2010年2月26日 星期五

建筑师谈世博会德国馆设计

德中/欧中 | 2010.02.26

建筑师谈世博会德国馆设计

据上海世博会开幕还有64天,德国馆Balancity-和谐都市在施工上也已经进入了最后的收尾阶段。德国馆的取名与本次世博会的主题"城市让生活更美 好"遥相呼应,重在体现自然中万物互相依靠,共建平衡的理念。来自慕尼黑的建筑设计事务所-石凯建筑设计有限公司 (Schmidhuber + Kaindl)从25家竞争者中脱颖而出,获得了设计本次世博会德国馆的设计权。本台记者采访了这家事务所的首席执行官魏悉理(Lennart Wiechell)。

德国之声:参与这样大的项目的竞标需要做许多前期工作,您和您的事务所是出于怎样的考虑参加了这次世博会的竞标呢?

魏悉理:参与竞标是我们作为设计事务所经常要做的事情,有些时候有500甚至1000个公司去申请一个项目。我自己也参加过有1000个设计方案的竞标。我们作为设计师是出于对项目以及其所在国的热情而参加竞标活动的,虽然肯定会有落选的风险。

德国之声:你能给我们讲讲您设计灵感的来源吗?

魏 悉理:"德国馆的设计理念来自于我们对自身文化的理解,如果我们仔细观察德国的城市,会发现其中很多的十三,十四世纪的一些有六百,八百,甚至九 百年历史的古老建筑,以及一些非常现代的建筑。这些现代的建筑有些时候成为了老建筑的一种补充。欧洲的文化中一个非常明显的特点就是这种反差感,这种传统 与现代结构的组合,城市与自然的和谐并存。我们希望通过我们的设计能够把这种生活情趣传递到中国。在展馆的规划中我们加进去了一块位于馆外,被压缩在最小 的空间里的一块绿地。这展示了在高密度的城市区域内还是有自然存在的空间的。 我们希望这个公园能让人们的思绪能回归大自然,有休息片刻的机会,虽然他们身处繁华都市。

德国之声:您已经多次去过中国,您觉得中国人在工作风格上和德国人比有什么不同?

魏 悉理:中国的合作伙伴以及他们的建筑设计师给我留下了很好的印象,他们的空间想象力非常好,理解图纸的速度非常快。这个项目不简单,设计很复杂, 就连我德国的同事都需要很长时间来适应,中国的同事们很快就明白了设计图纸,还给我们提出了很多很好的建议,比方说怎样设计一个楼梯才能让观众有足够的顶 部空间。工作过程很顺利,我很惊讶的看到来自两个不同文化背景的人们通过图片能够很好的交流,尽管大家说的语言不同。

德国之声:与中国同事的工作过程中有没有让您惊慌失措的时候。

魏 悉理:当然有让我惊慌失措的时候,尽管我们的准备工作做的已经相当的严密。比如我们在中国做了许多场馆的模型,经常与当地的模型制造商接触,最后 这个模型要被空运到广州在德国联邦经济部的官员那里做展示,我早上到了广州以后看到的模型是没有外面这层遮布的,我就打电话问那个做模型的人这到底是怎么 回事,他说他以为那个布是包装材料,就给扔了。尽管我们天天都有沟通,但是还是会发生一些你完全预料不到的事情。后来我们也没办法挽回了,事已至此,你必 须得接受。


德国之声:德国馆的附近就是法国馆,瑞士馆和波兰馆,你在工作的时候会不会偶尔想到看看别人的做法,完善自己的项目呢?


魏悉理当 然,在世博会你可以看到两百二十个展馆设计方案。每个人的理念都不同,这会让参观者大开眼界。 感受到一个五彩缤纷的世界。光这一点就足够值得让人们来这里看看了。我们和其他各国的设计事务所在同一个大楼里办公。也就是说欧洲的设计师们也在一个大楼 里办公,我们的对面就是法国、西班牙、荷兰的同事 ,我们吃在一起,互相拜访工地,晚上一起喝酒,说说工地上的问题,是一个很紧密的集体。

德国之声:您的事务所有多少人参与了这个项目的设计呢?

魏 悉理:我们事务所有十五到二十人参加了这个项目,但是参加整个这个项目执行工作的人肯定有两三百人。这些人有负责执行、规划、对外宣传及其他各种 各样事务。最多的时候我们事务所有十五人参加设计工作,现在还有四个人。我们的事务所一共有六十人,很大一部分人都参与了这个项目。

德国之声:这个项目对于您个人来说意味着什么?

魏 悉理:这是一个很好的机会,项目本身非常令人兴奋。在设计这种展馆的过程中我们有很多自由发挥的余地。这种自由是在我们设计一些办公用地以及高层 建筑时所没有的,做这些设计的时候我们得严格按照功能上的设计要求办事。在设计德国馆的过程中我们可以运用许多雕塑的设计理念,这是令人激动的方面之一, 另一个方面当然是在工作的过程中能够了解中国的这个机会。这完全是另一种文化,我以前从来没有去过中国,现在中国、上海已经成为了我生活的一个重要组成部 分。这对于我来说是一个非常大的恩赐,并且我还借此机会认识了许多人。

作者:Lennart Wiechell/任琛

责编:石涛

2010年2月22日 星期一

近日版主訪問中國 該國網路管制 無法更新

近日版主訪問中國 該國網路管制 無法更新

2010年2月20日 星期六

Coeur d'amour épris

postcards 是大千世界之"抽樣"
所以出書時多少也可稍提內容
又可以問 為什麼我們的 圖那樣死版
昔日研究 Matisse 他每張似乎都自己畫簡圖

"一"例

Decorating with Postcards

Written by Breiana Cecil-Satchwell on December 12, 2007 ShareThis

Henry Matisse sent an envelope of letters to Andre Rouveyre

台灣戴明圈


(256)

Coeur d'amour épris Henri MATISSE

Coeur d'amour épris

by Henri MATISSE


這標題 請rl 翻譯一下


瑞麟: "上午九點出門,《菩提道次第廣論》研討班聯誼兼補課,
下午六點才從教室離開。

Coeur =心

d'=的,相當於英文的of

amour=愛,愛慕

épris=滿懷的,熱愛的

Coeur d'amour épris=滿懷愛慕的心 "

2010年2月14日 星期日

Post-Minimal to the Max

Post-Minimal to the Max

Edel Rodriguez

More Photos >


Published: February 10, 2010

TO paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, there is a whole lot of art making going on right now. All different kinds. But you’d hardly know it from the contemporary art that New York’s major museums have been serving up lately, and particularly this season.

Skip to next paragraph

Blog

ArtsBeat
ArtsBeat

The latest on the arts, coverage of live events, critical reviews, multimedia extravaganzas and much more. Join the discussion.

The current exhibition of Gabriel Orozco at the Museum of Modern Art along with the recent ones of Roni Horn at the Whitney Museum and of Urs Fischer at the New Museum have generated a lot of comment pro and con. So has the Tino Sehgal performance exhibition now on view in an otherwise emptied-out Guggenheim rotunda. But regardless of what you think about these artists individually, their shows share a visual austerity and coolness of temperature that are dispiritingly one-note. After encountering so many bare walls and open spaces, after examining so many amalgams of photography, altered objects, seductive materials and Conceptual puzzles awaiting deciphering, I started to feel as if it were all part of a big-box chain featuring only one brand.

The goal in organizing museum exhibitions, as in collecting, running a gallery and — to cite the most obvious example — being an artist, should be individuation and difference, finding a voice of your own. Instead we’re getting example after example of squeaky-clean, well-made, intellectually decorous takes on that unruly early ’70s mix of Conceptual, Process, Performance, installation and language-based art that is most associated with the label Post-Minimalism. Either that or we’re getting exhibitions of the movement’s most revered founding fathers: since 2005, for example, the Whitney has mounted exhibitions of Robert Smithson, Lawrence Weiner, Gordon Matta-Clark and Dan Graham. I liked these shows, but that’s not the point. We cannot live by the de-materialization — or the slick re-materialization — of the art object alone.

After 40 years in which we’ve come to understand that dominant styles like Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism and Pop are at best gross simplifications of their periods, it often feels as though an agreed-upon master narrative is back in place.

What’s missing is art that seems made by one person out of intense personal necessity, often by hand. A lot but not all of this kind of work is painting, which seems to be becoming the art medium that dare not speak its name where museums are concerned.

Why hasn’t there been a major New York show of Philip Taaffe, whose layered, richly colored paintings are actually taking the medium of painting in a direction it hasn’t been before? Why has a retrospective of the painter Chris Ofili — with his volatile mix of color, pattern, popular culture and identity politics — opened at the Tate Britain but not yet been scheduled for a New York museum? And why not see what a survey of the work of an artist as endlessly varied and yet dauntingly consistent as Joe Zucker — a veteran of the Post-Minimalist outfield — might look like? If the public can handle an empty museum as art, it can deal with some paintings made of cotton balls. I, for one, would rather see a tightly organized overview of Mr. Zucker’s work than Marlene Dumas’s warmed-over Expressionism, which was recently displayed in bulk at the Museum of Modern Art.

How did we get to this point? In the 1970’s the Whitney used to be committed to showing artists from across the United States; they were called regional artists in those days. That term has thankfully fallen out of fashion, but the artists have all but disappeared from museum walls. The Modern, for its part, used to present several works each by 10 to 15 artists under the rubric of its “Americans” show.

But a combination of forces threatens to herd all of our major art institutions into the same aesthetic pen. The need to raise and make money sends curators hunting for artists with international star power who work big at least some of the time, deploy multiple entertaining mediums and make for good ad campaigns (like the self-portrait featured in the MoMA ads for its coming exhibition of William Kentridge). The small show devoted to an artist who doesn’t have an immense reputation and worldwide market becomes rarer and rarer.

The consistent exposure to the big-statement solo exhibition becomes self-perpetuating, as these shows condition not only curators but the public to expect more of the same. I realize to my horror, for example, that the idea of seeing a survey of contemporary painting at the Modern makes me squirm. It would look — I don’t know — too messy and emotional, too flat, too un-MoMA.

The New Museum is a notable exception to all this. Compared with other museums in town, it deserves credit for trying to sum up recent trends outside latter-day Post-Minimalism. “Unmonumental,” its inaugural exhibition in its new building, explored recent developments in collage and assemblage, while “After Nature” plunged into a range of mediums in pursuit of a humanistic theme. Both shows sprawled to the point of incoherence but were still ambitious attempts to account for swaths of contemporary art.

The Guggenheim doesn’t play it as safe as the Modern or the Whitney. With its Sehgal show, as with its “Theanyspacewhatever” exhibition in 2008, it acts like a place where anything can happen. But shows where we encounter an artist’s single-minded, highly personal pursuit that proceeds one object at a time tend to feature past masters. The Guggenheim’s recent, fantastic Kandinsky exhibition was an example (as was the Modern’s Ensor show). Yet there are plenty of artists working this way now. They may not be making history (or entertainment, either), but they are still making really good art whose very unfolding has its own integrity and is exciting to see.

I wouldn’t have a problem with these shows of the gods and godlings of Post-Minimalism if they were balanced and mixed with other stuff that is completely different. But that other stuff is largely missing in New York museums, though there is plenty of it around.

It is amazing that some aspect of Laura Owens’s or Dana Schutz’s work is not thought worth some kind of small, well-organized museum show. The same goes for Lari Pittman, who could sustain something larger. European artists, who bring a little more wit and accessibility to Post-Minimalism, include Rosemarie Trockel and Fischli & Weiss. Someone should do a show of the early paintings of Peter Doig.

And there is more demolition work to be done on the master narratives of the recent past. It would be interesting to see how the eccentric California painter Roy De Forest holds up, what with the several returns of representation and of painting since he emerged. Similarly, the midcentury West Coast painter David Park — more than Richard Diebenkorn — could do with another New York retrospective. He’s the kind of artist who can light a fire under a young artist and also teach the public a great deal about looking at painting, a skill we seem to be in danger of losing.

The paintings of John Wesley, an elder statesman of alternative Pop Art, were seen in quantity at the Venice Biennale; he had a retrospective at P.S. 1 in 2000 but has never had a show of any size in a Manhattan museum. Other deserving painters who emerged in the 1940s and 1950s, often working small and usually beyond the pale of Abstract Expressionism, include Alice Trumbull Mason, Beauford Delaney, Steve Wheeler, Loren MacIver and Lois Dodd — who, by the way, is still making art.

You’d never know from looking at museums that figurative painting, running the gamut from realist to quasi-expressionist, is on the rise. (Speaking of which, if some New York curator didn’t see Nicole Eisenman’s recent show at Leo Koenig and at least consider doing a show, we are in trouble.) Some kind of local museum attention could be given to the realist painter Rackstraw Downes, the abstract painters Thomas Nozkowski, Larry Poons and Stanley Whitney, or to an artist like Dona Nelson, who refuses to commit to either camp and whose eccentricities are a good match for Joe Zucker’s. These painters seem slated to become the forgotten artists of the future. David Bates is having a perfectly interesting career without any attention from the New York art establishment, thank you very much.

New York missed out on a recent retrospective of the cantankerous political surrealist Peter Saul. A survey of the work of the painter Jim Nutt — our era’s crazed answer to the Northern Renaissance — being organized by the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, does not yet have a New York stop. And it has finally been determined that the long overdue survey of the abstract ceramicist Ken Price that has been undertaken by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art will come to the Metropolitan Museum. I’m glad it will be seen here, but the fact that the Guggenheim, the Whitney and the Modern could not fit it into their schedules shows an appalling narrowness of vision. I don’t care how many scheduling conflicts can be cited.

If this sounds harsh, let me also say that I think curators of contemporary art in New York museums have some of the toughest jobs in the art world. They rarely seem able to act on their own without some kind of committee oversight and are under unbelievable pressure to succeed at the box office. Museum gallery space is at a premium and is almost uniformly unforgiving. Excepting the idiosyncratic flexibility of the Guggenheim’s ramp, there is barely a decent gallery among our main museums, although we seem to have stopped talking about the effect this has on curators, their exhibitions and thus on the seeing and comprehending of art.

New York museum curators also have to compete with New York galleries, which are out there discovering new and overlooked artists and — increasingly — mounting invaluable historical shows. At the same time the amount of inspiration and information curators can gain from galleries is unparalleled. However, gathering it requires spending more time seeing shows beyond the six or eight galleries whose artists get most of the big museum shows these days. The idea that a moment’s most visible artists are concentrated in a handful of powerful galleries is only superficially true. By now we know too much not to willfully work against this notion.

Museum curators need to think less about an artist’s career, its breakthroughs and its place in the big picture and more in terms of an artist’s life’s work pursued over time with increasing concentration and singularity.

They have a responsibility to their public and to history to be more ecumenical, to do things that seem to come from left field. They owe it to the public to present a balanced menu that involves painting as well as video and photography and sculpture. They need to think outside the hive-mind, both distancing themselves from their personal feelings to consider what’s being wrongly omitted and tapping into their own subjectivity to show us what they really love.

These things should be understood by now: The present is diverse beyond knowing, history is never completely on anyone’s side, and what we ignore today will be excavated later and held against us the way we hold previous oversights against past generations.

Message to curators: Whatever you’re doing right now, do something else next.

2010年2月4日 星期四

Aircruise Seymourpowell

國際在線專稿:據《每日郵報》報道,近日英國設計師發明了一款高聳入雲,有點像風箏的新型飛艇,這也預示著空中巡航(Aircruise)這種新的豪華運 輸概念的應運而生。

空中巡航概念實際上是以快速、擁擠著稱的噴氣式客機的一個對立面。總部位于倫敦的設計創新公司Seymourpowell打算重新思考運輸這個詞,要“快 中求慢”。這種新概念飛艇可以極為悠閒地將100人從倫敦送往紐約,而全程耗時要37小時,而不是現有飛機的7小時。空中巡航概念還以帶有酒吧的複式公寓 為特色,旅客甚至可以透過玻璃地板觀看到令人炫目的空中景象。

Seymourpowell公司設計總監尼克‧泰伯特(Nick Talbot)表示,“空中巡航飛艇概念是介于油輪和漂浮的酒店之間的新型交通工具,人們以前追求速度幾乎到了瘋狂的地步,與之相反的能夠舒適休閒旅行的 主意目前也很受歡迎。” (海瀾)

Visionary concept work for Samsung C&T explores the future of travel and transport.

London, UK, 03 February 2010 - Leading design and innovation company Seymourpowell is today unveiling full details of its visionary transportation concept, Aircruise - a giant, vertical airship powered by natural energy and designed to carry travellers in style and luxury.

Originally a self-generated project, Seymourpowell's Aircruise is the concept design for a hotel in the sky, with low passenger numbers and huge internal spaces offering room for living, dining and relaxing, as well as scope for dramatic and inspirational public spaces. The initial design proposes a bar/lounge zone, four duplex apartments, a penthouse and five smaller apartments.

The concept subsequently captured the imagination of Korean giant Samsung Construction and Trading (C&T). Driven by its interest in new materials for building, Samsung C&T appointed Seymourpowell to refine the idea and produce a detailed computer animation of the proposed experience to illustrate this visionary approach to the future. The video can be viewed here:

Seymourpowell's Aircruise concept presents an alternative take on the future, suggesting 'slow is the new fast'. Nick Talbot, design director at Seymourpowell explains, "The Aircruise concept questions whether the future of luxury travel should be based around space-constrained, resource hungry, and all too often stressful airline travel. A more serene transport experience will appeal to people looking for a more reflective journey, where the experience of travel itself is more important than getting from A to B quickly."

On Aircruise, it is the very abundance of time and space that defines the luxury experience. In a world where speed is an almost universal obsession, the idea of making a leisurely journey in comfort is a welcome contrast. Talbot explains, "The physics of the airship requires a gigantic volume of lifting gas, yet simultaneously demands a relatively limited amount of weight. This allows for a potentially large amount of space with relatively few people onboard - a luxury for any traveller."

Talbot added, "It's a world cruise not limited to the ocean, offering instead the dream-like quality and absolute freedom of flight. Passengers can choose to dine thousands of feet above a city, or take in the view whilst moving through the air over the ocean or a national landmark."

Lifted by hydrogen and powered by solar energy, the Aircruise concept also has obvious environmental benefits. Seung Min Kim, design director at Samsung C&T commented, "This was a dream concept project for us, helping to realise a future of sustainable buildings combined with innovative and luxury lifestyle. In an age when environmental impact is a key consideration for architecture, we are keen to extend this vision of the future by searching for solutions that can be realised by 2015 - the year that many futurologists foresee as the turning point for the future."

Although only a conceptual proposal, the transportation design team at Seymourpowell developed a detailed and achievable technical specification for the craft. See below for further technical details.

Proposed conceptual specifications for Aircruise as follows:

From the docking rig at the base to the tip, the ship is 265 metres tall. Hydrogen, the lightest gas, is used as the lifting gas, and is capable of lifting around 1.2Kg per cubic metre of volume. Large PEM hydrogen fuel cells will provide on board power and some drinking water.

The volume of the main envelope in the ship is calculated at 330,000 cubic metres, which equals 396,000 Kg of available lift at sea level (1,000Kg = 1 Tonne (t)).

Estimated weights:

Primary structure, envelope and systems 270t (reference - around the same weight as an airbus A380 super jumbo, empty weight)
Consumables, water, ballast etc. 20t
People (estimate max 100 people on board) 15t
Control deck and staff (20 staff) 6t
Bar/Lounge/communal zone fit out 15t
4 Duplex apartments at 5t each 20t
Penthouse apartment 12t
5 smaller apartments at 4t each 20t
Total load factor 378t

Available lift excess is therefore 18-20t or 20,000kg of lift.

Part of the renewed interest in airships derives from advances in materials, structures, stabilisation and clean propulsion technologies. Utilising composite frames and fabrications, lightweight semi flexible structures can be built at large scales. Although large, this is nevertheless a semi rigid ship, the primary tensioned structure consisting of 8 vertical composite lattices supporting four main flexible envelopes, which contain 330,000 cubic metres of hydrogen gas. Lower decks are 'hung' off these primary supports.

Each of the 4 external envelopes contains modular self-sealing lifting bags, minimising the incidence of bag rupture and ensuring safe flight even with a major external skin rupture.

Automatic stability thrusters and altitude control using automatic adjustment of the gas density ensures a smooth ride compared to previous airships. Although still susceptible to storms and very poor weather, advanced weather radar and weather prediction systems allow the ship to route around major problems.

Despite the perceived risks, hydrogen is used for its inherent lifting efficiency and as a power source. Flexible photovoltaic (solar panel) cells cover the upper part of the envelope, augmenting the primary power generation, in this case from fuel cells. Large surface area PEM fuel cells generate the primary power for on board systems and turn low speed compressors located in the mid section of the ship. This compressed gas is ducted to provide directional thrust and auto stabilisation. Compressed hydrogen stored in parts of the main structure provides fuel for longer ranges and by venting to the envelope or re-compressing these volumes, altitude stability is achieved.

By combining the lifting gas and the fuel for thrust the overall weight of the ship can be minimised, whilst ensuring a silent, pollution free passage. Water vapour is harnessed to augment on board potable water.

The service ceiling is limited to 12,000 feet, given the attenuation of the atmosphere (the hotel is not pressurised) and the limits of gas expansion within the envelope. If however, there are specific locations of interest en route, the ship can drop down to within a few hundred feet of the ground.

Cruising speed without tail or headwind is 100 - 150 Km/hr. This equates to journey times that are appropriate to the cruise experience: London to New York in 37 hours; Los Angeles to Shanghai in 90 hours.

Six-flight crew will include two flight engineers, and will fly the ship in shifts, given the likely cruise durations. 14 support staff will run the hotel experience for the guest passengers.

For further information contact:
Tim Duncan
PR Global, Seymourpowell
Email: tim.duncan@seymourpowell.com
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7386 2369



327 Lillie Road
London SW6 7NR
United Kingdom
T +44(0)20 7381 6433
F +44(0)20 7381 9081
E info@seymourpowell.com
www.seymourpowell.com
Seymourpowell introduces the Aircruise - a clipper in the clouds
[Picture] Aircruise concept