最初举办的竞赛的选址并非现在建筑所在地，在那个竞赛中，夏隆的方案获得了一等奖。那个选址是距离西柏林（1959年）动物园站附近的一个三角形地块儿，并且音乐厅的入口——这也成为了一个限定条件——必须经过与其相毗邻的一个建于1870年的校园建筑。这个入口，并不在地块的重心位置，由此带来一个主要问题，许多建筑师都尝试着让音乐厅的轴线与这个老的学校发生关系。夏隆把他的音乐厅放在地块的中心，并设计了一个奇怪的入口，从而导致了一个如Piranesi般的连续空间的大厅。当建筑要被建造的时候，在Tiergarten的边缘附近找到了一块新的非常自由的地块儿。同样的，在这个新的无需考虑基地因素的地块，夏隆采用了他的不对称的入口和复杂的、激动人心的大厅设计。实际上，它们已经不再具备逻辑性了。作为一个音乐厅，主体形式应是对称的，最合适的入口毫无疑问应当处于轴线上。我们可以这样说：针对原始地块儿而言，大厅（的形式）是遵循功能性的。在实际建造的地块上，它们的造型是对功能性的暗示。夏隆（的作品）已经浸染了Häring的理论，甚至包含着一些Häring未预见的含义。
This is his triumph and his danger. In a way his work is a hybrid. It transcends Häring’s theory while remaining bound to it. The relation of Scharoun’s work to the theory of the Neau bauen, the functionalist theory, is far from easy to define.引自第37页这既是夏隆的成功，也是他的危机。在某种程度上，他的作品成为了一个“混合物”（哈，仿佛狼人和吸血鬼的hybrid）。夏隆的作品与“新建筑”的理论，与功能主义的理论的关系，很难被定义了。
It is not our concern here to do justice to the work of Hans Scharoun. We are concerned with the theory of the Neue Bauen. Let us now contemplate the extreme opposite view which appears in the approach and the work of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.引自第37页评价汉斯·夏隆的作品，不是这里我们所关心的。我们关注的是“新建筑”理论。现在让我们审视一下密斯·凡·德罗的设计方法和作品中所体现的极端相反的观点。
A few years ago, the German periodical Bauwelt made a gramophone record of a Mies interview in which he touched upon his relations – personal and professional – with Hugo Häring. He describes them as ‘very friendly, very friendly indeed’. We know that, at one time, Mies had invited Häring to occupy a room in his office, and personal relations remained always cordial and mutually respectful. ‘But his idea’, Mies continues, ‘that in a building every function should be allotted a special place seemed to me exaggerated. “Make your rooms big, Hugo”, I told him, “then you can do in them whatever you like”.引自第37页几年前，德国杂志Bauwelt（《建筑世界》？）制作了一段留声机记录，内容是密斯的一段访问，在其中，密斯讲到自己在私人和专业两方面与Hugo Häring的关系。他把这些关系形容为“非常友好的，确实是非常友好的”。我们知道，密斯曾经邀请Häring来加入他的工作室，并且他们的私交一直热情而互相敬重。“但是，他的观点”，密斯说道，“在一个建筑中每种功能都需要被分配特定的空间，对我来说过于夸张了。‘把你的空间做大吧，Hugo,’我跟他说过，‘这样你就可以在空间里做你任何想做的了。’”
Mies himself has followed this precept. His room became increasingly neutral in character. Whereas Häring allows the ‘processes of life’ to leave the imprint of their bulges everywhere, Mies, like a good gardener, binds the tender plant of life to a grid or trellis, giving it support and, by that very fact, freedom.引自第37页密斯本人遵循这一规则。他的空间特性已变得越来越具不确定性。尽管Häring允许“生活的进程”到处留下它们的印迹，密斯则像一个优秀的园丁一般，把生活如柔软植物般植入格栅或者格架中，给与它支持和非常真实的自由。
This is, indeed, the extreme opposite to the Neue Bauen. And it is almost amusing to note how the meaning of ‘freedom’ changes from one concept to the other. In the Neue Bauen freedom resides in the so-called free plan, i.e., a plan in which the most relaxed way of living has determined every arrangement. In Mies’s concept an immutable frame is serving all the divers processes of living and their freedom resides in the ease with which they can fit into that frame which lends support, dignity, and valid form to a multiplicity of uses. The problem of the free plan is its permanency: it petrifies and lays down once and for all the curves derived from the movement of life. Only mechanical uses allow of this kind of finality, while the more delicate uses of life claim freedom of choice. This they gain in Mies’s buildings. They demonstrate the liberating force of discipline, of the law, of readable structure and great form. They aim at flexibility within a static frame. Mies has designed virtually the same building for the office building of the Bacardi Administration in Santiago de Cuba and for the art exhibition building on top of the National Gallery in Berlin.引自第37页这的确是与“新建筑”原则完全相反。并且很有趣的是，可以观察“自由”的含义是如何从一个概念转换到另一个概念的。在“新建筑”理论中，“自由”存在于所谓的自由平面中，也就是说，一个把最舒适的生活状态的方方面面都安排好的平面。在密斯的概念中，一个永恒的结构可以拿来服务于生活的各种活动，并且他们的自由在于一种安逸的适合这个框架的状态，此框架涵盖了供给、尊严，以及有效的多功能模式。自由平面的问题在于它的永恒性：它僵化了并且放弃了由生活的运动性而带来的所有可能性。只有机械的功能才需要这种模式，然而更加微妙的生活需要自由选择的权利。这是他们反对密斯的观点。他们阐释对秩序、法律、可读的结构和伟大形式的强制解放。他们关注于静态结构下的灵活性。实质上密斯已经设计了两座相同的建筑，一是位于Santiago de Cuba的Bacardi Administration办公楼，一是柏林的国家美术馆。
And here, exactly, lies the weakness of the Miesian concept. Its problem is not freedom, it is significance. Once the banking hall, the art gallery, the chapel, the auditorium – I could name any amount of types building – are all made to fit into virtually identical frames, building loses its power of expression. One may even ask to what extent, functionally, this majestic uniformity can be justified. In the Berlin National Gallery, three different kinds of light prevail in different parts of the building: natural light in the galleries adjoining the sculpture court, artificial light in the inner galleries, and diffuse natural light in the vast ‘vitrine’ above. Yet in every part of the building paintings are to be exhibited. Can such different conditions satisfy identical needs? And again, can the skin of plate glass framed in metal be universally adaptable to every use of life?引自第37页在这里，清楚的显示了密斯理论的缺陷。它的问题不是自由，而是其含义（重要性 ）。一旦银行大楼，礼拜堂，观众厅——一切我所能列举出的建筑类型——全部都按照同样的框架来做，那么建筑将会失去其表现力。人们可能会问，到何种程度，这种宏伟的同一形式可以在功能上被证明是正确的。在柏林的国家美术馆，三种不同形式的照明成功应用在建筑不同部位：毗邻雕塑院落的展馆采用自然采光，内部展馆采用人工照明，巨大的“玻璃橱窗”采用漫射的自然光照。然而在建筑的各个角落，绘画作品都在展出。这些不同的情况能满足同样的需求吗？另外，金属框架玻璃表皮的建筑能够普遍适用于生活中的各种用途么？
It appears that the extreme anti-functionalist viewpoint is no more valid than the extreme functionalist point of view has proved to be. I will go so far as to say that even variations, mitigations of these extreme doctrines, share in their basic weakness. In this dilemma, faced with two extreme and opposite concepts, the question inevitably arises if a third way, an altogether different approach, could not be found. The generation which has produced Häring and Mies Van der Rohe brought forth also an architect whose work embodies a very different approach.引自第37页看起来，极端的反功能主义者的观点并不比极端的功能主义者的观点要正确。我竟然可以说，甚至连这些极端的理论的变化形式和缓和形式，都在共享它们最基本的缺陷。在这个进退两难的困境中，面对两个极端的并相反的观点，不可避免的提出一个问题，是否存在第三种方式，一个完全与之不同的方法。诞生Häring和密斯的时代，同样诞生了另一位建筑师，他的作品呈现出一个非常不同的方式。
Hugo Häring condemned Le Corbusier for being an architect, that is to say a representative of the old and, at last, outgoing school of geometry. According to Häring, he was born to be an architect, because he was a Latin. Therefore, Häring affirmed that to Le Corbusier a building was a work of art, to be fashioned from outside, as a kind of sculpture, irrespective of the life-processes the building had to serve.引自第37页Häring声讨作为建筑师的勒·柯布西耶，说他是旧的、最终即将离开的几何学的代表。根据Häring的看法，柯布是天生的建筑师，因为他是拉丁人。因此，Häring断言，对柯布西耶来说，建筑是艺术品，宛若雕塑品一般被塑造外部形体，而不顾及建筑应当满足的生活进程。（Häring的断言有些扯淡了吧）
Le Corbusier accepted being a Latin and an artist subjecting his work to the discipline of geometry. He has given the definition of architecture as being the play (precise, learned, magnificent) of volumes in the sunlight. Those volumes which he evokes by a little croquis, are the elements of stereometry: pyramid, cube, sphere, cylinder, cone. But Le Corbursier did not accept the second part of Häring’s ‘indiciment’ that he approached the work of architecture from the outside only.引自第37页柯布同意作为拉丁人和艺术家，其作品也遵从几何准则。他把建筑定义为体量在光下的游戏。他用素描绘制的形体，都是几何形体的元素：棱锥体，立方体，球体，圆柱体，圆锥体。但是柯布不接受Häring的“标签”的第二部分，说他设计建筑的方式仅是从外部入手。（当然不会接受这个评价）
Not long ago Colin St John Wilson made a remark which is relevant here: ‘With Le Corbusier’, he said, ‘one always stands outside regarding the building as a work of art. At the same time, one is inside deeply involved in those processes that have brought it forth.’ I am afraid I do not remember the exact words, but they were words to this effect. And I think that everyone who has visited a building by Le Corbusier will confirm the impression they describe.引自第37页不久前，Colin St John Wilson说过相关的一段言论：关于勒·柯布西耶，一个永远站在建筑外部来看的人会认为那是件艺术品。同时，置身其中的人会被建筑所带来的生活敢深深打动。我恐怕不记得他的确切语句，但大概是这个意思。并且我想，每一个参观过柯布西耶的建筑的人都会认同他们描述的印象。（感谢GH兄阅读这些连我都不想再看第二遍的文字，并提出修改建议。Jan 08, 2012, Spring 草译于Berlin.）时隔二十多天，才又继续看文章最后一部分。
It is well known that Le Corbusier has given a second definition of architecture. I am referring to his much quoted dictum that a house is a machine for living in. It implies a definition too mechanistic, certainly, to commend itself to Häring, but is not the Garkau cowshed as Häring described it a machine for stabling cows?引自第37页众所周知的是，柯布给与建筑了第二个定义。我指的是他广泛被引用的格言：建筑是居住的机器。它暗示了一个非常机械化的定义，显然，是在向Häring宣扬这个定义，但是，如Häring所描述的Garkau畜棚难道不是牲畜圈养的机器么？
A tool – and a machine is a technically developed tool – is made to render one or a finite number of services. If a house were a machine, it should also suffice for a finite number of services or functions. In this case its shape could, possibly, be derived from those conditions, it could be a Leistungsform. It has been the fundamental error of Häring’s functionalist theory to regard a house as an object of the same nature as a tool, or machine; but a house serves a non-finite (one is tempted to say an infinite) number of functions. Le Corbusier, in calling a house a machine, subscribed to the functionalist error, embraced, in other words, functionalism.引自第37页工具——机器是一种技术性发展了的工具——被制造来提供一种或者有限的几种服务。如果说建筑是居住的机器，那么它也应当有能力满足几种用途或者功能。在这种情况下，它的造型应当是源于这些（限定）条件，它应当是功能主义的（Leistungsform，这恰恰是Häring的理论）。Häring的功能主义理论的基本错误在于把建筑看作是跟工具或者机器具有同样本质的物体；但是，建筑提供的是不确定的功能（从上文中Häring的单亲住宅设计可见这点）。勒·柯布西耶，把建筑称作居住的机器，赞成了功能主义理论的错误之处，换句话说，拥抱了功能主义。
His two definitions are in no way related to one another, and Le Corbusier was well aware of the fact. To describe his dilemma, allow me to adduce an example from mathematics, a discipline Le Corbusier held in admiration without understanding very much of its details: two definitions exist of the ellipse. One states that it is the locus geometricus of all points the sum of whose distance from two fixed points is equal. This is the definition of analytical geometry. The second definition states that an ellipse is the section of a cone by a plane forming with its axis an angle other than 90°. This is the definition of stereometry. Both definitions existed side by side, until Dandelin, in the nineteenth century, could show by an ingenious stereometrical arrangement that they amount to the same thing: that, in fact, one had the right to call both those curves by the same name. Le Corbusier, having defined architecture as a paly of volumes and also as the outcome of functional conditions, tried, in Versune architecture, to become the Dandelin of architectural theory, showing that one was entitled to term architecture the objects of his two unrelated definitions, in other words, to relate them. Engineers, he argued, are healthy people doing their work unhampered by any consideration of form. They carry out their given task, and the shape of their objects derives from purely practical considerations (in other words: it is a Leistungsform).Now experience shows, Le Corbusier continued, that the shape of objects fashioned in this way by the engineer tend to become stereometrical volumes, i.e., cubes, cylinders, spheres, cones, pyramids. He used for this demonstration the superstructures of certain ocean liners of the day and also cars produced by the firm of Voisin, both, as we know – and as he might have known – products not at all fashioned without aesthetic ambition.引自第37页他的两个对于建筑的定义相互毫无关联（第一个是将建筑定义为“体量在光下的游戏”），并且勒·柯布西耶深知这一点。为了描述他进退两难的局面，请允许我从数学引用一个例子，一个柯布西耶推崇却并不了解它的许多细节的理论：椭圆的两个已有定义。一个定义为，距离确定两点等距离的点连成的几何路径。这是来自解析几何的定义。第二个定义将椭圆定义为，用一个非90度的平面切圆锥体而形成的剖面。这是来自立体几何的定义。两个定义并肩前行，是到19世纪，Dandelin通过睿智的立体几何的方法来证明它们指的是同样的事物：实际上，我们可以把这两种曲线叫做同样的名字。勒·柯布西耶在《走向新建筑》一书中，把建筑既定义为体量的游戏，又定义为功能要求下的产物，试图成为建筑学理论中的Dandelin，以彰显出他可以用他的两个不相干的定义来称呼建筑学，换句话说，使它们发生联系。他声称，工程师是健康的人们，他们做自己的工作的时候，丝毫不受形式考虑的影响。他们执行分内的任务，产品的形状完全是由实用的功能所决定的（也就是说，是功能主义的）。现在的经验表明，勒·柯布西耶继续着，由工程师所塑造的物体形态趋向于成为立体几何形体，也就是说，立方体，圆柱体，球体，圆锥体，棱锥体。他用某些远洋海轮的上层建筑的设计和Voisin公司生产的汽车来作为佐证，众所周知——而柯布可能也知道——这两者的产品，在造型过程中完全没有脱离审美因素的影响。
The theory is fallacious. Le Corbusier probably knew it, he certainly realized it later. What is interesting is not his failure, but the fact that Le Corbusier tried that Dandelinesque construction.引自第37页这个理论是荒谬的。柯布西耶很可能知道这一点，并且后来绝对意识到了这一点。有趣的不是他的失败，而是柯布西耶尝试Dandelin式的建造。
We have observed Le Corbusier subscribing to a functionalist doctrine which proved untenable. We now observe him trying to bridge the gap between two unrelated concepts of architecture. Again, that construction proves a failure. The important fact is that he did approach architecture from two – if not from more – different directions, whereas Häring and Mies remained immured in their respective theories. They very failures of Le Corbusier reveal a wider horizon and a richer architectural sensibility. We must here cast a glance at the formative agents which first determined his architectural personality.引自第37页我们已经观察到，说柯布西耶赞同功能主义的教条是站不住脚的。现在我们可以看到他尝试着给两个不相关的建筑学概念搭桥。而这种尝试再一次失败了。重要的事实是，他的确从两个不同的方向——如果不能从更多方向的话——触及了建筑学，然而Häring和密斯却禁锢在各自的建筑学理论中。勒·柯布西耶的失败正揭示了更广阔的视野和更丰富的建筑的敏感性。在此，我们必须了解一下这些首先决定了他的建筑的性格的形成因素。
One of them is Germany. He may later have chosen to forget the tribute he had paid to Peter Behrens at the time when he, like Mies and Gropius, was working in his office; but the impact was made and proved indelible. Nor was it Behrens’s impact alone. It was the Deutsche Werkbund, German urbanism and, possibly, the sense of the impending change and the sense of the social determination of architecture that entered into his consciousness through his German experience. It made him receptive for and accepted on the international scene. To this extent, Mies, Häring, and Le Corbusier had a common background.引自第37页众多因素中的一个来自于德国。柯布也许选择性的忘记了他跟密斯和格罗皮乌斯一样，在皮贝伦斯事务所工作的经历；然而其影响却是无法抹去的。不仅仅是贝伦斯事务所的影响，还有德意志制造联盟、德国城市主义，有可能还包括他在德国的经历而带来的观念上的紧迫变化和意识到社会化决定对建筑的影响。在这一点上，密斯，Häring和勒·柯布西耶有着共同的背景。
He was a painter. An intelligent critic, Steen Eiler Rasmussen, considered at the time his early Villa Jeaneret – Roche in terms of Cubism. Sigfried Giedion said later that Cubism, as early as 1911, had discovered for art the space-time continuum which, in architecture, appeared fourteen years later in the Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau. Le Corbusier is the link. But his painting has a wider significance for his architecture than the transmission of Cubist theory. 引自第37页他是一个画家。才华横溢的批评家Steen Eiler Rasmussen当时把柯布早期的拉罗歇-让纳雷别墅认为是立体派的代表作。后来希格弗莱德·吉迪恩(Sigfried Giedion)说，早在1911年，立体派已经为艺术发现了时间——空间连续性，在建筑学领域，直到14年后，才在“新精神馆”(L Esprit Nouveau Pavilion, Le Corbusier, 1925)中体现出这一点。勒·柯布西耶是联结的纽带。但是相比较他的建筑而言，柯布西耶的绘画更能够传播立体派的理论。
History is an important formative agent. Le Corbusier was not a trained historian of architecture: he possessed the sense of history as a stimulus, an example, also a tradition. His sense of the relevant historical archievement – the Parthenon, Sta Maria in Cosmedin – and also of that which is irrelevant in history, like the drawing-board urbanism of Karlsruhe, is different in kind from Häring’s vast historical simplifications – which are, to tell the truth, a-historical – not to mention Mies’s sovereign neglect of history. It enables him to be the only revolutionary architect who values tradition, who, in fact, aims at establishing a valid tradition for tomorrow: Vers une architecture.引自第37页历史是一个重要的形成因素（影响因素？formative agent）。勒·柯布西耶不是一个训练有素的建筑历史学家：他把历史的含义看成是一种刺激物，一个模版，同时是一种传统。他对相应的历史建筑的理解——帕提农神庙，希腊圣母教堂——以及那些历史上不相关的，诸如在绘画板上呈现的卡尔斯鲁尔的城市规划，不同于Häring广阔的历史的简化——实际上是a-historical——更不用提密斯对历史完全的忽视。这使得他成为仅有的革命派建筑师，重视传统，而实际上旨在为明日建立一个新的传统：走向新建筑。
History also gave him the idea of geometric discipline, les tracés régulateurs, le modulor, reflecting those ‘eternal laws’ his teacher Perret used to adduce.引自第37页历史也给了他几何学秩序的观念，控制线，模数，反映出他的老师皮埃尔(Auguste Perret)曾经引证的“永恒的法则”。
Perret’s influence proved a formative agent in yet another sense: he developed Le Corbusier’s sense of structure. Earlier than any of his contemporaries, in the study he called dom-ino, Le Corbusier drew the model of the independence of outer skin and dividing screen from structure, functionally decomposing the load-bearing wall.引自第37页皮埃尔的影响在另一个层面也被证实是形成因素：他启发了勒·柯布西耶对于结构的理解。早于他的同辈，在被他称为“多米诺”的研究中，勒·柯布西耶绘制了不依赖于外墙的、使隔板与结构脱离的模型，从功能上分解了承重墙。
In all this, he is an autodidact. He makes his discoveries and relates them to his theme. They have the freshness of personal experience. At the same time, their import is general and never far from the core: architecture.引自第37页总的来说，他是一个自学成才者。他做出了自己的发现并将它们归结为他的理论。它们带有新鲜的个人体验。同时，它们的重要性是普遍的并且从未远离建筑学这个核心。
This mind now approaches the problem of the dual meaning of architecture. The way he proceeded during the years of the villas, from the semi-detached Jeanneret-Roche to the Villa Savoye of 1929, is revealed in the croquis inscribed Les quatre compositions. Jeanneret-Roche is, almost, free planning in the sense of the early English functionalists. He calls it ‘genre plutôt facile, pittoresque’ and sets it apart from his three other examples which are bracketed together as cubic compositions. ‘However’, he continues, ‘even Jeanneret-Roche admits of architectural discipline and “hierarchy”.’ The second example, the prisme pur, is his symbol for the villa at Garches, that villa which started at least as ‘free’ as the Villa Jeaneret-Roche and which, even in its final form, is far from being the simple prism of the croquis. He calls it ‘très difficile’, because it has to ‘satisfy the spirit’. At the outset of his corquis, the functional type and the type he calls architectural are confronted in their purest form. The third figure is a restatement of the dom-ino actualized in the example of Stuttgart; at least the croquis ‘pratique, combinable’ resembles Stuttgart. Finally, the Villa Savoye: ‘Tres genereux: on affirme, a l exterieur, a une volontéarchitecturale, on satisfait , à l intérieur, à tous les exigencies: circulation, contiguités, etc.’ This is the formula which stands at the end of his struggle over five years. One has called the result his magic box.引自第37页未翻译：此段落讲了柯布西耶的“四个组成”(Les quatre compositions)，从拉罗歇-让纳雷别墅到萨伏伊别墅的四个“范式”，法语太多......
It is his version of the free plan using, in the interior, the freedom conferred upon the planner by the independence of screen from structure, while enclosing those freely moving spaces in a memorable, abstract, geometric form; in the case of the Villa Savoye, the hovering cubic prism with its continuous window, lifted above the meadow on pilotis.引自第37页这是他对自由平面的使用，在室内，自由通过不依赖于结构的隔墙而实现，把自由移动的空间围合在一个纪念性的、抽象的、几何的形式中；在萨伏伊别墅这个案例中，漂浮的立方体带有水平连续开窗，底层架空立于草地之上。
The formula recalls and explains the impression related by Wilson that, with Le Corbusier, one is at one and the same time outside the building seeing it as a finite volume and moving inside its free and complex spatial structure. In one respect Wilson’s impression is even more precise than the formula given by Le Corbusier: it insists upon the simultaneous quality of this being inside and out. For Le Corbusier did not ever separate those two aspects. The counterpoint of structure, the interpenetration of inner and outside space by way of continuous windows; the discipline informing the freedom of those inner spaces makes the memorable outside shape and the free interior one consistent whole.引自第37页这法则让人忆起并且解释了Wilson叙述的印象，对于勒·柯布西耶，人们在建筑外部的时候看到的是一个被限定了的体量，而进入到其内部，同时感受到的是自由而复杂的空间结构。在某方面，Wilson的印象甚至比柯布西耶自己给出的法则更加精准：坚持内部与外部同时存在的品质。对于勒·柯布西耶而言，他从未将此两方面分离开过。结构的对应，通过连续开窗带来的内外空间的相互渗透；给内部空间带来自由的方法使得外部纪念性的形体与内部的自由空间成为一个统一的整体。
Le Corbusier’s formula shows up Häring’s judgement as one-sided. It reveals Mies’s concept as harsh. It is, let us admit it, artificial. It is the essay to reconcile building and architecture. As architecture may be about to change its meaning, the Corbusian formula may not outlast our age. In the endeavour to find the meaning of architecture for this present age, the task the three great figures, Häring, Mies, and Le Corbusier approached each in his own way, Le Corbusier’s work is the most notable event.引自第37页勒·柯布西耶的法则揭示了Häring的评论的片面性。它也显示出密斯的理念是粗糙的。我们必须承认，它是人造的（假的）。它尝试着使building和architecture相协调。随着建筑学可能正在改变着它自身的含义，柯布西耶的法则也许并不能长久于我们的时代。在努力寻找属于这个时代的建筑学的含义的工作中，这三位伟人，Häring、密斯和勒·柯布西耶给出了各自的方法，其中柯布西耶的成果是最显著的。此文终于读完了。一篇文章，前后持续了一个多月，哎，我读书该是有多快啊。Jan 29, 2012.Spring于河南，家中。
本文链接： http://friingredients.immuno-online.com/view-782044.html
