is very relevant, but they're facing an identity crisis. It's hard to see what the connection is behind the latest five winners.
Patrick Lynch: I agree that the criteria for selection seem to have changed drastically in recent years. However, it is undeniable that the designation still holds more clout than any other award in the architecture world. It is the only prize that projects and architects regularly use as a qualifier i.e. "Pritzker Prize-winner."
Rory Stott: It's good to see that they are actively working on it, even if they don't seem to have a clear direction right now. It's also one of the only architectural awards that can have a significant presence in the non-architecture world, so it's hardly dead and buried.
Patrick Lynch: The reputation of the jury will also ensure it remains relevant.
Nicolás Valencia: One of the things that makes it difficult to predict is that almost every single architect with built projects can be nominated. It's a wide open call. If I go back ten years, when I was a freshman in college, we used to think of the Pritzker as a lifetime achievement award. As for Pat's comment that "the reputation of the jury will also ensure it remains relevant," the thing is the jury itself doesn't always seem very related to architecture—I'm looking at you, Stephen Breyer & Ratan N. Tata.
Patrick Lynch: When looking over past winners, it seems to me there have been 2 different "types" it has been awarded to: either as a capstone honoring an innovative and wide-reaching career (Frei Otto, many others), or as a jumping off point for architects whose work was largely theoretical (Zaha). RCR doesn't fill either of those criteria.
Becky Quintal: Exactly. And honestly, I never received a satisfactory justification for that choice.
Rory Stott: But I don't think an increased focus on mid-career architects is a bad thing, personally. Wang Shu, Aravena, even RCR are people who have proven themselves to an extent already, but still have a lot of potential to do more, especially with the increased attention brought by being a Pritzker Prize winner.
Patrick Lynch: One positive thing that selecting RCR did was open up the award to a group of more than 2 architects.
Rory Stott: True. Though I definitely thought it odd that at the time that the Pritzker insisted that it was being awarded to the three individuals, and asked the media to avoid calling them RCR Arquitectes.
Becky Quintal: But I think that’s because it broke with what they had done in the past and they needed to be consistent.
Rory Stott: That's symptomatic of them needing to reckon with the individualism of the award in the past which is no longer fashionable.
Becky Quintal: I think the most relevant thing the Pritzker can do today is to consistently choose architects that are practicing in the vein of Aravena and Shigeru Ban.
Nicolás Valencia: A funny thing happened in Chile after Aravena won the Pritzker in 2016. Before that prize, architects used to complain that the Pritzker Prize was limited to first world-born, old architects with tons of built projects. After that year, architects started to complain the Pritzker jury was not focused on awarding the architects with tons of built projects.
Rory Stott: But Nico, couldn't the same be said of Wang Shu? Or do you think it just took a few years for people to catch up with that criticism?
Nicolás Valencia: Well yes, sure. I think it was a hypocritical reaction from Latin America. I didn't see that kind of criticism when Toyo Ito won, for example. Also, if we look at the big picture, the last "starchitect" who won the Pritzker Prize was Toyo Ito in 2013.
Becky Quintal: Well if this year’s winner isn’t a “starchitect” I guess it’s safe to say that’s no longer their target?
Patrick Lynch: So the award lists its purpose as "To honor a living architect or architects whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision, and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture." The part that stands out to me is "significant contributions to humanity."
Rory Stott: To me, that's vague. Especially when you consider it was written (I believe) long before their current trajectory. We could have a whole separate discussion over what the phrase "significant contributions to humanity" really means!
Nicolás Valencia: The Pritzker's purpose is so open that anyone could be nominated. So now the issue is we have a huge queue of architects who should win the Pritzker.
Rory Stott: I agree!
Patrick Lynch: I agree that it is a bit vague, but it does explain why they've tried to select architects whose work targets a spectrum of cultures and social classes.
Nicolás Valencia: Maybe that's why they have this identity crisis. It's inevitable to compare RCR with Tschumi, Aravena with Libeskind, and so on...
Rory Stott: But at the same time, that's why people seem so confused about what their purpose is. The problem, I think, is that these changes are being directed by the jurors, who are fickle. For example, a lot of people commented that it can't be a coincidence that Frei Otto won in Richard Rogers' first year on the jury. A better approach would be for the Pritzker's organizers to define a new direction that's more clearly expressed than their old mission statement.
Patrick Lynch: There is a worry that it can be perceived as a "good ole boys" club. I personally believe the widening of its criteria has been a good thing – I want to see more architecture from unexpected places, and give underserved voices a chance to be heard.
Rory Stott: I think maybe all that's happened is they overcorrected in that direction.
Nicolás Valencia: Another thing. I think if you were part of the jury, you shouldn't win the Pritzker Prize.
Becky Quintal: That is interesting. What about former winners as jurors?
Nicolás Valencia: I get the logic, but it looks suspicious as well. It's the "good ole boys club" idea that Pat just referred to.
Rory Stott: So are we saying that being able to win and being on the jury should be mutually exclusive, for life? Especially after you criticized jurors who weren't architects earlier, that seems like a challenging suggestion. How would you distinguish between an architect who is "prize material" and one who is "juror material"?
Nicolás Valencia: I just think it's one of the things that doesn't sound good when you check who's on the jury. As far as I know, you can't win an Oscar for best actor and then be a part of the jury. You can name jurors from outside the discipline, of course. But if what you want is "significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture," why not make it big? Bring in a more multi-disciplinary jury? As for who is "prize material" and who is "juror material"? It's a Pritzker decision. They know better than anyone!
Patrick Lynch: Should we maybe finish by each sharing who we'd like to see win this year and why?
Rory Stott: That's a big question! I'm not even sure if I have an answer.
Patrick Lynch: [Laughs] you can name more than one if you'd like.
Becky Quintal: I don’t have a particular architect in mind. I just hope it’s not the same kind of “artistic” practice as RCR. I find it hard to describe what kind of practice they are though.
Rory Stott: Why don't you go first, Patrick? [laughs]
Patrick Lynch: I will! While I'd be very happy with Kére as a new perspective or Steven Holl as a lifetime achievement, I think that awarding Diller Scofidio + Renfro would help to rationalize some of the last few picks as well: they come from a unique background (exhibition design), they consist of a diverse trio of partners from different perspectives and their work is innovative at all scales.
Rory Stott: I agree with Francis Kéré, I think he would be a popular choice for most people. And who would begrudge the award finally going to Steven Holl? But I guess if I had to pick someone who fits the DS+R mold of someone very well-known but also fitting their new trajectory, I would offer Jeanne Gang. I think some of her more recent projects such as the Polis-Station proposal and her Arcus Center for Social Justice Leadership place her in the "significant contributions to humanity" conversation.
Becky Quintal: I just hope they reward an architect who is generous—in their work and how open they are to sharing it.
Nicolás Valencia: Checking out the last five winners, besides Toyo Ito, it seems like the Pritzker Prize is awarding architects who send a huge message to the society. So, a female Mexican architect would be a strong message for the First World.
Rory Stott: Tatiana Bilbao?
Nicolás Valencia: Maybe...
About the editors
Becky Quintal is the Head of Content at ArchDaily, where she oversees the publication of ArchDaily and its global sites in English, Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese. Prior to assuming her role at ArchDaily, Becky worked as an editor for OMA/AMO, BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group), Reiser + Umemoto and the Princeton University School of Architecture.
Patrick Lynch is ArchDaily's News Editor. Prior to this position, he was an editorial intern for ArchDaily while working full time as an assistant for a watercolor artist. Patrick holds a B. Arch degree from Penn State University and has spent time studying under architect Paolo Soleri. He is currently based in New York City.
Rory Stott has been ArchDaily's Managing Editor since July 2014, after starting as an ArchDaily intern. He has a BA in Architecture from Newcastle University, and is particularly interested in how overlooked elements of architectural culture—from the media, to competitions, to procurement processes—can alter the designs we end up with.
Nicolás Valencia is Editor at Archdaily en Español. He graduated with a degree in architecture from Universidad de Chile in 2013. In 2017, he co-authored ‘Idea Política Pública’ (Policy Idea).
出处：本文译自www.archdaily.com/，转载请注明出处。
|
|
