WHAT IS A HOUSE FOR住宅所为何
WHAT IS A HOUSE FOR住宅所为何House byTalk withInfo

Aurora Armental Ruiz and Stefano Ciurlo Walker:  Even now, I clearly remember the reaction of people when I went back to London after my exchange semester in Barcelona and mentioned that I had got to know an interesting house by Charles Moore. Many of them looked at me as if I had said something inappropriate. He was associated with postmodernism, and it wasn’t a welcome reference. I told myself that this mindset needed to change a little. 

WHAT STRUCK YOU ABOUT MOORE’S HOUSE? 

The house is defined by the presence of its envelope. It is an archetypical form, a simple silhouette with a pitched roof, covering an eight-by-eight-meter square floor plan. Inside the architect designed two different aedicules and in doing so defined two spaces within a big one. The first baldachin is a kind of living room, the other one is a space for bathing that you step down into. Each of these spaces is delimitated by four columns that Moore had bought from a demolition site. Acoustically and visually, they are always part of the larger space. The two aedicules support the roof structure which is independent of the envelope. The structure of the building and the structure of habitation don’t coincide but are instead at slight odds to one another.

Moore explored this idea even further with the Sea Ranch project in California, where you have a kind of shell protecting you from the outside, and pieces of furniture or elements inside that define spaces of smaller dimensions. There are no conventional series of rooms - a room for sleeping, a room for cooking, a living room etc. Rooms are zones found within a larger space, that allow a use, but do not determine one. We found this very interesting. 

LET’S MAKE A HYPOTHESIS, IF YOU HAD TO RECONSTRUCT THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING THIS HOUSE, HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAPPENED? 

At the very beginning, he rejected the idea that a bed needed to be in a separate room, where you close yourself and have a small window. The same works for a bath, which doesn´t need to be in a space where you necessarily have a door. Instead, both can be part of a living room, maybe a little sunken, or surrounded by columns, perhaps a bit higher or even with light coming from above - somehow articulated, but not separate from the main space. He was exploring how far one can take the basic functions performed in a house to create unexpected relationships and break free from very common ideas of compartmentation. 

It was a house for his own pleasure; a place to retreat, to and be within much loved surroundings. He wanted to have a sort of basic enclosure, whilst all the while being connected to the outside. He started with the idea of two aedicules forming the two cores of the space. Then, out of necessity, he introduced a thin, movable outer shell, that allows the opening of the four corners of the house. 

IT’S ALMOST AS IF THE REAL HOUSE WAS BETWEEN THE COLUMNS AND THE REST WAS AN ITERATION OF THE OUTER SPACE.

Yes, exactly. The spaces between the aedicules are almost like a veranda or a covered garden. The spaces in the aedicules, between the columns, become the most interior spaces of the sequence. 

It refers closely to the painting San Girolamo by Antonello da Messina, where you have a smaller space, where San Girolamo writes, set within a much larger space in which the rest of the scene unfolds. It was a topic Florian Beigel explored a lot. It is an idea of space-making that interests us very much. 

If we think about the structure of a house as the structure of its rooms, there is an amazing beauty to be found in the Palladian palazzi of Northern Italy. But there is also a huge potential in the separation between the envelope of the building and the interior aedicules. It creates spaces in between, that are less predictable. It also allows the dissolution of the outer shell - directly linking the context or the layering of space between the inside and outside. 

YOU CAN’T HIDE IN THIS HOUSE. DON’T YOU NEED A HOUSE TO GIVE YOU THE POSSIBILITY TO HIDE? 

I remember the house where I lived as a child. There was a kind of large salon where life would happen. The other rooms opened directly onto that space. There was maybe some connection from behind, but there was no definition of either a living room for the daytime or a corridor that links it to the private area of the house. I think the idea of direct circulation from one space to another, from room to room, is something we feel familiar with. 

Charles Moore wrote a book, “The place of houses”. It is a very good book in which he presents his ideas on living in a context, discussing the qualities of a house etc. Especially interesting, in one part called “the order of rooms”, he talks about houses with open rooms that can be used for different uses - just spaces with light. These houses have utilitarian rooms that complete the composition. He traced this topic through history in a very beautiful analysis. Orinda House is an example of that. It’s an open plan with just two small plugins that are enclosed: a toilet and a closet. The main quality is the balance between the two. 

I believe that we need much fewer closed and separated spaces than commonly assumed. 

THIS HOUSE IS AN EXPLORATION OF A FREE PLAN. WITH THIS PREMISE IN MIND, WE COULD GO THE WAY OF MIES VAN DER ROHE AND FIND A STRUCTURAL, TECTONIC SOLUTION TO ACHIEVE THAT. IN MOORE’S HOUSE THERE IS A VERY STRONG PRESENCE OF SCENOGRAPHY, OF ELEMENTS THAT CREATE TENSIONS. DO YOU PERCEIVE IT AS A HIGHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF A FREE PLAN?

I don’t know if it’s higher, or better than other ways of thinking about freedom in plan. For us, what we find important is that there is a freedom of basic acts that need to happen in a space. 

When we were teaching in London, for one of the years we designed housing with the students. Instead of working, in terms of distribution, plan, structure, layout and so on, we went along the Charles Moore path and asked them to think about activities. We asked them: how would you like to cook? How do you relate something that you cook to something that you put on the table? How would you sleep? How do you drink coffee? How would you talk to a friend that comes by? 

The students did not concentrate on room layouts, instead, they talked about use and atmospheric ideas of space. And from there the projects emerged. Other projects in the school also looked at housing, and they were special in a different way, representing rich relationships and characteristics. We were trying to bring our students to think about how they would like to live themselves. 

We understood that to liberate and stimulate the process of design, it is important to put ideas of diverse uses at the centre of how one thinks about a house. Charles Moore’s house seems to be a materialisation of this process. 

It is all about how you live, how you relate to your bodily functions and what kind of unplanned situations architecture allows to emerge. 

Perhaps Mies van Der Rohe’s understanding of freedom was different. 

His houses are more about how you perceive yourself or how you relate to a guest, intellectually, spatially etc. Mies van Der Rohe dealt with the same core ideas of freedom but articulated them differently because he had a different way of relating to the world. When he behaved in a free way it meant something else for him than for Charles Moore. Moore was of the American generation who started careers after WWII and was therefore much more casual in the way he saw all aspects of life. His freedom was not an absolute, ideal, contemplative one, he saw it more as a possibility of choice in an environment of sufficient richness and diversity. 

His house is almost like a cocoon that he built for himself or a small group of people. It is where he shows himself as he really is, without playing a role in the scene. He bathes, he plays music, sits on the sofa with his friends and more to the point, enjoys it. 

The central focus in American culture was as it is now, the individual, whoever he or she may be. In Europe, we always tend to think more in terms of society, how others see what we do, how to share what we have, and what kind of universal, understandable values we stand for etc. This could be one reason why in Europe, we see architecture in a more formal way and are skeptical about the playful, funny, rhetorical, or symbolic elements. 

INTRODUCING ELEMENTS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE MOST SACRED RELIGIOUS SPACES TO A SMALL HOUSE, IS INDEED WITTY. 

I think it’s quite provocative as a gesture because the aedicules were historically, always built above altars, but I don’t read them as sacred in this case. I also doubt that it was the intention of Moore to evoke an aura of mystery or sacralise domestic space. I like to see it more in compositional terms - as a piece of furniture or a kind of building within the building. It is a spatial idea, which links it back to the core aspects of architecture, of how you subdivide space, and how you establish hierarchies or tensions in space. 

The fact that these elements can be linked to another time, or typology etc. only makes the whole more playful and introduces a component of surprise. 

WE KNOW THE STRATEGIES OF PUTTING DIFFERENT THINGS TOGETHER FROM THE BRICOLAGE TECHNIQUES FOUND IN DIVERSE FORMS OF ART. IN THIS HOUSE, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THE CHARACTER OF DO-IT-YOURSELF, WAS AVOIDED. HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAPPENED? WHAT WERE THE COMPONENTS OF THE METHOD TO ENSURE THE CLASSICAL ELEGANCE THAT ENSUED? 

I think the secret is that there is a good architect in motion. There is a kind of tension between the distance of the columns. I think one feels that there is a sensibility of a classically trained architect, making decisions in another idiom rather than just purely in the logic of found objects. 

The columns have a kind of pronounced entasis, so they clearly belong to another language than the rest of the house. There is a kind of finesse in how the elements are made and connected. It’s true that there are some references to barns and vernacular construction. Moore and his collaborators looked at rural architecture in America, importing visual references and constructive references from that kind of vernacular to their architecture. For architects of that period, it was not something one did. However, it’s not all this house plays with. 

DO YOU KNOW HOW THIS HOUSE WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME; DID IT HAVE A CULTURAL IMPACT? 

The idea of Frank Lloyd Wright - of a bold architect that arrives and says: "I’m going to build a Falling Water House", was something Moore was rather skeptical about. He tried to humanise the act of designing and building, in his will to “make buildings where people felt they belonged”. 

Perhaps this also partially explains the mixture of materials, using the reclaimed elements and flirting with a classical repertoire. He was a cultured and knowledgeable person without dogma. He rather chose to play around with what he learned, because it seemed more natural to him. He was neither modern nor a historicist. 

The house we discuss was probably his most experimental one because he designed it for himself. It contrasts the soaked-with-tradition elements directly with the most banal, ordinary, industrial parts, “without architectonic ambitions”. The results of which, were shocking for a house at that time. 

HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THE QUALITY OF THIS KIND OF OPERATION? 

I think it boils down to a kind of unexpectedness. If you work in a way which is not necessarily linear, not based on a pre-established set of rules, it brings potentially more surprises. 

We, as Estar, like to work with physical models that allow space to be explored in an unorthodox way. I like seeing a path that we could not imagine, something that opens a possibility. We enjoy it most when there is a kind of discovery, when suddenly something that was planned and laid out, becomes something else.

22.03.2022

奥罗拉-阿门塔尔-鲁伊斯 和 斯特凡诺-乔罗-沃克: 即使是现在，我也清楚地记得，当我结束了巴塞罗那的交换学期回到伦敦后，提到我得知查尔斯-摩尔的一个有趣的住宅时，人们的反应。许多人看着我，好像我说了什么不合时宜的话。摩尔关乎于后现代主义，而这不是一个受欢迎的案例。我告诉自己，这种心态需要改变一下了。

莫尔的住宅有什么打动你的地方？

这座住宅是由它的外围来定义的。它的形式是一种原型，一个带着斜屋顶的简单轮廓，覆盖一个八米乘八米的平面。在内部，建筑师设计了两个不同的龛，这样就在一个大的空间内定义了两个空间。第一个华盖像是起居室，另一个是沐浴的空间，你可以走下去。每个空间都由四根柱子划定界限，柱子像是摩尔从一个拆迁现场买来的。在声学和视觉上，它们始终是大空间的一部分。这两个龛支撑着独立于外围的屋顶结构。建筑的结构和居住的结构并不重合，而是相互之间有一些矛盾。

摩尔在加利福尼亚的海洋牧场项目中进一步探讨了这一想法，在那里你有一种保护你免受外界影响的外壳，而里面的家具或元素则界定了较小的空间。这里没有传统的房间系列--睡觉的房间、做饭的房间、客厅等。

房间是在一个更大的空间内找到的区域，允许使用，但不决定用途。我们发现这非常有趣。 

让我们做一个假设，如果你不得不重构这所住宅的设计过程，你认为它是如何发生的？

从一开始，他就拒绝了床需要在一个单独的房间内的想法，在那里你封闭自己，有一个小窗户。浴室也是如此，它不须要在一个有门的空间里。相反，两者都可以是客厅的一部分，也许有点下沉，或被柱子包围，也许有点高，甚至有光线从上面照下来——以某种方式衔接，但不与主要空间分开。他在探索一个人可以在多大程度上利用住宅的基本功能，创造出意想不到的关系，并摆脱非常普遍的隔断的观念。

这是为他自己的乐趣而建的住宅；一个可以隐退的地方，并在深受喜爱的环境中生活。他希望有一种基本的围墙，同时又能与外界相连。他首先想到的是由两个龛构成空间的两个核心。然后，出于需要，他引入了一个轻薄的、可移动的外壳，使住宅的四个角可以打开。

这几乎就像真正的住宅在柱子之间，其余部分是外部空间的迭代。

是的，没错。龛之间的空间几乎就像一个长廊或一个有顶的花园。在柱子之间的空间，成为序列中最内向的空间。

它与安东尼奥-达-梅西纳的画作《圣客吉罗拉莫》密切相关，在那里你有一个较小的空间，即圣客吉罗拉莫写作的地方，而其余的场景在一个更大的空间里展开。这是弗洛里安-贝格尔经常探讨的一个话题。这是一个我们非常感兴趣的制造空间的想法。

如果我们把住宅的结构看成是房间的结构，那么在意大利北部的帕拉迪奥宫廷建筑中可以发现一种惊人的美。但是，在建筑的外围和内部壁龛之间的分离也有着巨大的潜力。它在两者之间创造了空间，这是不太可预测的。它也允许外壳的溶解——直接连接于语境或内部和外部的空间分层。

你不能躲在这锁住宅里。难道你不需要一个住宅来给你藏身的可能性吗？

我记得我小时候生活的住宅。有一个大的沙龙，生活就在那里发生。其他房间直接向那个空间开放。也许有一些从后面的连接，但没有定义白天的客厅，或连接它和住宅私密区域的走廊。我认为从一个空间到另一个空间，从一个房间到另一个房间的直接流通的想法，是我们感到熟悉的。

查尔斯-摩尔写了一本书，《住宅的地方(The Place of houses)》。这是一本非常好的书，他在书中介绍了自己对居住环境的想法，讨论了住宅的品质等。特别有趣的是，在一个叫做 "房间的秩序 "的部分，他谈到了有开放房间的住宅，可以用于不同的用途——只是有光线的空间。这些住宅有功能性的房间来完成构图。他以一个非常漂亮的分析追溯了这个话题的历史。奥林达住宅(Orinda House)就是一个例子。它是一个开放的平面，只有两个封闭的小插件：一个厕所和一个壁橱。品质主要来自于两者之间的平衡。

我相信，我们需要封闭和分离的空间比通常假设的要少得多。

这个住宅是对自由平面的探索。在这个前提下，我们可以走密斯-凡-德-罗的路线，找到一个结构性的、构造性的解决方案来实现这个目标。在摩尔的住宅里，场景设计和创造张力的元素，有着强烈的存在感。你认为这是对自由平面的传统理解的一个更高的发展吗？

我不知道这是否更高，或比其他思考自由的平面更好。对我们来说，我们发现重要的是，对于一个空间内要发生的基本行为，有一种自由。
当我们在伦敦教学时，有一年我们和学生一起设计住房。我们没有在分配、计划、结构、布局等方面进行工作，而是沿着查尔斯-摩尔的道路，要求他们思考活动。我们问他们：你想怎么做饭？你如何将你做的东西与你放在桌子上的东西联系起来？你会如何睡觉？你如何喝咖啡？你会如何与前来的朋友交谈？

学生们没有专注于房间的布局，相反，他们谈论了空间的使用和氛围的想法。从那里出现了这些项目。学校的其他项目也关注住房问题，它们以不同的方式表现丰富的关系和特点。我们试图让我们的学生思考他们自己想怎样生活。

我们了解到，为了解放和激发设计流程，在构思住宅时，将多种不同用途的想法置于中心是非常重要的。查尔斯-莫尔住宅似乎是这个流程的具象化。

这全都关乎于你如何生活，如何与你的身体功能连接，以及建筑允许什么样的非计划情况出现。
也许密斯-凡-德-罗对自由的理解是不同的。他的房子更多的是关于你如何看待自己，或者你如何与客人发现关系，智识上的、空间上的，等等。密斯-凡-德-罗处理的是同样的自由的核心思想，但却以不同的方式表达，因为他有不同的方式与世界联系。当他以自由的方式行事时，这对他来说有着与查尔斯-莫尔不同的意味。摩尔属于二战后开始职业生涯的美国一代，因此他看待生活各个层面的方式更加随意。他的自由不是一种绝对的、理想的、沉思的自由，他更多地把它看作是在足够丰富和多样化的环境中的一种选择的可能性。
他的房子几乎就像一个他为自己或一小群人建造的茧。在这里，他展示了自己真实的一面，没有在现场扮演一个角色。他洗澡，放音乐，和他的朋友们坐在沙发上，更重要的是，他很享受这种感觉。

美国文化的核心焦点和现在一样，是个人，无论他或她是谁。在欧洲，我们总是倾向于更多地从社会角度考虑，别人如何看待我们所做的事情，如何分享我们所拥有的东西，以及我们代表什么样的普遍的、可以理解的价值观等等。这可能是为什么在欧洲，我们以更正式的方式看待建筑，而对俏皮的、有趣的、修辞的或象征性的元素持怀疑态度的一个原因。

将最神圣的宗教空间所特有的元素引入到小住宅中，确实很有创意。

我认为这是一个相当具有挑衅性的姿态，因为从历史上看，龛总是建在祭坛之上，但我不认为它们在这种情况下是神圣的。我也怀疑摩尔的意图是唤起一种神秘的光环或使居家空间神圣化。

我更喜欢从构图的角度来看待它——作为一件家具或建筑中的一种建筑。这是一个空间概念，这使它回到了建筑的核心层面，即你如何细分空间，以及你如何在空间中建立等级或张力。
事实上，这些元素可以与另外的时间或类型等联系起来，这只会让整体更具玩味，并引入惊喜的成分。

我们知道把不同的东西放在一起的策略，从不同形式的艺术中发现的杂乱无章的技术。在这所住宅中，我有一种感觉，就是避免了 "自己动手 "的特点。你认为这是怎么发生的？该方法的组成部分是什么，以确保随之而来的古典优雅的风格？ 

我认为秘密在于，有一个善于处理动态的建筑师。柱子的距离之间有一种张力。我认为人们感受到了其中有一个受过古典主义训练的建筑师的感性，在另一个习语中做出决定，而不仅仅在找到的物体的逻辑中。

柱子有一种明显的收分线，所以相较于住宅的其他部分，它们显然属于另一种语言。在这些元素的制作和连接方式上有一种巧妙。的确，有一些参考了谷仓和乡土建筑。摩尔和他的合作者研究了美国的乡村建筑，将视觉参考和建构参考从那种乡土建筑中引入到他们的建筑中。对于那个时期的建筑师来说，不止一个人做过这件事。然而，这并不是这所住宅的全部手法。

你知道这所住宅在当时是如何被接受的吗；它有文化影响吗？

弗兰克-劳埃德-赖特的想法——一个大胆的建筑师来到这里，说我要建造一个落水屋，这是摩尔相当怀疑的事情。他试图使设计和建造的行为人性化，他的意愿是 "建造人们感到属于自己的建筑"。也许这也部分解释了材料的混合，使用回收的元素和与古典剧目调情。他是一个有文化、有知识、没有教条的人。他宁愿选择把玩他所学的东西，因为这对他来说似乎更自然。他既不是现代主义者，也不是历史主义者。

我们讨论的这所住宅可能是他最具实验性的，因为他是为自己设计的。它将浸泡在传统中的元素与最平庸、普通、工业化的部分直接对比，"没有建筑学的野心"。其结果，对于当时的住宅来说是令人震惊的。


你如何定义这种行动的质量？

我认为这可以归结为一种意外性。如果你的工作方式不一定是线性的，不基于预先设定的一套规则，它可能会带来更多的惊喜。
我们，作为埃斯塔尔事务所，喜欢用物理模型工作，让空间以非正统的方式被探索。我喜欢看到一条我们无法想象的道路，开启了一种可能性的东西。我们最喜欢的是一种发现，突然间计划好和布置好的东西，变成了别的什么。

2022年03月22日

Aurora Armental Ruiz and Stefano Ciurlo Walker:  Even now, I clearly remember the reaction of people when I went back to London after my exchange semester in Barcelona and mentioned that I had got to know an interesting house by Charles Moore. Many of them looked at me as if I had said something inappropriate. He was associated with postmodernism, and it wasn’t a welcome reference. I told myself that this mindset needed to change a little. 

WHAT STRUCK YOU ABOUT MOORE’S HOUSE? 

The house is defined by the presence of its envelope. It is an archetypical form, a simple silhouette with a pitched roof, covering an eight-by-eight-meter square floor plan. Inside the architect designed two different aedicules and in doing so defined two spaces within a big one. The first baldachin is a kind of living room, the other one is a space for bathing that you step down into. Each of these spaces is delimitated by four columns that Moore had bought from a demolition site. Acoustically and visually, they are always part of the larger space. The two aedicules support the roof structure which is independent of the envelope. The structure of the building and the structure of habitation don’t coincide but are instead at slight odds to one another.

Moore explored this idea even further with the Sea Ranch project in California, where you have a kind of shell protecting you from the outside, and pieces of furniture or elements inside that define spaces of smaller dimensions. There are no conventional series of rooms - a room for sleeping, a room for cooking, a living room etc. Rooms are zones found within a larger space, that allow a use, but do not determine one. We found this very interesting. 

LET’S MAKE A HYPOTHESIS, IF YOU HAD TO RECONSTRUCT THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING THIS HOUSE, HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAPPENED? 

At the very beginning, he rejected the idea that a bed needed to be in a separate room, where you close yourself and have a small window. The same works for a bath, which doesn´t need to be in a space where you necessarily have a door. Instead, both can be part of a living room, maybe a little sunken, or surrounded by columns, perhaps a bit higher or even with light coming from above - somehow articulated, but not separate from the main space. He was exploring how far one can take the basic functions performed in a house to create unexpected relationships and break free from very common ideas of compartmentation. 

It was a house for his own pleasure; a place to retreat, to and be within much loved surroundings. He wanted to have a sort of basic enclosure, whilst all the while being connected to the outside. He started with the idea of two aedicules forming the two cores of the space. Then, out of necessity, he introduced a thin, movable outer shell, that allows the opening of the four corners of the house. 

IT’S ALMOST AS IF THE REAL HOUSE WAS BETWEEN THE COLUMNS AND THE REST WAS AN ITERATION OF THE OUTER SPACE.

Yes, exactly. The spaces between the aedicules are almost like a veranda or a covered garden. The spaces in the aedicules, between the columns, become the most interior spaces of the sequence. 

It refers closely to the painting San Girolamo by Antonello da Messina, where you have a smaller space, where San Girolamo writes, set within a much larger space in which the rest of the scene unfolds. It was a topic Florian Beigel explored a lot. It is an idea of space-making that interests us very much. 

If we think about the structure of a house as the structure of its rooms, there is an amazing beauty to be found in the Palladian palazzi of Northern Italy. But there is also a huge potential in the separation between the envelope of the building and the interior aedicules. It creates spaces in between, that are less predictable. It also allows the dissolution of the outer shell - directly linking the context or the layering of space between the inside and outside. 

YOU CAN’T HIDE IN THIS HOUSE. DON’T YOU NEED A HOUSE TO GIVE YOU THE POSSIBILITY TO HIDE? 

I remember the house where I lived as a child. There was a kind of large salon where life would happen. The other rooms opened directly onto that space. There was maybe some connection from behind, but there was no definition of either a living room for the daytime or a corridor that links it to the private area of the house. I think the idea of direct circulation from one space to another, from room to room, is something we feel familiar with. 

Charles Moore wrote a book, “The place of houses”. It is a very good book in which he presents his ideas on living in a context, discussing the qualities of a house etc. Especially interesting, in one part called “the order of rooms”, he talks about houses with open rooms that can be used for different uses - just spaces with light. These houses have utilitarian rooms that complete the composition. He traced this topic through history in a very beautiful analysis. Orinda House is an example of that. It’s an open plan with just two small plugins that are enclosed: a toilet and a closet. The main quality is the balance between the two. 

I believe that we need much fewer closed and separated spaces than commonly assumed. 

THIS HOUSE IS AN EXPLORATION OF A FREE PLAN. WITH THIS PREMISE IN MIND, WE COULD GO THE WAY OF MIES VAN DER ROHE AND FIND A STRUCTURAL, TECTONIC SOLUTION TO ACHIEVE THAT. IN MOORE’S HOUSE THERE IS A VERY STRONG PRESENCE OF SCENOGRAPHY, OF ELEMENTS THAT CREATE TENSIONS. DO YOU PERCEIVE IT AS A HIGHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF A FREE PLAN?

I don’t know if it’s higher, or better than other ways of thinking about freedom in plan. For us, what we find important is that there is a freedom of basic acts that need to happen in a space. 

When we were teaching in London, for one of the years we designed housing with the students. Instead of working, in terms of distribution, plan, structure, layout and so on, we went along the Charles Moore path and asked them to think about activities. We asked them: how would you like to cook? How do you relate something that you cook to something that you put on the table? How would you sleep? How do you drink coffee? How would you talk to a friend that comes by? 

The students did not concentrate on room layouts, instead, they talked about use and atmospheric ideas of space. And from there the projects emerged. Other projects in the school also looked at housing, and they were special in a different way, representing rich relationships and characteristics. We were trying to bring our students to think about how they would like to live themselves. 

We understood that to liberate and stimulate the process of design, it is important to put ideas of diverse uses at the centre of how one thinks about a house. Charles Moore’s house seems to be a materialisation of this process. 

It is all about how you live, how you relate to your bodily functions and what kind of unplanned situations architecture allows to emerge. 

Perhaps Mies van Der Rohe’s understanding of freedom was different. 

His houses are more about how you perceive yourself or how you relate to a guest, intellectually, spatially etc. Mies van Der Rohe dealt with the same core ideas of freedom but articulated them differently because he had a different way of relating to the world. When he behaved in a free way it meant something else for him than for Charles Moore. Moore was of the American generation who started careers after WWII and was therefore much more casual in the way he saw all aspects of life. His freedom was not an absolute, ideal, contemplative one, he saw it more as a possibility of choice in an environment of sufficient richness and diversity. 

His house is almost like a cocoon that he built for himself or a small group of people. It is where he shows himself as he really is, without playing a role in the scene. He bathes, he plays music, sits on the sofa with his friends and more to the point, enjoys it. 

The central focus in American culture was as it is now, the individual, whoever he or she may be. In Europe, we always tend to think more in terms of society, how others see what we do, how to share what we have, and what kind of universal, understandable values we stand for etc. This could be one reason why in Europe, we see architecture in a more formal way and are skeptical about the playful, funny, rhetorical, or symbolic elements. 

INTRODUCING ELEMENTS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE MOST SACRED RELIGIOUS SPACES TO A SMALL HOUSE, IS INDEED WITTY. 

I think it’s quite provocative as a gesture because the aedicules were historically, always built above altars, but I don’t read them as sacred in this case. I also doubt that it was the intention of Moore to evoke an aura of mystery or sacralise domestic space. I like to see it more in compositional terms - as a piece of furniture or a kind of building within the building. It is a spatial idea, which links it back to the core aspects of architecture, of how you subdivide space, and how you establish hierarchies or tensions in space. 

The fact that these elements can be linked to another time, or typology etc. only makes the whole more playful and introduces a component of surprise. 

WE KNOW THE STRATEGIES OF PUTTING DIFFERENT THINGS TOGETHER FROM THE BRICOLAGE TECHNIQUES FOUND IN DIVERSE FORMS OF ART. IN THIS HOUSE, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THE CHARACTER OF DO-IT-YOURSELF, WAS AVOIDED. HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAPPENED? WHAT WERE THE COMPONENTS OF THE METHOD TO ENSURE THE CLASSICAL ELEGANCE THAT ENSUED? 

I think the secret is that there is a good architect in motion. There is a kind of tension between the distance of the columns. I think one feels that there is a sensibility of a classically trained architect, making decisions in another idiom rather than just purely in the logic of found objects. 

The columns have a kind of pronounced entasis, so they clearly belong to another language than the rest of the house. There is a kind of finesse in how the elements are made and connected. It’s true that there are some references to barns and vernacular construction. Moore and his collaborators looked at rural architecture in America, importing visual references and constructive references from that kind of vernacular to their architecture. For architects of that period, it was not something one did. However, it’s not all this house plays with. 

DO YOU KNOW HOW THIS HOUSE WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME; DID IT HAVE A CULTURAL IMPACT? 

The idea of Frank Lloyd Wright - of a bold architect that arrives and says: "I’m going to build a Falling Water House", was something Moore was rather skeptical about. He tried to humanise the act of designing and building, in his will to “make buildings where people felt they belonged”. 

Perhaps this also partially explains the mixture of materials, using the reclaimed elements and flirting with a classical repertoire. He was a cultured and knowledgeable person without dogma. He rather chose to play around with what he learned, because it seemed more natural to him. He was neither modern nor a historicist. 

The house we discuss was probably his most experimental one because he designed it for himself. It contrasts the soaked-with-tradition elements directly with the most banal, ordinary, industrial parts, “without architectonic ambitions”. The results of which, were shocking for a house at that time. 

HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THE QUALITY OF THIS KIND OF OPERATION? 

I think it boils down to a kind of unexpectedness. If you work in a way which is not necessarily linear, not based on a pre-established set of rules, it brings potentially more surprises. 

We, as Estar, like to work with physical models that allow space to be explored in an unorthodox way. I like seeing a path that we could not imagine, something that opens a possibility. We enjoy it most when there is a kind of discovery, when suddenly something that was planned and laid out, becomes something else.

22.03.2022

奥罗拉-阿门塔尔-鲁伊斯 和 斯特凡诺-乔罗-沃克: 即使是现在，我也清楚地记得，当我结束了巴塞罗那的交换学期回到伦敦后，提到我得知查尔斯-摩尔的一个有趣的住宅时，人们的反应。许多人看着我，好像我说了什么不合时宜的话。摩尔关乎于后现代主义，而这不是一个受欢迎的案例。我告诉自己，这种心态需要改变一下了。

莫尔的住宅有什么打动你的地方？

这座住宅是由它的外围来定义的。它的形式是一种原型，一个带着斜屋顶的简单轮廓，覆盖一个八米乘八米的平面。在内部，建筑师设计了两个不同的龛，这样就在一个大的空间内定义了两个空间。第一个华盖像是起居室，另一个是沐浴的空间，你可以走下去。每个空间都由四根柱子划定界限，柱子像是摩尔从一个拆迁现场买来的。在声学和视觉上，它们始终是大空间的一部分。这两个龛支撑着独立于外围的屋顶结构。建筑的结构和居住的结构并不重合，而是相互之间有一些矛盾。

摩尔在加利福尼亚的海洋牧场项目中进一步探讨了这一想法，在那里你有一种保护你免受外界影响的外壳，而里面的家具或元素则界定了较小的空间。这里没有传统的房间系列--睡觉的房间、做饭的房间、客厅等。

房间是在一个更大的空间内找到的区域，允许使用，但不决定用途。我们发现这非常有趣。 

让我们做一个假设，如果你不得不重构这所住宅的设计过程，你认为它是如何发生的？

从一开始，他就拒绝了床需要在一个单独的房间内的想法，在那里你封闭自己，有一个小窗户。浴室也是如此，它不须要在一个有门的空间里。相反，两者都可以是客厅的一部分，也许有点下沉，或被柱子包围，也许有点高，甚至有光线从上面照下来——以某种方式衔接，但不与主要空间分开。他在探索一个人可以在多大程度上利用住宅的基本功能，创造出意想不到的关系，并摆脱非常普遍的隔断的观念。

这是为他自己的乐趣而建的住宅；一个可以隐退的地方，并在深受喜爱的环境中生活。他希望有一种基本的围墙，同时又能与外界相连。他首先想到的是由两个龛构成空间的两个核心。然后，出于需要，他引入了一个轻薄的、可移动的外壳，使住宅的四个角可以打开。

这几乎就像真正的住宅在柱子之间，其余部分是外部空间的迭代。

是的，没错。龛之间的空间几乎就像一个长廊或一个有顶的花园。在柱子之间的空间，成为序列中最内向的空间。

它与安东尼奥-达-梅西纳的画作《圣客吉罗拉莫》密切相关，在那里你有一个较小的空间，即圣客吉罗拉莫写作的地方，而其余的场景在一个更大的空间里展开。这是弗洛里安-贝格尔经常探讨的一个话题。这是一个我们非常感兴趣的制造空间的想法。

如果我们把住宅的结构看成是房间的结构，那么在意大利北部的帕拉迪奥宫廷建筑中可以发现一种惊人的美。但是，在建筑的外围和内部壁龛之间的分离也有着巨大的潜力。它在两者之间创造了空间，这是不太可预测的。它也允许外壳的溶解——直接连接于语境或内部和外部的空间分层。

你不能躲在这锁住宅里。难道你不需要一个住宅来给你藏身的可能性吗？

我记得我小时候生活的住宅。有一个大的沙龙，生活就在那里发生。其他房间直接向那个空间开放。也许有一些从后面的连接，但没有定义白天的客厅，或连接它和住宅私密区域的走廊。我认为从一个空间到另一个空间，从一个房间到另一个房间的直接流通的想法，是我们感到熟悉的。

查尔斯-摩尔写了一本书，《住宅的地方(The Place of houses)》。这是一本非常好的书，他在书中介绍了自己对居住环境的想法，讨论了住宅的品质等。特别有趣的是，在一个叫做 "房间的秩序 "的部分，他谈到了有开放房间的住宅，可以用于不同的用途——只是有光线的空间。这些住宅有功能性的房间来完成构图。他以一个非常漂亮的分析追溯了这个话题的历史。奥林达住宅(Orinda House)就是一个例子。它是一个开放的平面，只有两个封闭的小插件：一个厕所和一个壁橱。品质主要来自于两者之间的平衡。

我相信，我们需要封闭和分离的空间比通常假设的要少得多。

这个住宅是对自由平面的探索。在这个前提下，我们可以走密斯-凡-德-罗的路线，找到一个结构性的、构造性的解决方案来实现这个目标。在摩尔的住宅里，场景设计和创造张力的元素，有着强烈的存在感。你认为这是对自由平面的传统理解的一个更高的发展吗？

我不知道这是否更高，或比其他思考自由的平面更好。对我们来说，我们发现重要的是，对于一个空间内要发生的基本行为，有一种自由。
当我们在伦敦教学时，有一年我们和学生一起设计住房。我们没有在分配、计划、结构、布局等方面进行工作，而是沿着查尔斯-摩尔的道路，要求他们思考活动。我们问他们：你想怎么做饭？你如何将你做的东西与你放在桌子上的东西联系起来？你会如何睡觉？你如何喝咖啡？你会如何与前来的朋友交谈？

学生们没有专注于房间的布局，相反，他们谈论了空间的使用和氛围的想法。从那里出现了这些项目。学校的其他项目也关注住房问题，它们以不同的方式表现丰富的关系和特点。我们试图让我们的学生思考他们自己想怎样生活。

我们了解到，为了解放和激发设计流程，在构思住宅时，将多种不同用途的想法置于中心是非常重要的。查尔斯-莫尔住宅似乎是这个流程的具象化。

这全都关乎于你如何生活，如何与你的身体功能连接，以及建筑允许什么样的非计划情况出现。
也许密斯-凡-德-罗对自由的理解是不同的。他的房子更多的是关于你如何看待自己，或者你如何与客人发现关系，智识上的、空间上的，等等。密斯-凡-德-罗处理的是同样的自由的核心思想，但却以不同的方式表达，因为他有不同的方式与世界联系。当他以自由的方式行事时，这对他来说有着与查尔斯-莫尔不同的意味。摩尔属于二战后开始职业生涯的美国一代，因此他看待生活各个层面的方式更加随意。他的自由不是一种绝对的、理想的、沉思的自由，他更多地把它看作是在足够丰富和多样化的环境中的一种选择的可能性。
他的房子几乎就像一个他为自己或一小群人建造的茧。在这里，他展示了自己真实的一面，没有在现场扮演一个角色。他洗澡，放音乐，和他的朋友们坐在沙发上，更重要的是，他很享受这种感觉。

美国文化的核心焦点和现在一样，是个人，无论他或她是谁。在欧洲，我们总是倾向于更多地从社会角度考虑，别人如何看待我们所做的事情，如何分享我们所拥有的东西，以及我们代表什么样的普遍的、可以理解的价值观等等。这可能是为什么在欧洲，我们以更正式的方式看待建筑，而对俏皮的、有趣的、修辞的或象征性的元素持怀疑态度的一个原因。

将最神圣的宗教空间所特有的元素引入到小住宅中，确实很有创意。

我认为这是一个相当具有挑衅性的姿态，因为从历史上看，龛总是建在祭坛之上，但我不认为它们在这种情况下是神圣的。我也怀疑摩尔的意图是唤起一种神秘的光环或使居家空间神圣化。

我更喜欢从构图的角度来看待它——作为一件家具或建筑中的一种建筑。这是一个空间概念，这使它回到了建筑的核心层面，即你如何细分空间，以及你如何在空间中建立等级或张力。
事实上，这些元素可以与另外的时间或类型等联系起来，这只会让整体更具玩味，并引入惊喜的成分。

我们知道把不同的东西放在一起的策略，从不同形式的艺术中发现的杂乱无章的技术。在这所住宅中，我有一种感觉，就是避免了 "自己动手 "的特点。你认为这是怎么发生的？该方法的组成部分是什么，以确保随之而来的古典优雅的风格？ 

我认为秘密在于，有一个善于处理动态的建筑师。柱子的距离之间有一种张力。我认为人们感受到了其中有一个受过古典主义训练的建筑师的感性，在另一个习语中做出决定，而不仅仅在找到的物体的逻辑中。

柱子有一种明显的收分线，所以相较于住宅的其他部分，它们显然属于另一种语言。在这些元素的制作和连接方式上有一种巧妙。的确，有一些参考了谷仓和乡土建筑。摩尔和他的合作者研究了美国的乡村建筑，将视觉参考和建构参考从那种乡土建筑中引入到他们的建筑中。对于那个时期的建筑师来说，不止一个人做过这件事。然而，这并不是这所住宅的全部手法。

你知道这所住宅在当时是如何被接受的吗；它有文化影响吗？

弗兰克-劳埃德-赖特的想法——一个大胆的建筑师来到这里，说我要建造一个落水屋，这是摩尔相当怀疑的事情。他试图使设计和建造的行为人性化，他的意愿是 "建造人们感到属于自己的建筑"。也许这也部分解释了材料的混合，使用回收的元素和与古典剧目调情。他是一个有文化、有知识、没有教条的人。他宁愿选择把玩他所学的东西，因为这对他来说似乎更自然。他既不是现代主义者，也不是历史主义者。

我们讨论的这所住宅可能是他最具实验性的，因为他是为自己设计的。它将浸泡在传统中的元素与最平庸、普通、工业化的部分直接对比，"没有建筑学的野心"。其结果，对于当时的住宅来说是令人震惊的。


你如何定义这种行动的质量？

我认为这可以归结为一种意外性。如果你的工作方式不一定是线性的，不基于预先设定的一套规则，它可能会带来更多的惊喜。
我们，作为埃斯塔尔事务所，喜欢用物理模型工作，让空间以非正统的方式被探索。我喜欢看到一条我们无法想象的道路，开启了一种可能性的东西。我们最喜欢的是一种发现，突然间计划好和布置好的东西，变成了别的什么。

2022年03月22日

Aurora Armental Ruiz and Stefano Ciurlo Walker:  Even now, I clearly remember the reaction of people when I went back to London after my exchange semester in Barcelona and mentioned that I had got to know an interesting house by Charles Moore. Many of them looked at me as if I had said something inappropriate. He was associated with postmodernism, and it wasn’t a welcome reference. I told myself that this mindset needed to change a little. 

WHAT STRUCK YOU ABOUT MOORE’S HOUSE? 

The house is defined by the presence of its envelope. It is an archetypical form, a simple silhouette with a pitched roof, covering an eight-by-eight-meter square floor plan. Inside the architect designed two different aedicules and in doing so defined two spaces within a big one. The first baldachin is a kind of living room, the other one is a space for bathing that you step down into. Each of these spaces is delimitated by four columns that Moore had bought from a demolition site. Acoustically and visually, they are always part of the larger space. The two aedicules support the roof structure which is independent of the envelope. The structure of the building and the structure of habitation don’t coincide but are instead at slight odds to one another.

Moore explored this idea even further with the Sea Ranch project in California, where you have a kind of shell protecting you from the outside, and pieces of furniture or elements inside that define spaces of smaller dimensions. There are no conventional series of rooms - a room for sleeping, a room for cooking, a living room etc. Rooms are zones found within a larger space, that allow a use, but do not determine one. We found this very interesting. 

LET’S MAKE A HYPOTHESIS, IF YOU HAD TO RECONSTRUCT THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING THIS HOUSE, HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAPPENED? 

At the very beginning, he rejected the idea that a bed needed to be in a separate room, where you close yourself and have a small window. The same works for a bath, which doesn´t need to be in a space where you necessarily have a door. Instead, both can be part of a living room, maybe a little sunken, or surrounded by columns, perhaps a bit higher or even with light coming from above - somehow articulated, but not separate from the main space. He was exploring how far one can take the basic functions performed in a house to create unexpected relationships and break free from very common ideas of compartmentation. 

It was a house for his own pleasure; a place to retreat, to and be within much loved surroundings. He wanted to have a sort of basic enclosure, whilst all the while being connected to the outside. He started with the idea of two aedicules forming the two cores of the space. Then, out of necessity, he introduced a thin, movable outer shell, that allows the opening of the four corners of the house. 

IT’S ALMOST AS IF THE REAL HOUSE WAS BETWEEN THE COLUMNS AND THE REST WAS AN ITERATION OF THE OUTER SPACE.

Yes, exactly. The spaces between the aedicules are almost like a veranda or a covered garden. The spaces in the aedicules, between the columns, become the most interior spaces of the sequence. 

It refers closely to the painting San Girolamo by Antonello da Messina, where you have a smaller space, where San Girolamo writes, set within a much larger space in which the rest of the scene unfolds. It was a topic Florian Beigel explored a lot. It is an idea of space-making that interests us very much. 

If we think about the structure of a house as the structure of its rooms, there is an amazing beauty to be found in the Palladian palazzi of Northern Italy. But there is also a huge potential in the separation between the envelope of the building and the interior aedicules. It creates spaces in between, that are less predictable. It also allows the dissolution of the outer shell - directly linking the context or the layering of space between the inside and outside. 

YOU CAN’T HIDE IN THIS HOUSE. DON’T YOU NEED A HOUSE TO GIVE YOU THE POSSIBILITY TO HIDE? 

I remember the house where I lived as a child. There was a kind of large salon where life would happen. The other rooms opened directly onto that space. There was maybe some connection from behind, but there was no definition of either a living room for the daytime or a corridor that links it to the private area of the house. I think the idea of direct circulation from one space to another, from room to room, is something we feel familiar with. 

Charles Moore wrote a book, “The place of houses”. It is a very good book in which he presents his ideas on living in a context, discussing the qualities of a house etc. Especially interesting, in one part called “the order of rooms”, he talks about houses with open rooms that can be used for different uses - just spaces with light. These houses have utilitarian rooms that complete the composition. He traced this topic through history in a very beautiful analysis. Orinda House is an example of that. It’s an open plan with just two small plugins that are enclosed: a toilet and a closet. The main quality is the balance between the two. 

I believe that we need much fewer closed and separated spaces than commonly assumed. 

THIS HOUSE IS AN EXPLORATION OF A FREE PLAN. WITH THIS PREMISE IN MIND, WE COULD GO THE WAY OF MIES VAN DER ROHE AND FIND A STRUCTURAL, TECTONIC SOLUTION TO ACHIEVE THAT. IN MOORE’S HOUSE THERE IS A VERY STRONG PRESENCE OF SCENOGRAPHY, OF ELEMENTS THAT CREATE TENSIONS. DO YOU PERCEIVE IT AS A HIGHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF A FREE PLAN?

I don’t know if it’s higher, or better than other ways of thinking about freedom in plan. For us, what we find important is that there is a freedom of basic acts that need to happen in a space. 

When we were teaching in London, for one of the years we designed housing with the students. Instead of working, in terms of distribution, plan, structure, layout and so on, we went along the Charles Moore path and asked them to think about activities. We asked them: how would you like to cook? How do you relate something that you cook to something that you put on the table? How would you sleep? How do you drink coffee? How would you talk to a friend that comes by? 

The students did not concentrate on room layouts, instead, they talked about use and atmospheric ideas of space. And from there the projects emerged. Other projects in the school also looked at housing, and they were special in a different way, representing rich relationships and characteristics. We were trying to bring our students to think about how they would like to live themselves. 

We understood that to liberate and stimulate the process of design, it is important to put ideas of diverse uses at the centre of how one thinks about a house. Charles Moore’s house seems to be a materialisation of this process. 

It is all about how you live, how you relate to your bodily functions and what kind of unplanned situations architecture allows to emerge. 

Perhaps Mies van Der Rohe’s understanding of freedom was different. 

His houses are more about how you perceive yourself or how you relate to a guest, intellectually, spatially etc. Mies van Der Rohe dealt with the same core ideas of freedom but articulated them differently because he had a different way of relating to the world. When he behaved in a free way it meant something else for him than for Charles Moore. Moore was of the American generation who started careers after WWII and was therefore much more casual in the way he saw all aspects of life. His freedom was not an absolute, ideal, contemplative one, he saw it more as a possibility of choice in an environment of sufficient richness and diversity. 

His house is almost like a cocoon that he built for himself or a small group of people. It is where he shows himself as he really is, without playing a role in the scene. He bathes, he plays music, sits on the sofa with his friends and more to the point, enjoys it. 

The central focus in American culture was as it is now, the individual, whoever he or she may be. In Europe, we always tend to think more in terms of society, how others see what we do, how to share what we have, and what kind of universal, understandable values we stand for etc. This could be one reason why in Europe, we see architecture in a more formal way and are skeptical about the playful, funny, rhetorical, or symbolic elements. 

INTRODUCING ELEMENTS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE MOST SACRED RELIGIOUS SPACES TO A SMALL HOUSE, IS INDEED WITTY. 

I think it’s quite provocative as a gesture because the aedicules were historically, always built above altars, but I don’t read them as sacred in this case. I also doubt that it was the intention of Moore to evoke an aura of mystery or sacralise domestic space. I like to see it more in compositional terms - as a piece of furniture or a kind of building within the building. It is a spatial idea, which links it back to the core aspects of architecture, of how you subdivide space, and how you establish hierarchies or tensions in space. 

The fact that these elements can be linked to another time, or typology etc. only makes the whole more playful and introduces a component of surprise. 

WE KNOW THE STRATEGIES OF PUTTING DIFFERENT THINGS TOGETHER FROM THE BRICOLAGE TECHNIQUES FOUND IN DIVERSE FORMS OF ART. IN THIS HOUSE, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THE CHARACTER OF DO-IT-YOURSELF, WAS AVOIDED. HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAPPENED? WHAT WERE THE COMPONENTS OF THE METHOD TO ENSURE THE CLASSICAL ELEGANCE THAT ENSUED? 

I think the secret is that there is a good architect in motion. There is a kind of tension between the distance of the columns. I think one feels that there is a sensibility of a classically trained architect, making decisions in another idiom rather than just purely in the logic of found objects. 

The columns have a kind of pronounced entasis, so they clearly belong to another language than the rest of the house. There is a kind of finesse in how the elements are made and connected. It’s true that there are some references to barns and vernacular construction. Moore and his collaborators looked at rural architecture in America, importing visual references and constructive references from that kind of vernacular to their architecture. For architects of that period, it was not something one did. However, it’s not all this house plays with. 

DO YOU KNOW HOW THIS HOUSE WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME; DID IT HAVE A CULTURAL IMPACT? 

The idea of Frank Lloyd Wright - of a bold architect that arrives and says: "I’m going to build a Falling Water House", was something Moore was rather skeptical about. He tried to humanise the act of designing and building, in his will to “make buildings where people felt they belonged”. 

Perhaps this also partially explains the mixture of materials, using the reclaimed elements and flirting with a classical repertoire. He was a cultured and knowledgeable person without dogma. He rather chose to play around with what he learned, because it seemed more natural to him. He was neither modern nor a historicist. 

The house we discuss was probably his most experimental one because he designed it for himself. It contrasts the soaked-with-tradition elements directly with the most banal, ordinary, industrial parts, “without architectonic ambitions”. The results of which, were shocking for a house at that time. 

HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THE QUALITY OF THIS KIND OF OPERATION? 

I think it boils down to a kind of unexpectedness. If you work in a way which is not necessarily linear, not based on a pre-established set of rules, it brings potentially more surprises. 

We, as Estar, like to work with physical models that allow space to be explored in an unorthodox way. I like seeing a path that we could not imagine, something that opens a possibility. We enjoy it most when there is a kind of discovery, when suddenly something that was planned and laid out, becomes something else.

22.03.2022

奥罗拉-阿门塔尔-鲁伊斯 和 斯特凡诺-乔罗-沃克: 即使是现在，我也清楚地记得，当我结束了巴塞罗那的交换学期回到伦敦后，提到我得知查尔斯-摩尔的一个有趣的住宅时，人们的反应。许多人看着我，好像我说了什么不合时宜的话。摩尔关乎于后现代主义，而这不是一个受欢迎的案例。我告诉自己，这种心态需要改变一下了。

莫尔的住宅有什么打动你的地方？

这座住宅是由它的外围来定义的。它的形式是一种原型，一个带着斜屋顶的简单轮廓，覆盖一个八米乘八米的平面。在内部，建筑师设计了两个不同的龛，这样就在一个大的空间内定义了两个空间。第一个华盖像是起居室，另一个是沐浴的空间，你可以走下去。每个空间都由四根柱子划定界限，柱子像是摩尔从一个拆迁现场买来的。在声学和视觉上，它们始终是大空间的一部分。这两个龛支撑着独立于外围的屋顶结构。建筑的结构和居住的结构并不重合，而是相互之间有一些矛盾。

摩尔在加利福尼亚的海洋牧场项目中进一步探讨了这一想法，在那里你有一种保护你免受外界影响的外壳，而里面的家具或元素则界定了较小的空间。这里没有传统的房间系列--睡觉的房间、做饭的房间、客厅等。

房间是在一个更大的空间内找到的区域，允许使用，但不决定用途。我们发现这非常有趣。 

让我们做一个假设，如果你不得不重构这所住宅的设计过程，你认为它是如何发生的？

从一开始，他就拒绝了床需要在一个单独的房间内的想法，在那里你封闭自己，有一个小窗户。浴室也是如此，它不须要在一个有门的空间里。相反，两者都可以是客厅的一部分，也许有点下沉，或被柱子包围，也许有点高，甚至有光线从上面照下来——以某种方式衔接，但不与主要空间分开。他在探索一个人可以在多大程度上利用住宅的基本功能，创造出意想不到的关系，并摆脱非常普遍的隔断的观念。

这是为他自己的乐趣而建的住宅；一个可以隐退的地方，并在深受喜爱的环境中生活。他希望有一种基本的围墙，同时又能与外界相连。他首先想到的是由两个龛构成空间的两个核心。然后，出于需要，他引入了一个轻薄的、可移动的外壳，使住宅的四个角可以打开。

这几乎就像真正的住宅在柱子之间，其余部分是外部空间的迭代。

是的，没错。龛之间的空间几乎就像一个长廊或一个有顶的花园。在柱子之间的空间，成为序列中最内向的空间。

它与安东尼奥-达-梅西纳的画作《圣客吉罗拉莫》密切相关，在那里你有一个较小的空间，即圣客吉罗拉莫写作的地方，而其余的场景在一个更大的空间里展开。这是弗洛里安-贝格尔经常探讨的一个话题。这是一个我们非常感兴趣的制造空间的想法。

如果我们把住宅的结构看成是房间的结构，那么在意大利北部的帕拉迪奥宫廷建筑中可以发现一种惊人的美。但是，在建筑的外围和内部壁龛之间的分离也有着巨大的潜力。它在两者之间创造了空间，这是不太可预测的。它也允许外壳的溶解——直接连接于语境或内部和外部的空间分层。

你不能躲在这锁住宅里。难道你不需要一个住宅来给你藏身的可能性吗？

我记得我小时候生活的住宅。有一个大的沙龙，生活就在那里发生。其他房间直接向那个空间开放。也许有一些从后面的连接，但没有定义白天的客厅，或连接它和住宅私密区域的走廊。我认为从一个空间到另一个空间，从一个房间到另一个房间的直接流通的想法，是我们感到熟悉的。

查尔斯-摩尔写了一本书，《住宅的地方(The Place of houses)》。这是一本非常好的书，他在书中介绍了自己对居住环境的想法，讨论了住宅的品质等。特别有趣的是，在一个叫做 "房间的秩序 "的部分，他谈到了有开放房间的住宅，可以用于不同的用途——只是有光线的空间。这些住宅有功能性的房间来完成构图。他以一个非常漂亮的分析追溯了这个话题的历史。奥林达住宅(Orinda House)就是一个例子。它是一个开放的平面，只有两个封闭的小插件：一个厕所和一个壁橱。品质主要来自于两者之间的平衡。

我相信，我们需要封闭和分离的空间比通常假设的要少得多。

这个住宅是对自由平面的探索。在这个前提下，我们可以走密斯-凡-德-罗的路线，找到一个结构性的、构造性的解决方案来实现这个目标。在摩尔的住宅里，场景设计和创造张力的元素，有着强烈的存在感。你认为这是对自由平面的传统理解的一个更高的发展吗？

我不知道这是否更高，或比其他思考自由的平面更好。对我们来说，我们发现重要的是，对于一个空间内要发生的基本行为，有一种自由。
当我们在伦敦教学时，有一年我们和学生一起设计住房。我们没有在分配、计划、结构、布局等方面进行工作，而是沿着查尔斯-摩尔的道路，要求他们思考活动。我们问他们：你想怎么做饭？你如何将你做的东西与你放在桌子上的东西联系起来？你会如何睡觉？你如何喝咖啡？你会如何与前来的朋友交谈？

学生们没有专注于房间的布局，相反，他们谈论了空间的使用和氛围的想法。从那里出现了这些项目。学校的其他项目也关注住房问题，它们以不同的方式表现丰富的关系和特点。我们试图让我们的学生思考他们自己想怎样生活。

我们了解到，为了解放和激发设计流程，在构思住宅时，将多种不同用途的想法置于中心是非常重要的。查尔斯-莫尔住宅似乎是这个流程的具象化。

这全都关乎于你如何生活，如何与你的身体功能连接，以及建筑允许什么样的非计划情况出现。
也许密斯-凡-德-罗对自由的理解是不同的。他的房子更多的是关于你如何看待自己，或者你如何与客人发现关系，智识上的、空间上的，等等。密斯-凡-德-罗处理的是同样的自由的核心思想，但却以不同的方式表达，因为他有不同的方式与世界联系。当他以自由的方式行事时，这对他来说有着与查尔斯-莫尔不同的意味。摩尔属于二战后开始职业生涯的美国一代，因此他看待生活各个层面的方式更加随意。他的自由不是一种绝对的、理想的、沉思的自由，他更多地把它看作是在足够丰富和多样化的环境中的一种选择的可能性。
他的房子几乎就像一个他为自己或一小群人建造的茧。在这里，他展示了自己真实的一面，没有在现场扮演一个角色。他洗澡，放音乐，和他的朋友们坐在沙发上，更重要的是，他很享受这种感觉。

美国文化的核心焦点和现在一样，是个人，无论他或她是谁。在欧洲，我们总是倾向于更多地从社会角度考虑，别人如何看待我们所做的事情，如何分享我们所拥有的东西，以及我们代表什么样的普遍的、可以理解的价值观等等。这可能是为什么在欧洲，我们以更正式的方式看待建筑，而对俏皮的、有趣的、修辞的或象征性的元素持怀疑态度的一个原因。

将最神圣的宗教空间所特有的元素引入到小住宅中，确实很有创意。

我认为这是一个相当具有挑衅性的姿态，因为从历史上看，龛总是建在祭坛之上，但我不认为它们在这种情况下是神圣的。我也怀疑摩尔的意图是唤起一种神秘的光环或使居家空间神圣化。

我更喜欢从构图的角度来看待它——作为一件家具或建筑中的一种建筑。这是一个空间概念，这使它回到了建筑的核心层面，即你如何细分空间，以及你如何在空间中建立等级或张力。
事实上，这些元素可以与另外的时间或类型等联系起来，这只会让整体更具玩味，并引入惊喜的成分。

我们知道把不同的东西放在一起的策略，从不同形式的艺术中发现的杂乱无章的技术。在这所住宅中，我有一种感觉，就是避免了 "自己动手 "的特点。你认为这是怎么发生的？该方法的组成部分是什么，以确保随之而来的古典优雅的风格？ 

我认为秘密在于，有一个善于处理动态的建筑师。柱子的距离之间有一种张力。我认为人们感受到了其中有一个受过古典主义训练的建筑师的感性，在另一个习语中做出决定，而不仅仅在找到的物体的逻辑中。

柱子有一种明显的收分线，所以相较于住宅的其他部分，它们显然属于另一种语言。在这些元素的制作和连接方式上有一种巧妙。的确，有一些参考了谷仓和乡土建筑。摩尔和他的合作者研究了美国的乡村建筑，将视觉参考和建构参考从那种乡土建筑中引入到他们的建筑中。对于那个时期的建筑师来说，不止一个人做过这件事。然而，这并不是这所住宅的全部手法。

你知道这所住宅在当时是如何被接受的吗；它有文化影响吗？

弗兰克-劳埃德-赖特的想法——一个大胆的建筑师来到这里，说我要建造一个落水屋，这是摩尔相当怀疑的事情。他试图使设计和建造的行为人性化，他的意愿是 "建造人们感到属于自己的建筑"。也许这也部分解释了材料的混合，使用回收的元素和与古典剧目调情。他是一个有文化、有知识、没有教条的人。他宁愿选择把玩他所学的东西，因为这对他来说似乎更自然。他既不是现代主义者，也不是历史主义者。

我们讨论的这所住宅可能是他最具实验性的，因为他是为自己设计的。它将浸泡在传统中的元素与最平庸、普通、工业化的部分直接对比，"没有建筑学的野心"。其结果，对于当时的住宅来说是令人震惊的。


你如何定义这种行动的质量？

我认为这可以归结为一种意外性。如果你的工作方式不一定是线性的，不基于预先设定的一套规则，它可能会带来更多的惊喜。
我们，作为埃斯塔尔事务所，喜欢用物理模型工作，让空间以非正统的方式被探索。我喜欢看到一条我们无法想象的道路，开启了一种可能性的东西。我们最喜欢的是一种发现，突然间计划好和布置好的东西，变成了别的什么。

2022年03月22日

ESTAR Atelier

Aurora Armental Ruiz studied architecture in the ETSAB Barcelona, Postgraduate studies in Management of the Territory: Urbanism, Landscape, and Environment and MA in Landscape. She has taught at the ETSAB Barcelona, unit master at Kingston University and the University of East London. 

Stefano Ciurlo Walker studied architecture in the ETSAB in Barcelona, the Architectural Association and London Metropolitan University, MA in Urban Transformation and Building Restoration. He has taught at the ETSAB Barcelona, Nottingham University and London Metropolitan University, unit master at Kingston University and the University of East London.

Aurora Armental Ruiz and Stefano Ciurlo Walker are visiting professors at Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark.

www.estar.archi

ESTAR Atelier

Aurora Armental Ruiz studied architecture in the ETSAB Barcelona, Postgraduate studies in Management of the Territory: Urbanism, Landscape, and Environment and MA in Landscape. She has taught at the ETSAB Barcelona, unit master at Kingston University and the University of East London. 

Stefano Ciurlo Walker studied architecture in the ETSAB in Barcelona, the Architectural Association and London Metropolitan University, MA in Urban Transformation and Building Restoration. He has taught at the ETSAB Barcelona, Nottingham University and London Metropolitan University, unit master at Kingston University and the University of East London.

Aurora Armental Ruiz and Stefano Ciurlo Walker are visiting professors at Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark.

www.estar.archi

ESTAR Atelier

Aurora Armental Ruiz studied architecture in the ETSAB Barcelona, Postgraduate studies in Management of the Territory: Urbanism, Landscape, and Environment and MA in Landscape. She has taught at the ETSAB Barcelona, unit master at Kingston University and the University of East London. 

Stefano Ciurlo Walker studied architecture in the ETSAB in Barcelona, the Architectural Association and London Metropolitan University, MA in Urban Transformation and Building Restoration. He has taught at the ETSAB Barcelona, Nottingham University and London Metropolitan University, unit master at Kingston University and the University of East London.

Aurora Armental Ruiz and Stefano Ciurlo Walker are visiting professors at Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark.

www.estar.archi