米开朗基罗（Michelangelo）的作品说明了建筑师应当涉猎各个方面，而非专注某一领域的原因
The Beautiful Drawings of Michelangelo Show Us Why Architects Should Be Polymaths, Not Specialists

由专筑网李韧，王帅编译

本文最初发表于“Common Edge”，标题为“米开朗基罗的一课：过分专注于建筑并不是唯一的方式”。

近期在纽约大都会博物馆有一个展览，标题为“米开朗基罗：神圣的工匠、设计师”，这让我们有机会能够一睹大师作品的风采，让我们感受到一位真正的博学者的思路与方法。本次展览刚刚结束，因此我选择了以下的一些图片，来表达从中获得的感悟。

我在建筑领域已经学习了长达45年之久，本次展览揭示了建筑师的思考方式，也许许多人都能够理解到建筑美学，但通过这次展览我却了解到了实际生活应用中的复杂性。

This article was originally published by Common Edge as "Michelangelo’s Lesson: Specialization in Architecture is Not The Only Way."
A recent exhibition at The Metropolitan Museum in New York, Michelangelo: Divine Draftsman & Designer, provided a thrilling glimpse into the mind and methods of a true polymath. The exhibit has just closed, so I offer this selection of images. Photography was encouraged, and the intimacy of the presentation allowed insights and realizations.
I’ve been studying or practicing architecture for 45 years, and the exhibit clarified how architects can think about what they do. It probably meant similar things to everyone feeling its resonant beauty, but I saw the complexities of a creative life in mid-application.

策展人Carmen C. Bombach通过展览充分表达了米开朗基罗惊人的智慧和复杂的理念。展览中有西斯廷教堂穹顶的模型，还有一座16世纪巨大礼拜堂的建筑模型，除此之外，还有壁画、雕塑、建筑图纸。如果我是一位历史学家，也许我能够解释在“Disegno”中所展现的精致特征与美学理念，这是一种文艺复兴理论，大意是表达所有艺术来源于自然，扎根于自然。

但这不止如此。

Curator Carmen C. Bombach makes Michelangelo Buonarroti’s sprawling, complex and interweaving intellect transparent and bracing. There is a mockup of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. A huge 16th-century architectural model used in the design of a chapel. A study for a fresco is fully exposed. And of course there are paintings, sculptures and architectural drawings arrayed in a gentle flow I could see before the hordes arrived. If I were a historian, I could expound on the intricacies and lyric joy found in “Disegno,” the Renaissance theory that all beauty was found in nature and the foundation of all art.
But it is more than that.

文字、图像、音乐、人类、建筑、素描，以及墨线图纸无不在向我们传递着这样一个现实，那便是现代的我们迷失在先进的技术之中。当我们通过强大的资料库来收集所需资料，这些现代技术也许成为现代人们的一大依赖，虽然现在没有CAD制图机器人，但现在有人工智能技术，它如同提线木偶一般地存在于现代社会。

The effortless confluence of words, drawings, music, humans, buildings, carbon lines and sepia ink revealed a reality that we’re losing in the avalanche of technology. As our knowledge is collected, filtered and coordinated in huge new databases, the human impulse is to master the technology, so that it becomes your slave: no CAD monkeys, just turn the Artificial Intelligence into your monkey, the largest and latest puppet to be mastered. That may yet happen.

但现实却是每一个行业都能够细分为更多精准的专业。当前已经出现了几百种医生类别，甚至不同方向的律师，建筑专业也是如此，可以细分为屋面、幕墙、照明、可持续性发展、节能、保温、安全、发展、信息管理、HVAC系统、平面、通用设计、室内设计，还有许多建筑功能上的区别，例如城市规划、监狱、图书馆、交通、商业、司法、学术、多层住宅、医院、生活附属设施、零售、宗教等等。

建筑各个专业的细化使得概念简化、思想自然化，并且巧妙地结合了建筑、文字、音乐、个体。

But the effective reality is that every profession is splintering into specialization. There are now hundreds of types of doctors. Scores of lawyer specializations. Where architects were once, like veterinarians, just “Large Animal” and “Small Animal,” building has now spawned any number of architect-trained consultants that focus on roofs, curtain walls, lighting, sustainability, energy conservation, insulation, security, development, information management, HVAC systems, graphics, universal design, interiors, as well as any and all pecularizations of building function: cities, prisons, libraries, transportation, commercial, judicial, academic, multi-residential, hospitals, assisted living, retail, religious, and on and on and on.
The balkanization of architecture into constellations of independent operators of exclusive expertise wrecks the simplicity of conception, natural elegance of thought, and effortless coincidence of architecture, words, music, bodies and things that danced through the rooms of the Met.

133张小型图纸在展览中展出，其中许多图纸的正反两面都画满了图像，那么这个类比很经典，为什么不双面使用图纸呢？为什么不进行连续地思考？在建筑设计中，为什么不多加考虑细节？

当你产生思路时，为什么不在不同的项目中共通使用？米开朗基罗用他唯一可用的建筑语言，从许多旧事物中创造了许多新事物。

为什么不把那些记录记忆与历史的方式用在建筑之中呢？

为什么要运用人们所不熟知的语言，让表述更加困难呢？

One-hundred-thirty-three small drawings were set to bright light, many with both sides exposed as the precious 16th paper was used twice, front and back. The metaphor is obvious: why not use both sides? Why not be simultaneous and not sequential? Why not think of all things, not some things, when we design buildings?
Why copy when you can invent? Using the only architectural language available to him, Michelangelo created sparkling new out of old.
Why exclude history, the ways of reflecting the memories and uses that are woven into those who use the buildings?
Why speak in tongues, using language that makes clarity impossible?

为什么要将材质分类为各种色彩、质地？为什么不通过运动方式、时间、水分、重量来区分材质？

为什么设计成果服务于静止图像？我们如何才能将人类在建筑中的活动通过二维图像表达出来？

为什么不使用纸张的正反两面？

在图纸的一面，建筑师用墨线表达了门廊的设计方式，在另一面用来练习人体素描。墨线通过纸张的背面渗透出来，与另一面的碳笔形相互交融。这便是人体与建筑的重叠与结合，二者相辅相成，互相融合，我们无法将其中之一单独提取出来。

其他的图纸则通过线条描绘出形态，来展示瞬时的建筑，例如在另一张纸上表达出长度、形状、装饰，以及细部，因为这里没有图层叠加的痕迹，因此过去的思路在当下的纸张中不曾表达。我认为，在他绘制图像的过程中，他已经事先感受到了成图的价值。

建筑师通常会以这样的思考方式进行思考，思想存在于片刻，所有的东西都是思考的成果，但是许多人希望能够表达出纯粹的思维理念。

当有机会沟通时？为什么要争辩？

Why relegate materials to categories—all white, wood or stone, as space, solid and void—without recognizing movement, time, water, gravity?
Why design for the screen: the perfect image frozen in two-dimensions when the experience of movement is how we humans use all buildings?
Why not both/and, using Both Sides Of The Paper?
One drawing shows the sepia ink of a portico’s design on one side, and on the obverse the muscled study sketch for a sculpture. The sepia ink bleeds through to the backside of the paper and then carbon is applied over that: instant synergy. Body and Building: overlapping, combining, being a singularity in the mind of their creator, not the distinct, separate, distilled denial of each other.
Other drawings actually show the frozen evolution of architecture from detail to line to shape and back again, as the length, form, trim and detail evolve on one sheet of paper: simply because there was no trace to layer over layer over layer, removing the past in the layer under the current one. I think he saw the value of the last drawing as he sketched over it – the drawing as a living, growing thing.
Architects naturally think this way: all things at once, a stew of thought, but many want to offer up a finished product of pristine distillation.
Why present a polemic when we can have a conversation?

通常我们会把自己限制在某个领域，有时候更多地涉猎知识不会降低你的专业性，反而能够丰富你的思想，这比我们单纯地学习要有更多的收获。现在，专业化导致我们对许多知识说“不”，这也可能导致你拒绝继续往下阅读本文，不过相反地，人类能够根据自己的需求来创造机器，机器或技术也能服务于人类。

米开朗基罗通过色彩、光线、材质、形态创造了音乐、散文、诗歌、肌肉、眼睛、手指、墙面、屋顶等等。正如我们所了解的那样，这些都是瞬时的记忆。

让我们一起看看这些图像，欣赏400多年的创造性理念。

We can limit our language to the coolly distilled, but sometimes less is, well, just less. Sometimes more does not dilute or obscure, it enriches, not everything, all the time: but far more than what we’re often taught. And now, the profession is shifting to where the default setting is simply “less.” But that could preempt what you see here. Instead, the machines can be used by humans, who strive to overlap, recombine and weave anything they want them to.
Michelangelo created music, prose, poetry, muscles, eyes, fingers with walls, roofs, trim with color and light and material and shape. All in small drawings. All at once. Just the way we think.
Look at these drawings, listen for the 400-year-old explosion of creativity.

技术对人类生活产生了巨大的改变，通过媒体，人类的许多思维方式已经发生了变化，从木材到动物皮毛，再到图纸、像素、电子，其中的变化翻天覆地。我们的生活总是在不断变化，但是现在我们能够重新发现那些让我们的思路自然而生的东西，或者我们在面对事物时能够谨慎一些。

我们应当记住所创造的价值，或者适当地使用工具。控制、还是被控制，这取决于我们自己。

Technology has always changed us. We have surfed the media and the media has changed the way we think: from wood, to animal skin, to tracing paper, to pixels and electrons. How we create is always changing, but now we can rediscover what makes our minds think spontaneously, or we can choreograph what we agree is prudent
We can remember the value of creating, or we can be safe in our defendable use of the tools we should control. Control or be controlled, it is up to us.


作者简介：

Duo Dickinson是从业三十多年的建筑师，他曾经出版过8本著作，同时也是New Haven Register的建筑评论员，并为Hartford Courant进行设计与文化方面的写作，另外，他也是意大利索伦托圣安娜学院建筑美学项目（Building Beauty Program）的工作人员。

Duo Dickinson has been an architect for more than 30 years. The author of eight books, he is the architecture critic for the New Haven Register, writes on design and culture for the Hartford Courant, and is on the faculty at the Building Beauty Program at Sant'Anna Institute in Sorrento, Italy.


出处：本文译自www.archdaily.com/，转载请注明出处。