Karl Lagerfeld Alber Elbaz大玩跨界@Fashion

Karl Lagerfeld與德國保險箱品牌Doettling，推出限量30個保險箱。圖／摘自網路
LANVIN與Acne二度合作，讓牛仔布也可變成洋裝，展現LANVIN精緻的手法與工藝。圖／摘自網路
LANVIN與Acne二度合作，讓牛仔布也可變成洋裝，展現LANVIN精緻的手法與工藝。圖／摘自網路
聯合報╱記者顏甫珉
被暱稱為時尚老佛爺的Karl Lagerfeld ，近來與不少產業大玩跨界合作，包括可口可樂、德國保險箱品牌Doettling，推出全新聯名商品，精品大牌LANVIN的設計總監Alber Elbaz，則與歐洲牛仔品牌Acne二度合作，推出全新春夏商品。
可口可樂COCA COLA LIGHT，最新公布限量版的包裝，Karl Lagerfeld剪影躍上瓶身，穿西裝、紮小馬尾，其纖細的身形與LIGHT想要傳遞的形象相符合，瓶身以黑白色系為主，瓶蓋上卻用了醒目的桃紅色。目前該瓶子預計4月24日上市，每瓶售價合台幣150元，但台灣可能無法買到。
Karl Lagerfeld與Doettling推出全球限量30個，每個售價33萬6千美元名為「Narcissus」頂級保險箱，該保險箱採用拋光的鍍鉻鋁作為外觀，且全部以純鋼製成，堪稱是最牢不可破的保險箱。
LANVIN的設計總監Alber Elbaz擅長使用柔美布料，與Acne合作改用硬挺的牛仔布料，原本高級緞面布料的禮服，換成牛仔布，看起來一樣柔美有型，抓皺的處理更顯出女性的線條，腰部的皺摺如同盛開花朵，運用立體的剪裁，讓牛仔布料擺脫堅硬的刻板印象。
同樣的方式也出現在裙子、襯衫上，Alber Elbaz採用手工縫製的珠飾，增添民俗風，展現女性線條的新型態布料，帶水洗顏色的牛仔布，讓此聯名作品看來格外有型。牛仔布採用義大利、日本等工藝，透過布料中的最小化加工，讓該款布料有光譜式色澤變化，洋裝平均合台幣約28,400至43,500元。
@Source from: 【2010/04/12 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/

平路：椅子與垃圾桶@Thinking

【聯合報╱平路】2010.04.01

在香港，少的是一張隨身的椅子；回到台北，缺的是一個隨身的垃圾桶。

椅子要巧妙像腳踏車的小摺，咒語一念，縮進小背包才好；心裡想的垃圾桶更魔幻，除了可以摺疊，關鍵時刻還要它隨時消失才好。

在香港，兩隻腳穿梭於都市叢林裏，盼的只是路邊有張椅子。譬如那次，我從銅鑼灣地鐵出來，飛過一個意念，想隨手記下來。人群擁著我向前走，就是沒有地方可以坐定。

又有一次，找的是一隻手套。當時是寒冬，走出地鐵站，我反手在背包裡抓出一隻手套，巴望著人行道上有張椅子，方便我把背包卸下，把另一隻手套翻出來。

找不到可以停靠的角落，我把這筆帳記在香港的高地價上。人多的地方不放免費椅子，意思是把人群驅趕到店裡，單位時間內榨擠出最高的消費。

整體而言，香港整個城市缺乏綠地、缺乏個性小店、缺乏徜徉的空間，都跟地價這個禍源有關。地價高，地產商從中謀利，而地產商的利益與小市民的利益一向背道而馳。

市民的基本需求…

現代都會中，什麼是小市民的基本需求？又靠什麼，維持小市民恆定的幸福感？

任外界煩囂，仍有可以隨處坐定的椅凳，看看其他行人，感覺到時間正緩緩流淌，這屬於小市民對空間的基本權利。

比起香港，我們台灣人的居家環境還頗有空隙：巷弄間留著幾株老樹濃蔭，過條街還有生活所需的7-11，店裡的凳子就可以休憩半晌。廿四小時便利店，加上攤販與夜市，滿足著小市民的基本生活。

小市民邊吃邊喝，機動性地解決餐飲，但手裡剩下的包裝盒罐，要怎麼辦？好不容易在路邊找到個垃圾桶，洞口怎麼已經鼓凸出來？

假定隨身都有環保袋，然而，總有一些設想不周到的情狀吧。預期每個人帶幾個咧著口的袋子，隨時裝入手中回收與不回收的垃圾，畢竟有些過於理想。

在其他國家的城市裡漫遊，幾步路之內，就見到垃圾分類的箱籠。開口大大地，玻璃瓶很好放，看過的報紙也很容易丟進去。

我們城市缺少垃圾桶，是不是假定市民會為了節省隨袋徵收的垃圾費而把家裡的垃圾往街上帶？即使有少數人這樣做，對策難道是少放垃圾桶、再把垃圾桶開口縮小？更何況，正因為公德心需要自我強化，邏輯也可以反過來看：找不到垃圾桶，拿著垃圾的人經常無計可施，反而習慣了丟在暗處也不以為意的行為模式。

這裡多少藏著階級問題。比較起來，有車階級有車裡暫放垃圾；真有錢的人也不致生出垃圾桶不夠的體驗，因為總有人把垃圾接過去。倒是在外面解決一餐又一餐的人，最能感受到城市對使用者的不夠友善。僅有的兩隻手，若是拿著丟不出去的飲料罐，還要採買，還要拉捷運把環，還要找鑰匙、推鐵門、開信箱…

城市的主要功能…

香港，缺的是椅子；台灣的都會裡，少的是垃圾桶。

隨手舉的小例子，反映出兩地的一些根本問題。

香港鬧市沒有閒置的椅子，因為小市民只被當作善盡本分的工蜂，甚至忽略了工蜂也需要休憩的角落。台灣的發展軌跡中，麻煩的一向是形式與官僚主義，譬如說，就因為垃圾減量這個充滿正當性的說法，在缺乏配套的情況下，垃圾桶竟減到不敷使用。

無論如何，城市的主要功能，還是在照顧小市民的需要，包括他偶爾急著要丟一個泡麵碗或飲料杯的生活內容。

（作者為作家）
@Source from: 2010/04/01 聯合報

空間計畫－伊東心建築有人味的公共空間@Arch

2010-04-10 工商時報 【伊東豊雄】　我設立個人工作室是在1971年，那時我30歲；等到明年，我的事務所就成立滿40年了。　當時的我並非對將來有什麼樣的展望。大學學運以風捲樓殘之勢席捲各地、號稱國家級祭典的大阪萬國博覽會（EXPO'70）也在未能達到原先的期待下結束，60年代懷有的那份屬於未來都市的夢想，可以說急速地萎縮。由於是在那樣的狀況下開始自己的創作活動，因此可以說我對未來完全沒有任何的期望。　80年代的後半，日本迎向泡沫經濟的頂點，特別是東京的商業建築可說是蓋了又拆、拆了又蓋。「橫濱的風之塔」與「Restaurant Bar Nomad」這兩件作品的實現，也是在這個時期。　決定性的轉機是在1988年，那是因為接受了熊本縣八代市的「八代市立博物館－未來之森 Museum」之設計委託的緣故。這一年他們開始由「熊本Art-Polis」委員會來選定設計者，而我則幸運地榮獲來自於總策劃人（Commissioner）磯崎新先生的設計指名與邀請。目前，我也擔任第三代的總策劃人而繼承這個事業體的工作與任務。這件案子對我來說是很值得紀念的初次的公共建築設計案，而那時的我其實已經47歲了。　八代博物館獲好評 轉往設計公共建築　八代市立博物館在1991年開幕，而我的這件作品也獲得好評。因為有這個「實績」，我在90年代之後便轉為以公共建築作為設計工作的主要核心。而在做過幾件公共建築的設計案之後，我對於日本的公共建築是如何承襲著習慣、如何堅持著過去的形式與保守的態度這件事，有很深刻的體會。我開始感到要突破這樣的困境，並不能單只從形態的設計來著手，而是program（空間計畫）本身也非得做出革新的提案才行。　就在我這個想法開始醞釀，1995年有了「仙台媒體館」建築競圖的舉行。而那正是我一直追求的、針對program本身做出提問的那種建築競圖。　仙台媒體館開幕 帶來感動與勇氣　我們傾全事務所之力來面對這個競圖的挑戰，並且贏得首獎。然而品嘗勝利的喜悅也只有在瞬間而已，我們的提案在贏得競圖不久之後隨即受到來自市民猛烈的反對運動。這個提案的嶄新之處無論再怎麼說明也無法得到理解，有好幾次，我甚至覺得就把這個設計提案給丟掉算了。　然而在設計持續進行、進到施工的階段之後，支持這個設計案的人們陸續地增加；到了2001年，仙台媒體館終於得以順利開幕。我未曾有過比那時候更覺得做建築設計實在很棒的時刻。這是因為在我設立事務所長達30年後，第一次實際感受到自己的建築對這個社會有了貢獻的緣故。　這份感慨與感動在之後給予我極大的勇氣。仙台媒體館開幕至今已經過了9年，而它也早就已經塵埃落定為仙台市民的文化據點，融入市民的生活當中了。　建築實現關鍵 在於人際信賴關係　從21世紀開始，我的設計活動除日本之外，也擴展到亞洲、歐洲、北美等世界各地。目前我的設計案有80％以上都是在海外。雖然不同的地域有著各自不同的建築思想，而基於這些思想的設計與施工方法也都完全不一樣；不過在各地經驗過各種設計案之後，就會知道建築是否能夠實現的關鍵，總歸是建立在人際關係之上。我甚至會認為只要人和人之間能夠建立起彼此的信賴關係，那麼無論是在任何不知名的土地，都能夠實現出美好的建築。　自2005年以來，台灣成了對我而言最重要的所在。那是因為台灣是少數願意堅持意志，來追求具有高度公共性之建築的國家之一。包含日本，世界上絕大部分地區都是受市場經濟所支配，無論是建築本身或建築師，都漸漸變成只不過是為了追求經濟利益而已的道具，充其量也不過是一味地追求著驅使電腦科技所製造出來的那種時尚風格而已。然而，也就因為是處於這種受市場經濟所支配的社會當中，那種真正能夠保障市民們得以享受文化性生活的公共空間，才更是人們所需要的，不是嗎？　在台灣的各個設計案，包括高雄市運主場館、台中大都會歌劇院、台灣大學社會科學院館、松山菸廠文化園區BOT計畫主建築案等，很清楚地傳達出台灣的人們追求著公共性的熱情與強烈意志。對我來說，已經沒有比能夠參與這種案子的設計更來得幸福的事了。　（摘自本書自序）
@Source from: 工商時報 via 中時電子報

茅草頂土角椅 樹谷人氣雅座@Arch

聯合報╱記者吳淑玲／新市報導
高科技廠房圍繞的南科特定區樹谷園區，出現一座茅草屋頂的土角椅，是樹谷文化基金會推動的「原生建築」，科技人也喜歡到此歇腳休息。記者吳淑玲／攝影在高科技廠房圍繞的南科特定區樹谷園區，竟出現一座有茅草屋頂的「土角椅」，令人驚奇，這是樹谷文化基金會「環境友善回饋計畫」之一，邀請建築師林雅茵打造的「原生建築」。樹谷文化基金會董事長董雅坋表示，原生建築是取材來自當地，「土角椅」的作法，類似土角厝，不藉助機器，完全採用人力，泥土來自樹谷園區開發過程中的廢棄土塊，再加上善化農場的黏質土，混合沙、水及稻草梗切段混入，成為具有黏著性的土球。再透過志工以人力將土球，一塊塊的黏出椅子的基座，成為一張「原生土椅」，不但材料天然，未來也是回歸大地，不會形成環境負擔。董雅坋說，土椅越坐越紮實，但怕雨水沖刷，在土椅上方又蓋了一座茅草頂，材料也是環保及天然，屋頂4根柱子是漂流木、並用藤皮綁竹子，完全不用鐵絲、釘子。董雅坋強調，工業區將來可能不存在，但園區豐富生態與生命力，還會留在這片土地上，「原生建築」就是基於這種理念產生的藝術作品。樹谷文化基金會協助鄰近居民進行社區改造，希望帶給社區居民「原生建築」的概念，例如興建活動中心，不一定要鋼筋水泥。奇美電子集團開發樹谷園區，通過環評承諾成立樹谷文化基金會，規模2億元，以推動環境保護、深耕社會教育、永續經營並維護文化資產為目的。董事長董雅坋上任後，更積極推動希望校園、環保生態、文化藝術、社會關懷及社區營造等活動。
@Source from: 2010/04/11 聯合報

日機器人會變臉 點頭微笑陪看診@innovative

日本大阪大學等研究機構3日發表幾乎能同步且逼真模仿人類各種神情的新型機器人Geminoid F（左），它配備12個驅動器，以空氣壓縮機提供動力，可做出喜怒哀樂驚等表情。發表會上，本尊和機器人幾乎難辨真假。法新社

聯合報╱編譯夏嘉玲／報導

日本研究人員3日在大阪發表能幾乎同步且逼真地模仿人類神情的新型機器人Geminoid F。這款機器人5月起將在東京大學、大阪大學等校附設醫院「陪」患者看醫生，緩和患者緊張心情。未來在博物館等公共場所也可能看到它。
發表會上，模仿一名20多歲長髮美眉外型製造的Geminoid F，幾乎同時跟隨這名女性做出咧嘴笑、微笑、皺眉、憤怒、驚訝、悲傷等表情。美眉的神情以錄影機拍下，轉成電子訊號，就可用滑鼠遙控Geminoid F即時「變臉」。
操作者的聲音也可透過麥克風，從Geminoid F傳出，讓人感覺它彷彿能和人對話。它表情栩栩如生，且和本尊穿相同服裝，讓人難辨真假。本尊也忍不住說，感覺「像是有了個雙胞胎姊妹」。
Geminoid F重30公斤，坐姿高140公分，四肢動不了，只有頭、眼睛、嘴巴等處能動，用個人電腦就能操控。它是由大阪大學教授石黑浩團隊、國際電器通信基礎技術研究所等合作研發，凱蒂貓製造商三麗鷗的子公司Kokoro製造，5月上市，定價約1000萬日圓（約台幣340萬元），日後還將外銷。
這款機器人將在醫院陪患者就醫。Kokoro發言人井上聰子表示，有資料顯示，有它在旁點頭微笑，可讓患者在接受醫療檢查時，緊張不安的情緒大為緩和。
@Source from: 【2010/04/04 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/

新建築如何活在舊文化@Thinking

2010-04-04 工商時報 【記者彭媁琳／專題報導】　

和其他國際大都市經過百年緩慢變遷的景況不同，北京市區內新舊交雜的對比非常強烈，二環內是積極保存的歷史古蹟，二環外則是近20年間才拚命蓋起來的高樓大廈。　北京正經歷著世界上前所未有的劇烈發展階段，在短短一代人的眼皮底下蓋起了摩天大樓，也舉辦了成功的奧運會。這對古老文化、建築帶來相當巨大的衝擊，為了城市更新，而拆掉了大片胡同。　在新與舊間如何平衡，甚至相互融合的難題，兩位具有代表性的專家對此有不同的見解。北京故宮古建修繕部主任李永革，他在中華文化工藝精華的故宮服務了35年。以及北京奧運會資訊中心數字北京的總建築師朱，他也是在外國團隊獨佔鰲頭的奧運建築中，唯一一位中國本土建築師。　李永革表示，紫禁城是明清兩代的皇家園林，集中華建築文化之大成，要如何在現代的時空中保存古建築的精髓，就是故宮修繕團隊的最重要課題。而紫禁城在1420年建成之後，歷代的修繕團隊都繞著圈子對建築物進行保養，即使在文革時期，故宮，沒有一天停過維修。　李永革認為，故宮修繕隊對新舊的取捨有嚴格的管制，要修古建築，就必須用古工具、古方法來修，不能使用現代化的機器設備。很多工藝在現代化的過程中失傳了，外面的維修公司只會用現代機器來修，這就無法呈現古建築當初建造的味道。而目前所謂的傳統技術，多半只能追溯到清末時期，因此要在建築物的特徵上捕捉傳統工藝的訊息。在2003年進行的大規模整修後，李永革認為，紫禁城已經達到50年來最好的狀態，未來可以依據建築物的殘壞程度進行調整，可以做小手術的，就不大面積改善。　對於北京城未來應有的新風貌，朱認為，中國擁有重要的世界文明，當然世界各國也都可以參與北京城的建設發展，進行多元化的刺激，而且中國建築要向創意型的建築轉化。　朱指出，北京城改造的第一步應該是要創造出新的想法和新的解決辦法，第二步則是要反思，後奧運時代的北京建築物是否能反應中華文化。在新與舊之間，不可能做到形式上的整合，例如現在不可能在街上騎馬一樣。新的就是新的、舊的就是舊的，要尊重過去存在，但卻不能無止盡的重複過去。他認為，在經過30年的快速發展以及奧運會的洗禮後，北京已經成為國際化的大城市，但卻相對的衍申出了物質化色彩過重、不尊重生態環境的問題。所以要從自然中獲得啟發，在發展過程中重視中國文化中強調的自律，控制人類無窮盡的發展慾望，讓時代造就人的同時，人也可以造就時代。

@Source from 工商時報 via 中時電子報

北京新課題 從念舊重塑輝煌@Thinking

2010-04-04 工商時報 【記者彭媁琳／專題報導】　今日的北京，城中未曾散去的氛圍，是歷代建築工藝之最的紫禁城和民居胡同；步入近代的序列，有著大陸建政之後傾全力打造的地標建築人民大會堂、中國美術館；進入千禧年之後，則是大氣迎接2008北京奧運而興建，造型前衛的國家大劇院。　5000年的流金歲月，與現代化的傲氣昂揚，一併呈現，建築學家梁思成曾說：「北京是中國都城的偉大傑作。」看來，這是新北京的面貌，也是衝突下的課題。　北京清華大學建築學院城市規劃系主任吳唯佳受訪時指出，雅典、伊斯坦堡等世界上任何1個古老都城的發展歷程，都沒有像北京一樣經歷急遽現代化的過程，「北京很多高樓和基礎建設，都是在一代人眼皮底下蓋起來的。」　中國大陸在1978年改革開放之後，經濟實力大幅躍升，作為首都的北京，就有更大的發展壓力與包袱。如何在建設能與大國實力相當的首都之際，又要保持北京城內寶貴的歷史文化遺產與解決各種居住問題，就成為北京市政府重要的使命與難題。　2001年，北京申奧成功，全市總動員展開了長達7年的奧運籌備工作。有人質疑，這7年的時間與精力全都擺在奧運上，反而忽視了北京其他面向該有的建設與發展，導致產業政策停擺、原有的城市發展規劃被打入冷宮。　可是吳唯佳認為，奧運會帶給北京最大的資產，不是那些有形的場館或精采的開幕式，而是打開了北京市首長們的國際視野。　在前往倫敦、巴黎、紐約等國際大城市的取經過程中，潛移默化的跟上世界脈動，北京反而在籌備奧運的過程中，找到了如何再塑北京輝煌的解答。　北京市委書記劉淇在2009年提出了建設世界城市的目標，希望在中國大陸建政100週年之際，把北京的各項實力提升到與紐約、倫敦、巴黎可相匹敵的層次。　以北京和倫敦比較，北京和倫敦在20世紀初期，是世界上唯二人口超過百萬人的大都市，其後的100年各自經歷了內戰和二次世界大戰的洗禮。但在制度條件、發展方式的差異上，拉開了這兩者的差距。　吳唯佳指出，工業革命開始後，倫敦成為世界上最早現代化的城市，也是工業化問題爆發最尖銳的地方，馬克思、恩格斯等左派思想家把倫敦當成研究重點；英國也是世界上最早做城市規劃的國家，倫敦更是現代城市規劃和軌道交通的始祖，很多城市發展都受到倫敦影響。　但為了解決倫敦市中心太過擁擠的問題，1930年代開始在外圍建設衛星城市，把政府機關、工廠搬到新城去，減少倫敦負擔。到了第2次世界大戰之後，倫敦進行戰後重建，房地產快速發展，政府也開始擔心房繼過度膨脹的問題，開始徵收土地爭執稅，同時興建很多廉價住宅。　這些是倫敦的過去式，但卻是北京的現在進行式。　夏林茂指出，奧運會之後北京市改變了城市規劃的思路，把過去單中心發展的模式，變成多重性發展，計畫在外圍建設11個新城。與此同時，北京市政府也在嚴打當地「地王曬太陽」的問題，企圖控制房價泡沫。　到了1970年代，倫敦市中心開始出現空心化的問題，當地議員為了選票，不再推動郊區新城建設，轉而把心力擺在提昇倫敦市中心的發展，造就了倫敦今日成為國際金融中心的地位。同時，倫敦也計畫發展期高等教育集中的優勢，透過吸納全球人才到倫敦就學，進而帶動當地就業與經濟。　目前，中國大陸最重要的政府機關、最好的醫院，以及超過200萬名人口，都集中在68平方公里的二環舊城內，擁擠已經帶給舊城區嚴重的負擔。2004年開始，北京市政府就希望逐步把機關、學校、醫院等機構向外搬遷，在二環內騰出一些活動空間來。　但除了經費限制之外，北京要如何避免倫敦過去空心化的問題，也成為北京城市發展規劃上重要的借鑑。所幸，舊城區內大量的歷史文化遺產，提供了北京發展新興觀光產業的基礎，可藉由吸引國際觀光客來活化舊城區，避免空心化。　吳唯佳認為，建設世界城市是北京很重要的發展目標，有了目標之後才能確定長遠的發展道路，同時避免短視近利的救急工程上。他指出，北京要建設世界城市，和過去800多年的建都歷史分不開，有了這個紮實的文化基礎，才有信心建設成一流城市。　最後，北京也必須和周邊京津冀地區做結合，取得腹地、發展資源和消費市場。吳唯佳認為，是要提昇整體北京市民的文化水準和整體發展意識，不能一味追求標新立異的地標建築，而需重視整體的發展觀念，畢竟文化指的是大眾共識與想法，這樣才能真正將北京帶向世界城市之林。
@Source from 工商時報 via 中時電子報

The Greening of the Waterfront@Landscape

John Lei for The New York Times
Brooklyn Bridge Park, with its first phase on Pier 1 in Brooklyn. When completed the park will stretch from just north of the Brooklyn Bridge south to Atlantic Avenue.

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
Published: April 1, 2010

The mayor’s office was in such a rush to showcase the completion of the first phase of its new Brooklyn Bridge Park in Brooklyn that it opened it too soon. Construction crews are still installing handrails. Walkways remain unpaved. Only a few early buds are showing on the freshly planted trees.

It takes a serious imaginative effort to picture what the park will look like when its entire 65 acres, stretching from just north of the Brooklyn Bridge south to Atlantic Avenue, are complete — a process that will take years.

But the effect it will have on New York is immeasurable. Much as Central Park embodied Frederick Law Olmsted’s vision of American democracy on the eve of the Civil War, Brooklyn Bridge Park, designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, is an attempt to come to terms with the best and worst of our era: on the one hand, concern for the environment and an appreciation for the beauty of urban life and infrastructure; on the other, the relentless encroachment of private interests on the public realm.

Mr. Van Valkenburgh’s design engages all those aspects of contemporary life with a care and balance that make the park one of the most positive statements about our culture we’ve seen in years. It is a key and very promising early step in a larger project that includes the greening of the East River waterfront in Manhattan and a park for Governors Island, and which may well turn out to be Michael R. Bloomberg’s most important legacy as mayor of New York.

To appreciate the scope of the planned Brooklyn park, start at the Brooklyn Heights Promenade. Only a few years ago this stretch of pavement looked down over huge dilapidated warehouses that covered several waterfront piers extending to the north and south. Today most of the warehouses have been demolished to make room for new lawns and playgrounds; much of the park will be on the piers. The bare steel frame of one warehouse can be seen just to the north; it will eventually be converted to indoor basketball and handball courts. Just past it is the newly opened first phase of the park, on Pier 1: a trapezoidal patch of green near the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Mr. Van Valkenburgh conceived each pier as a distinct experience. Pier 6, the furthest to the left, will be covered by patches of wetlands and lawn and volleyball courts. Pier 5 will offer outdoor “active recreation areas,” with soccer and softball fields. Others will be blanketed with grass, a pebble beach, an outdoor event space. The piers will be linked by an informal landscape of rolling lawns and pathways that will eventually stretch 1.2 miles along the waterfront and will link up with the existing Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park on the other side of the bridge, in Dumbo. Two large luxury apartment blocks, one with a hotel, will anchor the park near either end and generate income for its upkeep.

When I first reviewed the project five years ago, the mix of recreational spaces and for-profit development worried me. The high number of playing fields, canoes and kayaks called for in the plan seemed to reflect a body-obsessed culture in a constant search for distractions. The social space imagined in Olmsted’s radical vision was being reduced to a public workout area. Worse, the luxury buildings and hotel — classic examples of government eagerness to trade public space for easy money — would gobble up valuable parkland.

Such concerns began to lessen, however, once I walked into the park. The first thing I noticed was its immensity: even with only 5 of the 65 acres complete, it felt roomy. Pier 1 alone, I realized, is bigger than Bryant Park.

As you move into the park from Old Fulton Street, an asphalt pathway (which will eventually be surfaced in a powdery gray gravel) splits to wrap around a large grass-covered hill before converging again at the waterfront. Another path leads up to the crest of the hill before cascading down a series of big granite stairs on the other side. The stairs, recycled from slabs of stone that once clad the Willis Avenue Bridge over the Harlem River, look out on a postcard view of the densely packed towers of Lower Manhattan. Lush lawns, places to sprawl out and relax, spread out on either side.

The softness of this landscape is played off against a number of small wild gardens peppered with sweet-gum trees and dogwood shrubs. The trees are tightly packed together so they will create what Mr. Van Valkenburgh calls a “phototropic effect,” their trunks splaying outward as they grow. A series of small water pools, salt marshes and tidal coves, framed by piles of granite rocks, give a toughness to the water’s edge as the park extends to the south. The contrast between highly manicured and wildly unruly landscapes is not just decorative. Mr. Van Valkenburgh said it was partly inspired by a 1973 essay on Central Park by the land artist Robert Smithson, which explored the ways civic and pastoral landscapes interweave. It is also a reflection of newer environmental concerns. The soft curves of the hills, for example, are shaped to direct rainwater into an underground drainage system, where it is stored in giant cisterns and used to irrigate the site.

What gives the park a truly contemporary sensibility, however, is the way Mr. Van Valkenburgh connects his design to the surrounding city and its infrastructure. A small playground, set at the park’s northernmost corner and dotted with small stainless-steel climbing domes, offers a view up toward the gently arching underbelly of the Brooklyn Bridge. The undulating lawns echo the curving roadways of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, built by Robert Moses, which are carved into the cliff face of Brooklyn Heights just behind the park.

In a telling detail, Mr. Van Valkenburgh mounted the park’s lighting system atop 35-foot-tall telephone poles rather than the dainty old-fashioned lampposts that the city’s parks department normally favors — a clear effort to relate the design to the scale of the structures around it.

This play of nature and large-scale infrastructure is a rich and recurring theme in contemporary landscape design. For Olmsted, parks were a refuge from the physical and psychological wear and tear of the industrial city. Many of today’s designers embrace the grittier elements of the city. As they have moved toward the creation of more sustainable landscapes, they have also sought to celebrate the underpinnings that support them.

As for the future, once you grasp the scale of the park it is easy to understand Mr. Van Valkenburgh’s strategy of segregating recreational areas from more passive leisure zones. The two piers that will support most of the sports activities, for example, are connected to the mainland via narrow entry bridges. The concrete slab they rest on has been severed from the shore.

Most of the remaining piers have big lawns that will allow people to wander casually out to the waterfront. And the ribbon of undulating hills and picnic areas that will eventually connect the length of the park will leave plenty of space to retreat from the joggers.

The encroachment of private development on what should be public space is another matter. The mayor’s office argues that it is simply a question of fiscal responsibility — there would be no way to pay for the park’s maintenance without the money generated from the inclusion of the apartment and hotel buildings. But this is just an argument for a government that will do what’s necessary to pay for public space when it is in the city’s best interest. And from a planning perspective, the two structures will clearly detract from the park — and from the public’s sense of ownership over it — once they are completed.

Still, the city can live with the trade-off. The construction of Brooklyn Bridge Park will be an enormous achievement. And assuming that the other harbor parks go forward, the project as a whole will radically alter the character of the city, not only by making it greener but also by reorienting it toward the life of the harbor. It is as optimistic an undertaking as any the city has undertaken since Robert Moses’s monumental postwar highway projects — and better for our lungs.
@Source from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/arts/design/02bridge.html?pagewanted=1

A New Look at Urban Life@Landscape

Nicolai Ouroussoff writes: "Much as Central Park embodied Frederick Law Olmsted's vision of American democracy on the eve of the Civil War, Brooklyn Bridge Park, designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, is an attempt to come to terms with the best and worst of our era."
Photo: Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

"It takes a serious imaginative effort to picture what the park will look like when its entire 65 acres, stretching from just north of the Brooklyn Bridge south to Atlantic Avenue, are complete — a process that will take years."
Photo: John Lei for The New York Times

"The first thing I noticed was its immensity: even with only 5 of the 65 acres complete, it felt roomy."
Photo: Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

"A small playground, set at the park's northernmost corner and dotted with small stainless-steel climbing domes, offers a view up toward the gently arching underbelly of the Brooklyn Bridge."
Photo: John Lei for The New York Times

"The softness of this landscape is played off against a number of small wild gardens peppered with sweet-gum trees and dogwood shrubs."
Photo: Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

"It is a key and very promising early step in a larger project that includes the greening of the East River waterfront in Manhattan and a park for Governors Island, and which may well turn out to be Michael R. Bloomberg's most important legacy as mayor of New York."
Photo: John Lei for The New York Times

"The construction of Brooklyn Bridge Park will be an enormous achievement. And assuming that the other harbor parks go forward, the project as a whole will radically alter the character of the city, not only by making it greener but also by reorienting it toward the life of the harbor."
Photo: John Lei for The New York Times

"It is as optimistic an undertaking as any the city has undertaken since Robert Moses’s monumental postwar highway projects — and better for our lungs."
Photo: John Lei for The New York Times

@Source from: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/04/02/arts/design/20100402-brooklynsub-slideshow_index.html

倫敦奧運塔 被譏恐怖曲線@Arch

知名建築師卡普爾設計的2012年倫敦奧運塔示意圖，未來將成為倫敦新地標。（法新社）

聯合報╱編譯王麗娟／報導

2012年倫敦奧運塔設計案評審結果4月1日揭曉，由印度裔視覺藝術大獎「特納獎」得主、當代知名建築師與藝術家卡普爾（Anish Kapoor）的紅色鐵塔出線。完工後，乘電梯登上塔頂觀景台，奧運公園與倫敦天際線一覽無遺。
高115公尺的巨型鐵塔，奧運結束後仍將留在原地，成為倫敦的新地標。
這項設計是從56件競賽作品脫穎而出，有玻璃環形觀景台、餐廳，比紐約自由女神像（高46 公尺，加基座93公尺）高22公尺，比巴黎艾菲爾鐵塔（320公尺）小。觀景台每小時可容700人觀賞。
這座鐵塔正式名稱為「阿賽洛米塔爾軌道」（ArcelorMittal Orbit），總造價2890萬美元，由全球鋼鐵製造龍頭阿賽洛米塔爾公司出資2420萬美元並提供1400噸鋼鐵。鐵塔將立於奧運公園中，奧運體育場與「水上運動中心」之間。
造型蜿延曲折，形如水煙管的深紅色鐵塔，遠觀有如兩架摔落的巨型吊車扭曲成一堆。決心替倫敦奧運留下名垂千古藝術建築的倫敦市長強生稱它是「美塔」，但一些網友認為鐵塔很醜，稱它是「造價2890萬美元的雲霄飛車」、「變形的義大利麵」、「恐怖曲線」。
孟買出生的卡普爾形容他的曲塔「是一看似快要橫七豎八倒下的奇怪建築」。卡普爾與全球聞名結構大師瑟希爾‧包曼（Cecil Balmond）合作構思此塔，包曼的作品包括北京新中央電視台大樓。

@Source from: 【2010/04/02 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/

世博台灣館驗收完成 5月1日開館@Arch

上海世博會台灣館「山水心燈」昨（1）日宣告完工，興建進度超出預期。台灣館目前正進行最後的系統整合及測試，預估4月20日參與世博會試營運，並將於5月1日如期開館營運。外貿協會／提供

聯合報╱特派記者胡明揚／上海報導

在七個多月全面趕工下，以天燈及台灣山水為造型的上海世博會台灣館，昨天完成硬體工程及驗收；並開始內部布展及多媒體測試作業，預定四月廿日參加大會試營運，五月一日如期開館營運，五月十一日舉行點燈祈福開幕式。
台灣館內部人員透露，大陸官方對於台灣館的施工進度十分關切，三月卅、卅一日海協會會長陳雲林、上海市長韓正曾先後前往台灣館了解進度。
上海市常務副市長楊雄先前表示，世博會四十二個國家地區自建館中，有七成表示來得及參加四月廿日起的試營運，另有三成無法確定參加；甚至有百分之十以下的國家自建館因工程延誤，可能趕不上五月一日開幕日開館。
相較之下，台灣館去年八月十七日動工，目前展館實際興建進度超過預期，貿協的營運團隊也已進駐，效率頗佳。
貿協駐大陸首席代表、台灣館館長邱揮立表示，台灣館的主題為「山水心燈│自然、心靈、城市」。台灣館建築外觀是以天燈造型搭配山水作為表現。在地理上，台灣多山四面環海，代表山形的長方體建築外牆上，刻上台灣玉山、阿里山等名山稜線；並在大型天燈底座處規劃環狀水池，讓民眾站在天燈下點燈時，體驗台灣四面環海的情境。
「山水心燈」不僅傳達平安祈福的意向，同時巨型的玻璃燈罩及裡面的「台灣之心」—ＬＥＤ球幕，更兼具外部播放的媒體與內部展演的劇場，演繹台灣自然之美及多元的人文薈萃。
台灣館包括四樓全天域劇場│「自然城市」、二樓點燈水台的點燈啟福儀式、一樓城市廣場「大樹下一日的台灣生活及熱情好客的奉茶」及「山水心燈」燈罩與ＬＥＤ球幕雙層互動展演等。
台灣館預估，在世博會為期半年中，台灣館將接待約七十萬名遊客，每位參觀者將獲贈台灣館準備的台灣伴手禮。
@Source from: 【2010/04/02 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/

上海世博 「一軸四館」全面竣工@Arch

距離上海世博會倒數卅天，「碟」型的世博文化中心前天竣工。（新華社）

世博軸正進行燈光調試。 （新華社）

圖為浦西世博園區石油館點亮景觀燈。（新華社）

聯合報╱特派記者胡明揚／上海報導

上海世博會開幕不到一個月，位於浦東園區的世博文化中心前天竣工。至此，上海世博會的中國館、主題館、世博中心、文化中心、世博軸等五座新建永久性建築全部建成。
世博文化中心用地面積六點七萬平方公尺，總建築面積近十六萬平方公尺，其中地上為單層的一點八萬座多功能劇場及環繞主場館的周邊六層建築，地下建築為兩層。
世博文化中心造型呈飛碟狀，設計理念中的「漂浮」概念，即藉助周邊功能區塊的上移，留出草坡平台層以滿足各種交通空間的轉換及劇場人流的疏散，同時解決了建築容量增大、原有基地不足的困境。「飛碟」輕盈地落在綠色基座之上，碟形主體與基座的分離似乎擺脫了重力，加強了天與地之間的戲劇性效果。
作為大陸第一個容量可變的大型室內場館，世博文化中心的劇場空間可以透過靈活的垂直分隔系統和創新的可伸縮可升降觀眾座椅系統，根據需要隔成一點八萬座、一點二萬座、一萬座、八千座、五千座等。舞台可根據演出內容在大小、形態、甚至在三百六十度空間中進行立體組合，使之既能舉行超大型慶典、演唱會，又能舉辦籃球比賽和冰上表演，甚至可以進行冰球比賽。
在文化中心裡，還設有音樂俱樂部、現代化電影院、溜冰場、世界各國美食、安徒生兒童樂園、ＮＢＡ互動館、汽車文化展示廳以及近二萬平方米的商業零售區域。
在環保與生態領域，世博文化中心以時尚的飛碟外形設計形成了建築的自遮陽體系，同時為玻璃屋頂的地下空間進行自然採光；光電幕牆系統的採用，能夠讓場外觀眾也能感受到場館內的演出氛圍。此外，江水（黃浦江）冷卻系統、氣力垃圾回收系統、空調凝結水與屋面雨水收集系統等多種節能手段，也在世博文化中心綜合使用。

備受世界關注的上海世博會開幕倒數計時卅天，上海世博會永久性建築「一軸四館」已全面竣工，大部分外國館進入布展尾聲。

@Source from: http://udn.com/NEWS/MAINLAND/MAI2/5512672.shtml

Life as a Runway | The Artworks Were Walking@Fashion

THE Guggenheim's 50th anniversary celebration last week was a magnet for fashion extremists. Fans stormed the doors at 9 p.m. to hear a performance by Animal Collective.
Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

In contrast to the band's incandescent white headdresses, guests wore riotous color: Summer of Love headbands, tomato-color satin frocks and vibrant war paint that suggested "Avatar."
Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

There were studied resurrections of Seattle grunge, 'I'm with the band' T-shirts and festoons of Sgt. Pepper military braid.
Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

Upstairs, a benefit auction presided over by the museum's Young Collectors Council was only slightly more sedate, with guests swanning by in sequins and Baudelairean frills.
Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

Angelo Chan, left, wears sober tweeds by day, but traded in his banker's cravat that night for a Lanvin velvet butterfly tie. "There's a very fine line between fashion and costume," Mr. Chan said, "and this tie is as close to costume as I get."
Photo: Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

@Source from: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/03/10/fashion/20100311-runway-slideshow_index.html

Pierre Cardin: 60 Years and Counting@Fashion

"Pierre Cardin: 60 Years of Innovation" is a monument to the French designer's oeuvre. Written by his long-term collaborator Jean-Pascal Hesse, the book vividly illustrates Mr. Cardin's career through images of colorful circle furniture and visionary zippered-jersey masculine sportswear.

In the 1960's, Mr. Cardin created dresses iconic of the space age: square-cut to free the body with circular cut-outs and satellite sleeves, aviator helmets, miniskirts and colorful hose. His landmark Cosmos collection of 1964, with tunic and hose for both men and women, was a confident statement about unisex clothing and anticipated the masculine/feminine fashion standoff that dominated the second half of the 20th century.
Photo: Archives Pierre Cardin

Mr. Cardin hoped his designs would express physical and mental emancipation for women. "My way was to draw something of the future — to be young, to see that a woman could be free," he said. "I wanted to give women in the 1960's a chance to work, to sit, to take the car and drive in my dresses."
Photo: Archives Pierre Cardin

Though Mr. Cardin's fashion training began in haute couture, he was never comfortable in the shell of couture gentility. "When I started 60 years ago, the fashion I was drawing was something strange — people said I was crazy and they never wanted to wear my clothes," he said.
Photo: Archives Pierre Cardin

Mr. Cardin was considered a maverick and an outsider. The designer was criticized for creating furniture that looked as though it were extruded from a space ship (although he explains that he would "buy the tree, cut the wood and make the drawing") and berated for building an empire on licenses for anything from men's shirts to a frying pan.
Photo: Archives Pierre Cardin

Even now, in his late 80s, Mr. Cardin's aim is always to appeal to the next generation, and today's young designers seem to be catching up with his style. Louise Goldin, a London-based designer, found influence in a Cardin image for her autumn 2010 collection (shown here). "It is beautiful and it still looks so futuristic — and that is the way I have been working," said Ms. Goldin. "I like to challenge myself. There were a lot of elements of 3-D. But that is the moment we are in. His images still look so incredibly modern."
Photo: Catwalking.com

@Source from: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/03/22/fashion/20100323-ihtcardin-slideshow_index.html

Interview with Anne Makepeace, the Director/Writer of I.M. Pei: Building China Modern@People

Anne Makepeace, who previously worked with American Masters as writer/producer/director of Robert Capa: In Love and War as well as Edward Curtis: Coming to Light, answers questions about the making-of I.M. Pei: Building China Modern. In this interview she talks about the challenges of filming in China, her creative process when interviewing subjects and documenting a story, and her admiration for Pei’s body of work.
What first got you interested in doing a film on I.M. Pei?
When Eugene Shirley, the producer of I. M. Pei: Building China Modern, contacted me back in 2003 to ask I would be interested in directing a film about Pei, I was very excited about the idea. I had seen Pei’s pyramid at the Louvre and other buildings done by him – CAA in LA, the East Wing of the National Museum of Art – and was eager to find out more about the man behind these great works. Eugene had been directing as well as producing up until that time, but found that producing itself was more than full time, especially in China. I was very happy to be asked to take over that role.
While making the film, did you learn anything that surprised you about Pei?
I was amazed at the sheer number and variety of buildings Pei had designed and built. And I found the story of his exile from China very compelling. Pei left China in 1935 at age 17 to study engineering, intending to return home at the end of his studies. For decades his return was interrupted by war and revolution, keeping him in the United States for his whole adult life. Then at the age of 85, he was asked to design an art museum for his hometown city of Suzhou. The story of the “Return of the Native” was very compelling for me.
Are there any interesting anecdotes about the filming or the interviewees?

Filming in China presented huge challenges for the production. We were constantly shadowed by friendly but strict representatives of the Communist Party, including our translators, so we were not able to hear any negative points of view about the museum, which after all was extremely controversial in that it required destroying neighborhoods in an area protected by UNESCO, which had designated that part of Old Suzou as a World Heritage Site. When interviewing officials, we were required to adhere to a very strict list of questions. Filming Pei at the Louvre was a joy, however – he seemed very free and happy to be there, and that shoot provided an opening to the film that enabled audiences to enter into the story of tradition vs. modernism, our focus in China.
Please describe your approach to the film.
During interviews, I like to prepare a list of questions, but then to be spontaneous and open to following interesting threads that I may not have foreseen. I also like to get as much verité footage of everything that is happening around the subject of the film, and then to discover the story in the footage during editing.
What were some of the obstacles in achieving your vision of the film?
This was one of the rare films that I directed but did not produce, and Eugene’s and my visions were not always the same. I was more interested in the biographical and personal aspects of Pei’s life and how these influenced his design of the museum; while Eugene’s focus was very much on the theme of the film – tradition vs modernism – as reflected in the in the creation of the Suzhou museum. In the end, we created a film that we are both very proud of.
Please describe your background credits, how maybe they led to this film.
Eugene contacted me in 2003 after seeing my recently completed documentary, Robert Capa: In Love and War, which I had written, produced and directed for American Masters. Apparently, he liked what he saw there, and I had also been recommended to him by people at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and elsewhere. The Capa film, as well as my previous film on Edward S. Curtis, which was also broadcast on American Masters, gave him confidence that I could direct a strong film about an artist and his work.

@Source from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/i-m-pei/interview-with-anne-makepeace-the-directorwriter-of-i-m-pei-building-china-modern/1559/

I.M. Pei Returns to China in PBS Documentary@Arch

I.M. Pei Architect with Pei Partnership Architects
Suzhou Museum, night view of the garden.
Photo © Kerun Ip

I.M. Pei working with a model of the Suzhou Museum.
Photo © Pei Partnership Architects

Suzhou Museum, aerial southwest view.
Photo © Kerun Ip

I.M. Pei on a canal in Suzhou, China.
Photo © Pei Partnership Architects

Suzhou Museum, garden view.
Photo © Kerun Ip

Suzhou Museum, great hall.
Photo © Kerun Ip

Suzhou Museum, painting gallery.
Photo © Kerun Ip

Suzhou Museum, rock landscape.
Photo © Kerun Ip

I.M. Pei on site with architect Bing Lin (right) and associate.
Photo © Pei Partnership Architects

Suzhou Museum, night view.
Photo © Kerun Ip

March 29, 2010
By Carl Yost

The Suzhou Museum might not be I.M. Pei’s most famous building, but it clearly expresses the architect’s longstanding quest to meld local traditions with modern architecture. And with “I.M. Pei: Building China Modern,” a one-hour documentary airing at 9:00 PM (Eastern) this Wednesday, March 31 on PBS, that quest will receive a little more recognition.
The documentary, part of PBS’s American Masters series, follows Pei as he returns to the 2,500-year-old city of his ancestors to construct a museum for ancient Chinese art, located within historic Old Suzhou. Along the way, the filmmakers recorded various milestones, from Pei’s first site visit in 2002 to the building’s jubilant opening in October 2006, and interviewed such architectural luminaries as Pei, now 92 years old; his sons, Didi and Sandi Pei, partners at Pei Partnership Architects who oversaw the project; and historian-critic Charles Jencks.
At the film’s premiere last week at the Paley Center for Media in New York, producer Eugene Shirley said he seized on the Suzhou museum to investigate how China’s rapid modernization impacts its traditional culture. When he learned Pei would be designing the museum, he said, it seemed like the perfect lens through which to approach the topic.
That didn’t mean the eight years of filming, which continued until last September, were a breeze. Director Anne Makepeace described the subtle restrictions imposed by the crew’s omnipresent, Chinese government-approved “handlers,” who limited the choice of interview subjects. Notably, no residents on camera oppose their displacement by the construction.
When asked about the film's central theme, the dialogue between modernity and tradition, Didi Pei explained the goal of the Suzhou Museum by saying, “How do you move forward, to bring more current building technology into China, without completely destroying the original spirit?” He compared the project to late-20th-century Japanese architecture, which is clearly modern, but which retains a very Japanese spirit (for an example, one need look no further than the portfolio of newly minted Pritzker winners Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa of SANAA).
“That’s what I’m really hoping will happen in China,” Didi Pei said, “and I think that’s what my father was trying to do, to show, ‘Look, you don’t have to throw away that spirit in order to be modern.’”

@Source from: http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/2010/100329pei.asp

藝術LV全世界僅三家 台灣佔一@Fashion

法國藝術家Thomas(左)與中國藝術家張雷華昨天現身LV藝展。記者蘇建忠／攝影

LV中山店擁有獨立的藝廊空間，不定期展出藝術作品，開放民眾參觀。記者蘇建忠／攝影

「六島」藝術作品以粗紙水墨畫結合LED燈，詮釋傳統與現代的衝突感。記者蘇建忠／攝影

LV的「六島‧奇幻之光」藝術展上演精采的多媒體藝術作品。記者蘇建忠／攝影

聯合報╱記者陶福媛。

藝術，讓時尚更有文化氣質。

路易威登(Louis Vuitton)中山旗艦店即日起舉辦「六島．奇幻之光」藝術展，現場展出國際多媒體藝術團體「六島」的8件裝置藝術品，LV時尚有了藝術加持，更增添知性美感。

LV贊助藝文活動向來不餘遺力，除了邀請藝術家村上隆、Stephen Sprouse、Richard Prince等合作設計皮包配件，且大力贊助藝術活動，如去年在香港藝術館舉辦的「法國五月」展中，LV的「路易威登：創意情感」展出LV與藝術跨界的成果，就受到廣大的回響。

即日起在LV中山店登場的「六島．奇幻之光」藝術展，是法國藝術家Thomas Charveriat集合15位上海藝術家共同組成的藝術團體，將中國傳統的粗紙、剪紙、水墨畫，結合現代的LED燈重新賦予新意，針對快速變遷的上海，在「傳統」與「現代」之間的擺盪與取捨，有相當深刻的反省。

LV總裁卡西爾 (Yves Carcelle)曾自豪地說：「LV給予藝術家完全自由，這是其他品牌做不到的。」同樣的，LV對藝術專業的尊重，也反應在服裝設計上，LV設計總監Marc Jacobs熱愛現代藝術，且是現代藝術品的收藏家，他常在作品融入現代藝術的元素，展現不凡的時尚品味，深受明星名模的喜愛。

日前LV日本神戶店開幕時，「波麗士大人」日裔女星福本幸子(JUDY)身穿一襲藍染洋裝與會；LV贊助俄國名模娜塔莉(Natalia Vodianova)發起的「LOVE BALL」慈善晚宴中，名模娜塔莉和性感名模懷特莉 (Rosie Whiteley)也穿上青春亮麗的LV春裝，都是相當具代表性的服裝作品。

六島藝術展 台北中山店免費看
全球的LV旗艦店當中，只有巴黎香榭里舍大道總店、香港廣東道店和台北中山店擁有畫廊和藝文空間，LV不定期在店內推出藝術展，開放免費參觀。「六島．奇幻之光」藝術展自即日起至6月6日止，周一到周日10點至21點。
@Source from: 【2010/04/01 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/