首页> 外文学位 >Irony in metaphysics's gravity: Iconoclasm and imagination in architecture, 1960s--1980s.
【24h】

Irony in metaphysics's gravity: Iconoclasm and imagination in architecture, 1960s--1980s.

机译:具有讽刺意味的是形而上学的引力:建筑的偶像崇拜和想象力,1960年代至1980年代。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This dissertation studies the discursive and formal appearance of irony in architecture between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. In this timeframe, a number of architects and architectural historians position their theories and designs in relation to irony---as they define this notion themselves, or as they effectuate discursive transfers from literature, literary criticism, the visual arts, and philosophy (New Criticism, Pop art, philosophical existentialisms, Romantic literary theory, semiology, pragmatist philosophy, deconstruction). In these theories, architecture and irony appear persistently at odds with one another: the ensuing symbiotic clash negotiates a paradoxical space between architecture's stronghold of stability, bounded by the "gravity" of its traditions, and irony's actions of critique, undoing and denial, related to the negative freedom of irony's author.; Different architects expect irony to be operational in diverse ways, and accordingly, they adjust their ironic strategies and means of expression: Robert Venturi is more interested in the formal side of irony, Stanley Tigerman leans towards satirical comedy, John Hejduk is closer to parody, Arata Isozaki closer to Romantic tragedy, James Stirling closer to wit, Peter Eisenman closer to aporetic rhetoric, and Rem Koolhaas closer to cynicism. Notwithstanding the sometimes considerable dissimilarities of their theories and designs, they all define architecture as the expression of "distance" from the canonical moments of 20th century modernism. I maintain that irony is the paradoxical distance-holder that generates their architectural space in reference to some implied alter ego: Venturi-Le Corbusier, Tigerman-Mies, Isozaki-Metabolism. In opposition to these instrumentalists of irony, the Marxist historian Manfredo Tafuri, who recognizes the value of irony as an operative technique of the historical avant-garde, makes himself the fervent critic of this Kunstmittel. In his view, irony's subjective bricolages of history detach the architectural discussion from its socio-political mission.; Eisenman and Koolhaas emerge as two figures, who turn ironic self-reflectivity into full-fletched epistemological strategies: Eisenman puts the negative method of textual dissimulation---of "showing in denial"---in the service of an architectural Absolute; Koolhaas develops paranoid fictions about reality as productive simulations. Both generate a "rhetoric of distancing," which depends on an ironic mise-en-abime ---the dominant thematic of architectural postmodernism.
机译:本文研究了1960年代中期至1980年代中期在建筑中反讽的话语形式化形式。在这段时间内,许多建筑师和建筑历史学家将自己的理论和设计与讽刺性联系起来,因为他们自己定义了这个概念,或者实现了文学,文学批评,视觉艺术和哲学的话语权转移(新批评,波普艺术,哲学存在主义,浪漫主义文学理论,符号学,实用主义哲学,解构)。在这些理论中,建筑与讽刺始终存在矛盾:随后的共生冲突在建筑的稳定据点(以其传统的“引力”为界)与讽刺的批评,毁灭和否认行动之间产生了矛盾的空间。具有讽刺意味的作者的消极自由。不同的建筑师期望讽刺的作用多种多样,因此他们会调整讽刺的策略和表达方式:罗伯特·文图里(Robert Venturi)对反讽的形式方面更感兴趣,斯坦利·泰格曼(Stanley Tigerman)倾向于讽刺喜剧,约翰·海杜克(John Hejduk)更接近于模仿,矶崎新(Arata Isozaki)更接近浪漫的悲剧,詹姆斯·斯特林(James Stirling)更接近机智,彼得·艾森曼(Peter Eisenman)更接近外交修辞,雷姆·库哈斯(Rem Koolhaas)更接近犬儒主义。尽管有时它们的理论和设计有很大的不同,但他们都将建筑定义为与20世纪现代主义典范时刻的“距离”。我坚持认为讽刺是反常的距离持有者,它通过一些隐含的自我意识产生了他们的建筑空间:文丘里-勒·柯布西耶,泰格曼·密斯,伊佐佐木-新陈代谢。与这些反讽工具主义者相对立的是,马克思主义历史学家曼弗雷多·塔夫里(Manfredo Tafuri)认识到反讽是历史前卫的一种实用技术,因此使自己成为对这种艺术的热烈批评。在他看来,讽刺的历史主观色彩使建筑讨论脱离了其社会政治使命。艾森曼和库哈斯以两个人物出现,将具有讽刺意味的自我反省变成了全面的认识论策略:艾森曼将文本模仿的否定方法-“否定展示”-用于建筑上的“绝对”。库哈斯(Koolhaas)开发了关于现实的偏执幻想小说,作为生产模拟。两者都产生了“疏远的修辞”,这取决于具有讽刺意味的“弥撒”-建筑后现代主义的主要主题。

著录项

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