 |
Niyang River Visitor Center
standardarchitecture/
Zhao Yang Studio
2010
Photo by: Chen Su
|
Challenging the Standard
More than ten years at the center of the Chinese
architectural avant-garde, the role of standardarchitecture as an architectural
paradigm solidifies more and more on international ground. Not interested in
defining the new Chinese, nor to perpetuate the role of the status quo of the
architecture of the spectacle, its focus consistently remains to present a
challenge to the establishment. Everything from a growing extensive oeuvre that
goes from building contemporary masterpieces in
Tibet, to the design of exquisite trays made in Milan, to the way that
the office operates seem to be following no other direction than its own.
WAI sat down with standardarchitecture’s
founding partner Zhang Ke to converse about the origins of
standardarchitecture, its critical role in contemporary China, and how to
challenge the standard.
WAI: We would like to ask you to draw us a
picture of the conditions in which you had your education.
Zhang Ke: Now looking retrospectively it’s a super
interesting moment in contemporary Chinese history which started with, let’s
say, 1984 when China really started to open up. I went to school in the early
nineties and I think it’s a very intriguing historical moment that we—my
generation— suddenly got the opportunity to have an education when it was
reviving.
Eventually all the information was coming in
from the outside, but of course it was not enough at the time. Before I went to
the US in 1996 I didn’t know what was going on in the international
architectural scene at all, even after having finished a master’s degree in
architectural education.
Just think that until that time (architectural
education) was still very lacking in terms of information.
What was the architectural education about?
As I said a few times before, it was really a
mixture of a sort of second-hand beaux arts, which was the UPenn graduate’s
model of education, with some watercolor renderings, and the Moscow University,
which was kind of visual craftsmanship training, mixed with a blind admiration
for people like Frank Lloyd Wright. That was like the only thing that we got,
which was really nothing about critical thinking.
The professors that taught these courses, did
they go to the United States to study?
Yes, some of them. The professor who came back
(from the US) to set up Tsinghua University Architecture School missed the
education of Walter Gropius because Gropius went to the US a few years after he
graduated.
I still think that Tsinghua as an architecture
school still has something missing about the system of modernism of that
period.
What was the difference between that generation
of professors and your generation?
To start with, by having a clear picture of a
certain degree of architectural ignorance while simultaneously being full of
curiosity, people like me, from my time
were lucky enough to be the first group of people to go abroad to study
architecture sponsored by themselves.
We were the first generation after the Cultural
Revolution that was able to support ourselves, because the people that were
before us—they probably went out in the late eighties—were either supported by
the government or they emmigrated first and then started to study. So in a way,
it was a very lucky time, coinciding with the booming economy, in which we were
able to start as an architecture student to make a lot of money. I saved money
for the tuition.
So that’s something that was really generated by
the time.
Was the opportunity to
figure out what to do in the future, to try to have an aim, a new one?
Before that, nobody was even daring to think
that you can use your own money to go to school.
Do you think that it was critical for your
generation—that new generation—to go out, in order to get a broader picture of
the architectural education?
I went out merely because of curiosity. But with
my generation it was a bit negative. They went out because they wanted to go
out, but for some reason, I don’t know why, I never planned to stay out. I went
out in order to gain knowledge and come back. I always planned to come back.
 |
Qingcheng Mountain
Teahouse
Chengdu
model
2007
|
Since the beginning you always thought about
returning to China?
I was the
only one who never applied for a green card.
Did you develop your critical approach to
architecture from when you were a student in China? Or did your experience
abroad help to shape the model of your professional practice?
Before I went out (of China), while a graduate
student I was involved in some real projects and there was an immense degree of
fatigue because of what was happening with the big institutions, and what was
being practiced, although without knowing exactly what was a good
or healthy direction.
It was very easy to sense that it was not very
exciting, and I was really feeling the fatigue of it, although I hadn’t even
started the practice. So it was the “pre-born” fatigue of the practice.And
what’s interesting is that later, this fatigue became a sort of desire to
challenge the existing condition (of the architectural practice).
 |
Namchabawa Visitor Center
Tibet
2007-08
Photo by: Chen Su
|
At that point was every architectural practice
in China an institute?
Most of them, yes. At that time there were a few
(individual practices). Yung Ho Chang started his practice, because he was much
older. I think probably the same year that I went to USA, he started his
practice.
But was it common to have an individual
practice?
No. You had to have some specific connections to
be able to start your practice.
Talking about your practice, not only are you
making an aesthetic stance against the situation of architecture through your
constructed works, but you have created a philosophy and logistical model that
is more like a mixture of academic institution, workshop, and architectural
laboratory, where people don’t go there just to follow instructions.
You just don’t go to work to get bored; you go
there to do something interesting.
 |
Yarluntzangpu Boat
Terminal
standardarchitecture
2008
Photo by: Chen Su
|
But it’s not just that, the very unique
conditions of the office organization, and the prospects it creates for the
development of young architects; did you formulate that model with time, or did
you have it since the beginning of your career?
It’s of course formulated with time. That’s something interesting about
architecture.
The question really makes me want to continue
the story of how, having gone to the US I was to study at the GSD (Harvard
Graduate School of Design) and this more critical thinking started there. At
that time it (critical thinking) was really strong, with the Bauhaus tradition,
and the discourse of contemporary thinking as Rem (Koolhaas), Rafael Moneo,
Herzog & De Meuron, and Peter Zumthor were all there. This (experience)
really opened my landscape to the whole world of architecture and most
important to reasoning and methods of thinking.
But immediately after graduation we got
overjoyed by idealistic academic thinking, and then suddenly when I started
working in New York, I started to see another reality, which was again, of
disappointment about the real world of corporate designers, and practices. This
was again creating fatigue, or creating this hopelessness for young architects.
And there (in New York), all of the young architects got together, like we’re
sitting here, and everyone was complaining. All of us, like the elder
generations; I can imagine Adolf Loos, Moneo, Peter Eisenman, Koolhaas, when
they were in New York they were probably also complaining, but there were also
probably millions more complaining.
But then, you see, the world of architectural
practice is never very optimistic at all. It’s always something about struggle.
Most people complain. And maybe just a few start to say “come on, stop
complaining, if there is a battlefront let’s just go there, let’s just do it.”
And that’s how I decided (to make a change). All of the practices are quite, I
would say, sad to see. There is so much
talent, but really there is not much creative work being realized in New York.
Also, there occurred a big change in terms of
beliefs. Before I went to New York—I think a lot of architects have a similar
transition period—we believed that design and architecture was the driving
force, but after having lived there for three years you start to realize that
we are not the driving force, we only facilitate the financial power. Then it
makes you either really desperate or it makes you think critically about the
alternatives of life for a young architect.
I think it’s (a) common (situation). It’s not
just for young Chinese architects, young European architects, or young American
architects. In New York I found our fate—if you don’t struggle then its more or
less the same— for a large proportion of
talents we were experiencing the fact that you were dead in your 30’s and you
were only buried in your 80’s.
So it was this feeling that made me think that
maybe we can (make a change). The fact
that the whole world, the whole profession is also changing, in terms of speed,
in terms of interrelating with each other, in terms of geographical freedom
which is increasing, which means there is more mobility, and the possibilities
of more collaboration. So that’s how, I think, maybe we can start something
that is not in the same track as “you start some projects, you get paid, and
then you become anti-revolutionary”. You get established and you want to push
every younger guy back to keep your status, and then so what?
So then, when we came back in 2001 after winning
the city wall landscape competition, the former or local fatigue, and the new
or global fatigue became this anger or desire to challenge, as I
mentioned. I think for young architects
it’s probably good to have this, because you see something that’s not what you
want. Then, I was thinking how we can practice in a slightly different way,
which means that we work in a collaborative way and at the same time the
management of the office does not function like a sweatshop like a lot of other
practices that make a lot of people come in to work without getting paid.
We want to be alternative, while simultaneously
maintaining a very international standard so that everything is reasonable. At
the same time, from the beginning I wanted to have something that allowed me to
avoid that, when you become recognized, and you become bigger, you become less
interesting, and people are not happy. Then, how can you have interesting work?
Then the idea came to me, can we have
something... A different kind of office.
Because (usually) before you get established you want to struggle up, and you
are probably positive, but as soon as you get recognized you want to stay
there. So I’m always thinking why can’t we create offices like positive
viruses?
(This new model) is different to most of the
other big international names. In it, the most creative offices (within the
office), the ones that become
sustainable by creating good work, realizing alternative work, make the culture
more interesting and diversified. So, the idea was that if possible to have
younger people grow out of the office as much as possible. This is something
that as far as I know, doesn’t happen… (And we try it) even when we’re not so
strong at all!
It’s a very unusual model.
We did start it with Zhao
Yang, and in three years he got very successful. Yang Fang is doing one. And
this year, we will probably have you.
In the end the idea is not to keep talented
architects forever, but the more you can create great and sustainable offices
the culture of architecture both in China and in the world, can be more dynamic
and exciting.
The biggest intention is if we’re young we
should keep on challenging the establishment.
As soon as you regard yourself as the
establishment of course you should retire, or you keep yourself there but in
fact you are retired.
If we talk about the Chinese situation, we have
to talk about Mao. He won the revolution but he still wanted more revolution.
In that way, let’s not judge so quickly if the Cultural Revolution is positive
or negative. Of course it was frustrating for the generation, but it’s the fact
that we have to challenge the situation.
 |
Wuyi Primary School
Auditorium
Beijing
2002-03
standardarchitecture’s first built project is an
auditorium which seats 520 persons.
|
In China the singular architect doesn’t have an
infrastructure, but you are providing a space where it can germinate. Are you
expecting the model to work?
I believe it definitively can work.
Then your practice should work as a kind of
factory of singular architects, because you are facilitating the gestation of them?
The only difference between a factory and this
kind of mechanism is, in a factory you know the result of what you are
manufacturing, and here you don’t know. It’s the unknown result that’s more
fascinating.
I think
at the end there will probably still be a similar number of the known
architects, but I just want to kick out all the unqualified known architects,
because there are too many known architects that are not qualified. We need to
have enough competitive good ones.
If you think of the renaissance, it was not
created by three guys, it was created by three thousand great artists, and at
the end there are three that are masters.
What are you trying to avoid?
I don’t want
to see the current situation in China where we have five hundred so
called masters. In the end … Even in the world! The other thing is we are
repeatedly declaring that we don’t want to see this boundary between
contemporary Chinese architecture and contemporary international architecture.
Why? Because this framework has already been broken. We are more interested in
discussing and creating contemporary architecture. It may be based in China,
but even in China it means a lot of different cultural backgrounds. It may be
based in India; it may be based in Puerto Rico, Africa, in South America,
Europe.
Do you think the challenge is an international
one?
The fatigue it’s not just a fatigue in China,
it’s the fatigue of the whole architecture scene in the world.
There is something really superficial about the
current young architectural scene in the world. Of course, it’s also very
dynamic, but I think the challenge we want to create is not for China, it’s
really for the whole architectural scene in the world. That’s why for all the
international young talents here it’s very relevant.
In the future, if your model works, how do you
see the profession?
What’s really interesting for our whole
generation is the uncertainty. Without knowing what’s happening, we all know
it’s a critical moment in architecture in the whole world. Our profession is
changing very fast, both in terms of how architecture was drawn and models were
made, to how buildings were fabricated. And even the role of architects is
changing. The fact that we called ourselves standardarchitecture it’s a tricky
name, it’s neutral and at the same time it means that we don’t like the
existing standard. We want to regenerate a different standard, or continuously
regenerate a standard; a new different standard
This
means that the whole profession is changing.
It’s more interesting that this profession is unknown. It’s like our
life. It’s more interesting to not know your future rather that to know that
you are sitting in that little glass room and dying without achieving anything.
--
Zhang Ke graduated with a Master of Architecture and
Urban Design from Tsinghua University in Beijing in 1996, and a Master of
Architecture at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University in 1998.
standardarchitecture is a leading new generation design firm engaged
in practices of planning, architecture, landscape, and product design. Based on
a wide range of realized buildings and landscapes in the past five years, it
has emerged as the most critical and realistic practice among the youngest
generation of Chinese architects and designers.
Consciously distance themselves from many of the
other “typical” young generation architects who are swallowed by a trend of
noise making, the office remain detached in a time of media frenzy and their
focus is consistently positioned on the realization of urban visions and ideas.
Although standardarchitecture’s built works often take exceptionally
provocative visual results, their buildings and landscapes are always rooted in
the historic and cultural settings with a degree of intellectual debate.
The office has now three partners: Zhang Ke,
Zhang Hong, and Claudia Taborda.
www.standardarchitecture.cn
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment