Quake Projects, Minle Houses, Mianzh. Image © Renhe Architecture
“We Want to Enjoy the Work, Enjoy the Fight”: In Conversation with Qing Fei and Frank Fu of Renhe Architecture
由专筑网王雪纯，李韧编译
去年，我被清华大学首次邀请去设计工作室授课。根据最新的国际评级，清华大学建筑学院属于中国顶级的建筑学院，清华大学本身也是世界上很强的建筑学校。在那里，我遇到了教育工作者傅刚和费箐夫妇。我目睹了他们非正统的教学方式，即通过向学生进行严格的提问来使学生挑战自我能力，当时我便产生了采访他们的想法。他们的创新方法并不符合我对中国建筑的印象。费箐和傅刚都是清华大学的毕业生，他们在20世纪80年代后期移居美国，在那里他们进行了近20年的对艺术和建筑的研究工作。
2005年，他们回到北京，开始了实践工作。之后他们提出了城市总体规划方案，负责北京798艺术区的公共空间设计指导，并在画廊展出了他们的作品。夫妇俩目前正带领学生做建筑学校的翻新设计方案，向学生阐明什么有效、什么无效，以及探索建筑的可能性。我们在课前会面，讨论了他们的教学，讨论了是否应该提出问题再解决问题，讨论了为什么他们认为每个项目都是战斗，以及讨论了乐趣的重要性。他们说，“建筑是一种游戏，我们要认真对待它”。
Last year I was invited to teach design studio for the first time by Tsinghua University in Beijing, home to the top architecture school in China and one of the strongest in the world, according to the latest international ratings. There, I met husband-and-wife teaching practitioners Qing Fei and Frank Fu. As soon as I witnessed their unorthodox way of teaching by challenging students with rigorous questioning, I wanted to interview them. Their innovative approach did not fit my impression of how architecture is tackled in China. Fei and Fu are Tsinghua graduates; they moved to America in the late 1980s where they studied, worked, and researched both art and architecture for almost two decades.
They opened their experimental practice after coming back to Beijing in 2005. Since then they produced urban masterplans, design guidelines for public spaces in Beijing’s 798 Art Zone, and exhibited their work in galleries. We met before their class where they oversaw students’ designs for a new architecture school in place of the current one, articulating what works, what doesn’t, and how to make it a more exciting place to explore architectural possibilities. We discussed their teaching, the impossibility of solving a problem without questioning it first, why they see every one of their projects as a fight, and the importance of fun. They said, “Architecture is a game and we want to play it seriously.”
Quake Projects, Minle Houses, Mianzh. Image © Renhe Architecture
Vladimir Belogolovsky（下文简称VB）：你们的工作室叫做Renhe建筑设计事务所。“任何”，中文的意思是天下万物。你们为什么选择这样一个无法定义的名字？
傅刚（下文简称FF）：因为我们对很多事情感兴趣。我们从艺术、书籍、音乐、历史、电影、科学中获得灵感。我们开展多学科实践。我们不想将自己局限于纯粹的商业建筑设计。我们不受任何特定建筑类型的限制，我们什么都想尝试，无论是平面设计还是书籍设计。而且，事实上，我们的所有书籍都是自己设计的。我们找不到其他完全符合我们的工作室名字（笑）。
费箐（下文简称QF）：我们对任何与设计有关的领域感兴趣。还有一件事，无论我们做什么都必须很有趣。建筑必须很有趣。
VB：为什么有趣很重要？
QF：因为我们所做的都很有趣（笑）！
FF：我们认为教学很有趣。我们想要做项目，但现在我们花了很多时间教学，因为我们喜欢这个过程。教学比建房子更重要。
Vladimir Belogolovsky: Your practice is called Renhe (pronounced Ren He) Architecture. Renhe, in Chinese, means any or anything. Why did you choose such an undefined name?
Frank Fu: Because we are interested in many things. We get our inspirations from art, books, music, history, films, science. We run a multidisciplinary practice. We don’t want to limit ourselves as purely commercial architects. We are not restrained to any particular building type. We want to do everything and anything – be it graphic design or book design. And, as a matter of fact, all of our books we designed ourselves. We couldn’t find anyone we liked. [Laughs.]
Qing Fei: We are interested in any design-related problems. And one more thing – whatever we do must be fun. Architecture must be fun.
VB: Why fun is important?
QF: Because we are doing it, so it must be fun! [Laughs.]
FF: Teaching for us is a lot of fun. We want to build our projects but now we spend a lot of our time teaching because we enjoy this process. It is more important than building.
The Architects with NGT model, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architectur
VB：在我采访你们之前，我想请你们向我展示一些你们的项目。但你们说，“这不是关于工作而是思考。”你们能详细说明吗？你们作品的主要意图是什么？
QF：我们的作品是为了应对我们周围的变化。我们将建筑作为一种媒介，我们将其应对全球和当地条件。
FF：我们当然不是说工作对我们来说并不重要。这对我们和客户都不可缺少，但思考比我们的日常生活更重要。我认为今天我们的职业所缺乏的是前瞻性思维。我们现在正处于21世纪的第二个十年。在20世纪的同一时期，就已经有了如勒·柯布西耶一般的先锋人物。现在我们有这样的领导者吗？这并不意味着时代不好。也许是因为我们的时代并不适应一花独秀。现在的时代有许多声音，多种潮流。我们重视多样性，这很好，我们所缺少的是批判性思维，特别是在中国。这里对研究和历史分析的关注不够。
VB: Before our meeting, I asked you to show me some examples of your work. To that, you said, “It is not about work but thinking.” Could you both elaborate on that? What would you say are the main intentions of your architecture?
QF: Our architecture is about responding to the changes around us. We treat architecture as a medium and we use it in such responses both to global and local conditions.
FF: Of course, we didn’t mean that work is not important to us. It is very important both to us and our clients. But thinking is more important than our daily routine. What I think lacks in our profession today is forward-looking thinking. We are now at the closing of the second decade of the 21st century. By the same time in the 20th century already there was such an important spearhead figure as Le Corbusier. Do we have such a leader today? This does not mean that the times are bad. Perhaps our times are not ripe for a single coherent voice. It is time for many voices. We value diversity. This is fine. What we are missing, particularly here in China, is critical thinking. There is not enough attention to research and historical analysis here.
9·11国家纪念博物馆｜September 11 Memorial, New York City. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：我想补充一点，我们的时代和上个世纪的早期部分并不完全可比，因为那时历史更为激烈。虽然现在，我们的许多主要声音仍然是20世纪后期的回声，而从上个世纪到现在的声音的背离并不是那么激进和明确。今天谁可以与勒·柯布西耶相提并论？雷姆·库哈斯？但就像勒·柯布西耶一样，他也来自20世纪。
FF：嗯，如果你问我们谁是最能影响我们的建筑师，我也会说是库哈斯。但确实如此，库哈斯属于20世纪。
VB：是时候换个新声音吧？
FF：肯定需要不同的声音。
VB: If I may add to that… The earlier parts of this and last centuries are not quite comparable because then the departure from the immediate history was much more drastic. While, now, so many of our leading voices are still the echoes of the late 20th century, and the departure from the previous century to the current one is not that radical and clear. Who can be compared to Le Corbusier today? Rem Koolhaas? But just as Le Corbusier, he is the product of the 20th century.
FF: Well, if you ask us who is the architect that influenced us most, among others, I would cite Koolhaas. But it is true – Koolhaas belongs to the 20th century.
VB: It is time for a new voice, right?
FF: Different, for sure.
CHMOMA, Tianjin. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：我们确实听到了新声音，但新生代仍然受到库哈斯的深远影响。因此，他们并不是不同，他们只是更专注。如果他提出了问题，那人们现在会专注于给出答案或者公式。我们没有命名它们，我们不需要这样做。
FF：库哈斯带来了许多想法。但你是对的，所以他的许多所谓的门徒现在都在给建筑套公式，这有点矫揉造作，也有点过于正式。
QF：我们看不到新生代的叛逆。到目前为止，我们没有受到挑战。我们希望清华大学的所有学生能够应对这一挑战。我们通过提问向他们提出挑战，同时他们可以用自己的方式挑战我们。我们不告诉他们如何工作，我们希望他们思考，并找到自己的方式。我们不担心他们的作业，或者他们可以设计什么样的项目。我更感兴趣的是让他们对已知内容提出质疑。如果不先问问题就无法解决问题。提问是第一步。
VB: We do have new voices, but they are still very closely associated with Koolhaas. Therefore, they are not different, they are more focused. And if he produced questions, they are now preoccupied with producing answers and even formulas. We are not naming them, but we don’t have to.
FF: Koolhaas brought many ideas. But you are right, so many of his so-called disciples are now providing answers and to me that is like mannerism and a purely formal play.
QF: We don’t see serious questioning coming from the young generation. So far, we are not challenged. We hope our international students here at Tsinghua can come up with that challenge. We challenge them with our questions, so they can challenge us back with their own. We don’t tell them how to do their work. We want them to think and find their ways. We don’t worry about their production and what kind of projects they can design. I am much more interested in having them ask questions that would challenge what we already know. You can’t solve a problem without questioning it first. That’s the first step.
Urban Design, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：你们是清华大学的校友。你们都是1985年毕业，然后从新泽西理工学院获得了硕士学位。到了美国后你们定居在纽约。当你离开中国时，你们为自己设定了什么目标？
QF：这正是我们在美国大使馆申请签证时被问到的问题。我的回答是，我想成为一名伟大的建筑师。我们想要开放的世界，我们想要学到很多东西。在中国，从表面上看，许多事情发生了变化。建筑改变了很多，但我没有看到这里提出的好问题。
FF：我们永远不想离开中国。我们想要学习如何在技术和艺术上变得更好。一旦到了纽约，建筑及其周围的一切都是一个不间断的学习过程。这座城市本身就是我们的大学。我们工作、上学，不断参加画廊、博物馆展览、会议、讲座，我们想学习，我们利用一切机会实现这一目标。我认为我们没有错过任何空缺。我们就像一块海绵，吸收周围的一切有益内容。
VB: You were classmates here at Tsinghua University. You both graduated in 1985 and then received your master degrees from NJIT. Once in the States you stayed in New York. What goals did you set for yourselves originally when you left China?
QF: That is exactly the question we were asked when we applied for our visas at the American Embassy. My response was – I want to become a great architect. We wanted to be open. We wanted to learn so many things. This could not be achieved in China. I still believe that today because it takes a while for such things as mentality to change. On the surface, many things changed. Architecture changed a lot. But I don’t see good questions asked here.
FF: And we never wanted to leave China for good. We wanted to learn how to become good, both technically and artistically. Once in New York, architecture and everything around it was a non-stop learning process. The city itself became our university. We worked, went to school, and we constantly attended gallery openings, museum exhibitions, conferences, lectures; we wanted to learn, and we used every opportunity towards that goal. I don’t think we missed any openings. We were like a sponge, trying to absorb everything around us.
Downtown Urban Design, Guiyang. Image © Renhe Architecture
Downtown Urban Design, Guiyang. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：然后在2005年，你们回到了中国。为什么？
QF：我们在纽约和北京之间往返，当时我们是被邀请去教书。我们认为这是一个与新生代接触并分享经验的好机会，因为我们相信实验性建筑，我们希望教给学生一些不同的东西。
FF：我们一直想要多走走。为了满足我们自己的好奇心和专业兴趣，我们很早就决定不要孩子。在某种程度上，我们的项目和学生就是我们的孩子。没有人这么说过，但我们自然而然就得出了这个结论。
QF：建筑是我们的生命。我们都非常敬业。
FF：尽管建筑是一种游戏，但我们想要认真对待它。
VB: Then in 2005, you came back to China. Why?
QF: We were going back and forth between New York and Beijing and at that time we were offered to teach. We saw it as a great opportunity to have direct contact with the young generation and to share our experience because we believe in experimental architecture and we want to teach our students something different.
FF: We always wanted to be mobile all the time. To satisfy our own curiosity and our professional interests, we decided early on that we didn’t want to have children. In a way, our projects and students are our kids. No one initiated this; we simply came to this conclusion.
QF: Architecture is our life. We are both very dedicated to it.
FF: Architecture is a game and we want to play it seriously.
Observation Tower, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：你为什么认为这是一种游戏？
FF：因为如果你把自己太当回事，或者你过于认真地对待工作，你就无法理解周围的事物。我们希望对我们周围发生的所有事情保持警惕。然后我们才能做出即时的响应，作出基本的预判。我们希望自己处于优势地位，我们喜欢成为外人和观察者。这样我们就可以为工作带来更多的乐趣。
VB：这样的想法从何而来呢？
FF：很早之前。甚至是在我们出国之前，也在我们在21世纪初与Peter Eisenman讨论这个立场之前。他告诉我们，他也想成为一个局外人，他觉得自己像个局外人。
VB: Why do you think it is a game?
FF: Because if you take yourself too seriously or if you take the work too seriously, you can’t get a sense of what is around you. But we want to stay alert to all things that happen around us. And then we want to make an immediate response or an educated guess. We want to be on edge, and we always prefer to be outsiders and observers. That way we can bring more excitement into the work.
VB: Where did this position come from?
FF: Early on. Even before we left, and when we discussed this stance with Peter Eisenman back in the early 2000s. He told us that he also wanted to be an outsider and that he felt like an outsider.
Urban Design, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：您刚才提到了与Peter Eisenman的讨论。我知道你也与Bernard Tschumi、Greg Lynn、Hani Rashid、Bill MacDonald、Sulan Kolatan、Jesse Reiser和Nanoko Umemoto有过接触。你能谈谈这些经历，以及他们如何影响你对这个职业的态度吗？
FF：实际上，我们很晚才遇到了你提到的这些建筑师。如果我们在十几岁或二十出头遇到他们，他们可能会对我们产生更大的影响。但那时我们成为注册建筑师，我们有多年的经验。那时我们已经有了关于建筑的成熟想法，我们非常尊重他们的工作。但是我们并不想复制他们的任何想法，仅仅因为那是属于他们个人的。我们想要从中体验到的是他们对创造想法的热情。但我们没有分享他们的想法，我们不想这么做，我们一直在寻找自己的想法。
VB: You just mentioned your discussion with Peter Eisenman. I know that you also were in contact with Bernard Tschumi, Greg Lynn, Hani Rashid, Bill MacDonald, and Sulan Kolatan, Jesse Reiser and Nanoko Umemoto. Could you talk about these encounters and how they influenced your attitudes toward the profession?
FF: Actually, we met all of these architects quite late. If we met them in our teens or early 20s they may have influenced us a lot. But we were already registered architects by then. We had many years of experience. By then we already had our own ideas about architecture. But we had great respect for their work. And we never wanted to copy any of their ideas. Simply because they are their ideas. What we wanted to experience from them was their passion for generating ideas. But we didn’t share their ideas; we didn’t want to. We were looking for ideas that would be our own.
Spaghetti Ptototype, Sihui Complex, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：你们在2012年威尼斯双年展上的演讲说建筑师需要共同点，在那之前，你们在讨论建筑带来的快乐和无忧无虑的时代。这个观点让每位建筑师对独特和原创的追求产生了质疑。毕竟从前，建筑师最不想的就是和其他人相同。现在的一切却都是为了彼此对齐。但是无论过去还是现在你都不想成为这样，对吗？
FF：我们一直想成为自己。即使回顾历史，我们总是试图删除以前所做的事情。我们对过去并不怀旧。我们想要创造新东西。
QF：我们追求美丽、性感、开放、激情。
VB：你们的一个项目叫做Jelly，另一个叫做Spaghetti。这是为什么？
QF：Jelly项目的想法是实现一种中间状态，因为这个词既不是固体也不是液体。我喜欢这种不确定性。该项目是对中国事态发展变化的回应。项目的灵感来自一幅油画。它从绘画转变为雕塑，再到可能成为更大规模建筑的骨架。这很有趣，像玩儿似的。
VB: You are talking about the happy, carefree times in architecture before this idea that architects need common ground was introduced by the 2012 Venice Biennale. It interrupted everyone’s quest for being unique and original. Before that common ground was the last thing architects wanted. Now it is all about aligning with each other. But you didn’t want it then and you don’t want it now, right?
FF: We always wanted to be ourselves. Even looking back into history, we always try to delete and erase what was done before. We are not nostalgic about the past. We want to create new things.
QF: We are pursuing our own quest for beauty, sensuality, openness, passion.
VB: One of your projects is called Jelly and another one – Spaghetti. Why is that?
QF: The idea for the Jelly project was to achieve a kind of in-between state – not solid and not liquid. I like this kind of uncertainties. The project was a response to how quickly things have been changing in China. The departure point was an oil painting. It transitioned from painting to sculpture, to skeleton that could become a building on a larger scale. It was playful and a lot of fun.
Jelly Prototype, 80s Dream, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
Jelly Prototype, 80s Dream, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
Jelly Prototype, 80s Dream, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：那个项目是由一种形式驱动的吗？
QF：来自一个灵感！
FF：还有情绪。人类的情感永远是我们的起点。建筑应该产生一种反应，无论是亲和力还是愤怒，都是一种反应。太多建筑没有血肉，只有死骨。是否有特殊的形式并不重要，它可以在设计过程中出现，无论结果如何，我们都会接受它。但我们并没有有意识地寻找美丽的形式。我们了解自己的审美，我知道这是一个老梗，但这些审美能够指导我们完成它。但在此之前，我们并不担心最终形式。
VB：在你的一次采访中，你说你质疑对称性和中心性等原则。你是否设想过与这种原则无关的建筑？
QF：我说这句话的源头来自于由赫尔佐格和德穆龙设计的北京鸟巢。你可能会认为这座建筑有着非常混乱和动态的结构，但如果仔细观察，你会看到具有对称性和中心的特定形状。一旦你看到它的片段你可以想象它的全部。我们希望做一种完全开放和自由的建筑。所有片段彼此略有不同，在每一部分中，人们都会发现一些新的、意想不到的、不可预测的、不确定的东西。
VB: Was that project driven by a form?
QF: By an idea!
FF: And emotions. Human emotions are always a starting point for us. Architecture should produce a reaction, be it affinity or anger, but something. So many buildings have no blood and no flash, just dead bones. A particular form is not important; it can emerge in the design process. Whatever the result, we’ll take it. But we are not looking for any beautiful form consciously. We know that our own teste (I know it is an old-fashioned word) will guide us about how to add the final touch. But before that we don’t worry about the final form.
VB: In one of your interviews you said that you question such principles as symmetry and center. Do you envision a kind of architecture that is not defined by such principles?
QF: I said it in reference to the Bird’s Nest Olympic Stadium by Herzog de Meuron here in Beijing. You may think of this building as a very chaotic and dynamic structure, but if you look carefully, you will see a particular form with symmetry and center. And once you see its fragment you can imagine the whole thing. Our vision is a kind of architecture that is entirely open and free. All fragments are slightly different from each other and in every part, you discover something new and unexpected, unpredictable, uncertain.
Sports Club, District East, Chengdu. Image © Renhe Architecture
Sports Club, District East, Chengdu. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：您是否认为自己与中国或国际上的其他建筑师保持一致？能否分享一些你们的共同兴趣？
QF：我们确实还是挺喜欢某些项目。例如，我们曾将最喜欢的建筑项目比喻成主菜，那么就会有开胃菜和甜点等。盖里的Bilbao是一个很棒的主菜，而扎哈的维特拉消防中心是我们认为最美味的甜点。
FF：我们喜欢建筑，就像其他人喜欢读小说或看电影一样。这么多年来，我们遇到了“灵魂伴侣”，他们可能来自不同时期，甚至不同的学科。但这并不意味着我们想要像他们一样。我们想要享受工作，享受战斗。
VB: Do you see yourselves aligned with other architects in China or internationally? Do you share anyone’s interests?
QF: We may like certain projects. For example, we once categorized our favorite architectural projects that we personally visited into meals such as the main course, appetizer, and dessert. Frank Gehry’s Bilbao is a great main course, while Zaha Hadid’s Vitra Fire Station is the most delicious dessert for us.
FF: We enjoy architecture just as other people may enjoy reading a novel or watching a film. From now and then we come across our “soulmates” and they may be from different times and even different disciplines. But it doesn’t mean we want to be like them. We want to enjoy the work, enjoy the fight.
CCPS, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：享受战斗？
FF：我们的每个项目都是一场战斗。我们为公益事业而战。在个人层面上，我们在给定的预算和时间范围内争取做到最佳质量。所以，我们的工作不是要与同行保持一致。
VB：你相信建筑是艺术吗？
FF：不，建筑是建筑，艺术就是艺术。我们两个都做，我们都理解。
VB：如果有一位来自纽约的朋友来到北京，但只能呆一天，你们会选择带他参观哪个项目？
QF：还好北京有一些扎哈的好作品。我们喜欢她在北京的作品，以及她设计的广州歌剧院。
VB: Enjoy the fight?
FF: Each and every one of our projects is a fight. We fight for the public good. On a personal level, we fight for what we believe could be the best quality possible within the given budget and timeframe. So, our work is not about aligning ourselves with our peers.
VB: Do you believe architecture is art?
FF: No, Architecture is architecture. And art is art. We do both and we understand both.
VB: If a friend from New York came to Beijing for just one day, what one project would you like him to see and why?
QF: We are lucky to have here a few good pieces by Hadid. We enjoy her work here, as well as her opera house in Guangzhou.
Downtown Urban Design, Daejeon. Image © Renhe Architecture
VB：你们有特别喜欢的中国建筑师的作品吗？
FF：我们还在等着呢！（笑）
QF：我们只关注建筑本身。我们不关心是谁做的。我们还在等待中国建筑师的一个好项目。它们可能很有趣，但我们还没有看到正确的问题。
FF：我想看看库哈斯的另一个作品。我想了解他是否又构思了奇妙的内容。我想研究它并从中学习，我很贪心。如果没有任何好处，那就算啦！
VB: Any work by a Chinese architect you particularly like?
FF: We are working on it! [Laughs]
QF: We only look at the work. We don’t care about who did it. We are still waiting for a good project by the Chinese architect. They may be interesting, but we don’t see the right questions asked yet.
FF: I want to see another work by Koolhaas. I wonder if there is still any juice left within him. I want to study that and learn from it. I am that greedy. And if it is not any good, just forget it!
National Grand Theater, Beijing. Image © Renhe Architecture
Spreeinsel Urban Design, Berlin. Image © Renhe Architecture
Visitor Info Center, District East, Chengdu. Image © Renhe Architecture
Visitor Info Center, District East, Chengdu. Image © Renhe Architecture
|
|
