訂閱當期季刊

實構築季刊 - 都市.耳目一新 Urban Innovations
電子版試讀

遠離1960年代那個性解放、暴動頻生和大眾文化興起的年代,半世紀之後,我們的文化視野仍然未能開展,這似乎與政治和創新之間的糾纏越來越深有關。文化的活力,展現在創新,而非對於過去偉績的沉浸與緬懷。創新在這裡指的是能面對當下的困難,提出令人耳目一新、發人深省且具有全盤性視野的解答。

創新的生產,至少在像台灣這樣的民主國家,其實是與政治密切地連結在一起。在許多領域裡,創新總是仰賴市場的推動,然而這只有按全球化市場的標準、能夠自立的創新產品,才能夠浮現出來,成為一種創新,為大家所認識;這需要大量資金的注入,也要能自負盈虧才能運作。無法符合市場規則的創新,唯有仰靠非營利的資助,而資助很大程度上是由政治所決定,這方面最顯著的例子莫過於軍需工業,因為跟國防有關,經常是以政治需要作為判斷的基準,雖然也會和市場之間維持著千絲萬縷的關係。而當既非符合市場,又不完全仰賴補貼時,還有一種狀況,就是靠創作者的自我剝削,而這也是一種政治——自我認同的政治。例如,蔡明亮拒絕在院線電影院上映其作品,2014年首創在北師美術館以展覽方式帶出新電影上映,其後皆自營作品上映,雖然經濟上非常辛苦,但在電影全面全球化和商業化的處境裡,其做法極具啟發性。而在某些情況裡,創新是上述三種脈絡的其中兩種、或甚至是三種的相互疊合。讀者可以此角度,觀察本期作品之脈絡。

雖然網路化提供少數人逃離都會的機會,但都會或是和都會相關的諸種事物,迄今仍是創新的主要基地,這一點即使面對網路時代的來臨,依然沒有改變,反而有更集中的趨勢。現代都市的形成,來自於蒸汽機這項前所未聞的創新,生產模式的空間於是由分散的農地轉為集中於都市,而都市化又導致無數的創新的發明,如地下鐵、摩天樓、電梯、百貨商場,這些設施的空間又引發新的創新,如此循環,有如雪球般越滾越大,都會本身就成為一種創新成長的有機體。然而都會對於創新亦有壓抑的一面:都市促成財富更加不均,而它自己也是一個財富極度不平均之處,富可敵國,窮者卻難有立錐之地。都市生活和空間的單調化導致知覺鈍化,加上世代間的脫節,以及對於文化差異難以容忍而產生無止休的衝突與暴力,總是反噬著都市作為現代生活幸福處所的願許。

似乎沒有比使用「創造性破壞」來形容都市中的創新更適切的字眼了。就如同創意城市提倡者理查・佛羅里達(Richard Florida)所言,充滿非正式交往、善意共享、無偏見文化交流和對別人真心關懷的群居生活,是都市之所以成為創新中心(creative hub)的緣由。但事實上,大部分的大都會,以及大都會裡大部分地區,並非如此。今日的都會住宅區中,充滿了門禁社區(gated community),就如在台北,以往鼓勵自由交往的街道,紛紛因為都更而讓人們變得更加難以交流,以換取人們對於安全和隱私似是而非的渴望。這些門禁社區中,最具諷刺意味的或許是Googleplex。Google是全世界最重要的入口網站,每天容納幾十億次的訊息交流,Googleplex聘請Thomas Heatherwick等頂尖的建築師,創造絕佳的工作環境,內部自給自足,從睡覺到洗衣一應俱全,但卻與外界完全隔絕,成為一種孤獨的「城中之城」。這樣因為個人主義盛行或機密保護而產生的孤寂,對創新產生難以彌補的斲傷。都會人的家庭意識或許還存在,但社會意識已難以看見。

創新還沒有帶來自由,但起碼讓我們知道文化的重要性:必須更加關注他人,而非僅僅一己。種種的、孤立式的、都市中的令人耳目一新的創造,提醒著我們,1960年代的革命雖然失敗了,但是我們仍然需要1960年代那樣的解放運動和激進主義。

Half a century past the 1960s an era punctuated with liberating individualism, recurring riots and emerging pop culture, the fact that our cultural horizon is still woefully limited may be related to the deepening entanglement between politics and innovation. Cultural vitality is manifested through innovation rather than reminiscence and nostalgia of past accomplishments. Innovation, for the purpose of discussion here, refers to the ability to come up with a refreshing, thought-provoking and broad-scoped solution to tackle present difficulties.

The production of innovations is in fact closely tied to politics, at least in a democratic country like Taiwan. In many fields, innovations always depend on market drivers. However, only self-sufficient innovative products conforming to the standards of the globalized market can emerge in this way and materialize as widely-known innovations, and the injection of significant funds and self-absorption of any profits and losses are necessary. Any other innovations that do not conform to market rules can only depend on not-for-profit sponsorship, which heavily hinges on politics. The most pronounced example of this is none other than the arms industry, whose links with national defense often makes political considerations the deciding criteria, although it also maintains a tangled web of connection with the market. There is one more scenario that neither conforms to the market nor relies totally on subsidy: the self-exploitation of the creator; this is also a kind of politics, namely, the politics of self-identity. The approach taken by director Tsai Ming-liang is a case in point: he refused to screen his film in mainstream cinemas and, in 2014, set the precedent for launching a film in the form of an exhibition at the Museum of National Taipei University of Education. He has taken charge over screening his own works ever since. Though extremely challenging financially, he has blazed an inspirational trail in the cinematic world dominated by globalization and commercialization. In certain situations, innovation may be two, or even three overlapping combinations of the above three scenarios. This is one lens through which the reader may view the context behind projects presented in this edition.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Internet has afforded some people the opportunity to escape urbanity, the city and everything related to it still provide a ripening leaven for innovations. Even the advent of the Internet age has not changed this reality but has instead further condensed it. The aggregation of the modern city arose from the groundbreaking innovation of the steam engine and the shift of the production model from dispersed farms into centralized cities. Urbanization, in turn, precipitated numerous innovative inventions, such as the subway, skyscraper, elevator and mall, the spaces of which sparked further innovations. This reiterative cycle burgeons like a rolling snowball, making the city itself an innovative and growing organic entity. 

That said, the city also imposes suppressive forces on innovation: the city exacerbates wealth imbalance while housing within itself an extreme state of this inequality. It is ironic that in a city with enough wealth to rival a state, the poor can hardly get a foothold. The homogeneity of urban life and urban spaces engenders the desensitization of perception. Compounded by generational decoupling and ceaseless conflicts and violence caused by intolerance of cultural differences, the aspiration for the modern urban dwellers to lead a happy life in the city continues to be challenged.

There seems to be no more fitting words to describe innovation in the city than "creative disruption". Clustered living perfused with informal interactions, sharing of good will, unbiased cultural exchange and a genuine concern for others foster a city's transformation into a creative hub, argued Richard Florida, a champion of the creative city. This, however, is not true for most metropolises and most quarters within metropolises. Gated communities are omnipresent in today's urban residential areas. In Taipei, urban renewal projects have turned streets that once encouraged free exchange into places that deter interaction between people in order to cater to their ambivalent desires for safety and privacy. The greatest irony among these gated communities may very well be found in Googleplex. Google is the most important Internet portal worldwide, enabling billions of transactions in information exchange everyday. Googleplex commissioned preeminent architects like Thomas Heatherwick to shape the best work environment. Accommodating everything from sleep to laundry, it is altogether self-sufficient and yet entirely isolated from the outside world, making it a terribly lonely "city within a city". This loneliness born from the rise of individualism or security protection has caused indelible trauma to innovation. For the urban dweller, awareness of the "family" may still be extant but not so much awareness of the "society".

While innovation has not brought about freedom, at least it has highlighted the importance of culture: we must pay more attention to others rather than just ourselves. Each of the divergent, isolated and refreshing creativities in the city serves to remind us that although the revolution of the 1960s has failed, we are still in need of the same kind of liberation movements and radicalism of that bygone era.