坐在一起 2024
to Sit Together 2024
手边的工具 2025
Tools As Found 2025
坐在一起
to Sit Together
从“坐”到“坐在一起”，从“坐在一起”到“共同生活”。在一个技术专制、生活日益机械化和程序化的世界里，在一个全球危机将人类纽带冲散、击破的时代中，社会被越来越多的资源与信息黑箱所割裂，个体间（人与人、人与物、物与物）逐渐形成越发孤立的原子化局面。社会断裂为宏观的全局尺度与孤立的微观视角，在这样的情势下，我们将如何共同生活？我们相信，一把椅子、一件家具，不是一个孤立的物体，而可以是巨大社会网络中的一个节点。当家具承载起使用的基本活动，它就在人与物之间构建起了最基础的联系；当家具赋予了空间访问与体验的可能，它就为人与人的联系创造了渠道，从而为场所的产生创造了基本的条件。从由抽象几何边界描绘的空间到承载人与活动的场所，借助家具的联系，人和人、人和空间不再处于相互分离的孤立状态，社会网络得以继续建构。
小杜社村是社会尺度断裂的无数写照之一。当国土规划严控用地指标，私人生活被限制在棋盘式格局之内，空间断裂为公共-私密的两极。当公共空间失去最基本的多样性，基层的社会网络与日常生活是否还有更多选择？需要公共生活的村民像列维·施特劳斯所说的拼凑匠，利用手边一切可用元素搭建雨棚、扩建房屋、拼凑家具，突破僵硬的边界。临时简易的搭建、意外性的事件在本来高度同质化的村庄中创造了多样的公共空间类型。自发性的建设，除却即兴即用、回收再造的建造智慧，也体现了重要的生态和经济意义。拼凑匠的智慧是否可以为设计师提示更具适应性和关怀的可能？
没有历史文化遗迹，没有山川自然美景，小杜社看似一个无故事可讲的普通村落，实则正是华北农村巨大而无声的现实。当曾经的农业用地成为工业用地，无农业的村落成为城郊物流网络的节点，村落的主要居民成为流动人口时，本地网络能否重新构建起可以自我更新发展、互相联结的本地社群？原住民与流动人口之间是否可以产生更多的联结？村民是否依然可以享有有尊严，有质量的公共生活？
From “sitting” to “sitting together,” and from “sitting together” to “living together.” In a world increasingly dominated by technological authoritarianism, mechanized routines, and programmed ways of life — in an era where global crises continue to fracture and disperse human bonds — society is being divided by ever more opaque systems of resources and information. Relationships between individuals (between people, between people and objects, and between objects themselves) are gradually becoming atomized and isolated. Society splits into the scale of macro systems and fragmented individual perspectives. Under such conditions, how can we continue to live together?
We believe that a chair, or a piece of furniture, is not an isolated object, but a node within a much larger social network. When furniture supports the basic activities of use, it establishes the most fundamental relationship between people and things. When furniture enables access to and experience of space, it creates channels for human connection, and in turn lays the groundwork for the emergence of place. Through the connective role of furniture, spaces defined merely by abstract geometric boundaries can become places inhabited by people and activities. People, objects, and spaces no longer remain isolated from one another, and the social network may continue to be reconstructed.
Xiaodushe Village is one among countless manifestations of this fractured social condition. Under strict land-use regulations and planning controls, private life has been confined within a gridded spatial order, while space itself has split into the binary of public versus private. When public space loses even its most basic forms of diversity, can grassroots social networks and everyday life still find other possibilities?
Villagers in need of public life become what Claude Lévi-Strauss once described as bricoleurs — improvisers who make use of whatever materials are at hand to build canopies, extend houses, and assemble furniture, pushing against rigid boundaries. Temporary structures and unexpected events introduce diverse forms of public space into an otherwise highly homogenized village. Beyond the intelligence of improvisation, reuse, and adaptive construction, such spontaneous building practices also embody important ecological and economic significance. Might the wisdom of the bricoleur suggest more adaptive and caring possibilities for designers today?
Without historical monuments or dramatic natural scenery, Xiaodushe may appear to be an ordinary village with no story to tell. Yet precisely in this ordinariness lies the immense and silent reality of rural northern China. As former agricultural land becomes industrial land, as non-agricultural villages become nodes within suburban logistics networks, and as the primary inhabitants shift toward transient populations, can local networks still rebuild communities capable of self-renewal, mutual connection, and collective growth? Can stronger relationships emerge between original residents and migrant populations? And can villagers still enjoy a public life with dignity and quality?