本文由 Moon Hoon 授权mooool发表，欢迎转发，禁止以mooool编辑版本转载。
Thanks Moon Hoon for authorizing the publication of the project on mooool, Text description provided by Moon Hoon.
Moon Hoon：柏林艺术家团体realities:united设计的装置Architecture of Autonomy和首尔建筑事务所Moon Hoon设计的View Folly共同组成了这个以“自治的建筑”为主题的装置，这是一种形成空间的装置，它定义了各种空间：外表面的前后空间以及由此衍生出的可用的内部空间，建筑的自主性便体现在表皮/立面与空间，或涉及到这两者关系的主题上。
Moon Hoon: The installation Architecture of Autonomy by Berlin based artist group realities:united is closely connected with the installation View Folly by Seoul based architect Moon Hoon. Architecture of Autonomy is an installation that forms space. It defines a front and a rear side or an external surface and the resulting usable interior space. The themes of surface (or façade) and space, or what is involved in the relationship between these two main aspects of architecture is the theme of the Architecture of Autonomy project.
On various levels, the unity of these two aspects is questioned or dissected in this project. External surface and interior space are treated as loosely connected, independent players. No longer are they organically and absolutely connected, they rather form a kind of strategic or symbiotic alliance, whose members only contingently cooperate in the framework of a precisely negotiated subscription, thereby pursuing their own goals.
Accordingly, there is a clear separation of conceptual and design responsibility between realities:united for the exterior surface and Moon Hoon for the usable space behind it. The exterior shell externally objectifies the interior space and gives it a visual identity or “address”, recognizable from afar. Vice versa, the initially invisible “actual” space on the adjoining rear roof surface supplements the visitors’ ultimately rather simple experience of the external “interactive” installation Architecture of Autonomy. This shift in the reference level between Architecture of Autonomy as “superficial attraction”, which presumably was a primary motivation to climb to this remote site, and the “usable level” behind it is an aspect of the experience of the overall ensemble. It is also a principal component of the overall concept: the initially perceived functions and meanings of the individual components move and, on closer inspection, begin to blur. The installation Architecture of Autonomy that, from afar, appears to be the goal of the climb on a closer look transforms into a kind of interim component or passageway to another, initially unknown experience behind it.
▼室内的楼梯为未知的攀爬过程带来了过渡式的体验 The installation Architecture of Autonomy that, from afar, appears to be the goal of the climb on a closer look transforms into a kind of interim component or passageway to another, initially unknown experience behind it.
The two initially dominant aspects of the exterior surface – namely, its effect as a typically authoritarian propaganda instrument whose message is broadcast to the city from a secure height, and second, its “interactivity” and expression of the individual person’s will to design – are set in motion as soon as one contemplates it more intensely.
The term “Change”, visible from afar, is a central metaphor of our time. Simultaneously, its meaning is completely indeterminate or self-contradictory. In 2008, it became the trademark slogan of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, but it is also clearly inscribed in his successor’s presidency as a kind of negative afterimage. Today, the term is at the center of attention between the political forces of emancipation and democratization, on the one hand, and those of old and new authoritarianism, on the other. For example, “change” is supposed to lead to equality and the elimination of differences between people – or to a return to structures, classes, castes, and nations that make it possible to avoid contact with what is different. But precisely the idea of “change” divides society and creates differences. There are those who consider change vitally important and those whom it frightens. Many want a radical change in the political system and the entirety of our political or philosophical thinking, but pursue the goal of ultimately preserving nature or society unchanged, with the explanation that continuing the current process of change will otherwise lead to a dystopian finalsteady state, one in which nothing more can be changed.
The term “change”, however, also describes the unchanging process of the world that happens anyway, and which currently is once again involved in far-reaching change, for example through the complete digitization of every conceivable aspect of life. This, too, is accompanied by the euphoric expectation of an unprecedented empowerment of all people, on the one hand, and, on the other, by fear of an abstract, psycho-technological, authoritarian system whose capacities for control and manipulation could grow practically without limit for the first time.
As far as we can see today, involving every individual in purported decision- making processes is part of the strategies of societal control. “Change” as a call to the individual to become (himself or herself, and autonomously) active does not essentially differ from the call to collaborate or even to be subjugated. Ultimately, it all depends on whether the possibilities to change also include changing the system of action. The boundary is fluid between open interaction in the sense of genuine possibilities of development and codetermination, and a guided collaboration that in some cases is set up for control or exploitation and that behaves “interactively” and “voluntarily”, but ultimately turns every aspect of the person, down to his innermost wishes and motives, into a trade good. In between these poles lie, in all shades of gray, various systems of social self-occupation that actually feel like participating and collaborating.
The installation Architecture of Autonomy similarly combines the summons character of the slogan “change”, with an opportunity to interact, that in return makes the display wall itself the object of change; it can actually be configured to an unimaginable number 2 of different color patterns. Compared with the norms of commercial advertising, in which every nuance of color, every form, and simply all content is subjected to a strict, market-specific precept, this is a substantial possibility to intervene. However, the original slogan text is preserved in every color variant. The color pattern is thus changeable, but the central text message, calling for action, is not. The user cannot alter the system and its central message, which seems a latent paradox, because in this special case the question arises whether it is possible for the user to fulfill the summons successfully. The question is left unresolved whether enabling and simultaneously absorbing a moderate interactive intervention doesn’t primarily serve the existing hierarchical system by not only binding the populace’s latent revolutionary energy, but also by making it possible to interpret people’s interactive-voluntary collaboration as a sign of approval, in the sense of reinforcing the legitimation of the propaganda.
▼可以任意配置颜色的展示墙 The display wall can actually be configured to an unimaginable number 2 of different color patterns.
有这样一种情况，即手段与目的之间的传统区别会导致出现不明晰的结果，这除了体现在这个“自治的建筑”的体系结构中，也存在于由Architecture of Autonomy和View Folly组成的装置中。通过互动或作为社会场所的感知点而注入的“活力”，能够增强这种交流性外立面及其信息的有效意义，这就是为什么在短暂的“互动”之后，吸引游客并促使他们留在屋顶后面的平台上可以被看作是为达到这一目的所使用的手段。还有另一种理解方式：将交流度或吸引力的程度与有效的停留地点、花费时间的地点之间的关系理解为共生关系，就像花朵“支付”花蜜给参与劳作的昆虫，以传播或递送其自身的遗传信息。
Not only within the installation Architecture of Autonomy, but also in the combined installation consisting of Architecture of Autonomy and View Folly, there is a situation in which a conventional distinction between means and end leads to no clear result. The effective meaning of this communicating façade and its message increases through the “liveliness” breathed into it by interaction or through its perception as a societal site. This is why enticing visitors and inducing them to remain on the rear terrace after a short phase of “interaction” can be seen as means subordinated to this end. The alternative consists in understanding this relationship between the communicative or attractive level and the effective place to stay and spend time (behind the former) as a symbiotic relationship, like a flower that “pays” nectar to the participating insect for spreading or transporting its genetic message.
▼夜色下的构架 The installation in this night view
With this, we return to the idea formulated at the beginning: a complex, symbiotic “contractual relationship” between façade and space forms a substitute for the conventional idea in which the (exterior) wall serves to delimit the manmade architectural space from the environment, i.e., in which erecting the wall is subordinate to the goal of creating space.
▼竖向分析 Elevation and Section
Design: Moon Hoon
Design team: Moon Hoon, jan edler, tim edler, Kim jaekwan, Kim sookhee, Kang changsu, Lee woohyun, Kim hyeri, Tomasz Kisilewicz
Photographer: kim chang mook
Location: 96, Jebong-ro, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea
Program: Culture Center+Commercial+Office
Site area: 1,595.68m²
Building area: 955.15m²
Gross floor area: 6,306.06m²
Building scope: B2 ~ 6F
Height: 36.5m (Folly : 5.5m)
Building to land ratio: 59.86%
Floor area ratio: 255.34%
Structure: Steel Frame Construction
Exterior finish : paint Steel plate, Wood
Client : Gwangju biennale
Read more about: Moon Hoon