论文部分内容阅读
在描述世界范围内二十世纪建筑和城市主义,并代表一个多世纪的建筑、城市、工程项目及理论意图的背景中,为辨别某些潜在的共同主题,回顾一下不同运动不同风格的混合集是很有用的。这种主题不那么注重前卫派的“新颖”与过去“割裂”的主张,也不太注重风格的相近,而是更多地注重总体意义上的“现代”态度。人们开始考虑一些相互关联的问题,如:“现代主义的实质”、“技术问题”、“历史思想”、“形式问题”、“大都会”的社会理论,及其他问题。但是,即便当通常意义上的建筑史已趋于再现前卫派自己构造的历史时,即为自我辩证的历史辩证,更概括的主题的历史险些陷于相反的误区:即从外部建筑强加统一的描述,这是一种不可信的方法。我们已经学会怀疑将达尔文理论及其他社会科学应用于建筑和社会上的进步、兴衰。甚至于在今天,有人宣称“建筑的消亡”与“历史的消亡”紧紧相连,而与“世纪之末”相抵触,然而,我们这个时代的某些历史并没有陷入与历史渊源和艺术历史共同点不假思索地重复的陷井,如果不仅仅作为阐释的起点,这一批评的主题性的历史显然是必要的。
In the context of describing world-wide 20th-century architecture and urbanism and representing more than a century of architecture, cities, engineering projects, and theoretical intent, in order to identify some of the potential common themes, review the mixed set of different styles of different sports. It is very useful. This theme does not pay much attention to the propositions of the “novel” of the avant-garde and the “split” of the past. It also does not pay much attention to the similarity of style, but rather pays more attention to the “modern” attitude in the overall sense. People began to consider some interrelated issues, such as: “the essence of modernism,” “technical issues,” “historical thinking,” “formal issues,” the “metropolitan” social theory, and other issues. However, even when the history of architecture in the usual sense has tended to reproduce the history of the avant-garde’s own construction, which is dialectical for self-dialectical history, the history of more general themes is almost trapped in the opposite misunderstanding: that is, the imposition of a unified description from external architecture. This is an untrustworthy method. We have learned to doubt the application of Darwin’s theory and other social sciences to the progress and rise and fall of architecture and society. Even today, some people claim that “the demise of architecture” is closely linked with “the demise of history” and that it is in conflict with “the end of the century”. However, some of the history of our time has not fallen into the historical origin and artistic history. Commonly thoughtlessly repeated traps, if not merely the starting point for interpretation, the subjective history of this critique is clearly necessary.