造訪 Oscar Niemeyer 在巴西的作品，簡直像是造訪另一個星球。
“紀念碑性”被提升到了另一個境界 － 他的建築裡包含了無窮的想像，歡快，及力量。
但是卻是在造訪了他較不為人知的Brasilia大學內的 ICC教棟，與美好的 Palacio do Itamaraty 後，我腦中才開始了自我問答。
我的認知中，建築的目的有兩個極端 － 一端是為了人類的舒適，另一端是為了發表一種宣言，即“紀念碑性”。Niemeyer著名的作品多為紀念碑性的那端，例如：Niteroi, Congresso Nacional, Museu Nacional Honestino Guimaraes。它們絕對的是一種宣言，並有著創造歷史的角色；我不得不對 Niemeyer的才華折服。但是這些並不是令人能夠舒適的逗留的建築物，簡單來說人們的舒適與否並不是這些建築物的設計重點。
Visiting Oscar Niemeyer’s work at Brazil was like visiting another planet.
Monumentality was taken to another level - the imagination, cheerfulness, and power of his architecture.
But what really started the mental debate in me was after visiting his relatively little known ICC at University of Brasilia, then the fabulous Palacio do Itamaraty.
In my mind, purpose of architecture has 2 extremes - on one end is for human comfort, on the other end is for statement making, the monumentality. Niemeyer’s famous woks are mostly the statement making end of spectrum: Niteroi, Congresso Nacional, Museu Nacional Honestino Guimaraes are good examples. They are definitely statement - and history - making, and I can not but wonder about the brilliance of Niemeyer’s mind. However these are not comfortable buildings to be within, simply because human comfort was not the point of these buildings.
我幾乎要斷定這是 Niemeyer 一貫的建築手法了，直到 ICC 告訴我不同的事實。ICC 相反的是以人們如何使用空間，以及自然如何與建築融合為中心的作品 － 而不是幾何圖像或形體。建築元素甚至可以被無視，因為逗留在 ICC 的感官經歷才是讓人印象深刻的設計要點。然後是 Palacio do Itamaraty，完美的平衡了兩個極端。它一方面達成不容置疑的紀念碑性，同時環境又是如此怡人的讓我不捨得離開，能待多久就想待多久。
這讓我質疑，在1970年到達了Palacio do Itamaraty的境界（兩個極端間的完美平衡）後，為什麼 Niemeyer 會走上一條設計道路將他帶領到1996年的 Niteroi－重量級的紀念碑性與輕量級的舒適性，即”不平衡“？
I was convinced that this is how Niemeyer approached architecture, until ICC told me otherwise. ICC was really more about the way people occupy the space, and the integration of nature - not so much about geometry and form. In a way the architectural elements can be ignored as the sensual experience of being there is (designed to be) so much more impressive. Then there is Palacio do Itamaraty, striking the perfect balance between the 2 extremes; whilst it was doubtlessly monumental, being there was so pleasant that I would have loved to stay there, in the building, for as long as I could.
It made me wonder, having achieved Palacio do Itamaraty (perfect balance between the 2 extremes) in 1970, why would Niemeyer then went on the path leading to Niteroi in 1996, which is heavily monumental but light on human comfort, i.e, unbalanced?
我發現我問錯問題了，難怪得不到答案。問題跟建築無關 － 何謂建築？我們建築師應該設計的是甚麼樣的建築？我們該以甚麼手法進行建築設計？..這些我們慣常問自己的問題。
問題應該是：“甚麼東西是只有 Oscar Niemeyer 才能夠為這個世界創造的？” － 不是“一位建築師”，而是“Oscar Niemeyer”。Palacio do Itamaraty 令人贊歎，但是 Niteroi 是完完全全的 Niemeyer。這才是這個世界想從他那裡得到的創造，而他心裡也明明白白。有時候重點不是在於一個人想給予的是什麼，而是在於周遭想從這個人那得到什麼。
你是不是也對自己問錯問題了呢？你知道什麼是唯有你才能為這個世界創造的嗎？
I realised I was asking the wrong question, no wonder I was not getting the answer. The question is not about “architecture” - What is architecture? What architecture should us architects design? How should we approach architecture? ..the questions we ask ourselves all the time.
The question is “What is it that only Oscar Niemeyer can bring to this world?” - not “an architect”, but “Oscar Niemeyer”. Palacio do Itamaraty is hands down amazing, but Niteroi is undeniably Niemeyer. And that is what the world wanted from him - which he knew. Sometimes it is not about what one wants to offer, but about what the world wants from him/ her.
So, have you been asking yourself the wrong question? Do you know what is it that only you can bring to this world?