- Reiser + Umemoto

读研究生的时候读了很多的建筑理论的文章。那个时候对于建筑的热情也是部分的由理论激发的巴。研究生的论文也是非常偏理论。刚毕业那会儿还常在abbs纯粹建筑上面发文章，激辨文字，唇枪舌剑。工作了这么多年，激情已经沉静下来了。现在很多时间是在施工图和shop drawing/submittals & RFIs 之间晃过。很奇怪自己对于这么琐碎的东西还是这么投入。可是偶尔还是会买一辆本新的理论书，读上一读。上个月买了一本《Altas of Novel Tectonics》， 是Reiser + Umemoto写的。读了几篇觉得他的思路和我的有些对路。写的真好。下面是一小段节录。

Instead of relying on analogy and proportion, sublimating the body to measurement and abstract geometry, our work aims to exceed the definition of the body as an organism and likewise an organism's experiential field. In fact, that kind of abstraction is simply not abstract enough. Ours is therefore not an argument about phenomenology but an orgniaztional principle of architecture that understands architecture as a great body, or an assemblage of bodies, that cut across a wide range of scalar and material regimes. While the phenomenological could be understood as a special case of this work, it is impossible to simply use embodied experience, or phenomena, as a generative model. There is no organizational principle in architecture directly linked to phenomenology. In fact, all architecture can be understood phenomenologically. As a result, phenomenological archtiecture typically lapses into some form of modernism for the purpose of organizing space. Such a phenomenological practice could never propose a new architecture, only a projection upon existing systems. (Page 84.)

Reiser + Umemoto的文字还是挺抽象的，但语义却表的非常清晰。在接下去的文字中可以看出，Reiser+Umemoto 还是赞成现象学对于‘非人本’倾向的抵制作用的，但是他们很明确的否定了现象学对于建筑实践和方法的帮助。其中的"a great body or an assemblage of bodies"的提法让我联想到了koolhaas的‘大’的概念和oma的seattle library的模型。Assemblage是很后结构的词，body则是非常的存在主义/现象学。还有一位我很喜欢的建筑评论家-西班牙的Ignasi de Sola-Morales，经常翻一翻他的‘differences'的英文翻译本。

下文中Reiser+Umemoto旗帜鲜明地反对了一下Anthropocentrism-古典的人本主义，大概跟古典和传统在美国还是甚嚣尘上有关吧。Reiser+Umemoto提倡的是 - "We prefer architecture to engage what a body can actually do" 。他们举的例子是一个滑板的坡道。我觉得这个提法是用现象学的“use” 来连接了人（本）和建筑空间。

最后的Impersional Individuation 的概念好像有点意思，但我不是全懂：
Such an extension of performance belongs to a larger class of singularities known as impersonal individuations. Like the sunset or a time of day, these intense and unique conditions emerge out of the material world. They have manifold meanings projected onto them, but they are not the product of meaning. Architecture belongs to this class of individuality. It hosts the highly specifc but is open and general at the same time.