东高·巴宁/Tonkao Panin

王冰 译/Translated by WANG Bing

20世纪-21世纪泰国建筑的思考与实践

东高·巴宁/Tonkao Panin

王冰 译/Translated by WANG Bing

本期专辑所收录的项目代表着21世纪伊始泰国建筑的形式与内涵，它们类型不同，却都有着某种共性。回顾21世纪的前10年，我们遇到了很多挑战。面对全球的环境危机，如何保护和挽救我们的生存环境已经在所有专业领域成为人们共同为之奋斗的目标，但仍有许多问题是无法解决的。建筑思考与实践以各种方式纷纷出现，体现了建筑师对建筑的看法。这些项目虽然多种多样，目标都是在建筑实践的发展变化中发现平衡的不同类型，并提出平衡的理念。在众多的建筑产品中，人们无法从中找到一个共同点，也不会对某一建筑有完全的认同，平衡是理解不同方向或途径的中间手段，这一手段在现如今被人们审慎地付诸实践。在这些项目中，无论是在对理论的探索还是批判性的建筑实践中都体现了建筑的平衡性，并且这种平衡性渗透在过去到现在的建筑设计之中，也将在未来得以延续。

建筑意识形态，实践方式，意义与建筑

在20世纪的前半叶，泰国建筑经历了大规模的开发建造期，但建筑生产在一定程度上还缺乏理论研究。建筑生产作为实践和政治的手段而受到大力支持，并获得民众和社会的广泛关注，于是，“建筑该如何做”就变得比理解“建筑是什么”更为重要。这表明在当时务实信条胜于理论研究。换句话说，在20世纪前半叶，关于泰国建筑的论述更注重建造过程而非单纯强调思索。

然而，在过去的30年中，泰国建筑的实践重心已经有所转移，“建筑是什么？如何定义？如何建造？什么是建筑的诉求？”这些问题都会在设计前期提出，成为建筑实践的基本前提，这有助于建筑师基于地方建筑的社会文化特点而更好地理解建筑。这就解释了为什么在过去的20年，我们看到相关建筑理论和实践的学科发生了巨大变化。建筑相关的学位设置成倍增加，建筑及相关学科的专业出版社也迅速发展起来。过去鲜有的建筑出版物如今大量涌现。

“思考的过程”已经为人们越来越重视，逐渐演变成自发的行为。近年来，泰国的建筑历史和理论研究领域有两个主要方向——关于建筑历史和建筑的阐释。首先，出现了大量关于建筑本体论的研究著作，其次是诸多相关既有建筑的出版物和再版物，这些阅读物纵观历史，且品种繁多。无论如何，通过这两个方向的研究著作，建筑历史与理论已经成为一个独立的领域，逐渐脱离建筑实践。建筑理论更多地成为一种对历史的研究和汇编，以及对既有建筑物的阐释，而并非着重设计的思考过程和新理念的研究成果。因此，理论和实践之间的差距越来越难以弥合。今天的年轻一代建筑师将弥补建筑思考与生产之间的差距以及协调二者关系视为己任。在过去的10年中，建筑实践带有明显的批判性，开始强调将跨领域的哲理性的设计思考与注重实效的生产过程相结合，而非将想与做的过程相向而立。与过去关注“已经说的”和“已经做的”情况不同，在泰国带有批判性的建筑实践中，人们逐渐会去问“该如何去做？”以及“如何理解目前的状况？”

本着将建筑的思考与实践相结合的共同目标，在过去的10年中，泰国的建筑实践要证明这个目标并非只是一个假设，而是引人思考，从而寻求对我们行事方式可以构成挑战的方式，不仅仅只是简单地评论。在理论和实践之间构建一种创造性和批判性的对话，二者间的关系并不是通过一种单独的方式或方向所能体现。换言之，其目的并非将理论思考应用于实践方式，或通过理论定位的例证左右实践。相反，它是简单地问——如何从严格的、批判的角度去思考并且提出具有创造性和生产性的建议[1]？当人们将这种方法应用于建筑研究时，它也改变了传统的研究路径，传统路径往往是从设计开始就指出了一系列问题，并在一个特定的时间段内探讨它们。目前的建筑研究不一定遵循这一路径，因为问题只会出现在建造和设计过程中的某一阶段。因此，研究问题更多的是基于设计本身而不是单纯的历史和理论。

1 实践的3种模式：从自主到接合

为了掌握目前泰国建筑实践中的共同点，概述过去百年间不同的建筑实践模式，这可能有助于我们进一步了解21世纪建筑的自然演变。

如果说建筑的产生是源于人类生存的需要，那么批判性理论的作用则是为建筑的发展确立方向。在过去的百年间，在针对泰国建筑的讨论中再次质疑了是否应将文化、社会、政治、美学或象征性等相关因素作为建筑构思与实践的基础前提。然而，这一看似共同的目标却通过各种不同的方法得以实现。比如说，人们可以提出假设并论证建筑的自主性；设计师有权按照自己的理解决定建筑的形式和几何形状，这也显示了他们的智慧或创造力。建筑是能够为人们带来美学愉悦感的创造题材，但与我们欣赏画作或音乐的方式不同。另一方面，人们可以否定所谓的形式自主性，发现隐藏在建筑尺寸、几何形状以及外观背后的更广域范畴的文化条件的影响，以及来自科技、社会和经济各方面的影响，这与我们所认知的政治分歧和选择的方式不同。在第二种说法中，建筑不是一门独立的学科，而是全面参与现代文明的各个领域中。介于二者之间的第3种实践模式则认为：建筑内在的空间和组织形式也是人们社会交往、传递不同意图以及与人互动的载体。

这3种“思维模式”在过去的百年间影响着泰国的建筑实践。虽然也存在其他的变化，这3种模式仍然是其中最重要的建筑实践方式，向我们展示了如何以不同的方式解读建筑。直到今天这些“思维模式”的想法与原则仍然与建筑设计有着重要的关联性。

1.1 空间与形式的建筑美学

这种实践模式只关注建筑的形式和外观。在19世纪极为重要的建筑辩论就是相关艺术的象征手法与新兴材料和工业文明的施工技术间的相互影响。但从20世纪开始，当新式材料的应用和生活习惯的科学分析改变了建筑的构造和外观，类似的问题又出现了。在当时提倡建筑生产要以公共科技社会的特点为设计依据，艺术理论教育也培养了个人的审美观。其结果是，在科技支配力和个人想象力的共同作用下，人们试图理解并制定了现代建筑文化的新秩序。现代建筑特征的研究核心内容是关于建筑空间、形式、外观的创新性[2]。

通常来说，人们对现实的认知方式可分为感性和理性两种；前者主要是基于视觉体验，后者则是通过对所认知的信息进行概念重组这样一个抽象的过程来完成的。如果说理解力要通过想象力激发，那么感知则发生在视觉想象或思考的领域内[3]。但和19世纪的情况有所不同，在那个年代，有时人们会认为用概念或抽象的方法去感知世界是不真实的，是低级的手段。这种倾向于理性思考的实践模式可能会导致人们难以发展感知能力。于是，这种实践模式试图去协调事物的客观规律和人们的主观想象。

在20世纪之初，这种实践方式出现在大师们的“非凡的创作”作品中，当它又出现在20世纪末时则是以一种完全不同的形式。客观规律代替了主观想象。建筑空间和形式的产生都可以图示化的分析和制图方法呈现。分析图可以多学科的理论为依据，作为创造建筑形式的设计概念的有力支持。换句话说，在塑造任何建筑空间和形式之前，设计师需要分析现有的全套信息，再将它们转化成自己的一套设计概念和工具。这类的设计方法有很多，例如，采用生物学的原理去创建基于某种规则的聚合形式，这种形式在建筑师设计概念的控制下最终演变成建筑的形态。通过这样的过程便形成了某种客观依据和主观想象之间的联系。这是一个关于建筑是具象与抽象、外观与内在之间的统一体的论述。然而，这种思维模式主要是针对建筑空间和形态的生成。当建筑主要依靠其观感和设计概念的特征来表现，它是一门自主的学科规训，体现在建筑设计、生产以及建造过程的种种内部事务中。

1.2 语义：建筑的意义

建筑实践第一种模式的重点是建筑的构成与外在表现，第二种模式则转为关注建筑的语义内涵。

这种思维模式的特点是寻求建筑的意义，这点在其中的许多侧面都可以体现。换言之，设计的重点由外在表现转而探求事物的内在意义。我们可以通过观察来认识事物，但是更应该去了解超越事物外在的其他更具内涵的东西。一个建筑或艺术的形态在其外表之内还可以承载一个内含的象征意义，并且能为眼光独到的专业人士所解读。为了探讨其意义，艺术和建筑作品不可避免地要与其他的文化语境相关联，例如文学、人类学或社会学等等相关范畴。这种对意义的探求往往不仅对于形式，还包括建造的种种行为。例如，制图、做模型或建设的意义，在建造的题材和建筑的表现过程中无所不在。当具象的物体在建筑制图中被分层表达，绘图的各种方法也传递了图纸所表达的意识层面。物体和方法可以被看作是在建筑和艺术生产领域的两个相互关联的象征系统。

在这种思维模式中，一切事物都有其意义，没有什么是无意义的。传统的语意研究往往专注于对事物所蕴含的意义进行学术上的解读，通常需要运用知识的阐释。与传统不同，这种实践方式会引导我们去关注环境研究的意义。如果说艺术创作的意义可以通过其寓意和条理而被理解，那么，建筑和我们所处的环境之间的交流，则要通过环境的语意研究得以实现，并借此发现我们的建筑方法论。也就是说，人们只知道作用于他们的最隐晦的影响力是记忆和联想[4]。这与人们看懂一副写实画的方式不同，人们对建筑的真实感觉取决于某一特定时刻的感知，那些影响力只能通过一些具有参考性的建筑物来化解和消除。换言之，每时每刻的感知都蕴含着个人和群体对过去的理解，我们的身体是对过去的转化，过去每一刻的感知都会在身体中被重新组合，重新评估[4]。

这种对意义的探求由此转化为两个相互关联的分析层次。首先，要理解每个事物所传达的内在含义；其次是了解场地更大的架构或建造环境。在建筑设计时，这些思考方式往往会被转化为对设计目标和背景的分析过程。为了让每个设计项目都可以被开发，建筑形式就需要基于与其所传达的意义进行类比设计。此外，每个设计都必须解读与再解读项目所在区域的构造关系。从这个意义上讲，建筑和建筑环境的关系也是一种建筑语汇，有其固有的语法关系，并可以根据特定情况和目标而变化。采用这种设计思考方式的不只是纪念性建筑，也包括其他类型的建筑。这些建筑是社会大环境和文化背景的一部分，也包括当代城市规划的一些作品。与第一种批判理论的模式不同，前者是问事物看起来像什么，后者则是探寻事物为何出现，以及不同组织下会产生什么结果。

对于第一种实践模式来说，人类的感知是建筑体验的中心，这种感知只是存在于此时此景的现场体验中，而没有超越建筑自然存在之外的任何相关联的意义。但对于第二种模式，人类的感知在本质上没有什么开始和结束。感知从过去到现在一直存在[4]，让我们知道一切事物的意义。

1.3 意识形态、文化和政治

在20世纪的后半叶，泰国的政治立场和经济形势成为主要议题，这些议题也渗透在大多数的教育论述中。问题是：当社会形态发生了根本性的改变，建筑生产是否还可以采用与20世纪前半叶相同的生产策略？还是应该重新定义建筑实践和开发的新策略？当社会和文化的关注重心有所转移，各种不同的问题出现了，单纯只在封闭的艺术和建筑领域寻求建筑的意义就显得不合时宜了。因此，建筑师和理论家只得被迫否认所谓的形式自由性，去发现隐藏在建筑物尺寸、几何形状和整体外观之后的更为广域的文化条件的影响，这些影响无论是关乎技术、社会或经济的，与我们认为的政治争论和选择方式并无不同。建筑不再是一门独立的学科，而是与文化领域的许多方面息息相关。除了自身的美学和语义外，建筑还涉足了更为广泛的文化范畴。

当人们在建筑实践的语义模式下尝试去解读建筑生产的意义，这一思考模式关注的是与社会、政治、经济以及学术界相关的大背景，而这一大背景可以使人们从更加广泛的视角对塑造整个时代的种种现象加以更好地理解。换句话说，这种思考方式的对象不是现象本身，而是其产生背后的整个大环境。在艺术领域里，建筑设计有其独特的地位。举例来说，绘画和雕塑是独立的艺术作品，人们可以在博物馆与世隔绝的环境中去欣赏它们。但对于建筑来说并不是这样，建筑设计只是部分地与手工艺有关。它主要是生产一种技术化和社会化的产品，在给定的社会环境中体现某种功能性。因此，对于这种批判性理论的模式而言，建筑设计通常具有一种在道德与美学之间寻求平衡的张力。建筑师可能不得不放弃一些他们在艺术和表现形式上的追求，而专注于实现社会所赋予它的某些可能的功用。

这种思维模式经常应用在一些极为重视创作题材、并将之转化为建筑产品的项目中。这些题材通常由更广泛的社会及文化因素构成，而非取决于建筑功能、美学或者象征意义。作为将理论与实践相结合的媒介物，建筑方案过程是极为重要的，这培养了学生们在设计过程中运用概念性的思维方式去评判问题或重述概要。各种不同领域的著作通常会为每个项目寻找托辞，为的是创造出一种“美观”、“实用”且“适用”的建筑。换句话说，建筑生产不仅生成建筑的形式和意义，也同样与当时当地的社会和文化体系相关联。至于建筑理论研究，在某种程度上更接近于这种思维模式，而与传统的历史/理论研究方法不同。这种模式不仅只注重对基地环境或者创作题材的探寻与研究，而通常是批判和介入其中，为的是在当代建筑设计问题中寻找到有关的影响因素。

2 建筑实践和跨学科发展

将20世纪泰国的建筑实践分成3种不同的模式，并不意味着他们的实践和教学是分开的。建筑美学、建筑语义和意识形态这3种模式也可以合而为一共同创造一系列新的问题。然而，尽管它们之间存在差别，在21世纪初期，基于跨学科发展的影响，这些实践模式被转化为拥有某些共性的实践方式。在大多数的学术语境中，“多学科”和“跨学科”这两个术语经常可以互换。然而，在它们的核心理念中，这两个概念是不同的。“多学科”指的是一种工作方式，在其中存在多个学科的协同作业，但每个学科都保持自己的独特性和工作方式[1]。在另一方面，“跨学科”允许学科之间的个体转换，以满足工作中解决问题的需要。换句话说，跨学科更强调的是多学科间的一种合作，并不注重学科的区别，而是通过不同学科的共同努力完成各方都认同的成果[1]。

当泰国的当代建筑还停留在关于建筑美学、建筑语义和意识形态的实践阶段，相关艺术、科学、人类学、社会学、文学、政治、经济等等的多种学科发展早已蓬勃兴起。这意味着，目前在泰国的建筑实践需要采用一种新的思考模式，不能再局限在一个单一的专业领域。在这种模式中，协调理论与实践的运动或方法论不能通过单一的线性发展，于是，建筑实践可以被认为是一种协调多学科之间关系的三维网络，多学科的介入会质疑一些通常我们想当然的问题。有时，这种跨学科的网络会要求我们对自己常用的方法、方式、专用术语等提出质疑。每一个历史时刻都有其特定的条件环境，这取决于他们的自身情况以及每个人不同的观点。在许多方面，批判性理论实践的出现可以将理论与实践二者革新性地统一起来，虽然困难重重，但是这种工作方法却是缜密和经过深思熟虑的，富有成效且极具创新性以及批判性。

了解这些不同的建筑方法可以帮助我们理解什么是形成泰国建筑学科发展的影响力。理论与实践的不同方式描述了建筑形成发展的特点，其他方面则对过去的建筑思考予与论述，这些因素都是我们未来的建筑发展所不可或缺的。它们是过去的，由此我们要基于历史背景去理解它们；它们又是现在的，就摆在我们面前，成为我们今天所思考问题的部分答案。□

During the first half of the twentieth century, architecture in Thailand, although largely productive, suffered in part from the lack of theoretical inquiry. Architecture was championed as a practical and political art. While this approach has made architecture open, democratic and socially concerned, it has also created an attitude in which making and doing architecture become more important than inquiring and understanding what it is that is being done. Such approach implies a triumph of pragmatic doctrine over theoretical inquiry. In other words, Thai architectural discourse during the first half of the twentieth century simply de-emphasized the process of thinking while it underscored that of making.

But in the past thirty years, architectural practice in Thailand has shifted its emphasis and given priority to questioning what architecture is, how it may be defined, how it is created, and what its aspirations might be. As these questions are set as the basic premises of architectural practice, it enables architects to understand buildings in relation to socio-cultural specificities of their places. This explains why the last twenty years have seen tremendous changes in the discipline of architectural theory and practice. As graduate programs in architecture have multiplied, publishing houses specializing in architecture and related disciplines have also blossomed. The number of architectural publications has gone from scant to overwhelming.

But as value has been placed more and more on the "thinking process", this process has also become increasingly autonomous. In recent years, the field of architectural history and theory in Thailand has been dominated by two prominent approaches, the historical and interpretational. While the first has generated a large number of ontological studies of buildings, the second has given us various readings and re-readings of existing buildings throughout history. At any rate, through both approaches, architectural history and theory has become a field unto itself, gradually disengaged from architectural practice. Architectural theory has leaned towards historical study or compilation and the interpretation of existing buildings instead of giving emphasis to the thinking process and new ideas. The gap between practice and theory has become increasingly difficult to bridge. Today's younger generation of architects has seen it as its task to bridge that gap and bring back the relationship between architectural thinking and production. During the past ten years, architectural practice has become more noticeably critical. Rather than putting thinking and making in opposite camps, it began to emphasize the interdisciplinary and philosophical framework of thinking as well as the pragmatic framework of making. Instead of concentrating on what had been said and done in the past, critical practice in Thailand began to slowly question how to do and understand things such as the current situation.

With the goal of bridging the gap between architectural thinking and making, architectural practice in Thailand during the past ten years do not seek to prove a hypothesis. It is instead reflective, seeking to challenge the way we do things rather than simply commenting on it. Aiming to construct a creative and critical dialogue between practice and theory, it does not see this relationship as oneway or linear. In other words, it does not aim to apply theoretical insights to modes of practice, or exemplify practice by illustrations of theoretical positions. It is simply asking - how can one think rigorously and critically as well as provide creative and productive proposition[1]? When this approach is employed in architectural research, it alters the more conventional research route, which tends to identify a series of questions at the outset and then explore them within a certain time frame. Current architectural researches do not necessarily follow this route because questions only emerge once a certain process of making and design have already been engaged. Thus research questions become more design oriented rather than purely historical and theoretical.

1 Three Modes of Practice: From Autonomy to Engagement

In order to grasp the current common ground of architectural practice in Thailand, a review of the different modes of practice over the past hundred years may be of use

Architecture, it is said, aims to orient human existence. It is also possible to say that the function of critical theory is to orient architecture. During the past hundred years, architectural discourse in Thailand has become once again a matter of questioning the basic premises of architectural thought and practice, whether cultural, social, political, aesthetic or symbolic. Yet, this seemingly common goal has been approached from various points of view. For example, one can assume and argue for architecture's autonomy; that form and geometry can be understood in their own right as well as as testimony of a designer's intelligence or invention. Architecture is, then, approached as the subject matter of aesthetic delight not unlike the way we view paintings or appreciate music. On the other hand, one can disavow the supposed autonomy of form and discover, behind a building's dimensions, geometry and overall appearance, the influence of broader cultural conditionstechnological, social, or economic. In this second understanding, architecture is not an autonomous discipline but rather one that is fully engaged in many aspects of culture. Between these two approaches, architecture can also be considered as communicative, conveying the various meaning inherent in its spatial and formal configuration as well as through its interaction with human beings.

The three "modes of thought" have influencedThai architectural practice during the past hundred years. Although other variations exist, these three modes are among the most important ways of "practicing architecture" and show us how buildings can be variously interpreted. The ideas and principles of these "modes of thought" had been of significant relevance to the concerns in architectural design until today.

1.1 Aesthetics of Space and Form

This mode of architectural practice simply concerns itself with the way things are formed and appear. The pivotal architectural debate of the nineteenth century concerned the interplay of artistic symbolism and the new materials and constructional technology of industrial culture. As the twentieth century began, similar questions reemerged as new materials and scientific analyses of living habits revolutionized building construction and appearance. While these encouraged architectural production based on the characteristics of a public technological society, contemporary artistic theories cultivated an aesthetic of private subjectivity. The result was the attempt to understand and order modern built culture with technological rules and the individual imagination. Central to the investigation of modern identity was the creation of spaces, forms, and surfaces of buildings[2].

In general, modes of experience by which one comes to terms with reality can be distinguished as perceptual and conceptual cognition; the former is based mainly on visual experience, while the latter is arrived at through a process of abstraction, the conceptual ordering of perceptual data. If the intellect operates through the faculty of concepts, perception take place in the realm of visual imagination or ideas[3]. Unlike the nineteenth century approach that sometimes regarded the perceptual world as inferior to conceptual or abstract cognition, this mode of practice saw that a bias toward conceptual thought could lead to difficulties in developing one's perceptual faculties. For this reason, this mode of practice sought to coordinate the objective rules and the subjective imagination.

While this mode of practice appeared at the beginning of the 20thcentury in "strokes of genius" of masters, it reappeared again towards the end of the century in a completely different form. Objective rules were used to replace subjective imagination.The methods of diagrammatic analysis and mapping that lead to a generation of architectural spaces and forms can be seen as a result of this effort. Analytic diagrams or maps can originate in multidisciplinary issues, act as a pretext for a conceptual frameworkthat generates architectural form. Before any spaces or forms take shape, their designers need to analyze existing sets of information and transform these into concepts and tools. Though there are many such design methods, one example of this approach is the adoption of biological theories to generate rulebased aggregated forms which are then manipulated and transformed by the designer's conceptual framework. In such a process a link between objective data and subjective imagination is formed. It represents an argument in which architecture exists on a continuum between physicality and conceptuality, appearance and inner structure. Yet, this mode of thinking aims mainly at the generation of architectural spaces and forms. When architecture is addressed primarily through its perceptual and conceptual quality, it is seen an autonomous discipline involved in a private conversation of designing, making and building.

1.2 Semantic Meaning of Buildings

The first mode of architectural practice focuses on how the building is formed and appears. The second mode turns to its semantic quality.

Among its many facets, this mode of thinking can be characterized by its search for meaning. In other words, in it the emphasis on appearances was replaced by the search for the inner meaning of things. We may recognize what lies before our eyes as an object, but this object may suggest something beyond its appearance. A piece of architecture or art may carry within its form an internal symbolic meaning that a trained eye can decipher. In order to reach such meanings, art and architecture was inevitably related to other cultural discourses such as literature, anthropology and sociology. More often than not, this approach is interested in decoding not only the meaning of forms but also of actions. The meaning of drawings, models or buildings, for example, lies in their subject matters as much as in the ways in which they are represented. While figurative objects in architectural drawings convey stories, various ways the drawings are made also encode the stories portrayed. Objects and the methods of representing them can be seen as interrelated systems of symbolism in architectural and artistic production.

With this mode of thinking, everything means something and nothing means nothing. Unlike conventional semantic research that focused on a scholastic reading of meaning that usually requires knowledgeable interpretation, this mode of practice also leads to the semantic approach of environmental study. If artistic creation can be read through its figurative and methodic aspects, architecture and our environment are also communicative. Only through a semantic study of environment we can discover the discourses in our building. In other words, people are only vaguely aware of the forces working in them, forces which feed on memory and association[4]. Similarly to ways figurative paintings are read, people feel that such forces can only propitiated and purged with objects that carry some reference to which they can respond in the very moment of perception. In other words, every moment of perception contains a whole personal and collective past, our body is the incarnation of that past; and with every moment of perception this past is reordered and revalued[4].

This search for meaning is thus translated into two interrelated levels of analysis, the first aiming at an understanding of inherent meaning conveyed by each and every object, while the second sets a goal if understanding the larger structure of a place or built environment. Such thinking, when employed in architectural design, is often translated into the process of syntactic analysis of both the design object and the context. In order for any design object to be developed, the kernel of their forms needs to go through analogical transformation based on the meaning they are to convey. Every object has to be read and re-read in relation to the structure of the place in which it belongs. Architecture and the built environment in this sense, are seen as languages with inherent syntax that may vary according to specific circumstances and goals. Examples of this mode of production lie not only in memorial designs, but also in other architectural constructs that see themselves as a part of a larger social and cultural context, including works of contemporary urban analysis. Instead of asking how things appear (the first mode of critical theory), it asks why things appear the way they do, and what may result if things are organized differently.

If for the first mode of practice, human perception is the center of architectural experience, it is only in the here-and-now moment that such perception can be related to any meaning beyond its physical present. But in the second approach, human perception does not begin and end in itself. Perception always contains a past in the present depth[4], allowing us to understand the meaning of all things.

1.3 Ideologies, Culture and Politics

During the second half of the twentieth century in Thailand, political stances and economic situations became the major issues penetrating most educational discourses. In a society that has been fundamentally changed, can architecture continue to derive its meaning from the same strategies elaborated during the first half of the century, or should a new definition of architectural practice be developed? As social and cultural preoccupations shifted and different questions were being asked, it became irrelevant to seek meaning within the closed disciplines of art and architecture. Architects and theorists were obliged to disavow the autonomy of form and discover behind a building's dimensions, geometry and overall appearance the influence of broader cultural conditions--technological, social and economic. Architecture was no longer seen as an autonomous discipline but became understood as one that was fully engaged in many aspects of culture. Architecture's task was to respond to broader cultural issues, ones outside its own aesthetic and semantic preoccupations.

While the semantic mode of architectural practice tries to read the meaning of architectural production, this ideological mode is concerned with social, political, economic as well as intellectual contexts that would provide a broad understanding of the type of representation that shaped the entire era. In other words, it is not the representationitself that this mode of thinking is preoccupied with, but the context which produced such representation. Among the arts, architecture has a special position. Painting and sculptures, for example, are autonomous works of art that can be enjoyed in the isolated atmosphere of the museum. But such is not the case for architecture for it is only partially related to the world of artisans. Primarily it produces a technical and social product, as buildings perform a function within any given society. Thus for this mode of critical theory, architecture will always contain a tension between ethics and aesthetics. Architects may have to let go parts of their artistic and formal ambitions and focus on the possibilities offered by society.

This mode of thinking is often characterized by projects that press great emphasis on the subject matters and their transformation into built products. Such subject matters are often framed by broader social and cultural issues rather than architectural functions, aesthetics or symbolic meanings. Architecture programs are vital vehicles for working between theory and practice, allowing students to develop conceptual thinking to critique or to reinvent the brief itself. Writings from various fields are often set as provocations for a project in order to create architecture that not only "appears" and "means" but also "fits". In other words, the production of architecture is not only about generating form and meaning but has to be considered in relation to the social and cultural frameworks of the place and time. As for theoretical research, approaching it from this mode of thinking differs from a conventional history / theory method in that sites or subjects of study are not only investigated and researched, they are often critiqued and mined for what might be relevant to current architectural design issues.

2 Architectural Practice and Interdisciplinarity

Dividing 20thcentury Thai architectural practice into three different modes does not mean that they were practiced and taught separately. The three modes-the aesthetic, semantic and ideological approaches-may also work together to create a new set of questions. Despite their differences, these modes of practice were transformed at the beginning of the 21stcentury by their interdisciplinary. In most academic contexts, the terms multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary are often interchangeable. Yet in their methods, the two notions are different. Multi-disciplinary refers to a way of working where a number of disciplines are present but maintain their own distinct identities and ways of doing things[1]. Inter-disciplinary, on the other hand, allows for individuals moving between disciplines and in so doing question the ways in which they work-more of a collaboration with the emphasis less on disciplinary distinctions and more on how different disciplines might work together towards a common end point using mutual consent[1].

While contemporary Thai architecture includes aesthetic, semantic and ideological modes of practice but more and more multiple disciplinesartistic, scientific, anthropological, social, cultural, political and economic-are engaged in the work. This means current architectural practice in Thailand requires a mode of thinking that is not limit itself to only one profession. It occupies an inbetween place where the movement or methodology between theory and practice is not linear. Practice becomes a three dimensional web of relationships between disciplines, one that calls into question what we normally take for granted. At times, this interdisciplinary web may require us to question our methodologies, the way we do things and our terminologies. Each historical moment offers a particular set of conditions and its own palette of circumstances. And each person has a different point of view. In many ways, the emerging practice of critical theory may unite theory and practice as a transformative, although difficult, way of workingone that is rigorous, reflective, creative, productive as well as critical.

Understanding these different architectural approaches may help us understand some of the forces that have shaped the history of Thai architectural discipline. Theory and practice characterized the way others performed and thought about architecture in the past, acts indispensable in shaping our present and future. They are at a distance from us-historical context is essential to understanding them-yet they are present. They stand in front of us and offer partial answers to the questions we ask ourselves today. □

/References:

[1] Jane Rendell. Art and Architecture: A Place Between [M]. London: I. B. Tauris, 2007.

[2] Mitchell Schwarzer. German Architectural Theory and the Search for Modern Identity [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

[3] Konrad Fiedler. Observation on the Nature and History of Architecture [M].//Harry Malgrave (ed.) Empathy, Form, and Space. CA: The Getty Center, 1994:125-148.

[4] Joseph Rykwert. Meaning and Building [M]//The Necessity of Artifice. New York: Rizzoli, 1983:9-16.

Thinking and Making Architecture: from the 20thto the 21stCentury

The projects featured in this issue ofWorld Architecturerepresent building typologies and contents that are prevalent in Thai architectural discourse at the beginning of the 21stcentury. Whether cultural, institutional, educational or commercial, they have something in common. Throughout the first decade of the 21stcentury, we have encountered many challenges. Faced with global environmental crisis, striving to save and protect our environment has become a common goal in all professional arenas. But many questions are still left unanswered. Various ways of thinking and practicing have emerged and shaped the way architects see buildings. The aim of these projects, however diverse, is to uncover various types of balance within the dynamism of architectural practice and to bring forth the idea of balance. Neither finding a common ground nor absolute agreement in architectural production, balance is a means to understanding the different directions and approaches being critically practiced today. Architectural balance in these projects thus represents both theoretical inquiry and the critical practice that partakes of the potential of architectural design to draw from the past and the present towards the future.

architectural ideology, modes of practice, meaning and building

泰国艺术大学副教授，美国宾夕法尼亚大学建筑历史与理论博士。/Associate Professor of Silpakorn University, Thailand; Ph.D. in History andTheory of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania.

2014-04-06