shaohsiin 寫:阿彌陀佛!!
這個莫名其妙的中台禪寺竟然還得了2002台灣建築獎，只能說是佛法神通廣大，只有李祖原這等終年打坐參禪的大師可以領略，加上評審委員受佛法感召所致。我等一般市井小民無緣一窺其中奧妙。
我只想說...李大師從南台灣的墓碑(東帝士大樓.).納骨塔(長谷川世貿大樓)延伸到中台灣的佛寺(中台殘寺)..在進化到北台灣的舍利子塔(台北101)...或許他可以考慮以後往殯葬事業發展...(假如發言失當...請多見諒!!!)
你覺得台灣哪些建築物應該被摧毀呢？2004年台灣憂質建築厚里豆獎
-
Fu Jen Chi
-
shaohsiin
maybe the client is happy, but the building did hurt lots people's eye and for those people who live and work in the same city and have no way to escape from it, the design of 101 is truly a kind of crime.李祖原 is so problematic, which I think he has been but with certain awareness of the historical context of Taiwan, we should lay it all out in an intelligible fashion. What is his main problem? What has caused it? Who are the client and recipients of his building? Are they "happy" with the result? And so on and so forth........
I also don't believe that the 101 respons to context of Taiwan. No matter it's like a bamboo or a pagoda.
First, bamboo or a pagoda have nothing to do with the city context or Taiwan histary.
Second, trying to catch the spirit of culture is far more important than just reproducing its form. If Mr. Lee thought bamboo is important, then try to bring "tranquil" or "upright" into its space, its plans and its sections....and these should bring in light, sound and touch which present these two values.
Third,Even if Mr. Lee thought an easy-understood symbolic form is important, he still can create one that is more elaborate and elegant. When talking about "Asian style", I think Petronas Tower and Jin Mao Tower (both by Cesar Pelli) are much more handsome and show more carefully designed details and proportion.
When one see an American skyscraper shaped just like an eagle with its wings, claws and a beak, he/she would probably think it's a joke instead of a great architecture represents Unite States. However, a same kind of thing has been done by Mr. Lee
Fourth, actually, when a building created at this scale, the historical context is not that important. The appearing of city skyline as well as the quality of street front usage should place in the first place.
Afterall, I really respect to the great engineering achivement in the project of T101, but when talking about architecture, I can hardly love it.
最後由 shaohsiin 於 2004-10-20, 14:19 編輯，總共編輯了 1 次。
-
amr
-
ArchiFragment
EAGER幹的好！你把台灣推向國際了！哈哈∼∼
我個人以國內交通常會進出的國際大門及都市內地標物來選的
台北車站大概是因為我常經過，記得以前看建築師雜誌強調他屋頂與身體與中國式建築之間的比例關係之類的文章，寫的好像有這麼一回事，可是當我實際在這個車站下面仰望時，實在沒有讓我感動之處，再加上周遭環境雜亂與不方便性，實讓我對他無法忍受（最近某部分高度的牆面被弄成黑色加上一些仿若原始文字的線條，說廣告也不像，令人訝異不已，這竟是一個全世界的人會經常進出的大門）。
我也不是要針對某李大老的作品有意見，事實上比他做的更糟的比比皆是。但是，他的案子在台灣的環境有舉足輕重的地位，說難聽點，他的設計費及緊接著的利益也不少，又打著中國天圓地方等等的傳統思想，可是好像作品只滿足了某一部份的特定人士，卻又經常被拿來當作台灣的代表性建築物，實不知到底代表哪些人的怪做作心態！
但或許我們批評的李大師，其實是在批評我們不斷在創造的環境，李大師對不起了！（不知道貴事務所會不會有會員來發一下言？）
中台禪寺不在我的十名之內，是因為他不算是一個會常出現在面前的建築物，其實在我認為台灣的寺廟建築，大多都是依照一般傳統寺廟的作法，比如說有紅瓦屋頂，一樣有斗拱之類的物件，只是改成以水泥為材料，早就忽略了宗教內涵而重膜拜的形式，而中台禪寺則是融入現代語彙做的更彰顯宗教意義（光芒？！對稱？！）我想，業主跟李大師應該是合作的滿愉快的！這些教友開心就好！
我的摧毀建築物心中排名
1.台北車站
2.中正國際機場
3.台北101
4.宏國大樓（曾聽過有外國人說像一塊蛋糕
）
5.大安國宅
6.高雄新火車站
7.台北車站新光三越
8.板橋縣府大樓與板橋新站（同一棟）
9.高雄長谷世貿
10.高雄國際85廣場
11.帝寶住宅大樓（因為在我公司對面，忍不住要多加一名）
我個人以國內交通常會進出的國際大門及都市內地標物來選的
台北車站大概是因為我常經過，記得以前看建築師雜誌強調他屋頂與身體與中國式建築之間的比例關係之類的文章，寫的好像有這麼一回事，可是當我實際在這個車站下面仰望時，實在沒有讓我感動之處，再加上周遭環境雜亂與不方便性，實讓我對他無法忍受（最近某部分高度的牆面被弄成黑色加上一些仿若原始文字的線條，說廣告也不像，令人訝異不已，這竟是一個全世界的人會經常進出的大門）。
我也不是要針對某李大老的作品有意見，事實上比他做的更糟的比比皆是。但是，他的案子在台灣的環境有舉足輕重的地位，說難聽點，他的設計費及緊接著的利益也不少，又打著中國天圓地方等等的傳統思想，可是好像作品只滿足了某一部份的特定人士，卻又經常被拿來當作台灣的代表性建築物，實不知到底代表哪些人的怪做作心態！
但或許我們批評的李大師，其實是在批評我們不斷在創造的環境，李大師對不起了！（不知道貴事務所會不會有會員來發一下言？）
中台禪寺不在我的十名之內，是因為他不算是一個會常出現在面前的建築物，其實在我認為台灣的寺廟建築，大多都是依照一般傳統寺廟的作法，比如說有紅瓦屋頂，一樣有斗拱之類的物件，只是改成以水泥為材料，早就忽略了宗教內涵而重膜拜的形式，而中台禪寺則是融入現代語彙做的更彰顯宗教意義（光芒？！對稱？！）我想，業主跟李大師應該是合作的滿愉快的！這些教友開心就好！
我的摧毀建築物心中排名
1.台北車站
2.中正國際機場
3.台北101
4.宏國大樓（曾聽過有外國人說像一塊蛋糕
）5.大安國宅
6.高雄新火車站
7.台北車站新光三越
8.板橋縣府大樓與板橋新站（同一棟）
9.高雄長谷世貿
10.高雄國際85廣場
11.帝寶住宅大樓（因為在我公司對面，忍不住要多加一名）
-
chiennan
......到是可以建議業主來對社會大眾說明一下為什麼要這樣蓋 
.....美與不美省判了一個建築物....這是單一的絕對性宣告...那麼建築手段的背後.為何不用美的觀點下去做評論呢....人們看到建築物的醜是直覺性的...卻也只看到"建築"這一面向.....我想說的是...美的東西不在於建築實體的解答..而是背後操作種種人為因素的美與不美的問題!!-
訪客
IN REPLY TO shaohsiin CONCERNING "historical context&qu
[color=red]shaohsiin[/color]:
I've checked out your personal site and found your works encouraging. Where did you study? It is so nice to see that some graduate program still ask student to work on housing project where the site has a name instead of unending Blob-itecture.
I enjoy reading your posting and appreciate your effort to "express" your opinion through articulation. When I write, I "think" as a historian touched by training in criticism and theory. If I say Lee's buildings are problematic, I don't just attack the issue from the interpretation of form along. I favor a standing point where the building has been and is situated in. (I would like to elaborate on this, perhaps some other time. Let's focus on Lee) Yes, the context is also plural containing its own multiplicity, and you correctly pointed out the "other" contexts which Lee's design seldom takes into concern--the city and the site condition. His obsession, as many others do, is the issue of Culture. In his case, "Chinese" cultural traditions. Unfortunately, he has situated his imaginative realm in a very "artificial" zone. The artificiality of "Chinese cultural traditions" in Taiwan is both part of the reality and often a nightmare due to a very serious on-going political struggle. To make it even more complicated, is the issue of immigration. Most of Lee's generation and our parents' have either lived or selectively withheld, some might say "being forced" to withhold, a rather personal and dogmatic view of a "Chinese" culture. In that case, tradition is gone, only the re-constructed and/or constructed "Chinese" cultures support Lee in his search of a meaningful practice. But then, there is the issue of "no matter what's your cultural mission, couldn't you do a beautiful building?" as you had mentioned in point-three. You also mentioned "scale" which is, to my opinion, the most immediate and if not one of the most important problems to investigate in our time of global trafficking. "Scale" needs to be re-conceptualized in a world saturated with images and a global web of simultaneous transmission of informations. As Koolhhaas's answer to "the problem of large," his "theory of BIGNESS" (published first in WIEDERHALL 17, 1994) could be flagged as the first attempt coming from an architect. He is a perceptive architect I think. How many potentially "great" architects have visited New York City during late 70's and walked away with BIGNESS?
OK, now my attempt to "contextualized" Lee's monstrous buildings in answering to you:
[color=red]On representation of "a" history-- [/color]In an interview for the founding issue of DIALOGUE magazine (Mar. 1997), Lee is conscious about his self-appointed effort to "reconcile Western Modernism with traditional Chinese architecture". He said that: "I have been working on 'Chinese traditions' for fourteen years and what I really need now is a breakthrough...It especially needs the life-long dedication of an architect." So, it will be 21 years now for Lee in search for a reconciliation. Judging by readers' reaction, Lee has been stocked for a long time. A constipated mind builds dead formalist buildings. It is not a criticism but the problems of architectural representation. If you, by any chance, can get a hold of the first issue of DIALOGUE (themed--The Other Modernity), please read it and ask yourself as an architect a question: is it inevitable to represent a perceived culture in design when ours is "the other modernity"? How and where do we situate the presence of [color=red]"a building tradition"[/color]? Building instead of architecture. It is not an unique situation for us, Taiwanese architects, just look at Portugal and her achievements in architectural education and practice.
That'll be it for today.
[/u][/list]
I've checked out your personal site and found your works encouraging. Where did you study? It is so nice to see that some graduate program still ask student to work on housing project where the site has a name instead of unending Blob-itecture.
I enjoy reading your posting and appreciate your effort to "express" your opinion through articulation. When I write, I "think" as a historian touched by training in criticism and theory. If I say Lee's buildings are problematic, I don't just attack the issue from the interpretation of form along. I favor a standing point where the building has been and is situated in. (I would like to elaborate on this, perhaps some other time. Let's focus on Lee) Yes, the context is also plural containing its own multiplicity, and you correctly pointed out the "other" contexts which Lee's design seldom takes into concern--the city and the site condition. His obsession, as many others do, is the issue of Culture. In his case, "Chinese" cultural traditions. Unfortunately, he has situated his imaginative realm in a very "artificial" zone. The artificiality of "Chinese cultural traditions" in Taiwan is both part of the reality and often a nightmare due to a very serious on-going political struggle. To make it even more complicated, is the issue of immigration. Most of Lee's generation and our parents' have either lived or selectively withheld, some might say "being forced" to withhold, a rather personal and dogmatic view of a "Chinese" culture. In that case, tradition is gone, only the re-constructed and/or constructed "Chinese" cultures support Lee in his search of a meaningful practice. But then, there is the issue of "no matter what's your cultural mission, couldn't you do a beautiful building?" as you had mentioned in point-three. You also mentioned "scale" which is, to my opinion, the most immediate and if not one of the most important problems to investigate in our time of global trafficking. "Scale" needs to be re-conceptualized in a world saturated with images and a global web of simultaneous transmission of informations. As Koolhhaas's answer to "the problem of large," his "theory of BIGNESS" (published first in WIEDERHALL 17, 1994) could be flagged as the first attempt coming from an architect. He is a perceptive architect I think. How many potentially "great" architects have visited New York City during late 70's and walked away with BIGNESS?
OK, now my attempt to "contextualized" Lee's monstrous buildings in answering to you:
[color=red]On representation of "a" history-- [/color]In an interview for the founding issue of DIALOGUE magazine (Mar. 1997), Lee is conscious about his self-appointed effort to "reconcile Western Modernism with traditional Chinese architecture". He said that: "I have been working on 'Chinese traditions' for fourteen years and what I really need now is a breakthrough...It especially needs the life-long dedication of an architect." So, it will be 21 years now for Lee in search for a reconciliation. Judging by readers' reaction, Lee has been stocked for a long time. A constipated mind builds dead formalist buildings. It is not a criticism but the problems of architectural representation. If you, by any chance, can get a hold of the first issue of DIALOGUE (themed--The Other Modernity), please read it and ask yourself as an architect a question: is it inevitable to represent a perceived culture in design when ours is "the other modernity"? How and where do we situate the presence of [color=red]"a building tradition"[/color]? Building instead of architecture. It is not an unique situation for us, Taiwanese architects, just look at Portugal and her achievements in architectural education and practice.
That'll be it for today.
[/u][/list]
-
binbin wang
-
ArchiFragment
binbin wang老兄
我幫你把全文COPY到撰寫欄裡，顏色的顯示是OK的！
可能要請EAGERcheck 一下或是在單機的軟體是不是有些問題？
shaohsiin:
I've checked out your personal site and found your works encouraging. Where did you study? It is so nice to see that some graduate program still ask student to work on housing project where the site has a name instead of unending Blob-itecture.
I enjoy reading your posting and appreciate your effort to "express" your opinion through articulation. When I write, I "think" as a historian touched by training in criticism and theory. If I say Lee's buildings are problematic, I don't just attack the issue from the interpretation of form along. I favor a standing point where the building has been and is situated in. (I would like to elaborate on this, perhaps some other time. Let's focus on Lee) Yes, the context is also plural containing its own multiplicity, and you correctly pointed out the "other" contexts which Lee's design seldom takes into concern--the city and the site condition. His obsession, as many others do, is the issue of Culture. In his case, "Chinese" cultural traditions. Unfortunately, he has situated his imaginative realm in a very "artificial" zone. The artificiality of "Chinese cultural traditions" in Taiwan is both part of the reality and often a nightmare due to a very serious on-going political struggle. To make it even more complicated, is the issue of immigration. Most of Lee's generation and our parents' have either lived or selectively withheld, some might say "being forced" to withhold, a rather personal and dogmatic view of a "Chinese" culture. In that case, tradition is gone, only the re-constructed and/or constructed "Chinese" cultures support Lee in his search of a meaningful practice. But then, there is the issue of "no matter what's your cultural mission, couldn't you do a beautiful building?" as you had mentioned in point-three. You also mentioned "scale" which is, to my opinion, the most immediate and if not one of the most important problems to investigate in our time of global trafficking. "Scale" needs to be re-conceptualized in a world saturated with images and a global web of simultaneous transmission of informations. As Koolhhaas's answer to "the problem of large," his "theory of BIGNESS" (published first in WIEDERHALL 17, 1994) could be flagged as the first attempt coming from an architect. He is a perceptive architect I think. How many potentially "great" architects have visited New York City during late 70's and walked away with BIGNESS?
OK, now my attempt to "contextualized" Lee's monstrous buildings in answering to you:
On representation of "a" history-- In an interview for the founding issue of DIALOGUE magazine (Mar. 1997), Lee is conscious about his self-appointed effort to "reconcile Western Modernism with traditional Chinese architecture". He said that: "I have been working on 'Chinese traditions' for fourteen years and what I really need now is a breakthrough...It especially needs the life-long dedication of an architect." So, it will be 21 years now for Lee in search for a reconciliation. Judging by readers' reaction, Lee has been stocked for a long time. A constipated mind builds dead formalist buildings. It is not a criticism but the problems of architectural representation. If you, by any chance, can get a hold of the first issue of DIALOGUE (themed--The Other Modernity), please read it and ask yourself as an architect a question: is it inevitable to represent a perceived culture in design when ours is "the other modernity"? How and where do we situate the presence of "a building tradition"? Building instead of architecture. It is not an unique situation for us, Taiwanese architects, just look at Portugal and her achievements in architectural education and practice.
That'll be it for today.
[/u][/list]
我幫你把全文COPY到撰寫欄裡，顏色的顯示是OK的！
可能要請EAGERcheck 一下或是在單機的軟體是不是有些問題？
shaohsiin:
I've checked out your personal site and found your works encouraging. Where did you study? It is so nice to see that some graduate program still ask student to work on housing project where the site has a name instead of unending Blob-itecture.
I enjoy reading your posting and appreciate your effort to "express" your opinion through articulation. When I write, I "think" as a historian touched by training in criticism and theory. If I say Lee's buildings are problematic, I don't just attack the issue from the interpretation of form along. I favor a standing point where the building has been and is situated in. (I would like to elaborate on this, perhaps some other time. Let's focus on Lee) Yes, the context is also plural containing its own multiplicity, and you correctly pointed out the "other" contexts which Lee's design seldom takes into concern--the city and the site condition. His obsession, as many others do, is the issue of Culture. In his case, "Chinese" cultural traditions. Unfortunately, he has situated his imaginative realm in a very "artificial" zone. The artificiality of "Chinese cultural traditions" in Taiwan is both part of the reality and often a nightmare due to a very serious on-going political struggle. To make it even more complicated, is the issue of immigration. Most of Lee's generation and our parents' have either lived or selectively withheld, some might say "being forced" to withhold, a rather personal and dogmatic view of a "Chinese" culture. In that case, tradition is gone, only the re-constructed and/or constructed "Chinese" cultures support Lee in his search of a meaningful practice. But then, there is the issue of "no matter what's your cultural mission, couldn't you do a beautiful building?" as you had mentioned in point-three. You also mentioned "scale" which is, to my opinion, the most immediate and if not one of the most important problems to investigate in our time of global trafficking. "Scale" needs to be re-conceptualized in a world saturated with images and a global web of simultaneous transmission of informations. As Koolhhaas's answer to "the problem of large," his "theory of BIGNESS" (published first in WIEDERHALL 17, 1994) could be flagged as the first attempt coming from an architect. He is a perceptive architect I think. How many potentially "great" architects have visited New York City during late 70's and walked away with BIGNESS?
OK, now my attempt to "contextualized" Lee's monstrous buildings in answering to you:
On representation of "a" history-- In an interview for the founding issue of DIALOGUE magazine (Mar. 1997), Lee is conscious about his self-appointed effort to "reconcile Western Modernism with traditional Chinese architecture". He said that: "I have been working on 'Chinese traditions' for fourteen years and what I really need now is a breakthrough...It especially needs the life-long dedication of an architect." So, it will be 21 years now for Lee in search for a reconciliation. Judging by readers' reaction, Lee has been stocked for a long time. A constipated mind builds dead formalist buildings. It is not a criticism but the problems of architectural representation. If you, by any chance, can get a hold of the first issue of DIALOGUE (themed--The Other Modernity), please read it and ask yourself as an architect a question: is it inevitable to represent a perceived culture in design when ours is "the other modernity"? How and where do we situate the presence of "a building tradition"? Building instead of architecture. It is not an unique situation for us, Taiwanese architects, just look at Portugal and her achievements in architectural education and practice.
That'll be it for today.
[/u][/list]
-
binbin wang
Thanks a million!!
Dear ArchiFragment:
How did you do it? Thank you for your effort. hope I didn't take up oter's space & time. I will check with the Boss, eager.
How did you do it? Thank you for your effort. hope I didn't take up oter's space & time. I will check with the Boss, eager.
我想炸掉新的嘉義市政府-
站長eaGer
是啊是啊.........
既然我們沒辦法在台灣找出幾個有美感的建築物，
就來找出醜的建築物好了。
請各位把你所在地看到的醜陋建築給貼上來，
可以利用 http://www.imageshack.us/ 這網站來將圖片上傳，
然後再把圖片用 [img]圖片位址[/img] 語法貼上來，
要貼的時候記得不要勾選「關閉這篇文章的 BBCode 代碼功能」。
圖片建議大小為 640x480。
既然我們沒辦法在台灣找出幾個有美感的建築物，
就來找出醜的建築物好了。
請各位把你所在地看到的醜陋建築給貼上來，
可以利用 http://www.imageshack.us/ 這網站來將圖片上傳，
然後再把圖片用 [img]圖片位址[/img] 語法貼上來，
要貼的時候記得不要勾選「關閉這篇文章的 BBCode 代碼功能」。
圖片建議大小為 640x480。
-
GiveYouZero