Conceptualization of Imperial Markers in the Architectural Ensemble of Budapest

Yu. M. Maltseva
{"title":"Conceptualization of Imperial Markers in the Architectural Ensemble of Budapest","authors":"Yu. M. Maltseva","doi":"10.32603/2412-8562-2022-8-5-18-27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. This article presents an analysis of the key architectural structures and the general space of the historical center of Budapest in order to identify its key semantic, aesthetic, cultural dominants. The relevance of this article is due to the actual lack of reflection of the urban space of Budapest, although its relationship and structural similarities with the imperial cities of Europe are obvious. The scientific novelty of this article lies in the development and refinement of the modern content of the concept of an imperial city – a phenomenon that obviously exists in the absence of empires, its content, as it can be formalized on an individual example of the architectural appearance of Budapest.Methodology and sources. Since the analytical tools of modernity are thoroughly “national”, while the empire cannot be described within the framework of any one model with help of any one metanarrative. Thus, the imperial city acts as an “archeology” understood in the spirit of the post-structuralist Foucainean paradigm, deconstructing the basic and normative ideas of the social sciences.Results and discussion. The specificity of the correlation of imperial markers in the urban space of Budapest consists in the following features: first of all, the theme of the “second capital” in comparison with Vienna is consonant with the general national theme of “orphan hood” of Hungarian culture; at the same time, an intricate combination of references to imperial markers and aesthetic and stylistic solutions to other European cities demonstrates the secondary and ephemeral, self-referential nature of these references. In addition, the sacred center of Budapest is not the main temple, but the Parliament building, which embodies the main national, cultural, ideological project.Conclusion. As a result of the study there were revealed the main features of the constitution of the imperial image of Budapest and the circumstances of its formation. Summarizing some of the most important historical trends that determined the architecture of Budapest, its aesthetic and architectural appearance and the influence that it experienced from other imperial cities, we can conclude that Budapest is a non-referential sign, reflection, and simulacrum of an imperial city that does not refer to any particular empire and to most empires at the same time.","PeriodicalId":75784,"journal":{"name":"Dental Discourse","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2022-8-5-18-27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. This article presents an analysis of the key architectural structures and the general space of the historical center of Budapest in order to identify its key semantic, aesthetic, cultural dominants. The relevance of this article is due to the actual lack of reflection of the urban space of Budapest, although its relationship and structural similarities with the imperial cities of Europe are obvious. The scientific novelty of this article lies in the development and refinement of the modern content of the concept of an imperial city – a phenomenon that obviously exists in the absence of empires, its content, as it can be formalized on an individual example of the architectural appearance of Budapest.Methodology and sources. Since the analytical tools of modernity are thoroughly “national”, while the empire cannot be described within the framework of any one model with help of any one metanarrative. Thus, the imperial city acts as an “archeology” understood in the spirit of the post-structuralist Foucainean paradigm, deconstructing the basic and normative ideas of the social sciences.Results and discussion. The specificity of the correlation of imperial markers in the urban space of Budapest consists in the following features: first of all, the theme of the “second capital” in comparison with Vienna is consonant with the general national theme of “orphan hood” of Hungarian culture; at the same time, an intricate combination of references to imperial markers and aesthetic and stylistic solutions to other European cities demonstrates the secondary and ephemeral, self-referential nature of these references. In addition, the sacred center of Budapest is not the main temple, but the Parliament building, which embodies the main national, cultural, ideological project.Conclusion. As a result of the study there were revealed the main features of the constitution of the imperial image of Budapest and the circumstances of its formation. Summarizing some of the most important historical trends that determined the architecture of Budapest, its aesthetic and architectural appearance and the influence that it experienced from other imperial cities, we can conclude that Budapest is a non-referential sign, reflection, and simulacrum of an imperial city that does not refer to any particular empire and to most empires at the same time.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
布达佩斯建筑群中帝国标志的概念化
介绍。本文分析了布达佩斯历史中心的主要建筑结构和总体空间,以确定其主要的语义、美学和文化优势。这篇文章的相关性是由于布达佩斯的城市空间实际上缺乏反映,尽管它与欧洲帝国城市的关系和结构相似性是显而易见的。这篇文章的科学新颖之处在于对帝国城市概念的现代内涵的发展和完善——这种现象显然存在于没有帝国的情况下,它的内容,可以通过布达佩斯建筑外观的单个例子来形式化。方法和来源。由于现代性的分析工具完全是“国家的”,而帝国不可能在任何一种模式的框架内借助任何一种元叙事来描述。因此,按照后结构主义的福凯恩范式的精神,皇城充当了“考古学”的角色,解构了社会科学的基本和规范观念。结果和讨论。布达佩斯城市空间中帝国标记相关性的特殊性在于:首先,与维也纳相比,“第二首都”的主题与匈牙利文化中“孤儿”的总体民族主题是一致的;与此同时,参考帝国标志和其他欧洲城市的美学和风格解决方案的复杂组合表明了这些参考的次要和短暂性,自我参考的本质。此外,布达佩斯的神圣中心不是主要的寺庙,而是议会大厦,它体现了主要的民族、文化、思想工程。研究结果揭示了布达佩斯帝国形象构成的主要特征及其形成的环境。总结决定布达佩斯建筑的一些最重要的历史趋势,它的美学和建筑外观,以及它从其他帝国城市经历的影响,我们可以得出这样的结论:布达佩斯是一个帝国城市的非参考标志、反映和拟像,它不涉及任何特定的帝国,同时也不涉及大多数帝国。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Human Sciences: Another Experience of Substantiating Socio-Humanitarian Knowledge Logical and Historical Aspects of the Genesis of Russian Sociology (on the Example of N.Ya. Danilevsky and N.K. Mikhailovsky) Social Relations of IT Professionals with Other Professional Groups: Network Modeling and Results of Empirical Analysis The Talk about the History of the Treuhandanstalt. Interview with Markus Böick. Part 1 Søren Kierkegaard’s “Man in Search of God” as a Cultural and Anthropological Type
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1