/
創作之思考 / 前提：
在建築創作／習作的過程中，型式，尺度，比例，質地，紋理，材料等選擇不一而足，在這樣的多重發散的選擇下，我們如何將物件組合，將空間建立？建築中的牆或柱或窗所立的位置為何在那裏？是如何決定的？這些建築基本元素建立的過程中，我們或許可以探索這些動作能引發出什麼？除了滿足實用需求外，我們好像也可以再談再高一點層次的，從實用中跨越出去的，一種時代感甚或是精神性。建築創作／習作可同時追求精神性飽足及實質上的舒適。這兩種特質雖然很少同在，但應該有權共存。有形的元素負責實用的面向，無形的元素負責藝術的挑戰。
而在實用前提下再去談論到那個靈光／精神向度時，我們似乎只能依賴直覺感受。我們如何去＂抓取＂一個不可知的向度與氛圍，那些無法以科學公式分析重組的思考。而邏輯與理則學無法歸納與標誌的範疇，我們或許能以哲學思考，文學想法或身體記憶來可能的無限靠近那個靈光。
The premise thinking for creative practice :
The process of architectural creation involves a series of choices—form, scale, proportion, texture, materiality, and beyond. With such a multitude of possibilities, how do we combine objects and establish space? Why are walls, columns, or windows positioned where they are? What determines their placement? In the formation of these fundamental architectural elements, we explore not only their functional roles but also the actions and emotions they might provoke. Beyond serving practical needs, architecture can aspire to a higher plane—reflecting an era, or even evoking a sense of spirituality. Architectural practice, therefore, can simultaneously seek both spiritual fulfillment and practical comfort. While these two qualities are rarely seen together, they deserve the right to coexist. The tangible elements address functional demands, while the intangible engage with artistic and conceptual challenges.
When seeking to explore architecture’s spiritual or abstract dimensions within a practical context, intuition often becomes our sole guide. How do we capture an intangible atmosphere—one that cannot be quantified or derived from scientific formulas? Rational thought alone is insufficient for grasping this elusive aspect of architecture. Instead, we might approach it through philosophical inquiry, literary reflection, or even bodily memory, attempting to move closer to that fleeting spark of inspiration.
以下對個人創作／習作之重點或者偏見做非邏輯推演的名詞解釋：
未完成性
建築為容器是一個可能不必要再討論的議題，然而在空間建立的過程中，建築師容易以一個控制狂般的腳色登場，不自覺的去置入太過武斷的生活想像與思考，而忽略了未來可能的使用者的再度定義。建築可以為背景，建築師腳色需要某種程度的自我控制和尊重他者，其設計可為他者而存在。建築，是要讓其他事物成為可能，是為了要容納些什麼而建，建築也會因本身和其他事物的緊密相連而變得更加豐富，而不單單是建築師自身的創作獨白，或是含混不清的個人衝動。
從容器的未完成性導向行為的未知。建築師的謹慎與自制，或能在創造一個環境／空間的時候，隱含了鼓勵多樣行為與活動的可能。活動行為的交會與未知可能不用以一個複雜的產物來體現，相反的，其最終的設計結果應該是簡單的，卻能夠引出活動行為的不可預測與多重性。
The following is a non-logical deduction of the key points or biases in personal creation/practice :
Open-ended
Architecture is frequently viewed as a vessel—a container for human activities and experiences. However, it is important to recognize that an architect is not merely a controlling force imposing a vision upon space. Rather, architecture should function as a backdrop, a stage that enables and enhances the interactions that unfold within it.
To achieve this, architects must practice restraint, respecting the autonomy of those who inhabit their spaces. The purpose of design is not self-expression alone but rather the creation of environments that accommodate and inspire.
When approached this way, architecture becomes a facilitator, enabling diverse possibilities and behaviors.
An unfinished or adaptable architectural framework can be a catalyst for unforeseen activities. By exercising care and self-discipline in design, architects can encourage an openness that allows space to evolve with its users. Complexity is not a prerequisite for rich interaction—on the contrary, simplicity often has the greatest capacity to inspire diverse and unpredictable engagements.
內部與外部
建築其非自然的建立過程必然會導致外部空間＿自然環境的喪失。我們在談論建築時，必然不能忘掉其反自然的本質。建築能反映一部份的文明意圖，然其本質是暴力且強大的。一道牆的豎立，就無可避免的界定了內部與外部，我們將自然隔絕在外，得以安身立命，免於風吹雨淋。而當自然被隔絕於外，那自然如何再度被引進，自然如何與建築的幾何互動？面對自然，我們應該要嘗試著去閱讀並捕捉其長處，梳理過後再滲入，而不僅僅是帶入無規則的佈景和道具般的風景景象。
建築創作得以抽象化自然，當風／光／水／綠意 被汲取／挑選後再導入建築內，其自然便更具張力。
Interior / Exterior
The very act of construction is, by nature, an interruption of the natural world. Architecture, in its essence, is an assertion against nature—a force that defines boundaries, shelters from the elements, and imposes order upon space. A wall, for instance, creates an inside and an outside, shielding us from the wind and rain while simultaneously severing our direct connection to the natural environment.
Yet architecture need not be in opposition to nature. How, then, can we reconcile this separation? How can architecture reintroduce nature into the built form and allow the two to coexist in meaningful dialogue? The solution lies not in the superficial importation of greenery or the arbitrary placement of natural elements but rather in a thoughtful, integrated approach. Light, wind, water, and vegetation must be carefully woven into the fabric of design, enhancing the built environment while preserving a connection to the natural world.
穿透的＿現代的
回顧過去，古典平面有其實用價值，在快速與機能至上的思考邏輯下，內部空間的虛實與填空有一種嚴謹原則，得以生成平面配置。其平面或許限制了次序的多樣性，然而其網格線／軸線導入的邏輯思考亦能使建築秩序慢慢成形 _ 其軸線為骨架，大小空間的張弛生成整體的平衡感。
然而現代的？穿透的空間分配，似乎更能反映出當代的曖昧不清。大量的過渡空間，含混不清的界定讓行動／活動的生成得以發散，打破既成的框架，更能激發想像，更能感受到空間的晦澀與曖昧。然開放式的空間平面，與實際行為的填入與假設是相互矛盾的，如何尋求穩定與失衡的中間狀態，如何在發散的思考中去尋找其規則？
Open plan
Historically, the classical architectural plan has held its place as a model of efficiency. Within its structured logic of axes and grids, spatial relationships are clearly defined, creating an ordered sense of place. However, such rigid organization can also limit the fluidity of movement and experience, constraining the potential of space.
By contrast, modern architectural strategies often favor openness and ambiguity. The dissolution of rigid boundaries allows for a freer, more dynamic engagement with space. Transitional zones—those spaces between clearly defined functions—create opportunities for unexpected interactions, encouraging imagination and reinterpretation.
Yet, while openness fosters adaptability, it also risks a loss of coherence. How do we navigate the balance between structure and flexibility? How can we maintain order while embracing the dynamic, evolving nature of contemporary life? The answer may lie in uncovering a hidden logic within dispersive thinking—a set of underlying principles that bring stability to fluidity.
地域性
在地必然是誠實的。強烈的地方特色必與地貌景觀充分融合，這些關聯必然誠實且誠懇地深入其歷史，自然，習慣與文化特徵。材料的使用尤為重要，是真實的質樸的使用還是裝飾性的？誇飾性的使用？材料會有自身的表達，會有當地的風情，建築師需要有能力以不同的方式去體現，不管是觀看或是觸摸，甚至反映其光線陰影及色彩。
在地必須有記憶。然而舊建築／歷史建築再利用絕非靜態的保存，新舊必得交融與協調。過去有助定義現在，反之亦然，並且在時間的歷程中繼續演化／再定義。城市會成長，也必然存在變化。
Regionality
Architecture is deeply rooted in place. A strong regional character must emerge not as a superficial aesthetic but as an honest and organic response to the landscape, topography, history, and cultural traditions of its setting. This honesty must also extend to materiality—materials should not be employed merely for their visual effect but should instead reflect their inherent qualities and local significance.
Material choices carry their own expressions, shaping the experience of a space through texture, weight, and the play of light and shadow. An architect must possess the sensitivity to engage with these elements in ways that are both intuitive and deliberate.
Moreover, regional identity is intertwined with memory. The reuse of historical structures should not be an act of mere preservation but rather a process of evolution—allowing the past to inform the present while accommodating future transformations. The relationship between old and new should be one of continuity, where architecture becomes a living entity, adapting and growing over time.
當代／靈魂 / 內在
現代科技的快速進展與推演，網路世界圖像的過渡應用，主義的誤讀，淺碟的思考都在加劇。生活在一個變化非常迅速的世界，要維持每個人的主體性（不被困惑），可以說是相對困難。每個建築師的內在，須保持其靈魂的穩定，更穩固地構築自身的建築論述，才能在如此變動的時空環境裡培養出其價值觀。
我們可以不必過度的在當下去追逐當代性，因為這些思考或辯證都是在未來才會論斷。建築師應關注在其主觀創意，將其內在創作企圖現實化。屏除外界困擾，才能走得更遠。
Contemporary / Soul / Interiority
The rapid advancements of technology, the digitalization of experience, and the oversimplification of ideologies all contribute to a world that is increasingly fragmented. In such an environment, maintaining one’s sense of identity and purpose becomes a challenge. For architects, this challenge is particularly acute—how does one navigate a constantly shifting landscape without losing sight of one’s core principles?
Rather than chasing fleeting trends or seeking validation in contemporaneity, architects should focus on cultivating a strong personal discourse. The pursuit of creativity must be driven by an internal vision rather than external pressures. By filtering out distractions, one can create with greater clarity and conviction.
Ultimately, architecture must serve both the tangible and the intangible—the functional and the poetic, the physical and the spiritual. It is within this intersection that its true power lies.