Kunsthal-Rotterdam鹿特丹艺术展览馆建筑分析-(4)

THEKUNSTHDALROTTERDAMREMKOOLHAASFORMTheKunsthalRotterdambuiltin1992wasdesignedbyarchitectRemKoolhaasandtheOfficeforMetropolitanArchitecture(OMA).Thebuildinghosts3000squareme-tersofexhibitionspace,anauditorium,abookshop,andarestaurant.Theexhibitionareasincludetwolarge,andtwosmallergalleriesthatcanbeusedtogetherorseparately.ItslocationsituatesitasthegatewaytoRotter-dam’sculturalamenities(OMAWebsite).TheKunsthalwasbuiltasaninvest-mentinRotterdam’sculturalcapitaltostimu-latetourism.ThecityisnowisnowoneoftheculturalhubsofTheNetherlands.SincedestructionduringWorldWarIIthecityhasundergoneinfrastructure,economicandculturalregeneration.Inthe1990’sthecitydeveloped“clusters”intelecommunication,andaudio-visualservices,anddesignandme-dia,strivingtodevelopanimageasaculturalcity.Rotterdamhasarichhistoryofculture,andwantedtopromoteitasculturaltourism.WhatRotterdamwasmissingtosucceedthisgoalwasanadequatesupplyofculturalfacili-ties.TheKunsthalwasbuiltwiththedesireforarchitecturethatcoulddrawglobalatten-tion,andcouldputRotterdamontheEuro-peanCulturalstage.2Themodestexteriorformofthebuildingsayslittletorevealthecomplexitiesofthebuilding’sinterior.DuringaninterviewwithNewYorkTimesKoolhaassaid,‘’Iliketodothingsthatonfirstsighthaveadegreeofsimplicitybutshowtheircomplexityinthewaytheyareusedoratsecondglance,’’thisiscertainlythecaseforthisRotterdamproject.Kunsthal’sprogramiscontainedinarectangularprism.Inplan,thebuildingisasquarecrossesbytworoutes,creatingfourautonomousprojects.TheSiteisslopped,withtheapproachfromtheMaasboulevarbeingsixmetershigherthantheparktothenorth.Aramprunsnorthsouththoughthecoreofthebuilding,connectingthebusyMaasboulevard,tothepark.Thisrampalsoseparatesthegalleriesontheeast,fromtherestoftheprogramonthewest.Thedrivingconceptofthedesignisthatofacontinuouscircuit.Aspiralcircu-lationroute,enabledbytheuseoflargeramps,connectsthepublicareasoftheKunsthal.Therampsgivethebuildingasensethatfloorshavedroppeddownandmoveduptomeeteachother1.SquarePlan2.Exterior/PublicCirculation.4.FourAutonomousProjects.3.ProgramSeparation.5.ContinuousCirculation3CirculationinSectionForminSectionFORMFORMSomehavereferredtoKunsthalasapost-modernistprojectduetotheuseofthejuxtapositionofarangeofmaterials,includ-ingblackglass,corrugatedgalvanizedmetalgrills,steel,concrete,stonecladding,andglazing.ThematerialcompositionofKunsthalischaracterizedbyasequenceofsurprises;Koolhaastakesadvantageoftheunexpectedwithmaterial,aswellasstructureandpro-gramtocreateexperiencesthatarebothsacredandprofane.KoolhaasWorkedwithStructuralEn-gineerCecilBalmondtogenerateaformthatwastrulyacollaborationofArchitectureandEngineering.Balmonddoesnotseeasepa-rationbetweenarchitectureandStructure;rather,theyareaspectsofaunifiedwholethatgenerateform(BaumeisterandLee).Balmondsoughttobrakeoutofthedominantorder,hesaid,“TrappedbytheCartesianCageIwantedtobreakout…thatopportunitycamewithRemKoolhaasandtheKunsthalRotterdam.”Workingtogetherthattwowereabletogeneratetheunusualstructuralbuild-ingcomponentssuchastherampssupporteditbyseeminglyunstableangledcolumns.45PeterEisenmanbringstoourattentiontwoopposingconcernswithform;thefirstisaconcernforinternalcomposition,theprogramandhowitisorganized,andthesecondisa‘concernforthearticula-tionofidealthemesinform”(Eisenman1968).Eisenmanexplainsthattheseconcernsaretwosidesofthesamecoin,thechallengebeingtoworkwiththemtogether.Aftertheindustrialrevolutionprogramsbecameincreasinglycomplex,asaresultthetype-formrelationshipshifted.Architectssinceturningtothesimplifieddoctrineof‘formfollowsfunction.’EisenmanOntheotherhandBalmondarguesthataformdoesnotstandalone,explaining,aformis‘almostaproductofit’scontent’(BaumeisterandLee).ItwouldbeinaccuratetosayKoolhaasformallytookaformfollowsfunctionapproach.Hestartedthede-signwithapieceofpuregeometry,asquare,fortheplan.Hethenaddedaprimarycirculationroute,that’sopentothepublicandtheoutdoors,actingtodividethespaceintofourregions.IfKoolhaashadtakentheconceptofgeneratingaspacewithcontinuouscirculation,withouttheinitialplanofasquarehemayhaveresultedinanentirelydifferentbuilding.Avarietyofformscouldhavedevel-oped,toillustratethisIwillpresentanalternative.Hecouldhavetakenthedeignapproachthatheusedbutusedadifferentpieceofgeometry,let’ssayanellipse.Hecouldhaveincludedthesameandcircula-tionbuthewouldhaveachievedaverydifferentform,althoughinterestinglyasimilarprofilewouldhaveresulted.CirculationinPlanFORMTHEKUNSTHDALROTTERDAMBODYBODY7HAPPY/SADGOOD/BADDUALISMSINGULARMALEFORMMALEFORM?Inthetext“thebuildinginpainAnthonyVidlerwritesaboutthehistoryofthebodyandarchitecture,establishingthreehistori-calperiods;thebuildingasbody,buildingasepitomizingbodilystatesandtheenviron-mentendowedwithbody.OnecandiscusstheKunsthalRotterdaminlightofthefirsttwoofthesehistoricalperiods.First,asVidlerexplains,“Invitruvianandrenaissancetheory,thebodyisdirectlyprojectedontothebuild-ing.”(Vidler1990).AsthoughrespondingdirectlytoVidler’shistoricaldescription,RemKoolhaashasliterallyprojectedthemalebodyontotheKunsthalRotterdam.Aniconofthemalefigureisusedtwiceo