首页> 外文OA文献 >Two Spheres: Mao and the Market in Chinese Architecture (1990-)
【2h】

Two Spheres: Mao and the Market in Chinese Architecture (1990-)

机译:两个领域:毛泽东与中国建筑市场(1990-)

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Mao and the market, meaning the centralised state and the market, as expanded by Robin Porter, is the broad subject of this thesis. The aim of this study is to examine how changes in the social-political system, the residual influence of Mao, and the acceptance of the market, have changed Chinese architecture over recent time. The process from Mao to market currently cannot be easily situated within any overarching theory, nor is it a linear and systematic transition, but it has far reaching effects on every corner of China, every Chinese social group, from bureaucratic agendas to personal motives. Looking at the architecture from this perspective provides a strategy, a fresh way of reading architecture and architects, and a solid way of framing them under the uncertain nature of the socialist transition. This research re-examines the new wave of innovative architecture through three case studies of Liu Jiakun, Cui Kai, URBANUS and their designs in the context of a longer vision and a broader perspective, extending the research to an ideological level. The market, the West, the East, the state, the architect – all these elements are decisive factors in shaping contemporary architecture, but they make different contributions in different cases, and, more significantly, they affect architectural design at different points in time under different versions of socialism. In other words, the intricate details of the historical pressures and practical approaches have been clarified through case studies. Regarding the actual architectural works, this research identifies factors that distinguish the designs of the subject architects from the majority of architecture in China today: they and their works transgressed the conventional imagining of modernity, which represented the homogenous dreams of the metropolis, regardless of specific social conditions. Liu Jiakun, Cui Kai and URBANUS are consciously or unconsciously facing the real socio-political challenges and the socio-economic problems of Chinese society from Mao to market. Simultaneously they also enrich the architectural language in the boundaries between this imagined modernity and the actual socio-political environment. Each of these architects, it is argued, has evolved a mediated codified language for bureaucratic communication with the state, and a communicative mode with Chinese residents who are eager for the new world. Cui Kai’s designs provide an acceptable way of mediating people’s disquiet with the status quo by operating within the official institutes. Architecture designed by Liu Jiakun becomes a psychological medium to provoke Chinese people to confront pre-reform history, and also a medium to reconcile the different cognitions of Mao and his era between the pre-reform China and China’s enthusiasm for market driven capitalism now. URBANUS’s urban strategies highlight the ideological shifts between the private and public sectors and attempt to resolve the concurrent conflict as an idiosyncratic private/public halfway position between a planned and a market economy in the city. Thus the thesis argues that, for the architects considered, their manipulations of the changing relationships between market and the state in China are in fact the sources of their architectural innovations. The mix of “Mao” and the “Market” has created a modern Chinese vernacular that has been true both in the sense of complying with the demands of the state, and also deeply rooted in the nature of the capitalist market. The tense dialogue between neo-liberal logic and socialist sovereignty is reconfiguring contemporary China, and furthermore reconfiguring China’s contemporary architecture, all of which contribute to the idea that the innovation and uniqueness of contemporary architectural design is not driven solely by the state, nor by the market, but rests with the struggle between the state and the market.
机译:毛和市场,即由罗宾·波特(Robin Porter)扩展的中央集权国家和市场,是本论文的主题。这项研究的目的是研究社会政治制度的变化,毛的残余影响以及市场的接受程度如何在最近一段时间内改变了中国建筑。从毛泽东到市场的过程目前无法轻易地置于任何总体理论之内,也不是线性的,系统的过渡,但它对中国的每个角落,每个中国社会群体,从官僚主义议程到个人动机,都具有深远的影响。从这种角度看待建筑,可以提供一种策略,一种读取建筑和建筑师的新颖方法,以及在社会主义转型的不确定性之下将它们构筑成一种坚实的方式。这项研究通过对刘家坤,崔凯,URBANUS及其设计的三个案例研究,在更长远的视野和更广阔的视野下重新审视了创新建筑的新潮流,将研究扩展到思想层面。市场,西方,东方,国家,建筑师–所有这些要素都是塑造当代建筑的决定性因素,但它们在不同情况下做出不同的贡献,更重要的是,它们在不同的时间点影响着建筑设计。社会主义的不同版本。换句话说,通过案例研究已经阐明了历史压力和实践方法的复杂细节。关于实际的建筑作品,本研究确定了将主题建筑师的设计与当今中国大多数建筑区分开的因素:他们和他们的作品超越了现代性的传统想象,代表了都市的同质梦想,无论具体如何。社会条件。从毛泽东到市场,刘家坤,崔凯和城市居民有意识或无意识地面临着真正的社会政治挑战和中国社会的社会经济问题。同时,他们还在这种想象的现代性和实际的社会政治环境之间的边界中丰富了建筑语言。有人认为,这些建筑师中的每一个都发展了一种与国家进行官僚主义沟通的中介化编码语言,以及一种与渴望新世界的中国居民的沟通方式。崔凯的设计提供了一种可接受的方式,可以通过在官方机构中开展活动来调解人们对现状的不安。刘家坤设计的建筑成为激起中国人民面对改革前历史的心理媒介,也成为调和毛泽东和他的时代在改革前中国与中国市场驱动的资本主义热情之间的不同认知的媒介。 。 URBANUS的城市策略突出了私营部门和公共部门之间的意识形态转变,并试图解决同时存在的冲突,将其作为城市中计划经济和市场经济之间的特殊私有/公共中间立场。因此,论文认为,就建筑师而言,他们对中国市场与国家之间关系变化的操纵实际上是其建筑创新的源泉。 “毛”和“市场”的结合造就了现代的中国白话,既符合国家要求,又深深植根于资本主义市场的本质。新自由主义逻辑与社会主义主权之间的紧张对话正在重塑当代中国,并且进一步重塑了中国当代建筑,所有这些都促使人们认为当代建筑设计的创新和独特性不仅是由国家驱动,也不是由国家驱动。取决于市场,但取决于国家与市场之间的斗争。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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