Like many Le Corbusier projects, Dom-ino appears under two very different guises, depending on the degree of familiarity one has with the work of itsauthor.For the layperson, Dom-ino consists primarily of an image, one of those iconic images that is endlessly reproduced in architectural journals and books. With its three slabs, six columns, and staircase in the background, the picture, a perspectival view of an allegedly “monolithic”structure, ranks among the most famous illustrations produced by modernist architecture. Because of its pervasive, at times subliminal presence in architectural discourse, it has overshadowed the technicalities of the system itself and the various examples of its application given in Le Corbusier’s Oeuyre complete.The situation is quite different for the student of the architect, for whom the system and its applications are also present.There are other examples of this duality between icon and layered system. Plan Obus for Algiers presents the same two-tiered structure, which explains the highly differentiated reception of some Le Corbusier’s projects. In this case too, a highly emblematic iconography has eclipsed a far more complex and ambiguous proposal than what has been generally retained by architectural theorists and historians.

就像勒·柯布西耶的大多数作品一样，多米诺体系给不同的人以两种完全不同的印象。对于没有仔细研究过它的人来说，多米诺体系就是一张图，那张在建筑杂志和书籍上不断出现的标志性透视图。这这张透视图上画着三块板、六根柱子和一个楼梯，表达的是一个完整独立的结构体系，成为了现代主义的最著名的插图之一。它在建筑学领域出现频率实在太高，以至于潜在的符号意义已经掩盖了多米诺体系本身的技术性以及其在柯布西耶全集中的各种应用。对于建筑系的学生来说，情况就大不相同了，它呈现出来的是一个体系及其应用。这种认知差异还存在于其他的项目，阿尔及尔的“炮弹计划”呈现出同样的现象，这解释了不同人对勒·柯布西耶一些项目的高度差异化的反映。在这种情形，一个具有象征意义的符号下掩藏着巨大的冰山，如此复杂与模糊，是建筑理论家与历史学家所不能触及的地方。

More than the system, it is the iconic image that I would like to question here. Where does its power come from? What does it tell us about the way Le Corbusier conceived its role as an author of general or rather archetypal proposals susceptible to a wide range of applications?As I will argue,the Dom-ino icon reveals the role played by fiction in the architect’s approach. For the drawing is to a large extent rooted in fiction, just like many other spectacular images produced by Le Corbusier. This fictional dimension may prove useful for interpreting other archetypal projects such as Plan Voisin for Paris or Plan Obus. Above all, it could account for their productive character, despite their highly unrealistic features.

我想问的不仅是这个体系，而是这个它作为一个抽象符号，它的力量来自哪里？作为一个通用的体系或者建筑的原型的创造者，柯布西耶是如何搭建自己的人设？正如我将要讨论的，多米诺体系的图示揭示了虚构在建筑师方法中所扮演的角色。因为这张图在很大程度上植根于虚构，就像柯布西耶创作的许多其他壮丽的蓝图一样。这种划蓝图的方式，在解释其他原型类项目时被证明是有效的，比如巴黎的改造规划或阿尔及利亚的“炮弹计划”。最重要的是，蓝图可以阐述他们建造上的可行性，尽管他们看起来非常的不现实。

In the first volume of the Oeure complete,the perspectival view of Dom-ino appears in stark contrast with the other illustrations of the system and its various applications to individual villas, as well as to collective housing programs. The line is stronger, without the slight waves and distortions that affect some of the other drawings, like the ones showing the application of the Dom-ino system to a mansion and to a group of more simple houses.The overall appearance of the perspectival view is more technological and precise, like the representation of an engine by aprofessional draughtsman.Interestingly, on the same page,cross-sections that are supposed to carry essential technical information on Dom-ino lack this degree of clarity, as if the synthetic view were imbued with a special matter-of-factness.

在全集的第一卷中，多米诺体系的透视图与其他内容形成了鲜明的对比。条线更加明确而硬朗，没有像其他图那样有一些随意或者变形的线条。透视视图的整体外观更具技术性和精确性，就像由发动机的专业图纸一样。有趣的是，在同一页上，本应包含多米诺体系关键技术信息的剖面，却缺乏这种程度的清晰度，使这个虚构的图像似乎充满了真实感。

A closer look reveals that this objective appearance is actually the result of a careful graphic construction that owes a lot to traditional visual codes of architectural representation in addition to its evident debt to early 20th-century advertisement techniques. First,the view is not axonometric.The protruding angle and the use of two vanishing points are reminiscent of the scena per angolo used by various Enlightenment-century artists,from Ferdinando Galli da Bibbiena to Giovanni Battista Piranesi.The marked contrast between light and shadow seems also indebted to 18th-century graphic techniques. In addition to the importance they both give to the frame, to the tectonic,this 18th-century touch accounts for the frequent parallel made between Dom-ino and Marc-Antoine Laugier’s primitive hut as represented by French artist Charles Eisen on the frontispiece of the second edition of the Essai sur larchitecture. In this regard it is worth recalling that Le Corbusier was an avid reader of French 18th-century architectural theorists at the time he was working out Dom-ino.

仔细观察就会发现，这种客观的外观，实际上是一种图像精心安排结果，除了明显得益于20世纪初的广告手法外，它还在很大程度上归功于传统的建筑表现视觉法则。首先，这不是轴测图。两点透视的使用让人想起启蒙运动的各种艺术家使用的场景，从比比耶纳到皮拉内西。光影之间的鲜明对比似乎也要归功于18世纪的绘画技巧。除了强调框架结构外，这种18世纪的画面质感，也解释了为什么多米诺和洛吉耶的原始小屋经常被相提并论，就像《论建筑》第二版的封面展示的那样。在这方面，值得一提是，勒·柯布西耶是18世纪法国建筑理论家的狂热读者，当时他正在研究多米诺。

How does one not subscribe at this stage to PeterEisenman’s penetrating observation regarding the dual character of the system as both modernist in its self-referentiality and rooted in a more ancient architectural tradition? This hybrid status is conveyed by the Dom-ino image,which blends two seemingly incompatible orientations: a concern for matter-of-factness or obiectivity, and illusionistic rendering techniques.

在这个阶段，人们怎么会不赞同彼得艾森曼关于这个体系的双重特征的深刻观察呢？它既是现代主义的自我指涉，又植根于更古老的建筑传统？这种混合状态是通过多米诺体系的图解传达的，它融合了两种看似不相容的方向：对客观真实性的关注，以及虚幻的渲染技术。