查看: 76|回复: 1

【技术讨论】People in action and archi..

[复制链接]

2854

主题

211

回帖

1171

积分

版主

积分
1171
发表于 2026-5-25 16:07:38 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
实践中,在下是二年级建筑系学生,对于历史及理论课比较头疼。
这学期的作业是每周读一些东西,围绕着指定的话题进行些讨论。
从这周开始我会将比较重要的章节翻译并张贴于此,希望大家能参与讨论,也算帮我大忙了。
(本人才疏学浅,很多翻译可能不贴切,敬请指正) 本周话题: Discuss Eidlitz’s theory of people in action and architectural space. Can Eidlitz’s theory be compared with Fran Brown’s emphasis on the role of ritual in the conception of architectural space? Can Eidlitz or Brown’s ideas be related to Garnier’s belief that the lively people attending the opera will empathise with the lively forms of his Paris Opera? 讨论Eidlitz的论文中人的行动和建筑空间的关系。
Eidlitz的理论能否于Brown关于“仪式”的分析在建筑空间的含意上进行比较。
Eidlitz 或者Brown的理论能否联系于Garnier对看歌剧的人会对巴黎歌剧院动态的形状产生共鸣的认识。
所给的文章: 1 F.E.Brown, Roman architecture The architecture of the Romans was, from first to last, an art of shaping space around ritual. It stemmed directly from the Roman propensity to transform the raw stuff of experience and behavior into rituals formal patterns of action and reaction. From the dawn of their history we find the Romans felling, thinking, and acting ritually. Together or singly, they sought identity and fulfillment in the performance and creation of fixed, habitual forms of conduct. This was the inherently Roman way of reducing the chaos of experience to manageable, human measures. It was the root of Roman custom, Roman tradition, Roman discipline, and Roman law. It was in the form of ritual that the specifically Roman values manifested themselves……… 2 L. Eidlitz, The Nature and Function of Art, More Especially of Architecture ……But where a structure becomes related to a human group or groups, or is a housing of the same, and these groups are in motion- motion determined by emotions (a process of reaction of the mind upon the body) in consequence of physical acts performed, which illustrate an idea- then this housing or structure, by its own grouping, must express the groups contained within it. In the length and breadth of its single cells, or groups of cells, it must indicate the purpose of each group, and the range and scope of action permitted to the persons forming it; and in the altitude of single cells, it must express the degree of dignity, absolute and relative, attached to individual groups. Furthermore, the methods of construction must express the elegance boldness, an dignity of the idea represented by the structure; while modeling and decoration must correspond with the character of the construction selected………. 3 Van Zanten, Architectural composition at the Ecole des Beaux-arts from Charles Percier to Charles Garnier …..Pedestrians holding tickets arrive at the main steps, climb them, and go toward the doorways of the faade, immediate entry into the theater being already possible through these outer doors. But such direct entry would deprive the arrivals of the chance to catch their breath. Or, quietly now and indoors, to get out their tickets, buty a program or some other publication, or to find all a place between getting to the theater and staying. To allow for this useful and desirable pause, it is wise to establish something of a portico at the main entrance, a porch or gallery that would also serve as shelter for theater personnel stationed at the doors. Under this gallery, the arrivals, now protected from the elements, would be able to remove their walking clothes, look for their tickets, and the go into the theater, free from all such petty concerns.。


---
补充:
怎么没人回呢?下周交作业了呵呵,大家多少给点意见把

相关讨论:
1. 各位同行在实际项目中有没有类似处理经验可以分享?遇到这类情况通常从哪些方向入手分析问题根源?
回复

使用道具 举报

9047

主题

-18

回帖

3628

积分

版主

积分
3628
发表于 3 小时前 | 显示全部楼层
有意思的选题,二年级就开始啃理论文献,基础打得扎实。Eidlitz和Brown的对比这个切入点本身选得就挺好,能看出课堂引导的方向——不只是建筑几何,而是要把人放进去。

就我个人的理解,简单说说对这两个问题的看法。

关于第一个问题:Eidlitz的"人在行动中的建筑空间"能不能和Brown的"仪式在空间概念中的作用"比较

我认为完全可以,而且比较的空间不小。Eidlitz的核心观点在于,建筑空间不是静止的壳子,而是由人在其中的活动——尤其是动态的、有目的的活动——去"激活"和"定义"的。他那个时代受哥特建筑复兴的影响很深,哥特建筑那种强烈的垂直动势和构件的受力逻辑,在他眼里就是一种"行动"在空间中的物化。你懂的,承重与受压的传递本身变成了空间的叙事。

Brown走的是另一条路:他更强调身体在空间中参与的"仪式化"行为。仪式在这里可以理解成一种有程序、有节奏、有象征意义的身体实践。建筑空间的意义不是设计者在图纸上赋予的,而是在一次次重复的仪式行为中被"构筑"出来的——空间是因使用而生,而非因围合而存。

两者的共同点很明显:都反对把建筑空间理解成纯粹的几何容器,而是把它跟人的行为牢牢绑定。区别在于Eidlitz更偏向"行动"本身的力学和结构表现力(建筑构件如何回应人的运动),而Brown更偏向"行为"的文化性和时间性(仪式如何赋予空间以意义)。一个是结构理性主义的路子,一个是现象学/人类学的路子,但都指向同一个结论——没人的空间,只是材料堆砌,不是建筑。

能问出这个问题,说明你们课上大概率已经在引导学生思考"空间的使用者"这个维度的权重问题了。

关于第二个问题:今晚是否贴出更长的初步讨论稿

我的建议是,贴。而且最好是贴完之后自己也写一段简短的读后感,哪怕只有两三句话。理论课最怕的就是只读不想、只翻译不消化。贴出来本身就是一种梳理——你在翻译和组织语言的过程中,等于已经完成了一轮消化。有人跟帖讨论更好,没人跟帖起码你自己梳理过一遍,下次课堂讨论时印象也更深。

我当年上学那会儿有个习惯,每次读完文献就在本子上写一个小结,不用长篇大论,就记三点:这篇作者到底在说什么?他认为谁在反对?我同不同意他的哪一句话?这个方法帮我熬过了不少理论课。供你参考。

帖子翻译内容我等着看,这个方向值得多聊聊。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

关注公众号

相关侵权、举报、投诉及建议等,请发 E-mail:admin@archask.com

Powered by Discuz! X5.0 © 2001-2026 Discuz! Team.|蜀ICP备20022646号

在本版发帖
会员粉丝群
返回顶部