El Croquis 78 STEVEN HOLL 1986-1996
在这方面，你肯定你对风格不感兴趣，但想法、语言或建筑形式在不同问题、功能、场地中存在固化的情况。如果你让学生画一个史蒂文·霍尔的建筑，他们都会画一些类似于在空间中不均匀分布的形式，你不认为你同时对整体性和差异性的兴趣已经产生了一种非常容易辨认的组织类型，它几乎是一种“风格”吗?
但是他们为什么不画玛莎葡萄园岛的笼子…我认为你描述的是公众人物的死亡之吻，因为你成为定型或片面的…这就是为什么我禁止我的学生模仿我做过的事情。每次我在哥伦比亚大学看到一个类似于我的作品的项目，它都来自别人的工作室……
所以你完全否认你自然就倾向于某种空间或组织的概念?
说我对某些特定的事情没有兴趣是很愚蠢的。但我努力克服这些倾向;我希望在每个项目的开始都能完全开放地进行实验。因此，某些事情不可避免地出现，例如，根据动态黄金分割的比例，遵循对数螺旋的属性。
我并不认为一种风格是一个问题，而是一种巨大的成就。在某种程度上，我认为只有非常重要的建筑师才能产生一种风格;一种制造和组织可识别的东西的方式….创造一个可操作的系统，而不是总是解决特定的问题，这是一个不小的成就……
是的，从商业角度来说，这是最好的选择。这就像把你自己作为一种商业实体来销售，因为你能够高效地制造一种可识别的产品。这是我努力抵制的，因为我认为这可能是国际建筑的问题所在。不同城市、不同文化、不同科学的汇聚是一件非常激动人心、非常特别的事情。这种以肯塔基州、杜塞尔多夫、法兰克福或首尔闻名的包装风格并不是很有趣。这是一个毫无意义的举动。在一个城市中，不论其历史、地点、情况或具体项目，产生相同的空间和规则的国际惯例的意义是什么?如果你看看英国艺术博物馆、金贝尔艺术博物馆和埃克塞特图书馆，你会发现它们是非常不同的建筑。最终，你的实践是一个选择的问题，而我做出了选择，走向强度和个性化。这种强度围绕着寻找的兴奋感；发现、试验、新领域带来的兴奋……
我的印象是，尽管不同形式的项目可能需要有一个系统的倾向统一的结构分化，以满足特定的条件,这是完全不同于密斯,一切都趋于均匀和重复,从所谓的解构主义者,那里是一种聚合的不连贯的片段…对我来说,这是更重要的是有趣的在你的工作在一个稳定的水平上,超出其经验影响……我认为有一个空间的直觉相一致的整个工作,并不取决于具体情况。你阅读项目的特殊性对你有利。如果你看看三星或福冈，情况也是一样的……
比起风格，我更喜欢“空间直觉”这个词。我并不反对一种新的风格可能会在一段时间内出现，并通过一些作品出现，但我并不打算这样做。如果它出现了，我不认为它是消极的，而是要超越它。我希望你永远都不能指出它，因为它会不断变化;一旦你能确定，它是死的。当我参加维多利亚港的比赛时，我们坐下来画了我们认为每个竞争者会做的事，我们绝对是对的。我们知道他们会怎么做，因为他们有一个方法，他们可以在任何地方使用它。我认为只要你能和任何人合作系统就必须改变。
ln respect to this, you affirm that you are not interested in style, but in ideas,the language or the form of the building becomes almost intrinsic to the situation,the problem,the prograrm, the site.But if you ask people —students —to draw a building from Steven Holl, they will all draw something like some kind of form that spreads unevenly through space, perhaps pierced randomly,producing ambiguous relationships between figure and background… Don’t you think that your simultaneous interests in wholeness and differentiation have produced a very recognizable type of organization that operates almost as a ‘style?’
But why wouldn’t they draw the cage of Martha’s Vineyard… I think that what you are describing is the kiss of death for anybody that comes into the public eye,because you become typecast or trivialized… That is why l forbid my students to produce anything that resembles anything l ever did. Every time l see a project in the Columbia publication that resembles my work, it comes from a studio somebody else was teaching …
So you absolutely reject the fact that there is some kind of idea of space or organization that you are naturally inclined to?
lt would be foolish to say that l don’t have inclination towards certain things. But i struggle and strive to overcome these tendencies; l would like to be perfectly open to experimentation at the beginning of every project. So certain things come forward inevitably,for instance, a proportion according to a dynamic golden section, following the properties of a logarithmic spiral.
l don’t see necessarily a style as a problem, but as a big achievement. In a way,l think only very important architects have been able to generate a style; a way of making and organizing things that is identifiable….To make an operative system rather than always solving specific problems, is not a small achievement…
Oh yes.commercially it is the best thing you can do. lt is like selling yourself as a kind of commercial entity, as being able to efficiently make a recognizable product.This is what l strive to resist because l think that this might be what is wrong with international architecture.The meeting of various cities,various cultures，various sciences is really something very exciting and very particular. To do this in a packageable style known for Kentucky, Dusseldorf， Frankfurt or Seoul, is not very interesting. lt is a meaningless gesture. What is the meaning of an international practice that produces the same set of spaces and rules in a city regard-less of its history or its site or situation or the specific program? l would argue this because l think if you look at the British Art Museum，the Kimbell Art Museum and the Exeter Library,they are very different buildings. Ultimately your practice is a matter of choice,and l made the choice towards intensity and individuation.The intensity revolves around excitement about finding; discovering something,experimenting with some-thing,the excitement of that new territory…
My impression is that, in spite of the different forms that the projects may take there is a systematic tendency towards a unitary structure that is differentiated to cater for specific conditions, and this is very different from Mies, where everything tended to be homogeneous and repetitive,and from the so-called de-constructivists, where there is a kind of aggregation of incoherent fragments… And to me that this is what is more interesting in your work on a structural level, beyond its experiential effects… I think that there is a spatial intuition that is consistent throughout the work and does not depend on the specific circumstances. You read the specificity of the project to your advantage. lf you look at Samsung, or Fukuoka, it is the same case…
l like the term ‘spatial intuition’more than style. l am not against the possibility that a freshness of style could emerge over a period of time and appear through a number of works,but l don’t set out to do this. lf it emerges,I do not see it as something negative, but something to go beyond. l would hope that you would never be able to put your finger on it because it will keep changing and changing; as soon as you can pin it down it is dead. When l entered the competition for Porta Victoria,we sat down and drew what we thought each one of our competitors would do, and we were absolutely right. We knew exactly the way they would proceed because they had a method and they would just use it anywhere. l think as soon as you can do this with anyone the system has to be changed.
