光州空间艺术装置View Folly / Moon Hoon
[ad_1]
Moon Hoon：柏林藝術家團體realities:united設計的裝置Architecture of Autonomy和首爾建築事務所Moon Hoon設計的View Folly共同組成了這個以“自治的建築”為主題的裝置，這是一種形成空間的裝置，它定義了各種空間：外表面的前後空間以及由此衍生出的可用的內部空間，建築的自主性便體現在表皮/立面與空間，或涉及到這兩者關係的主題上。
Moon Hoon: The installation Architecture of Autonomy by Berlin based artist group realities:united is closely connected with the installation View Folly by Seoul based architect Moon Hoon. Architecture of Autonomy is an installation that forms space. It defines a front and a rear side or an external surface and the resulting usable interior space. The themes of surface (or façade) and space, or what is involved in the relationship between these two main aspects of architecture is the theme of the Architecture of Autonomy project.
在這個項目中，大家從各個層面對“表皮與空間”兩者的整體性進行了質疑與探索剖析。外表面和內部空間被視為是鬆散的、獨立的，它們並沒有處於有機和絕對的聯繫之中，而只是以戰略合作組織的形式存在著，每個要素只在特定的框架內運作聯繫，以達成它們各自的目標。
On various levels, the unity of these two aspects is questioned or dissected in this project. External surface and interior space are treated as loosely connected, independent players. No longer are they organically and absolutely connected, they rather form a kind of strategic or symbiotic alliance, whose members only contingently cooperate in the framework of a precisely negotiated subscription, thereby pursuing their own goals.
▼鳥瞰 Aerial
所以，在realities:united負責的外表面部分和Moon Hoon負責的外表面後的可用空間部分中，它們的概念和設計有著明顯的區別。外表皮給予了內部空間一個視覺上的特徵，可以讓人們從遠處就能識別到這個裝置。反之亦然，互動裝置的外表面為遊客提供了簡單的“互動式”體驗，而藏在屋頂後表皮的“實體”空間則會使遊客的體驗感更加豐富。吸引人們爬上建築樓頂到此參觀的主要原因，大概是該裝置極具吸引力的外表面，外表面與它後面的內部空間之間的轉變共同為遊客帶來了良好的空間體驗，同時這也是該裝置設計概念的一個重要組成部分：人們最初感知到的各個組成部分的功能和意義是不一樣的，經過更仔細的觀察和體驗後，外表皮與內部空間的界限會開始變得模糊。這個裝置成為了吸引人們從遠處攀登上來的目標，而室內的樓梯也為未知的攀爬過程帶來了過渡式的體驗。
Accordingly, there is a clear separation of conceptual and design responsibility between realities:united for the exterior surface and Moon Hoon for the usable space behind it. The exterior shell externally objectifies the interior space and gives it a visual identity or “address”, recognizable from afar. Vice versa, the initially invisible “actual” space on the adjoining rear roof surface supplements the visitors' ultimately rather simple experience of the external “interactive” installation Architecture of Autonomy. This shift in the reference level between Architecture of Autonomy as “ superficial attraction”, which presumably was a primary motivation to climb to this remote site, and the “usable level” behind it is an aspect of the experience of the overall ensemble. It is also a principal component of the overall concept: the initially perceived functions and meanings of the individual components move and, on closer inspection, begin to blur. The installation Architecture of Autonomy that, from afar, appears to be the goal of the climb on a closer look transforms into a kind of interim component or passageway to another, initially unknown experience behind it.
▼室內的樓梯為未知的攀爬過程帶來了過渡式的體驗 The installation Architecture of Autonomy that, from afar, appears to be the goal of the climb on a closer look transforms into a kind of interim component or passageway to another, initially unknown experience behind it.
裝置外表面的兩個主要功能包括：首先是它有典型的政治宣傳工具的作用，從安全可靠的高度向城市傳播信息；其次就是它的“互動性”和個人設計意願的表達，這在人們深入思考時就開始起作用了。
The two initially dominant aspects of the exterior surface – namely, its effect as a typically authoritarian propaganda instrument whose message is broadcast to the city from a secure height, and second, its “interactivity” and expression of the individual person's will to design – are set in motion as soon as one contemplates it more intensely.
“改變”這個詞是我們這個時代的中心隱喻，它的意思可能是模糊的或是自相矛盾的。 2008年，“改變”一詞成為奧巴馬總統競選的標誌性口號，但在其繼任期內，這個詞又被明確地標記成了一種負面的殘影。如今，這個詞一方面是解放和民主化政治力量的關注焦點，另一方面又是新舊政權之間的關注焦點。例如，“改變”應該要能幫助消除社會歧視，促進性別、階級、種姓和國家層面上的平等發展。但“改變”的觀念一定程度上也分裂了社會，產生了差異。有些人認為改變至關重要，有些人卻也害怕改變，有很多人希望政治制度和思哲觀念能發生根本性的變化，但是這種追求最終會讓自然或者社會保持一個穩定不變的狀態，可以這樣理解，繼續當下的變革進程最終將把人們推向一個反烏托邦式的社會環境，在這樣狀態穩定的環境下將沒有什麼事物可以改變。
The term “Change”, visible from afar, is a central metaphor of our time. Simultaneously, its meaning is completely indeterminate or self-contradictory. In 2008, it became the trademark slogan of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, but it is also clearly inscribed in his successor's presidency as a kind of negative afterimage. Today, the term is at the center of attention between the political forces of emancipation and democratization, on the one hand, and those of old and new authoritarianism, on the other. For example, “change” is supposed to lead to equality and the elimination of differences between people – or to a return to structures, classes, castes, and nations that make it possible to avoid contact with what is different. But precisely the idea of “change” divides society and creates differences. There are those who consider change vitally important and those whom it frightens. Many want a radical change in the political system and the entirety of our pol itical or philosophical thinking, but pursue the goal of ultimately preserving nature or society unchanged, with the explanation that continuing the current process of change will otherwise lead to a dystopian finalsteady state, one in which nothing more can be changed.
然而，“改變”一詞描述了世界上亙古不變的變化過程，也涉及到了目前影響深遠的變化，例如生活中各方各面的完全數字化，這種現像一方面伴隨著人們對擁有新興權力的樂觀期望，另一方面也有對抽象的、心理技術的和獨裁的體系的恐懼，而對這個體系的操控能力可能在一開始會毫無限制地增長。
The term “change”, however, also describes the unchanging process of the world that happens anyway, and which currently is once again involved in far-reaching change, for example through the complete digitization of every conceivable aspect of life. This, too, is accompanied by the euphoric expectation of an unprecedented empowerment of all people, on the one hand, and, on the other, by fear of an abstract, psycho-technological, authoritarian system whose capacities for control and manipulation could grow practically without limit for the first time.
就我們今天所見，讓每個人都參與到所謂的決策過程中來，其實是社會控制戰略的一部分。 “改變”是對個體（他/她以及自主地）往積極主動的方面發展的一個鼓勵，這與呼籲合作甚至是征服並沒有本質上的區別，歸根結底，這取決於“改變”這種行為是否也包含改變互動體系。從真正的發展可能性和共同決策的意義上來說，開放互動與引導式合作之間的界限是不確定的，在某些情況下，這是為了人們控製或利用事物而建立的，具體表現在“互動”和“自願”兩個方面，最終會將人從內到外的每個方面都轉化為一種交易商品，包括人們內心深處的願望和動機。在這些兩極之間，有各種各樣的灰色地帶以及社會個人利益，而它們實際上就像是參與和合作。
As far as we can see today, involving every individual in purported decision- making processes is part of the strategies of societal control. “Change” as a call to the individual to become (himself or herself, and autonomously) active does not essentially differ from the call to collaborate or even to be subjugated. Ultimately, it all depends on whether the possibilities to change also include changing the system of action. The boundary is fluid between open interaction in the sense of genuine possibilities of development and codetermination, and a guided collaboration that in some cases is set up for control or exploitation and that behaves “interactively” and “voluntarily”, but ultimately turns every aspect of the person, down to his innermost wishes and motives, into a trade good. In between these poles lie, in all shades of gray, various systems of social self-occupation that actually feel like participating and collaborating.
本案裝置同樣將“改變”與互動機會結合在一起，從而使展示牆本身成為改變的對象；它可以被配置成你意想不到的有2種不同顏色的圖案。與商業廣告的規範準則相比，這是一種實質性的干預可能。在商業廣告中，色彩的每一個細微差別、每一種形式以及所有的內容都受到嚴格的、市場特定準則的約束。由於原始標語的文字保留在每種顏色的變體中，因此顏色模式是可變的，但是鼓勵互動的中心文字信息卻不是，受眾無法改變系統及其中心信息，這似乎是一個潛在的矛盾，因為在這種特殊情況下，出現的問題是受眾是否能夠成功地被激勵開展互動。通過約束大眾潛在的變革力量，將人們互動-自願式的合作理解為支持的標誌，同時加強宣傳合法性的意義，這樣做是否能夠同時吸收適度的互動干預，而大體上不作用於現有的等級制度，這個問題還沒有得到解決。
The installation Architecture of Autonomy similarly combines the summons character of the slogan “change”, with an opportunity to interact, that in return makes the display wall itself the object of change; it can actually be configured to an unimaginable number 2 of different color patterns . Compared with the norms of commercial advertising, in which every nuance of color, every form, and simply all content is subjected to a strict, market-specific precept, this is a substantial possibility to intervene. However, the original slogan text is preserved in every color variant. The color pattern is thus changeable, but the central text message, calling for action, is not. The user cannot alter the system and its central message, which seems a latent paradox, because in this special case the question arises whether it is possible for the user to fulfill the summons successfully. The question is left unresolved whether enabling and simultaneously absorbing a moderate interactive inter vention doesn’t primarily serve the existing hierarchical system by not only binding the populace’s latent revolutionary energy, but also by making it possible to interpret people’s interactive-voluntary collaboration as a sign of approval, in the sense of reinforcing the legitimation of the propaganda.
▼可以任意配置顏色的展示牆 The display wall can actually be configured to an unimaginable number 2 of different color patterns.
有這樣一種情況，即手段與目的之間的傳統區別會導致出現不明晰的結果，這除了體現在這個“自治的建築”的體系結構中，也存在於由Architecture of Autonomy和View Folly組成的裝置中。通過互動或作為社會場所的感知點而注入的“活力”，能夠增強這種交流性外立面及其信息的有效意義，這就是為什麼在短暫的“互動”之後，吸引遊客並促使他們留在屋頂後面的平台上可以被看作是為達到這一目的所使用的手段。還有另一種理解方式：將交流度或吸引力的程度與有效的停留地點、花費時間的地點之間的關係理解為共生關係，就像花朵“支付”花蜜給參與勞作的昆蟲，以傳播或遞送其自身的遺傳信息。
Not only within the installation Architecture of Autonomy, but also in the combined installation consisting of Architecture of Autonomy and View Folly, there is a situation in which a conventional distinction between means and end leads to no clear result. The effective meaning of this communicating façade and its message increases through the “liveliness” breathed into it by interaction or through its perception as a societal site. This is why enticing visitors and inducing them to remain on the rear terrace after a short phase of “interaction” can be seen as means subordinated to this end. The alternative consists in understanding this relationship between the communicative or attractive level and the effective place to stay and spend time (behind the former) as a symbiotic relationship, like a flower that “pays” nectar to the participating insect for spreading or transporting its genetic message.
▼夜色下的構架 The installation in this night view
至此，我們又回到了一開始所闡述的觀點：外表面與空間之間複雜的、共生的“契約關係”取代了傳統的觀點，即（外）牆將人造建築空間與環境分隔開來，也就是說，創造空間的目標之一，便是築牆。
With this, we return to the idea formulated at the beginning: a complex, symbiotic “contractual relationship” between façade and space forms a substitute for the conventional idea in which the (exterior) wall serves to delimit the manmade architectural space from the environment, ie, in which erecting the wall is subordinate to the goal of creating space.
▼軸測圖 Axonometric
▼平面 Plan
▼豎向分析 Elevation and Section
設計: Moon Hoon
設計團隊: Moon Hoon, jan edler, tim edler, Kim jaekwan, Kim sookhee, Kang changsu, Lee woohyun, Kim hyeri, Tomasz Kisilewicz
攝影師: kim chang mook
地點: 韓國光州東谷市
項目類型: 文化中心+商業+辦公室
場地面積: 1,595.68m²
建築面積: 955.15m²
總建築面積: 6,306.06m²
建築範圍: B2 ~ 6F
停車位: 43
高度: 36.5m （Folly裝置 : 5.5m）
建設用地比: 59.86%
容積率: 255.34%
結構: 鋼架結構
外部裝飾: 油漆鋼板、木材
客戶: 光州雙年展
Design: Moon Hoon
Design team: Moon Hoon, jan edler, tim edler, Kim jaekwan, Kim sookhee, Kang changsu, Lee woohyun, Kim hyeri, Tomasz Kisilewicz
Photographer: kim chang mook
Location: 96, Jebong-ro, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea
Program: Culture Center+Commercial+Office
Site area: 1,595.68m²
Building area: 955.15m²
Gross floor area: 6,306.06m²
Building scope: B2 ~ 6F
Parking: 43
Height: 36.5m (Folly : 5.5m)
Building to land ratio: 59.86%
Floor area ratio: 255.34%
Structure: Steel Frame Construction
Exterior finish : paint Steel plate, Wood
Client : Gwangju biennale
更多 Read more about: Moon Hoon
[ad_2]
