張利

匠人的堅(jiān)韌與詩(shī)學(xué)

張利

在1980年代，夯土建筑還只是逝去的鄉(xiāng)土氣息的片斷，被建筑師帶著同情心與懷舊感看待。今天，夯土建筑已經(jīng)成為了可持續(xù)建造工藝的表率，被全世界的建筑師所關(guān)注。有一個(gè)人為這一變化作出了重要的貢獻(xiàn)，他就是馬丁·勞奇。

作為一個(gè)生活在阿爾卑斯山西側(cè)的奧地利人，勞奇將奧地利人的開(kāi)放心態(tài)與瑞士人的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)工藝結(jié)合到了一起。在早年于非洲接觸到夯土建造工藝以后，他把隨后的大半生灌注到了對(duì)夯土工藝的改良與創(chuàng)新之中，賦予了土這一古老的建筑材料以全新的生命。他與他的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員一起，在其現(xiàn)代化的建造實(shí)驗(yàn)室內(nèi)創(chuàng)造了一系列建造工法。隨著勞奇在各大學(xué)的教學(xué)，與現(xiàn)代夯土工藝相關(guān)的技術(shù)與美學(xué)傳遍了歐洲和世界其他地區(qū)。不幸的是，時(shí)下流行的、中產(chǎn)階級(jí)色彩濃厚的觀點(diǎn)僅僅注意到了夯土的美學(xué)，把它看成了一種時(shí)尚甚至是情懷，而忽視了工藝的價(jià)值，這實(shí)在對(duì)勞奇與同事們的工作有所不公。勞奇的夯土工藝需要用文藝復(fù)興式的全體論觀點(diǎn)來(lái)看待：設(shè)計(jì)者、材料發(fā)明家與匠人融為一體。在勞奇的作品中，我們看到的正是數(shù)十年來(lái)一個(gè)匠人的堅(jiān)韌與詩(shī)學(xué)。

夯土絕非完美的建筑材料（我懷疑是否真的有完美的建筑材料）。即便是在當(dāng)今西方的價(jià)值觀給予夯土一些額外支持的情況下，夯土仍然有很多問(wèn)題需要回答。

首先一個(gè)問(wèn)題是土的來(lái)源。環(huán)境主義者會(huì)對(duì)任何從地表開(kāi)采土的行為表示擔(dān)憂。在人口密集的國(guó)家，比如中國(guó)，人們更有理由擔(dān)心是否應(yīng)該用土來(lái)蓋房子，因?yàn)楸Ａ敉寥澜o食物的生產(chǎn)顯然意義更重大。勞奇與同事們對(duì)此的解釋是，他們從未用過(guò)適于耕作的土壤，而是從更“安全”的地方采土，比如荒漠和干涸的河床。

第二個(gè)問(wèn)題是對(duì)氣候侵蝕的抵御。侵蝕是土的固有的問(wèn)題。沒(méi)有哪個(gè)土的構(gòu)筑物會(huì)在自然母親的懷抱中待上10年，而不損失其相當(dāng)一部分表面。勞奇與同事們把這一挑戰(zhàn)看成是一個(gè)特性。用建筑立面水平線條下隨時(shí)間而加重的陰影來(lái)標(biāo)識(shí)時(shí)間的演進(jìn)，這不是個(gè)壞主意。當(dāng)然，勞奇與同事們?cè)诖诉€有更多的事要做：說(shuō)服在社會(huì)上無(wú)處不在的鐵桿維特魯威主義者，夯土不僅“美觀”，而且“堅(jiān)固”。

第三個(gè)問(wèn)題是成本。在發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家，勞奇的標(biāo)簽式的夯土質(zhì)感已經(jīng)成為了被廣為追捧的格調(diào)。因?yàn)樵谶@些國(guó)家人工成本遠(yuǎn)高于工業(yè)加工成本，夯土的造價(jià)比類似的表達(dá)厚重與塑性的材料——比如混凝土——要貴出不少。勞奇與同事們正在研究的工業(yè)化生產(chǎn)方式，比如預(yù)制的夯土構(gòu)件等，正是為降低這一材料造價(jià)所做的努力。不過(guò)這一問(wèn)題在發(fā)展中國(guó)家就沒(méi)那么突出了，因?yàn)樵谶@些國(guó)家，人工成本相對(duì)較低，工業(yè)制造成本相對(duì)較高。以至于在中國(guó)的偏遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)，我們甚至能夠看到夯土工藝在建造成本上的潛在優(yōu)勢(shì)。

感謝馬丁·勞奇及其事務(wù)所使本期專輯成為可能。特別感謝勞奇事務(wù)所的克萊門(mén)斯·奎林，他的倔犟與執(zhí)著使本期專輯的所有文字在技術(shù)上更加精準(zhǔn)。我們還要在此向部分應(yīng)邀撰寫(xiě)評(píng)論的學(xué)者致歉，因?yàn)榧夹g(shù)準(zhǔn)確性的原因，在勞奇事務(wù)所的堅(jiān)持下，我們沒(méi)有刊登部分評(píng)論文字?！?/p>

Back in the 1980s, rammed earth buildings were veneers of the lost vernacular and were looked upon by architects with nostalgia and sympathy. Today, they are examples of sustainable construction and are admired by architects worldwide. One man has made substantial contribution in making this happen: Martin Rauch.

Being an Austrian living on the west side of the Alps, Martin has combined an Austrian open-mindedness with a Swiss sense in making. Contacting African rammed earth construction in the early days of his career, he has since spent his life in the development, revision, sophistication and innovation of processes related to this old material and has given it a new life. He and his team, with their modern fab-lab, pioneer in the research for new working processes for rammed earth. His teachings has brought the tech know-hows, along with the unavoidable aesthetics of rammed earth architecture around Europe, and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the spreading Bourgeois view on rammed earth architecture today, which sees it as pure fashion or even posh taste, is not doing Martin and his colleagues justice. Martin's approach on rammed earth architecture needs to be understood in the Renaissance holistic pattern, in which the designer, material scientist and the builder uniting into one. In his work, we do see decades worth of perseverance and poetics of a craftsman.

Rammed earth is not a perfect building material though (I have doubt there is such a thing called perfect building material). Even with the contemporary political correctness giving it a slight edge, rammed earth still has to answer a number of questions.

The first question is related to the source of the earth. Environmentalists may have some concerns over any earth taken from the surface of the planet. In densely populated countries like China, there is a particular concern that soil should be reserved for food production other than be used for building construction. The argument from Martin and his colleagues is that they are not hurting any arable land, that their main sources of earth are "safer sources", such as deserts and dried river beds.

The second question is related to weather resistance. Earth gets eroded, period. There is no way for an earth-construction to stand in the arms of mother nature for ten years without losing a substantial part of its surface. Martin and his colleagues take this challenge as a feature. They have designed processes that embraces the interaction between the built surface and its environment. A gradually deepening shadow beneath a horizontal band in a building facade as a registration of time is not a bad idea at all. Of course, Martin and his colleagues need to persuade a big chunk of die-hard Vitruvian clients that unharmful erosion not only adds to delight, but also maintains firmness.

The third question is cost. In the developed world, Martin's signature rammed earth texture is a highly regarded commodity. Because of the human labour involved, it is more costly than other materials of weight and plasticity, such as concrete. Martin and his colleagues are working on industrial methods, such as pre-fab processes, that can significantly reduce the cost. In the developing world though, the question is much less obvious. The relatively low cost of human labour and the relatively high cost of industrial manufacturing evens things up. In the Chinese countryside, we can even see some cost benefits of rammed earth construction comparing with steel and concrete.

Our thanks to Martin Rauch and his office for making this publication possible. In particular, our thanks to Clemens Quirin for his rigorous and professional work in making this publication more precise. We would also like to make an apology to our invited critics that due to technical issues, by the requests from Martin's office, we have redacted some of the comments. □

The Perseverance and Poetics of a Craftsman

ZHANG Li

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2017-01-11