Le Corbusier
After Le Corbusier' s death, Hans Girsberger, the publisher, and Willy Boe siger, chief editor of the Oeuvre complete, published the eighth and last volume of his works. Boesiger (1904 1990), an architect in Zurich, owner of the restaurant and movie complex Nord Siid on the Limmat river, a flaneur, and honorary doctor of the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (ETH), reported in the Dernieres oeuvres primarily on the four projects that occupied the atelier after the master s death: Firminy-Vert; Chandigarh; the new hos pital for Venice; and the exhibition pavilion of the gallerist Heidi Weber in Zurich. Three of these projects were finished one way or another. The fourth, the hospital in the lagoon in the Cannaregio quarter of Venice, remained only a project. That design from LC s last months will occupy us, as it has to do, once again very clearly, with one of the main themes in my book: the boyhood period and the boyhood dreams of the future architect. To these four projects Boesiger adds three texts: LC s last manuscript, entitled Mise au point”; an homage to Pierre Jeanneret, LC s eminent camaradeypartenaire et compagnon de lutte ( eminent comrade, partner, and fellow fighter ), who died in 1967, two years after LC; and the official homage Andre Malraux spoke at the memorial service for LC in the Cour Carree of the Louvre.
Naturally, the last manuscript written only one month before the author s death is of special interest for us. But Boesiger is not able to include the entire text in the eighth volume. He therefore begins with the incisive paragraph: “I am 77 years old and the moral impulse driving me on can be summed up as follows: in life one has to make things happen, that is, one has to act with modesty, exactitude, and precision. 1(Jai 7 7 ans et ma morale peut se resumer a ceci: dans la vie ilfautfaire. C est a-dire agir dans la modestie, l exactitude, laprecision.)
In this excerpt Boesiger omits an antecedent remark that we find of special importance, literally speaking, of great weight for our argument. The fifth sentence of the omitted introduction reads, “From my earliest youth on I have had a rough encounter with the weight of things. With the heaviness of materials and the resistance of materials. Add to this the human factor: people s different qualities and general resistance and their resistance against other people. 2 {Des ma jeunessefai eu lesec contact avecle poids des choses. La lourdeur des materiaux et la resistance des materiaux. Puis les hommes: les qualites diverses des hommes et la resistance des hommes et la resistance aux hommes.)
The old architect sees himself confronted all his life with the weight of things. As an architect he finds himself more directly and gravely affected by the heaviness, the gravitational force, and the resistance of things than by les mots et les choses, the words and things that for thinkers and writers occupy the center of attention. Especially because he wrote a lot and pub lished a lot, this distinction becomes very important. His texts, with only few exceptions, are closely interwoven with added sketches or photographs. Michel Foucault entitled his attempt at an archaeology of the human ities (archeologie des sciences humaines) Les mots et les choses (Paris, 1966). It deals with representation (representer), speech (parler), classification (clas set), and exchange (echanger). But anyone who has to deal with architects and visual artists has to recognize other priorities. Furthermore, architects and designers regularly rise up to defend themselves in their capacity as producers of images and structures whenever the faction of thinkers and writers builds up again their old thesis and overexaggerated opinion that things exist in reality only when or only after they are made to appear in the network of words, after they are named within a text. As Charles Ferdinand Ramuz put it: They built the city, but this has to be said by someone otherwise the city does not exist. 3 {Ils batissent la ville, mais ilfaut quelquun pour le dire, sans quoi la ville nest pas batie.) This claim fully justifies the visual artists protesting against a language imperialism. But such confrontations hardly affected LC. What is valid for him, what determines his thoughts and his imagination is lepoids des choses, so persistently that it sometimes becomes overobtrusive, always remains a matter of conviction, and is experienced by him as an act of self-preservation in the face of the miserable and threatening state of the world; design out of self-defense and as an act of self-defense for sixty years, from 1905 to 1965.
LC needs words to explain a drawing or an illustration that sets down how the city should be built. His compatriot and contemporary, the Valais writer Charles Ferdinand Ramuz (1878 1947), needs words to name and signify, since without this kind of formulation no certainty would exist that the city has been built. Two completely different worlds. For LC the weight of things is of a higher priority than the signifying word. Yet both planes of discourse offer a possibility for poetry (poesie), for the creation of poems (poemes). The nonverbal poetry of space unfolds from the same source as verbal poetry (as Ranke might say, is equally close to God).
在勒·柯布西耶（Le Corbusier）過世後，出版人漢斯·吉斯貝格（Hans Girsberger）與《全集》（Oeuvre complète）的總編輯威利·波伊西格（Willy Boesiger）出版了他作品的第八冊，同時也是最後一冊。波伊西格（1904–1990）是一位居住於蘇黎世的建築師，他擁有利馬特河畔的「北南」餐廳與電影院綜合設施（Nord Süd），既是都市漫遊者（flâneur），也是蘇黎世聯邦理工學院（Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, ETH）名譽博士。在這部名為《最後的作品》（Dernières œuvres）的著作中，他主要報導了大師逝世後其工作室所持續推動的四個建築計畫：菲爾米尼-綠地（Firminy-Vert）、昌迪加爾（Chandigarh）、威尼斯新醫院計畫，以及在蘇黎世由藝廊經營者海蒂·韋伯（Heidi Weber）委託建造的展覽亭。
這四項計畫中，有三項以某種形式完成；第四項，即位於威尼斯卡納雷吉歐區潟湖中的醫院，最終僅止於設計草案。然而這項出自勒·柯布西耶人生最後階段的設計，再度清楚地觸及本書所探討的主題之一：建築師童年時期的夢想與渴望。波伊西格除這四項計畫之外，另增收三篇文字：勒·柯布西耶的最後一篇手稿《總結》（Mise au point）；對其摯友、夥伴、戰友皮埃爾·讓納雷（Pierre Jeanneret）的致敬文——讓納雷於1967年，即勒·柯布西耶過世兩年後辭世；以及安德烈·馬爾羅（André Malraux）於羅浮宮內庭（Cour Carrée）為勒·柯布西耶舉行的追思會中所發表的官方悼詞。
這篇勒·柯布西耶在過世前一個月所撰寫的手稿，自然對我們而言極具重要性。但波伊西格並未將全文收錄於第八冊，而是以一段銳利開場為引言：
「我今年七十七歲，而我內心的道德驅力可以如此總結：在人生中必須實踐行動，也就是要以謙遜、精確與準確為本來行動。」
（J’ai 77 ans et ma morale peut se résumer à ceci : dans la vie il faut faire. C’est-à-dire agir dans la modestie, l’exactitude, la précision.）
然而，波伊西格所略去的前段引文中，有一句我們認為極具分量，對本書論述亦至關重要。該段第五句寫道：
「從我年輕時起，我便與『事物的重量』有過直接的衝擊接觸。我曾體驗到材料的沉重與材料的抗拒。接著是人：人的不同特質與人的抗拒，以及人與人之間的抗拒。」
（Dès ma jeunesse j’ai eu le sec contact avec le poids des choses. La lourdeur des matériaux et la résistance des matériaux. Puis les hommes : les qualités diverses des hommes et la résistance des hommes et la résistance aux hommes.）
這位年邁的建築師回望一生，發現自己不斷被「事物的重量」所逼視。作為一位建築師，他所直接面對的，不只是思想家與作家所關注的「語言與事物」（les mots et les choses），而是更具現實性的沉重、重力與阻力。特別是他寫作甚多、出版頻繁，這樣的區分就顯得尤為重要。他的文本，幾乎總是與素描或攝影作品密切交織。米歇爾·傅柯（Michel Foucault）在1966年出版的《詞與物》（Les Mots et les Choses），試圖建立一套人文學科的考古學方法（archéologie des sciences humaines），聚焦於再現（représenter）、言說（parler）、分類（classer）與交換（échanger）。然而，凡是與建築師或視覺藝術家打交道者，皆會認知到另一套優先順序的存在。事實上，每當思想與寫作界再度強調「事物唯有在被命名、被寫下後才真正存在」的觀點時，建築與設計界便會立即起身反駁，主張他們作為造型與結構創作者的立場。正如瑞士作家夏爾·費迪南·拉米斯（Charles Ferdinand Ramuz）所說：「人們建造了城市，但如果沒有人說出這件事，城市便未曾真正建成。」
（Ils bâtissent la ville, mais il faut quelqu’un pour le dire, sans quoi la ville n’est pas bâtie.）
這樣的說法正當化了視覺藝術家對語言霸權的抗議。然而，這類對抗並未真正動搖勒·柯布西耶。他的思想與想像所依據的，不是語言對世界的指涉，而是「事物的重量」（le poids des choses）。這樣的重力感受有時甚至顯得過於強烈，卻始終真切地反映出他的信念——那是一種在面對世界之悲慘與威脅狀態時的自我保護姿態。他六十年來的設計，從1905年開始直到1965年結束，始終是一種出於自我防衛的創作行動。
勒·柯布西耶需要語言來說明他畫下的圖像、城市的構想。他的同鄉與同代人、來自瓦萊州的作家拉米斯，則需要語言來命名與指涉——因為在他看來，若無語言的構述，我們無從確知一座城市是否真的存在。這是兩個截然不同的世界。對勒·柯布西耶而言，「事物的重量」比「命名的語言」更具優先性。然而，這兩種論述層面皆通往詩意（poésie）的可能——空間的非語言詩學與文字的語言詩學，如歷史學家蘭克（Ranke）所言，其源頭同樣接近神。
Les 5 Points (1926): New Building Material a New House
Scarcely had the Palais du Peuple of the Salvation Army in Paris been built
(1926) when the thirty nine year old LC, together with Pierre Jeanneret, published the 5 points (“Les 5 points dune architecture nouvelle ). With a strange, suggestive logic these are derived from the great gift of the turn of the century, from reinforced concrete (first reinforced with iron rods, then with steel rods). The French name beton arme (armored concrete) is a derivative from military vocabulary, a borrowing similar and almost simultaneous to that of the concept of avant-garde for the then newly developed abstract paint ing. In reinforced concrete the internal metal gridiron acts as a skeleton and furnishes the viscous mass of cement, water, and gravel, after it coalesces, with a unique compactness and corresponding resilience and carrying power. An architect can take the compactness of the armored building mate rial in two directions. On the one hand he has a chance to change the relation between load and support; he can turn the traditional column into a slender or even extremely thin support (the very thing to which LC applied the term pilotis ). On the other hand he has a chance to play with new material consistency; that is, he can turn the traditional thick wall into a thin plate or sheet and thus acquire freedom of horizontally projecting balconies and marquees to an unprecedented, astonishing degree.
Apparently, while living in La Chaux de Fonds, LC was far away from the action and was hardly or minimally acquainted with the European centers where armored concrete increasingly came to be used. Yet a remarkable co incidence made him a direct witness to this development. Max Du Bois, three years his elder, was a friend from early youth who lived in the neighboring town of Le Locle. He had just completed his studies as an engineer at the ETH, the only technical university in Switzerland at that time, had just got his final diploma and become the assistant of Professor E. Morsch, a promi nent specialist on armored concrete. In 1909, Du Bois published his own translation of the trailblazing book by Morsch under the title Le beton arme, and this not just anyplace but at a Parisian publisher (figure l).4 Du Bois gave his prestigious translation to LC as a present, and thus at age twenty two LC was handed a triple challenge. First, the future potential of the new building material, which had nothing to do with the hitherto prevalent methods of superimposition and layering of separate elements like stones and bricks but could be poured and molded, was completely visible to him (figure 2). Second, the imposing volume of Morsch/Du Bois, thickly interspersed with mathematical formulas, must have impressed and even intimidated LC in the matter of building calculations. Questions that Du Bois treated in the name of his teacher as a new science, were and remained closed to LC in their necessary details. And third, the scientific rigor in this volume made him a true admirer of the profession of building engineering that proved so closely related to that of architects.
It seems that, caught though he was in the predictable reactions of envy, intimidation, and admiration, young LC was quickly able to overcome the first two in favor of a constructive kind of awe that did not dispirit him, but, on the contrary, increasingly became a source of inspiration. Thus, four teen years later he published Vers une architecture (1923), his veritable hymn to the miracle of concrete (and to serial production). Three years after that he published his “5 points, his summary prescription for the production of the new house. 5
What we called above a suggestive logic begins with the first point, les pilotis. LC s persistent research had led him to results he found worthy of being classified as laboratory findings (acquits de laboratoire). What occupied him and impelled him all those years was immediately presented in the second paragraph compressed into four sentences: The house on pilotis. The house was rammed into the ground: dark and frequently humid spaces. Armored concrete gives us the pilotis. The house is up in the air;farfrom the ground. the garden extends under the house, and in addition is also on top of the house, on the roof. 6 (La maison surpilotis. La maison senfonqait dans le sol: locaux obscures et souvent humides. Le ciment arme nous donne lespilotis. La maison esten f air, loin du sol; lejardin passe sous la maison, lejardin est aussi sur la maison, sur le toit.)
What follows in points two through five (figure 3) appears to the reader to evolve logically from these four sentences: the roof garden (les toits jardins)\ the free ground plan (leplan libre)\ the long window (lafenetre en longueur); and the curtain wall that no longer has a supportive function (la faqade libre).
Imagine LC as a fighter against damp cellars— quite an amusing no tion! But much more is at stake: the lifting up o fthe house in the air. Until that time it happened only in fairytales, but from then on it becomes a possible reality. But why was it so important to the avant-garde generation? So impor tant that it galvanized the architects imagination? Is the double gain of ground the garden under the house and the garden on top of the house and its double benefit a sufficient explanation for the fascination it exerted in that period, or is there more to it?
In any case, what becomes clear is that the column s mutation to pilo tis was interpreted more radically by LC than by his contemporaries such as Gropius, Mies, and Rietveld. For him pilotis are not just another version of ornamental shafts or facade elements that at best lift a portico up in the air and far from the ground. What he evidently had in mind was nothing less than lifting the entire house above the ground. In his mind s eye, and con sequently in his building praxis around 1926, pilotis and la maison en l air are connected and intrinsically presuppose each other.
This is confirmed by the four contrast illustrations of the “5 points. In the first of these, the house has left the ground; in the ground plan it leaves behind only a few points scattered like seedlings,” to adapt a phrase by Paul Klee. Because the pilotis system transforms the floors into solid plates, the walls now can twist and turn about completely free of their load bearing function (second contrast illustration). The cellar has disappeared, and under the house and on top of the flat roof plants are making their appearance (third contrast illustration). Only the fourth pair of contrasts is hard to read and seems not fully convincing. The housing blocks rest on pilotis but are connected also by a street platform, with the result that traffic claims two planes. Where is the benefit to the inhabitants? Isn’t this a case of pilotis at any price? In fact, this sketch is an echo of LC s thesis regarding the Ville- Pilotis that he introduced into the debate eleven years earlier (1915). The 5 points are followed in the Oeuvre complete by three double pages on the Maison Cook, also of 1926. The single slender pilotis on the first floor is set in contrast to four extremely thin ones on the roof terrace, and LC again finds it necessary to produce a commentary. Its title: Les Pilotis ; its format: again five points. 7 The pile supports make possible:
• cleaning of the dwellings,
• separation of traffic into pedestrian and car zones,
• restitution of the built-up ground and public ground to the inhabitants,
• a sheltering awning (abri) that gives protection from sun and rain, and also for children at play,
• and abolition of the facade: there is neither front nor back to the house any more.
Thus, la maison est au dessus; which, leaving as much open as the French wording, might translate as the house is above ground.
The five points about the pilotis don t have the same suggestive logic as the five general points about the new house. In particular, the point regard ing restitution (recuperation) of the ground is disquieting, since it jumps from categories drawn from concrete, everyday experience to a moral-legal category. Especially because the conclusion lies between the lines as an inter ruption or contrast, we must examine it more closely. As far as I know, LC represented this thesis about the restitution of the building ground only one more time in a drawing (figure 4), in the second of the ten lectures he gave in Buenos Aires (October 1929), published as a book under the title Precisions. Using both drawing and verbal argument, he tries to clarify his thesis that the garden under the house is a repossession (reconquis) and the garden on top of the house is an additional gain (gagne).
《建築五點》（Les 5 Points, 1926）：新材料，一種新住宅
巴黎救世軍「人民宮」（Palais du Peuple）才剛落成（1926年），勒·柯布西耶（Le Corbusier）便與皮埃爾·讓納雷（Pierre Jeanneret）共同發表了他們的〈建築五點〉（Les 5 points d’une architecture nouvelle）。這五點看似奇異，卻充滿暗示性的邏輯，其理論根源可追溯至十九世紀末工業時代的偉大發明——鋼筋混凝土（reinforced concrete），最初以鐵筋、後來以鋼筋加強。法語中稱之為 béton armé（裝甲混凝土），語源來自軍事術語，與當時另一新詞「前衛」（avant-garde）在抽象繪畫中類似，皆為對傳統語彙的挪用。
在這種結構中，金屬格構充當骨架，賦予水泥、水與碎石混合而成的黏稠物質以緊實度與承重力。建築師可藉此向兩個方向進行創新：一是改變「荷重與支撐」的傳統關係，將粗壯柱體轉變為纖細甚至極薄的支柱（勒·柯布西耶稱之為「柱腳」（pilotis））；二是重新思考材料本身的表現可能，將傳統厚牆轉化為薄板，從而實現前所未有的水平懸挑陽台與雨遮。
儘管居住於拉修德封（La Chaux-de-Fonds）使勒·柯布西耶遠離歐洲鋼筋混凝土應用的中心，但命運的巧合讓他親歷其事。他的童年好友馬克斯·杜波瓦（Max du Bois）比他年長三歲，居於鄰鎮勒洛克爾（Le Locle），當時剛於瑞士唯一的理工學院——蘇黎世聯邦理工學院（ETH）畢業，成為著名鋼筋混凝土專家莫施（E. Morsch）教授的助手。1909年，杜波瓦將莫施的權威著作翻譯成法文出版，命名為《Le béton armé》，並選在巴黎出版（見圖1）。他將此譯本贈與勒·柯布西耶，使後者在22歲時面對三重挑戰：
一是，他眼前出現了一種完全不同於傳統石磚疊砌法的建築材料，它可以澆鑄成形，開創嶄新建築可能（見圖2）；
二是，此書厚重，充滿數學公式，強調建構邏輯與工程精算，對勒·柯布西耶而言無疑形成一種知識壓力；
三是，這本充滿科學精神的書使他對建築工程學這門與建築專業緊密相關的學問產生由衷敬意。
即便年輕的勒·柯布西耶初時充滿嫉妒、畏懼與欽佩之情，他仍迅速轉化這些情緒為一種積極的敬畏，並將其視為創作動力。十四年後，他發表了《邁向建築》（Vers une architecture, 1923），可謂他對混凝土奇蹟與量產現代性的讚歌；三年後，他推出〈建築五點〉，為打造新住宅提出一套總體處方。
這份「暗示性邏輯」首先體現在第一點：柱腳（les pilotis）。勒·柯布西耶持續不懈的研究成果，在他看來已達「實驗室成果」的等級（acquis de laboratoire）。他在開篇第二段以四句話簡潔表述其核心：
「柱腳之上的住宅。住宅過去深埋於地：陰暗且常濕。鋼筋混凝土賦予我們柱腳。住宅浮於空中，遠離地面；花園穿行於住宅下方，也存在於屋頂之上。」
（La maison sur pilotis. La maison s’enfonçait dans le sol : locaux obscurs et souvent humides. Le ciment armé nous donne les pilotis. La maison est en l’air, loin du sol ; le jardin passe sous la maison, le jardin est aussi sur la maison, sur le toit.）
此後第二至第五點（見圖3）皆可視為此結論的邏輯延伸：
2. 屋頂花園（les toits-jardins）
3. 自由平面（le plan libre）
4. 橫向長窗（la fenêtre en longueur）
5. 無承重牆的帷幕立面（la façade libre）
將勒·柯布西耶想像為一位對抗潮濕地窖的鬥士，或許令人發噱，但實際上這一「抬升建築於空中」的構想，顯然涉及更深層的現代性意義。過去，唯有在童話故事中建築才會離地而起；如今，它成為建築實踐的可能。對這個前衛世代而言，這種「雙重土地再生」的構想（即地面與屋頂皆為花園）是否足以解釋其魅力？或還蘊含其他象徵？
明確的是，勒·柯布西耶對「柱腳」的詮釋遠比同時代的華特·葛羅培斯（Walter Gropius）、密斯·凡德羅（Mies van der Rohe）或里特費爾德（Gerrit Rietveld）更為徹底。對他而言，柱腳不只是立面裝飾或高架門廊的附屬物，而是一種將整座建築抬升離地的結構理念。1926年前後，他的建築實踐便將「柱腳」與「空中之屋」（la maison en l’air）視為彼此預設、密不可分的關係。
這一觀點可從《建築五點》的四幅對比插圖中獲得印證：
第一幅圖，建築已離地，僅在基地上留下幾個點狀基柱，仿如保羅·克利（Paul Klee）筆下的種子；
第二幅圖，牆體因樓板為實心板材而完全擺脫承重任務，得以自由彎曲；
第三幅圖，地窖不復存在，建築下方與屋頂皆可見植物生長；
第四幅圖則較難解讀，建築雖立於柱腳上，卻與街道平台連接，構成雙層交通體系——對居住者而言，這樣的柱腳是否真具意義？是否只是「為了柱腳而柱腳」？實際上，此圖延續了勒·柯布西耶早在1915年提出的「高架城市」構想。
《全集》中五點之後，緊接著是1926年的庫克住宅（Maison Cook）專頁。其首層的單支纖細柱腳與屋頂平台上四根更細的支柱成對比，勒·柯布西耶再次附以評論，標題即為《柱腳》（Les Pilotis），並以五點形式表述柱腳所帶來的五項可能：
- 有利於住宅清潔；
- 區分人車動線；
- 將建築與公共地面重新「歸還」給居民；
- 提供遮陽避雨的庇蔭空間，亦適合兒童遊戲；
- 消解立面概念：住宅無前後之分。
因此，「住宅已然高舉」——（la maison est au-dessus），這樣的法文語句也可意譯為「住宅已凌空」。
然而，這五點柱腳之論與先前五點新住宅原則的邏輯性並不完全對等，特別是其中提及「地面歸還」（restitution）的道德—法律語意，從材料層面突兀地跳躍至價值與制度的層次，值得細究。據我們所知，勒·柯布西耶僅再一次於繪圖中明確主張此概念——即1929年10月在布宜諾斯艾利斯發表的十場講座之一，後出版為《明確性》（Précisions）一書。他在該圖與演講中闡述：「屋下花園為奪回之地（reconquis），屋頂花園為新得之地（gagné）」，試圖結合語言與圖像，重申他對「空中住宅」與現代城市空間的倫理性構想。
