2013年交大建研所第三屆學生競圖 Frankenstein 科學怪人建築 賴彥吉 Jimenez Lai 出題

導言

給交大建築研究所學生為期十天的競圖,題目是「弗 蘭肯斯坦怪物:一個過分連接的局部到局部間的關係」這個概念的發想來自於弗蘭肯斯坦(科學怪人)是一個由多種他人身體局部連接而成的怪物,整體而言就看來 像是在不同部位之間的獨特拼貼。這次的競圖將著眼於能在建築機能中產生貢獻之局部到局部間的關係。

優美屍骸(Exquisite Corpse)是 Andre Breton 在1920年代時正當超現實主義崛起發展出的游戲。 這是一個有順序的游戲,從藝術家隱藏部分的一張圖紙,並將之傳給下一個玩家提供進一步貢獻。一個科學怪人並無不同:不同的部份之間尷尬的連結顯示了一種相 互概略合格造成的模糊意味,引導出一個不正確的常態。

在 Green Dot 101(Robert Somol, 2007)這篇文章中,Somol 使用布魯日音樂廳競圖成為 Neutelings Riedijk Architects (1999)的一個透過建築表面使用成為整體生產的例子。 一個連貫的表面處理可以聯合形式上兩個截然不同的部分成為一個單一的量體。在 Andrew Atwood 的作品中也可以觀察到這一個相似地維妙策略,特別是他最近在南加州建築學院的裝置「 …And Pedestals」,這令人想起兩種截然不同的方式各持一方的兩位偉大的美國畫家: Robert Ryman vs Robert Rauschenberg 羅伯特雷曼VS羅伯特勞申貝格。

在 Ryman 這方面,當各部分是可以識別時在白色上塗白會造成細微的差別,它需要更貼近地觀察以便閱覽那些組成構圖。 在 Rauschenberg 這一方面,過度使用拼貼創造出一個混亂卻又能因為純粹的在局部上的豐富而維持整體的領域。 九龍城寨,就是一個能被這樣了解的建築實例。

在 Andrew Kovacs 的作品中,不難發現,局部之間的銜接是相當對立的。 如果我們的研究 Claes Oldenburg 的作品,我們可以在兩者的作品間看到一種強烈的關聯。 在這兩者的作品中, 外皮不如主體重要。 他們用發現的對象成為統一的表面狀況巧妙地出發點, 並且也不需要表面條件的統一來的達到單一量體的影響。如果我們把 John Hejduk 的牆屋2號(Wall House 2)歸類在同一類型的工作,那些形狀在量體和建築表面上的處理都彼此截然不同 —展現不相干的一致的表皮。這也是原來OMA在台北表演藝術中心的圖解模型的情況。或者,我們可以發現這種徵狀出現在紐約紐約酒店在拉斯維加斯的分 店,其中將紐約陳腔濫調的提取、誇大和匯整成一個單一的建築。這引出了一個問題—一個建築天際線可以被視為一棟建築嗎?聖吉米納諾是一個城市,亦或一 棟建築物?

或者,Chris Burden 的大都會二代(Metropolis II) 的案例中,各部位的複雜性產生我們所能想像的量體到可以去除表皮的密集度,並且暴露出主體中唯一的器官。我們可以看到MVRDV在荷蘭漢諾威堆疊的展館中 多種不同的荷蘭地景被採樣且再現為一個透明疊加的各種人工景觀荷蘭。

如果我們拿所有的頂樓違建為例子並將之視為小帽子或頭或建築物,台灣 是充滿了像科學怪人一樣的建築,但是,如果我們比較由 Herzog & de Meuron 所做的 Caixa 廣場,一個類似的“建築頂上的建築” ,它迅速地幫助我們認識到如果生產值提高很多後台灣非法添加可以很漂亮。

所有上述引用,也許人們可 以注意到一股暗流表明同時從關注外型的分析,但又有理論去結合歷史。為什麼形式主義和歷史主義是重要的?建築的構成具有巨大的後續的隱式能量去影響社會和 文化。再者,由於美學本身是主觀的,因此可以被爭執並激發不同的公民意見。當沒有任何事情是絕對的非黑即白時,意見,或者說非客觀的想法,則是任何健康社 會的基礎,這就是故事和敘述的重要。但是一個有根據的故事是由形式和歷史意識組成。這個「科學怪人」的案子意圖擾亂一個正常建築並且鼓勵用途的差異性增強 受教意見上的膽識。

總之,這個摘要期望一個形式上的複雜的建築在台北101上的基地 ,刺激我們對正常的理解。

基地

拿 台北101大樓做為體積的盒子和基地做為一個「科學怪人」的項目,本次比賽要求在同一基地上具有類似規模的建築物,但是重新想像不同的基能、敘述、密度以 及感知。「科學怪人- ING」是一個拼貼案子並且將需要現有局部們的採樣 – 很像一個DJ與他/她的音樂知識的關係 – 將發現的部分重建將會憑藉著局部的歷史以及拼接的智慧兩者。拼接的這種行為將在很大程度上依賴於“是什麼” (題材採樣)和“如何做” (順序上的技術)的技術,參與者們將被期待他們在思想和技術的精準度。

在某些方面,台北101這個案子已經像是一個「科學怪人」。圖示 上,它是從九個或十個部分組成的圖騰並沒有什麼不同。換句話說,這是值得注意的,這局部與局部的關係是一種垂直的堆疊。但是,還有其他可以使構成在外型上 更加醒目和機上更加豐富的策略,有很多可能的策略能去考慮,例如捆綁,打樁,平鋪,層疊…等等。這個摘要的邀請學生製造出形式上可能有的建築效果的圖 示近一步去推演出更多有趣的公民生活。

過程

這 個項目的第一步將要求學生收集發現的物件,裁切成所需的形狀和尺寸,並且將各部分加以固定在一起成「科學怪人的部件」。團隊將會播預期要檢視環境的素質, 無論是拍攝特寫照片,或是用看建築模型的方式去閱讀那些構成物件。此步驟將重複兩次以上,我們鼓勵每個一個團隊用新聞式地分析他們所產生的影響,以及概括 性的局部間介入整體的示意關係。

交件內容

1。 一個1:250的「科學怪人」模型提案
2。一個1:250的剖面或軸側圖, ( W = 60公分, H = 300公分)
3。一條高品質的照片特寫,帶有刻度的數字顯示環境的素質( W = 60公分H = 300公分)
4 。三個「科學怪人」草模,大致60 公分X60公分X60公分
5 。處理隊伍的一個情境去傳達有創意和能理解的敘事。 ( W = 60公分, H = 300公分)

最終結果將是四個垂直對齊的材料條 – 一個1:250的大型模型,同樣大小的大張線圖(剖面或等角透視圖) ,一系列攝影文圖簡介,到最後揭開創造性地訴說一則設計者提議的故事。

評量作品方面將取決於三個主要優點:邏輯,敘事性和產值。另外將會提示要求具有造型,社會,政治和哲學的關係方面裡運用部分到整體關係的一些想法。

時程

給學生們的建議操作時程(不用完全按表操課)

1.簡介/尋找材料/第一個大型物件 (9月16日)
2.評估/尋找更多材料/第二個大型物件
3.評估/尋找更多更多材料/第三個大型物件
4.評估的三個對象,3D模型、2D 拼接和攝影,
5.3D模型、分析製作、圖解、理論思想
6.生產最終模型/繪圖/照片/敘述
7.生產最終模型/繪圖/照片/敘述
8.生產最終模型/繪圖/照片/敘述
9.生產最終模型/繪圖/照片/敘述
10.收件、審查(2013年9月25日)

評選來賓
王俊傑(北藝大藝術與科技中心)、郭文亮(東海建築系)、漆志剛(淡江建築系)

>>相關討論
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team A 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team B 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team C 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team D 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team E 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team F 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team G 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team H 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team I 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team J 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team K 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team L 作品::
::2013第三屆交大建研所所內建築競圖 Team M 作品::

>>相關影片

2013第三屆交大建研所所內學生競圖 賴彥吉解說題目

2013第三屆交大建研所所內學生競圖 評審過程

>>相關相片

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 

圖檔

 


英文版

台北101科學怪人建築 (弗蘭肯斯坦怪物):

INTRODUCTION

This project is a ten-day competition, designed for students of NCTU. The title of this competition is Frankenstein: the over-articulation of part-to-part relationship. Taking the idea that a Frankenstein is a monster stitched together from various foreign bodies, the whole would read like a collaged entity with distinctive qualities between the parts. This competition will look at the part-to-part relationship’s contributions to architectural program, sociological implications and cultural impacts.

“Exquisite Corpse” (優美屍骸) was a game enriched by Andre Breton and company during the 1920s when Surrealism emerged. This is a game of sequence, where artists conceal parts of a piece of paper and pass it to the next player for further contribution. A Frankenstein is not dissimilar: the awkward joinery between parts reveals a sense of ambiguity regarding the diagrammatic qualifications between parts, introducing an incorrect state of normalcy.

In the essay Green Dot 101 (Somol, 2007), Somol used the Brugge Concert Hall competition entry (1999) by Neutelings Riedijk Architects as an example of the production of whole through the use of façade. A consistent surface treatment can unite the formally distinct parts into a singular mass. A similarly subtle strategy can also be observed in the work of Andrew Atwood, particularly his recent installation, …And Pedastals, at the Southern California Institute of Architecture. This thought brings to mind two contrasting modes of engagements from two great American painters: Robert Ryman vs Robert Rauschenberg. In the case of Ryman, white on white creates subtle differences of the field that while the parts are identifiable; it requires a closer look in order for the composition to be read. In the case of Rauschenberg, on the other hand, the excessive use of collage creates a chaotic field that a whole is still maintained because of the sheer abundance of parts. The Kowloon Walled City comes to mind as a realized architectural example.

In the work of Andrew Kovacs, one would notice that the articulation between parts is rather contrasting. If we study the work of Claes Oldenburg, we could see a strong relationship between the works of the two. In both cases, skin matters less than the body. They use found objects as departure points of their compositions skillfully that neither of them required on the unification of surface condition to achieve effects of the singular mass. If we take John Hejduk’s Wall House 2 under the same alliance of work, the shapes of the masses and façade treatments are all different from one another – rendering consistent skins irrelevant. This is also the case in the original diagrammatic model of OMA’s Taipei Performing Art Center. Or, we can notice this symptom in the New York New York Hotel in Las Vegas, where clichés of New York are extracted, exaggerated and aggregated back into one single building. This begs the question – can a skyline be considered one building? Is San Gimignano a city, or a building?

Or, in the case of Chris Burden’s Metropolis II, the complexity of the parts produces a level of density that we can imagine the mass to be skinless, and that only the organs of the body are exposed. We can see a stacked case in MVRDV’s Dutch Pavlion in Hanover, where different Dutch landscapes are sampled to represent a transparent stacking of the various artificial landscapes of The Netherlands.

Taiwan is full of Frankenstein Architecture, if we example all of the illegal additions as little hats or heads or buildings on top of buildings. But, if we compare the Caixa Forum by Herzog & de Meuron as a similar “building on top of building”, it quickly helps us realize that illegal additions in Taiwan can be very beautiful if the production value is much higher.

With all of aforementioned references, perhaps one can notice an undercurrent that suggests both an attentive formal analysis but also a theoretical engagement to history. Why is formalism and historicism important? The composition of architecture has immense implicit power to influence social and cultural follow-throughs. Furthermore, because aesthetics inherently is subjective, and therefore there can be disagreements and motivate opinions of citizens. Opinions, or the non-objective ideas, are the basis of any healthy society, when nothing is absolutely one way or another. This is why stories and narratives are important. But an educated story is composed of awareness of form and history. The Frankenstein project intends to disrupt a normal architecture, and to encourage deliberate uses of otherness to enhance the audacity for educated opinions.

In conclusion, this brief expects a formally complex building on the site of Taipei 101, provoking our understandings of normal.

SITE

Taking Taipei 101 as the volumetric bounding box and site for a Frankenstein project, this competition calls for a building of a similar size on the same site, but reimagined with different program, narrative, densities and sensibilities. The Frankenstein-ing is a collage project and will require the sampling of existing parts – much like a DJ’s relationship to his/her knowledge of music – the reconstruction of found parts will both rely on the history of the parts and the intelligence of the stitching. Such acts of splicing will largely rely on the “what” (subject matter sampled) and the “how” (the techniques of sequence), and the participants are expected to be precise in their thoughts and techniques.

In some ways, Taipei 101 is already a Frankenstein project. Diagrammatically, it is not dissimilar from a totem comprised of nine or ten parts. In other words, it is worth noting that this part-to-part relationship is a vertical stack. But, are there other strategies that can make compositions formally more striking and programmatically more enriched? There could be many tactics to consider, such as bundling, piling, tiling, layering, and so forth. This brief invites the students to produce formal diagrams that may introduce architectural effects to stage more interesting lives of citizens.

PROCESS

The first step of this project will require students to collect found objects, cut them into the desired figuration and sizes, and fasten the various parts together into Frankenstein pieces. Teams are expected to examine the qualities of the environments either by taking close-up photographs, or read the compositions as architectural models. This step would be repeated twice more, as teams are encouraged to journalistically analyze the effects they produced, as well as identifying the overall diagrammatic relationships between the parts within the whole.

Once this step is achieved, teams should use the derived logic to construct a larger building, and make architectural cuts with intense density and perverse precision.

DELIVERABLES

1. One model of the proposed Frankenstein at 1:250
2. One section or axonometric drawing at 1:250, (w= 60cm, h=300cm)
3. One strip of high quality photo close-ups, with scaled figures, showing the qualities of the environments (also w=60cm h=300cm)
4. Three Frankenstein studies at roughly 60cm x 60cm x 60cm
5. One plot at the disposal of the team to convey a creative and intelligent narrative. (w=60cm, h=300cm)

The final outcome will be four well-aligned vertical strips of material – a large model at 1:250, a large line drawing of the same size (section or axonometric), a series of photographic vignettes, and finally one last strip up to the designers to creatively tell a story of their proposal.

The evaluation of the work will depend on three primary merits: Logic, narrative, and production value. The part-to-whole relationship in terms of the formal, social, political and philosophical relationships are some of the ideas that this prompt is asking for.

SCHEDULE

proposed schedule for students (no need to follow precisely)
1. introduction / hunting for material / first large object (Sept 16)
2. evaluation / hunting for more material / second large object
3. evaluation / hunting for even more material / third large object
———-
4. evaluation of three objects, 3D modeling, 2D collaging, photographing
5. 3D modeling, analysis-making, diagram producing, theory-thinking
———-
6. production of final model / drawing / photographs / narrative
7. production of final model / drawing / photographs / narrative
8. production of final model / drawing / photographs / narrative
9. production of final model / drawing / photographs / narrative
=======
10. final review (Sept 25)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*