窗无恶No Window Is Bad

张利/ZHANG Li

窗无恶
No Window Is Bad

张利/ZHANG Li

窗是建筑得以成立的基本要素之一。我们今天还在引用的“……凿户牗以为室，有室之用……”足以证明先人在文明之初给予窗的重视。在不同时代与不同文化的建筑中，如果审视墙、柱、顶、台阶、门、窗等这些建筑基本要素，不难发现窗是几乎唯一的总与正向的事物联系在一起的要素。当墙与割裂、柱与耻辱、顶与压迫、台阶与距离、门与特权可以产生各种暗淡的社会文化纠葛时，窗似乎是完全幸免的。

窗的积极意义可以从形而下与形而上两个层面来观察。

从形而下层面观察，窗当然就是对窗的物质形态的考量，而这种考量又可以分成两组基本矛盾的分析：其一，透与不透；其二，看与被看。

透与不透，即物理上的通透与隔绝，即窗对建成空间物理环境的作用。任何一扇窗都不可避免地在建筑中承担着双重角色：一方面，它是采光与通风的最有利因素，越“透”越好；另一方面，它又是保温与隔热的最不利因素，越“不透”越好。正是这一进退两难的境地定义了建筑的最古老话题之一，即开窗与立面的比例关系，它同时也提供了建筑形态风格演进的明显标尺。西方的经典建筑法则与中国传统木构法式都不约而同地研究这一矛盾的“最佳”折衷点，而这种难以证明或证伪的主观臆断在劳吉埃的时代达到极端。有趣的是，正是对所有这些结论的颠覆——格罗庇乌斯用于厂房的角窗——在20世纪之交宣告了建筑改朝换代的到来。至于21世纪之交的昂贵的呼吸幕墙体系，则可以看成是对透与不透的矛盾进行一次一劳永逸解答的轻狂企图，在这里，最大限度的通透同样可以实现最大限度的隔绝，至少在纸面计算上如此。

与透与不透的实证理性相比，看与被看是一个貌似圆融得多的问题，虽然其本质仍然是充满冲突的。“看”，即通过窗所完成的对窗后世界的观看，其审美体验的对象是窗所采集的窗后信息。“被看”，即对窗本身的观看，其审美体验的对象是窗的所有物质形式，包括窗玻璃（纸）、窗楣、窗棂、窗台、窗套、五金构件，等等。 “看”强调建筑对建筑以外事物的吸纳，其最高境界是人、窗、景的对位连接，因而窗本身的形式在建筑体验中基本削减为边框。而“被看”则是强调建筑本身的物性自主，其最高境界是窗先于其他空间存在的完美与精致。显然，“看”与“被看”的冲突远比透与不透的矛盾难于调和，而且各自的代表实例也无一不是采用了一边倒的作法。在“看”的方面，网师园的景窗、斯卡帕的城堡美术馆的凸窗及美尔尼科夫别墅的蜂巢窗均与其后的景物相互依存，融为一体；而在被看的方面，洛桑大教堂的玫瑰窗（窗玻璃）、故宫景仁宫的花窗（窗棂）、高平万寿宫的压窗石（窗下楣）、霍尔的MIT学生宿舍的彩色窗洞侧壁（窗套），则均可以作为独立的艺术品存在，它们把观者的视线锚固在了窗本身，而不是窗后的世界上。

除去物质空间的价值外，窗还明显具备着形而上的意义——那句深入人心的“眼睛是心灵的窗户”充分表达了窗在营造精神对话方面的作用。在这里，我们针对的是广义的窗的原型，即它所带来的对另一世界的抽象抵达。从原型上讲，虽然“门”“窗”都是在两个被阻隔的世界之间造就联结，但与“门”相比，“窗”因为放弃观者身体的实际可达性，而具备了更为丰富的潜力：陈继儒的“小窗”被用来建构文人的自省，苏轼的“小轩窗”被用来建构生命跨越死亡的交融，萨特的“看得见风景的窗”则被用来建构灵魂对桎棝的破除。当窗出离采光、通风的功用而升华时，其形而上的意义总是能形成更为长久的价值：龙门石窟与莫高窟把其所依附的岩壁变为了物质世界与信仰世界之间的屏嶂，而数以百千计的洞窟恰恰是连接两个世界的窗口；同样利用窗洞口来表现宗教力量的（当然在此是依赖光的质量）还有柯布西耶的朗香教堂与弗德勒的圣十字教堂；MVRDV在阿姆斯特丹的社会住宅利用空中花园的洞口形成巨“窗”的隐喻，创造了板式住宅前后社区空间的联系；UN Studio的奔驰博物馆则是利用夹层的水平框景特性，在不同的汽车年代陈列之间形成了不仅是跨越空间、也是跨越时间的“窗”。

每一扇窗（或“窗”）都是一个美好的存在，也都是耐人寻味的。□

The window is a fundamental architectural element.The quote of Lao-tzu which is still vastly popular today，you make a chamber by carving its windows and start to use it as a room，is an early evidence of our ancestors expressing the signifcance of the window.Across cultures and times，out of building fundamentals those of the wall，the column，the roof，the stair，the gate and the window，it is rather clear that the window is the only one that has not got signifcant negative associations.While the wall is constantly linked with segregation，the column with shame，the roof with oppression，the stair with distance，the gate with privilege，the window seems to have remained immune.

The positive image of the window can be investigated from two directions: the physical，and the metaphysical.

The physical investigation on the window consists of two pairs of contradictions: transparency versus opaqueness，frame versus form.

Transparency and opaqueness concern the physics of a window in a built environment.Unfortunately every window takes a schizophrenic role here: on one hand，to gather more day light and to facilitate better ventilation，the bigger a window is the better；on the other hand，to insulate the interior and maintain thermal comfort，the smaller a window is the better.It is this dilemma that underlies one of the most debated subjects and the most conspicuous style markers in architecture history: fenestration.Both classical principles in the west and Fa-Shi in China have tried to arbitrate the best compromise，and it was in Laugier that this type of assumption went to its extreme.Interestingly，it was the overhaul of all these assumptions - by Gropius' transparent corners in factories - that manifested the arrival of the new era at the turn of the 20th century.The turn of the 21st century witnesses another similar attempt，albeit not as successful，in which doubleskin curtain wall systems try to settle the question of transparency versus opaqueness once and for all.On paper，calculations may tell us that it is now possible to have the best of both worlds，in real life，the story is just different.

At first sight，the question of frame versus form may not appear as divisive as the transparency-opaqueness one.Deep inside，however，it is more difcult.The frame school gives priority to what you see through the window，i.e.，the object of beauty is the world behind the window.On the contrary，the form school gives priority to the window itself，i.e.，the object（s） of beauty are now its glass，its mullions，its sill，its reveal，and its handles.While the frame school would reduce the significance of the physicality of a window to its border，the form school would take every detail into account.The best examples of either school don't make any compromise at all.Cases of the frame school，be it the Net Master's Garden in Soochow，Castelvecchio by Carlo Scarpa，or the Melnikov house，perfectly anchor the featured windows into their contexts by careful alignments.Cases of the form school，be it the Lausanne Cathedral（the stained glass），Jing-Ren Palace in the Forbidden City（the mullions），Wan-Shou Temple in Gaoping（the sill），or Steven Holl's Simon Hall in MIT（the reveals），are self-referential objects of art，showing very little interest to their locations，if any at all.

It has long been known that the window has metaphysical meaning.The proverb（or cliché），eyes are windows to souls，proves at least the spiritual capacity of the window.We are talking about the window as an abstract archetype here.Comparing with the gate（also as an abstract archetype），the window hosts more freedom of imagination due to the elimination of any need for body access.CHEN Jiru used his window to construct intellectual refection.SU Shi used his window to build up a dialogue across life and death.Sartre used his window to break the quarantine of souls.When the window transcends the function of daylighting and ventilation，its metaphysical meaning becomes even more perpetual.In both the Mogao and Longmen，the grottos are the de-facto windows in the walls between the world of matters and the world of beliefs.Windows in Corbusier's Ronchamp and Foerderer's Heiligkreuz convey similar religious power through the quality of light.MVRDV's social housing in Amsterdam features large open terraces in the building，giving the image of giant windows connecting different community spaces.UN Studio's Mercedes-Benz Museum utilises the framing capacities of the mezzanines and created windows linking displays of different periods along the car-making giant's history.

No window is bad.Not a single window is to be taken for granted.□

清华大学建筑学院/《世界建筑》

2016-08-09