...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The journal of architecture >Hans Hollein and postmodernism: art and architecture in Austria, 1958-1985
【24h】

Hans Hollein and postmodernism: art and architecture in Austria, 1958-1985

机译：汉斯·霍林（Hans Hollein）与后现代主义：1958-1985年的奥地利艺术与建筑

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The currently increasing trend to revisit the postmodern in architecture is already 10 years old. This decade has witnessed the appearance of new publications on the subject by some of the key figures of this history (like Charles Jencks and Sir Terry Farrell) who restate their well-known ideas to cement their place in it;1 by curators (like Glenn Adamson and Jane Pavitt) who reappraise 'postmodernism' as the reigning style of the 1980s; by historians (like Geraint Franklin and Elain Harwood) who stress the need to preserve exemplary projects of this architectural style; by theorists (like Reinhold Martin) who retheorise postmodern projects, practices and discourses in an attempt to emancipate their latent radical potential;4 and, more recently, by scholars (like Claire Jamieson and Esra Akcan) who approach key projects and practices of the same period in their specific historical, cultural and socio-political terms.5 The studies that focus on 'postmodernism' tend to reproduce its historically prevailing, but rather reductive, interpretation as an architectural style. It is therefore left to the retheorising and historicising approaches to advance disciplinary knowledge. These scholarly works effectively revise the current understanding of the postmodern in architecture. The theorists' intention to reactivate the latent implications of postmodern architecture for contemporary critical thinking is commendable. But more theory seems less apposite to address the question of the postmodern in architecture today. After all, the original debates of the 1970s and 1980s historically coincided with the 'gilded age of theory'. I posit that contemporary understandings of the postmodern in architecture do not suffer from insufficient theorisation, but from inadequate historicisation.
机译：当前重访后现代建筑的趋势已经有10年了。十年来，这个历史上的一些重要人物（如查尔斯·詹克斯（Charles Jencks）和特里·法瑞尔爵士（Sir Terry Farrell））见证了有关该主题的新出版物的出现，他们重申了他们的著名思想以巩固其地位; 1策展人（如格伦（Glenn）亚当森（Adamson）和简·帕维特（Jane Pavitt）重新评价了“后现代主义”作为1980年代的统治风格。由历史学家（例如Geraint Franklin和Elain Harwood）强调需要保留这种建筑风格的典范项目；由理论家（如Reinhold Martin）重新设定后现代的项目，实践和话语以试图释放其潜在的巨大潜力； 4以及最近由学者（如Claire Jamieson和Esra Akcan）进行的关键项目和实践5以“后现代主义”为重点的研究倾向于将其历史上盛行但还原性的解释再现为一种建筑风格。因此，留给发展学科知识的重新理论和历史方法。这些学术著作有效地修改了当前对后现代建筑的理解。理论家旨在重新激发后现代建筑对当代批判性思维的潜在影响的意图值得称赞。但是，更多的理论似乎不太适合解决当今的后现代建筑问题。毕竟，1970年代和1980年代的原始争论历史上与“理论的镀金时代”相吻合。我认为，当代对后现代建筑的理解不会因理论不足而遭受历史性不足。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The journal of architecture》 |2019年第1期|121-130|共10页
  • 作者

    Stylianos Giamarelos;

  • 作者单位

    The Bartlett School of Architecture University College London, UK;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号