本展展出七位藝術家從各自出發，通過不同路徑、在不同的時空脈絡中，與田中央建築相遇、協作、甚而碰撞的多種圖景。邀請觀者通過凝視去思考，在當代世界中，何謂建築？建築的目的為何？
我們今天所習用的「建築」，是在日治時期被引進臺灣的，有著殖民現代化的語境。在19世紀下半葉明治維新時，日本翻譯architecture為「建築」；而architecture在西方，是古希臘時期被開始使用，那時認為建築為藝術之首，建築師為諸種技藝者的領導者和整合者。二千年來，這個從製作角度被發明的語詞，幾次地被復興，成為西方建築專業界試圖在其內部維持的神聖認知。而在殖民現代化的語境中，類似的專業及其認知在臺灣被建立起來。
然而，對於非建築專業的尋常人來說，建築是個生活物件；而且就跟許多人生活中的人造物件一樣，這些人造物件不僅具有使用上的物質意義，它們也表達我們，甚至會塑造我們。從象徵的角度來看，生活物件擁有被多種闡釋的可能，同一個生活物件，對於不同的人能傳達不同的意義；反過來説，同一意義對於不同的人們，可以用不同的物件以多種方式獲得象徵。由此看來，沒有中性的建築，人們對建築的理解和認識，並不存在統一性的、單一或唯一的意義。因此，建築並非僅由建築專業界所能定義，architecture代表的是一種專業的神話。
值得注意的是，創造是不可能無中生有的，意義或者說象徵的產出，總是只是對原有意義進行再造，新的意義總是從原就存在的意義中再構而生。製造視角產生的architecture，並非全然無的放矢，也是這個意義建造和再建造過程中的一環，但它只是一部分。建築因此是一個永無止境且開放理解和詮釋的過程，它不會永恆，永遠達不到終點，也無法知曉下一個意義是什麼樣？藉著空間，建築的意義建造與再造，不再只是概念上的體會，而是能讓人真實感受、情緒和獨特的全感式審美體驗。因此，建築是擁有多種方式的意義建造過程。藉此，人們基於對於自身理解和想像的改變，持續改變著建築；建築，也以相同的方式，不停地改變著人們對於自己的認知與認同。建築是個真實與想像的交界，可以容納多重意義，讓自我與他者開放溝通、交疊彼此想法、進行微調和轉變的處所。
田中央工作群由建築師黃聲遠在宜蘭創設，他們嘗試創造一種能跟地方生活和環境相融合的建築實踐，並且以多種的開放方式，連接不同技藝者加入他們的創作生活；本展的展出者都曾以不同方式介入田中央創作。本展即是一個迷你的建築，通過對於田中央建築的闡釋，開放地邀請—不僅是展出者，也包括觀者，在此交疊和轉變，創作意義並理解他人，在之前互不相通的世界之間進行關係的回補和重塑。超出建築，成為不同世界之間的鏈結點。
This exhibition features diverse landscape produced by seven artists through their respective encounter, collaboration, and even collision with the architecture designed by Fieldoffice Architects via different routes and in dissimilar spatial-temporal context. As an invitation, the exhibition engages the audience to contemplate the following question through their gaze: what is architecture, and what is its purpose in the contemporary world?
The term for “architecture” in Mandarin “建築” used today was introduced into Taiwan during the period of Japanese rule, which signals the context of colonial modernization. During Japan’s Meiji Restoration in the late 19th century, “architecture” was translated as “建筑” in Japanese kanji. In the West, “architecture” has been used since the ancient Greek period. At that time, architecture was considered the top of all arts, and an architect was someone who led and brought together professionals of various crafts. Over more than two thousand years, this term which was invented from a production point of view has informed the sacred understanding that the Western architecture circle has tried to maintain within itself throughout several waves of architectural revivals. In the context of colonial modernization, a similar professionalism and understanding of “architecture” has also been established in Taiwan.
However, for ordinary people who are not of the architecture profession, the word “architecture” simply denotes the object in life. Moreover, like many man-made objects in everyday life, architecture as a man-made object not only possesses a material meaning in terms of its function and use, but also expresses who we are, and even to the point of shaping our identity. From a symbolic point of view, a living object can possibly be interpreted in many ways. The same object in life can have different meanings to different people; reversely, the same meaning can be symbolized in various ways with dissimilar objects. Based on this viewpoint, neutral architecture does not exist—people’s understanding and knowledge of architecture is not unified, singular, or solitary. Therefore, architecture can be defined by those outside of the architecture profession, and the concept of architecture only suggests a mystified profession.
It is worth noticing that creation is never out of thin air. The production of meanings or symbols is always based on the modification of existing ones; that is, new meanings are born from the reconstruction of existing meanings. So, the idea of architecture, which is conceived from the viewpoint of production, is not created out of nothing, but part of this cycle of construction and reconstruction of meaning. However, architecture is only a part of this process of endless understanding and open interpretation, which is never permanent and always ongoing—one does not know what the meaning will be. Through space, the construction and reconstruction of the meaning of architecture is no longer something to be perceived conceptually, but a full sensory experience of aesthetics that is affective, distinctive, and can be realistically felt. Consequently, architecture denotes a process of constructing meaning in various ways, through which people have continued to change architecture based on their understanding and imagination; and architecture, in the same way, has consistently altered people’s perception of themselves and their identity as well. Architecture conjures up an intersecting field of reality and imagination, where multiple meanings can be included—it is a site where the self and others can communicate openly, and ideas can be exchanged, adjusted and reshaped.
Fieldoffice Architects is founded by architect Sheng-Yuan HUANG in Yilan. They aim to create an architectural practice which can be integrated with and into the local lifestyle and environment and employs multiple open approaches to connect with professionals of different discipline to join their creative life. The artists featured in this exhibition have all engaged in dissimilar forms of intervention in the works of Fieldoffice Architects. Thus, this exhibition is itself a mini architecture. Through the interpretations of the works of Fieldoffice Architects, the exhibition serves as an open invitation to not just the artists but also all the audience to partake in this site of interweaving and transforming ideas to create meanings and understand others; and the worlds that were separate previously can become interconnected, and their relations can be mended and reshaped. Beyond Architecture is the node that links different worlds.