理想、意识形态、实用智慧——在中国与西方

Ideals,Ideology,Intelligence in China and the West

朱剑飞的文章“批评的演化——中国与西方的交流”重要并且及时。我赞同其中的很多观点。然而．为了简要而清楚地说明问题，我想重点讨论我与他的若干分歧，以及这些分歧所衍生的一系列不同的问题。首先，我认为，批评的和后批评的建筑的区别——由罗伯特·苏摩、莎拉怀汀以及乔治·贝尔德（Robert Somol，Sarah Whiting．George Baird）提出．也是朱的文章的基础——是一种误导，它常常将复杂的真实情况简化成静态的意识形态的范畴。这种简化，也出现在最近荷兰代尔夫特大学（Tu—Delft）召开的，为检验后批评对欧洲建筑影响的讨论会上。组织者以及许多与会者都以为会议将是两种不同意识形态之间，”批评性”的拥护者与”后批评性”的支持者之间的一场辩论。事实上这种事情并没有发生．因为那些被称为后批评主义者的几位（包括我、斯坦·艾伦（Stan Allen）、苏摩和怀汀），并没有提出一个后批评的议程或意识形态。这是因为实际上并没有这种东西。如果说，批评性被认为是一种意识形态，要求建筑首先应当批评和抵抗市场，那么后批评是一种主张．

There are many things to agree with in Jianfei Zhu＇s important and timely essay,＂Criticality in between China and the West.＂ For the sake of brevity and clarity, however, I want to focus on a few things with which I disagree and which form the basis for raising a different set of concerns than those he raises. Let me begin by suggesting that the distinction between critical and post-critical architecture _ made by Robert Somol, Sarah Whiting and George Baird, and on which Zhu＇s essay depends _ is a misleading one that too often reduces complex realities to static ideological categories. Such a reduction occurred at a recent conference atTU-Delft, in the Netherlands, devoted to examining the implications of the post-critical for European architecture. Organizers and indeed many participants assumed that the conference would prove to be a debate between the two ideologies, between those who support ＂criticality＂ and those who support ＂post-criticality＂ No such thing occurred, in fact, because those identified as post-critical （including me, Stan Allen, Somol andWhiting） offered no post-critical agenda or-ideology,And that is because there is none. While criticality may very well be considered an ideology _ one that demands above all else adherence to the idea that architecture must be critical of and resistant to the market _ he post critical is an assertion that ideology in general, and the ideology of criticality in particular, is no longer relevant in the contemporary world. Indeed, it would not be inaccurate to say that the ideology of criticality has encouraged vanguard architects in the West to reflect on and criticize rather than actively engage the market-driven world that has arisen in the early, 21 st centurx.What thus unites all those identified as post-cnitical is nothing more than the belief that the critical project that dominated vanguard architecture in America and Europe from the 1970s to the 1990s is now bankrupt and that a new set of practices are emerging all around the world, including, and especially in China.