摘要
每当我们讨论中西方建筑观念的相互作用时，不可避免地牵涉到跨文化交流的问题。然而很多时候我们并没有意识到，交流的模型与交流的内容一样值得观察和讨论。“批评的演化：中西方的交流”一文如同一些类似话题的文章一样，不知觉中滑入两个误区：首先，关键词“交流”的概念错位，使得“双向”代替了“交”作为“流”的限定．从而放弃了对信息流“交相互动”的论证，再者，作者沉浸在交流内容的分析中，缺失对交流模式的审视，因此放弃了对建筑观念跨文化传播的结构性批评。
People who talk about＂dialogue＂ are inclined to trap themselves in two kinds of confusion. Firstly, they qualified ＂dialogue＂ with ＂two-way＂ instead of＂interactive＂. For this reason, they give out demonstrating the ＂interaction＂ in the bidirectional communication. For example, Rein Koolhaas°Φs ＂observation into Asia＂, which was regarded as an interactive behavior in Zhu Jianfei＇s article, is more like ＂self-project＂ than a genuine ＂dialogue＂, because Koolhaas had structuralize the autonomic concept before his cross-cultural observation. It is not surprising since, ＂failure of two-way communication＂ is being demonstrated in the fields of Philosophy, Communication and Cross-culture researches. In face of the illusion of＂dialogue＂, maybe ＂take others material, and account in one＇s own words＂ is the most effective strategy, just like what Koolhaas prefers to do.
出处
《时代建筑》
2006年第5期82-83,共2页
Time + Architecture
