Four months ago the architect Daniel Libeskind declared publicly that architects should think before working in China, adding, “I won’t work for totalitarian regimes.” His remarks raised a controversy in his profession, with some architects accusing him of hypocrisy because his own firm had recently broken ground on a project in Hong Kong.
建築師丹尼爾•李伯斯金4個月前公開表示，建築師去中國大陸工作前，應該三思，還說：「我不會為威權主義政權工作。」他的言論在建築界引爆爭議，一些建築師指控他偽善，因為他自己的事務所最近就有一個案子在香港動土開工。

Since then, however, Mr. Libeskind’s speech, delivered at a real estate and planning event in Belfast, Northern Ireland, has reanimated a decades-old debate among architects over the ethics of working in countries with repressive leaders on human rights.
不過，自從李伯斯金在北愛爾蘭伯爾發斯特一個房地產與都市計畫活動上發表演說，建築界爭辯數十年的一個老問題又浮出檯面：為專制領袖主政或人權紀錄不佳的國家工作，是否合乎職業倫理。

With a growing number of prominent architects designing buildings in places like China, Iran, Abu Dhabi and Dubai, where development has exploded as civic freedoms or exploitation of migrant labor have come under greater scrutiny, the issue has come back into the spotlight.
愈來愈多名建築師在中國、伊朗、阿布達比和杜拜等開發案暴增的地方設計大樓，這些地方的公民自由或剝削民工等問題受到更嚴格的審視，這個辯論議題也再度成為關注焦點。

Debate abounds on architecture blogs, and human rights groups are pressing architects to be mindful of a government’s politics and labor conditions in accepting commissions.
建築部落格有許多相關爭論，人權團體則強力呼籲建築師，接案時留心各該國政府的政治主張和勞動條件。

The ideological issue is as old as architecture itself. By designing high-profile buildings that bolster the profile of a powerful client, do architects implicitly sanction the client’s actions or collaborate in symbolic mythmaking?
意識形態爭議和建築同樣古老。建築師設計了幫助勢力強大的客戶提高威望的大樓，是否等於默許客戶的行動，或者和客戶合夥以這些建築符號打造迷思？

Or does architecture transcend politics and ideology? If the architect’s own vision is progressive, can architecture be a vehicle for positive change?
易言之，建築到底能否超越政治或意識形態？如果建築師本人的目光進步，建築能否成為推動正面改革的工具？

For the most part, the issue is not a concrete one for the field’s top practitioners; no architect interviewed for this article except Mr. Libeskind has publicly rejected the notion of working for countries under criticism. Yet the debate underscores the complex decisions that go into designing architecture and is prodding architects to reflect on their priorities.
對這一行大多數頂尖從業者，這並不是一個黑白分明的議題；除了李伯斯金，接受本報採訪的建築師中，沒有一位公開拒絕為那些飽受批判的國家工作。但這個爭議也凸顯設計建築所涉及的複雜決定，更提醒建築師必須反省孰重孰輕。

“It’s complicated,” said Thom Mayne, the Los Angeles architect, whose projects include a corporate headquarters in Shanghai. “Architecture is a negotiated art and it’s highly political, and if you want to make buildings there is diplomacy required.”
承攬案子包括上海一座企業總部的洛杉磯建築師湯•梅恩說：「這事牽涉複雜。建築是一種折衝的藝術，政治性濃厚，你想蓋房子，就得懂外交手腕。」

“I’ve always been interested in an architecture of resistance – architecture that has some power over the way we live,” added Mr. Mayne, who said he had recently been interviewed for projects in Abu Dhabi, Kazakhstan, Russia, the Middle East and Indonesia. “Working under adversarial conditions could be seen as a plus because you’re offering alternatives. Still there are situations that make you ask the questions: ‘Do I want to be a part of this?’ ”
「我一向對充滿反抗性格的建築很感興趣，就是那種足以影響我們生活方式的建築，」梅恩又說，阿布達比、哈薩克、俄羅斯、中東地區與印尼一些新案子最近找他面談，「在不利條件下工作，也算是一種優點，因為提供當地另類選擇。不過，還是會有些情況使你自問：『我要不要沆瀣一氣？』」

There is little question that this is a highly charged global moment for the profession: a building boom in Asia and the Middle East, combined with a hunger for designs by name brands, has created unparalleled opportunities for architects to make their mark. Every city wants its own Bilbao, the saying goes, a reference to the explosion of excitement over Frank Gehry’s 1997 Guggenheim museum there, and every architect craves the recognition that comes with a high-profile commission.
毋庸置疑，現在是這行全球氣勢昂揚的一刻：亞洲和中東建築景氣欣欣向榮，加上各地對名家設計需求若渴，都為建築師創造無可比擬的機會可以留名青史。據了解，每個城市都希望有個畢爾包，這話形容法蘭克•蓋瑞設計的畢爾包古根漢美術館1997年啟用時即引起世人驚嘆，每位建築師都渴望以高曝光的案子一舉成名天下知。

Some architects argue that architecture is more important to them than politics. “I’m a guy who has on my wall a picture of the guy in front of the tank,” said Eric Owen Moss, a Los Angeles architect, referring to the famous photograph from the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. “But I’ve never turned down a project in Russia and China.”
一些建築師說，對他們而言建築比政治更重要。洛杉磯建築師艾瑞克•歐文•莫斯提到那張1989年天安門廣場示威抗議的著名照片時說：「我牆上有一張男子阻擋戰車前進的照片，我就是那種人。但是我從來不會拒絕俄羅斯與中國的案子。」

Mr. Moss has designed the Guangdong Museum and Opera House in Guangzhou as well as a ceremonial plaza, Republic Square, in Almaty, Kazakhstan, which has been ruled by the same autocratic leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev, since the 1980s.
莫斯設計了廣州的廣東省博物館與歌劇院，以及哈薩克阿拉木圖的典禮廣場「共和廣場」，哈薩克從1980年代至今，都由同一位獨裁領導人納札巴耶夫統治。

Some architects argue that it is unrealistic and self-serving for them to presume that they can transform a society or distance themselves from a patron’s conduct.
也有建築師主張，建築師若自以為能改造社會，或能與客戶的行為保持距離，太不切實際，而且自私自利。

“Sometimes architects like to think they’re above the political fray,” said Frederic M. Bell, the executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects. “I think that’s a little bit disingenuous. Sometimes it’s very difficult to take commissions from countries with positions with which one disagrees.”
美國建築師學會紐約分會執行主任弗瑞德瑞克•貝爾說：「有時候建築師以為自己能超脫於政治戰場之外。我想這有點虛偽。有時候，要拿到那些政治立場與自己不合的國家的設計案非常困難。」

The distinction between political and nonpolitical architecture can be hard to draw, whether the focus is ground zero in Manhattan (think of the “Freedom Tower”) or China’s new buildings for the Olympic Games, which are a source of deep nationalist pride.
政治建築和非政治建築可能難以劃分，不管焦點是曼哈坦的911恐怖攻擊事件爆炸點（「自由塔」），還是成為國族自豪感來源的中國奧運新建築。

Abu Dhabi hopes to position itself as a cultural destination for the Middle East and Asia with a Guggenheim satellite designed by Frank Gehry, a classical museum by Jean Nouvel that would house visiting exhibitions from the Louvre in Paris, a performing arts center by Zaha Hadid and a maritime museum by Tadao Ando. Human rights groups have warned that these architects risk being linked to what they contend is the United Arab Emirates’ exploitation of construction workers from poor nations.
阿布達比希望透過法蘭克•蓋瑞設計的古根漢分館、尚•努維爾設計並收藏巴黎羅浮宮巡迴展品的古典博物館、札哈•哈蒂設計的表演藝術中心，及安藤忠雄設計的航海博物館，化身為中東與亞洲文化重鎮。人權團體則警告，阿拉伯聯合大公國長期剝削來自窮國的建築工人，這幾位建築師冒著和這些剝削掛鉤的大不韙。

“We’re urging them to take steps to make sure they or their contractors are complying with best practices,” said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division. “Typically their response is, ‘We comply with national laws,’ ” he said, which may not adequately uphold human rights or fair labor standards.
「人權觀察」中東與北非事務副主任喬•史多克說：「我們極力要求建築師採取措施，確保他們或他們的包商遵守最高人權標準。」他說：「他們的回應往往是：『我們遵守國家法律。』但是那些國家法律達不到人權或公平勞動法標準。」

Rather than come down on one side or the other of the broad ethical issue, some architects consider each case individual. “In France I refuse to work for the extreme-right party,” Mr. Nouvel said. “But all around the world you have good reasons to say yes, because you don’t build only for a client. You build for a city.”
一些建築師並未表明自己在這個涵蓋廣泛的倫理爭議中站在哪一邊，但認為應該分別考量每個案子。努維爾說：「在法國，我拒絕為極右派政黨工作。但是放眼全世界，接案是有好理由的，因為你不只為一個客戶蓋房子，而是為一個城市服務。」

As for Mr. Libeskind, whose remarks rekindled the wide debate last winter, he said he had not sought any projects in mainland China but had designed a multimedia building for the City University of Hong Kong, because Hong Kong has a firmer rule of law. “There’s a public process my building had to go through,” he said.
個人談話在上個冬天又引起多方討論的李伯斯金說，他未曾尋求在中國大陸主持任何建築計畫，但他為香港城市大學設計了一棟多媒體大樓，因為香港法治比較嚴明。他說：「我的建築設計必須經過一整套公開審核過程。」

He added that he had not rejected outright the idea of working for the Beijing government, however.
他還說，他也沒有斬釘截鐵拒絕為北京政府工作。

“If they said, ‘Can you build us a center for democracy?’ “ he said, “I’d be the first to line up.”
他說：「如果他們問我：『你能不能幫我們蓋一棟民主中心？』我會搶第一個報名。」

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/arts/design/22pogr.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/20/style/arch.php

Slideshow: Architecture and Global Politics http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/06/22/arts/20080622_POGR_SLIDESHOW_index.html

2008-07-01/聯合報/G6版/UNITED DAILY NEWS 王先棠 原文請見7月1日紐時周報七版頭條