Architect Eric CHEN led the “Collective Negative Space Village” project. From 2017, he was in residence at the Taiwan Contemporary Culture Lab (C-LAB) implementing this experimental architecture project, which included international forums, workshops, performances, and on-site demonstrations and discussions. The predecessor to C-LAB was the Air Force Command Headquarters. Located in central Taipei where resources are abundant, it mostly comprises low-lying buildings and outdoor practice ranges. The “negative” in the project title referred to the outdoor and relatively less concentrated spaces. “Collective” referred to education, which was the core of this project, thinking about new possibilities for the structures to form a strongly connected productive village. Crossing the boundaries of traditional architecture, members of the “Collective Negative Space Village” team included curators with expertise in architecture, art and landscapes, as well as the collecting & research group in charge of the recording of soundscape, plant ecological environment and stories of local culture and history. During their research, they had deep discussions regarding the vision for architecture and practice, while attempting to expand the awareness of issues to the entire Taipei Basin and even to all of Taiwan.
CHEN said, “In terms of contemporary thought on architecture, this was once almost completely in the hands of intellectuals. You had to possess a certain level of expertise or knowledge to be able to participate.” For CHEN, interpreting contemporary culture was a question of “how to participate.” “Contemporary culture should involve inviting people to work together. It encourages the awareness of caring for things around them, which leads to the transformation of resources and the production of works.” Every individual should start from caring about his or her surroundings, and then progress to obtaining abilities and mastering knowledge and techniques to understand architecture and the environment. For example, when the team was talking about the feasibility and forms of urban farms, researchers, experts and artists from different fields drew upon their collective wisdom. Finally, they came up with the idea of collaborating with plant doctors. They could collect discarded objects in the city to serve as vessels for cultivating plants. Why did this team want to go outside the realm of architecture? Through participation, people formed the ability to care for themselves and to be conscious of their choices.
For CHEN, the work of this team was not just about collecting everyone into a container to carry out architectural work. It was about the friction among team members that led to sparks and the continuous construction of networks with new starting points. As ideas were slowly formed through discussion and practice, the process in which people from different backgrounds grasped previously unknown work methods was fascinating.
“Is there a kind of open or patched construction method, not a closed one that incorporates one’s own idea of aesthetics, but the one that attempts to patch the relationship between humans and the environment?” asked CHEN. From his architectural education and experience working in a top architectural firm, he believes that the applied systems of contemporary architecture are often closed. Designers are self-sufficient in forming an aesthetics system, which continues after the transfer to users. Although the connectivity and market fluidity are high, the network ultimately remains closed. Hence, the consideration of the creator tends toward a kind of operational strategy; for example, how can product B be operated in sector A? This is the logic of economic model. It perplexed CHEN until one day he visited a traditional grocery store in rural Chiayi. He discovered gaps in the walls where bricks were missing from the nearly century-old building. Based on his architectural training, his first thought was that repair or substantial renovation was required. Instead, the elderly woman who owned the building had placed potted plants in the gaps. As she was worried the plants would be harmed by direct sunlight, she installed a shade cloth, making the entire wall look as if it had been patched up. Every day, this elderly woman would go to the wall and water the plants. Passersby from the community would stop by to say hello to or chat with her. Her life was not impacted by the damaged walls but, rather, was enriched. This experience enlightened him and led to the development of his personal design concept.
When a creator arrives at a site, the architect or principal from another field “collects” different things from the environment, sufficient to form a unique spatial scope and relationship with the site. What comes after has to do with “patching.” Can people from different professions collaborate to connect those relationships and bring them into play? The combination of these two points is the realization of being “on site” discussed above, which is also the value CHEN bears in mind as an architectural creator.
CHEN is now even more interested in openness and is focused on innovating already existing models of architecture. At the same time, he is pursuing his own concepts and objectives. CHEN has been a frequent visitor to exhibitions. In the past, his understanding of exhibitions was similar to that of architecture, closed systems that to some degree are stagnant. Later, he came to perceive their function. He believes that they can change a place or patch up relationships. This also has some correlation to how he teaches his students at Chung Yuan Christian University. His curriculum includes on-site investigation and reconstruction of old buildings. He believes that the most important thing is perception: What do students see when they are on-site? What do they hear? What do they “collect”? How do they go about learning about their environment? These kinds of observational methods are important in architectural design. This does not only stop at spatial geometry or the relationships among forms, but also reverses the direction of observation toward the internal. From on-site experiences it is possible to know oneself and develop the ability to relearn and move forward.
For CHEN, the work of this team was not just about collecting everyone into a container to carry out architectural work. It was about the friction among team members that led to sparks and the continuous construction of networks with new starting points. Photo by Anpis WANG
In 2015, ArchiBlur Lab was established. This lab, led by CHEN, not only carries out architectural experimentation, designs and invents, but also emphasizes education, exhibition curating and community-based research. The view held by this team is that architecture is an observational tool for investigating Taiwan’s spaces and creating works that explore the empathetic relationships between the human body and landscapes. Its representative works include the award-winning 2016 Urban Floating Islands series.
“When dealing with a space, how can the creator produce interactivity for past, present and future users with the space and transform something closed that lacks connection, emotion, color, warmth and texture into something where spatial arrangement can be perceived and attractive? Being able to see ‘places that we originally couldn’t see’ is fascinating,” says CHEN. He explains that with the expansion of accessibility to buildings and focusing on the different needs of users, it is necessary to make changes. The core concept is to return to the origin, which is researching people. For example, in 2017, ArchiBlur Lab worked with a preschool. Team members spent much time and energy researching how the children moved in that space. Based on what they observed they developed the design. “It is not about creating something and then placing people inside. It is about enabling people, through this something, to do what they originally did but in a different scope and on a different scale,” he says.
However, as architecture involves large amounts of capital, how to make people trust that the team and their methods emphasize more on the process rather than the immediate result is difficult. “Practices are very important. But you have to be able to come back and explain them,” says CHEN. While studying for his PhD, he continuously explained what he was doing, finding something to discuss in every practice. He says of this training, “It was not just about conveying an idea; it was a deeper reflection: Did I accomplish something? What else could I have done?” People often cite the designs of internationally known architects, but only see the surface forms and neglect their deeply rooted connections to their culture. These roots become stable only after a long period of time. CHEN believes that only by continuously implementing practices and discussion, Taiwan’s architectural environment can become better and better.
Architects often harbor a great vision, such as building Taipei 101 or the Taipei Twin Towers. But CHEN prefers something like the planning of the Ubike bicycle rental system. That is because the Ubike system can become a comprehensive network. The previous Urban Floating Islands can also move in this direction, as if a small piece of hardware would be used on more levels and be of major influence after entering a larger system. However, this is difficult to achieve in Taiwan’s architectural system. In the current educational environment, architecture and architectural education are traditional fields, making it difficult to develop new directions. Moreover, as schools want to obtain better resources, they have become more closed. Students do not deal with public affairs but, rather, focus on their own work. Is it possible for students to connect with society and from their practice reverse this? How can such practice change society and, at the same time, preserve microcosmic spatial aesthetics, respect the land and life, and build a new vision for the development of Taiwan’s spaces? This is one of the focuses of CHEN and ArchiBlur Lab.
