Pub Date : 2022-01-12DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0063
Though he has been marginalized in most mainstream accounts of modern architecture, Albert Kahn (b. 1869–d. 1942) is increasingly considered one of the most important and consequential US architects of the 20th century. Kahn is known primarily for the technically innovative and rigorously functional factory buildings that his still-extant firm Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. (founded 1903) designed for automotive manufacturers, including the Ford Motor Company, but his firm was also responsible for hundreds of eclectically styled buildings for other purposes in Detroit, Michigan. Research and writing regarding Albert Kahn often requires considerable effort to disambiguation. Most importantly, Albert Kahn the man is far from a synecdoche for the firm he founded, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc., which employed upward of several hundred people at its height and is still in operation under the simplified Kahn moniker today. Some mid-20th century historians and critics substituted the inaccurate and often derogatory moniker “Albert Kahn Inc.” as name for the firm to suggest its alienated and impersonal nature. Albert Kahn’s siblings are also worthy of attention in their own right. Frequently mentioned in the extant literature are brothers Julius (b. 1874–d. 1942) who was a trained engineer, inventor and co-founder of the highly successful Trussed Concrete Steel Company; Moritz (b. 1880–d. 1939), who was also an executive of the Kahn firm pivotal in its operations in the USSR between 1929 and 1932, and occasionally Louis (b. 1885–d. 1945), who was a manager and executive in the Kahn firm. Views of Albert Kahn have served as a barometer for the intellectual climate in architecture culture since the early 20th century, indexing the relative importance of aesthetics, ethics, and technics. Studies of Kahn and his firm have, until recently, primarily focused on their contributions to industrial architecture and the influence of their early factory buildings on architecture culture at large. These studies often describe the give-and-take between assembly lines and the streamlined, pragmatic design of the buildings that encompassed them. An upsurge of recent attention to Kahn’s work has been oriented away from issues of design toward larger histories. Some scholars have addressed the shift toward large, integrated offices within the profession, for which Albert Kahn Associates was a groundbreaking exemplar. Others have addressed the ways Kahn served the growth of global enterprise, revealing that his marginalization from architectural history has effaced the willful complicity of US architects in compounding capitalist power and solidifying its ideology. These topics remain rich veins for future researchers.
{"title":"Albert Kahn","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0063","url":null,"abstract":"Though he has been marginalized in most mainstream accounts of modern architecture, Albert Kahn (b. 1869–d. 1942) is increasingly considered one of the most important and consequential US architects of the 20th century. Kahn is known primarily for the technically innovative and rigorously functional factory buildings that his still-extant firm Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. (founded 1903) designed for automotive manufacturers, including the Ford Motor Company, but his firm was also responsible for hundreds of eclectically styled buildings for other purposes in Detroit, Michigan. Research and writing regarding Albert Kahn often requires considerable effort to disambiguation. Most importantly, Albert Kahn the man is far from a synecdoche for the firm he founded, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc., which employed upward of several hundred people at its height and is still in operation under the simplified Kahn moniker today. Some mid-20th century historians and critics substituted the inaccurate and often derogatory moniker “Albert Kahn Inc.” as name for the firm to suggest its alienated and impersonal nature. Albert Kahn’s siblings are also worthy of attention in their own right. Frequently mentioned in the extant literature are brothers Julius (b. 1874–d. 1942) who was a trained engineer, inventor and co-founder of the highly successful Trussed Concrete Steel Company; Moritz (b. 1880–d. 1939), who was also an executive of the Kahn firm pivotal in its operations in the USSR between 1929 and 1932, and occasionally Louis (b. 1885–d. 1945), who was a manager and executive in the Kahn firm. Views of Albert Kahn have served as a barometer for the intellectual climate in architecture culture since the early 20th century, indexing the relative importance of aesthetics, ethics, and technics. Studies of Kahn and his firm have, until recently, primarily focused on their contributions to industrial architecture and the influence of their early factory buildings on architecture culture at large. These studies often describe the give-and-take between assembly lines and the streamlined, pragmatic design of the buildings that encompassed them. An upsurge of recent attention to Kahn’s work has been oriented away from issues of design toward larger histories. Some scholars have addressed the shift toward large, integrated offices within the profession, for which Albert Kahn Associates was a groundbreaking exemplar. Others have addressed the ways Kahn served the growth of global enterprise, revealing that his marginalization from architectural history has effaced the willful complicity of US architects in compounding capitalist power and solidifying its ideology. These topics remain rich veins for future researchers.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114592915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-12DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0065
When it comes to Cairo, there is a plethora of writing taking place amid its streets and alleyways. Trying to make sense of, and structure, such an immense output is quite a difficult task. However, this article aims to highlight some significant writings that would offer those interested in Cairo’s architecture an opportunity to learn more about the city and its built environment. My intent is also to expand the scope of the inquiry. Rather than simply focusing on specific buildings, I seek to include the broader urban context and also look at the socioeconomic conditions that gave rise to important structures. I start with a review of some major texts that have looked at the city from different perspectives and, in doing so, shed light on the city’s urban and architectural development. It is interesting to note that for the most part, authors in this section do not come from an architectural or urban-planning background. Instead they write from a historical, economic, and geographic perspective. Following this, I look at a variety of other sources and writings that have appeared in edited books and book chapters. I have also included journal articles, since they offer an in-depth examination of certain buildings and the city’s overall urban growth. In addition to writings about the city, I also sought to capture its “urban imaginary” (i.e., the extent to which its built environment has been represented by writers, filmmakers, and artists). To that end, a section is dedicated toward a review of key works and the extent to which they have shed valuable insights into Cairo’s past, present, and future. The city’s urban imaginary is also portrayed through the medium of film, which allows for a conveyance of a visual narrative that evokes the sight and sounds of the city. Here I review key articles discussing the representation of the city through cinema, which is then followed by a filmography of major movies released since the late 20th century. Last, I review online resources, offering researchers material about the city’s architecture and urban environment in the form of images, maps, and drawings, in addition to blogs discussing Cairo’s rich history as well as modern problems.
{"title":"Architecture and the Urban Life of Cairo","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0065","url":null,"abstract":"When it comes to Cairo, there is a plethora of writing taking place amid its streets and alleyways. Trying to make sense of, and structure, such an immense output is quite a difficult task. However, this article aims to highlight some significant writings that would offer those interested in Cairo’s architecture an opportunity to learn more about the city and its built environment. My intent is also to expand the scope of the inquiry. Rather than simply focusing on specific buildings, I seek to include the broader urban context and also look at the socioeconomic conditions that gave rise to important structures. I start with a review of some major texts that have looked at the city from different perspectives and, in doing so, shed light on the city’s urban and architectural development. It is interesting to note that for the most part, authors in this section do not come from an architectural or urban-planning background. Instead they write from a historical, economic, and geographic perspective. Following this, I look at a variety of other sources and writings that have appeared in edited books and book chapters. I have also included journal articles, since they offer an in-depth examination of certain buildings and the city’s overall urban growth. In addition to writings about the city, I also sought to capture its “urban imaginary” (i.e., the extent to which its built environment has been represented by writers, filmmakers, and artists). To that end, a section is dedicated toward a review of key works and the extent to which they have shed valuable insights into Cairo’s past, present, and future. The city’s urban imaginary is also portrayed through the medium of film, which allows for a conveyance of a visual narrative that evokes the sight and sounds of the city. Here I review key articles discussing the representation of the city through cinema, which is then followed by a filmography of major movies released since the late 20th century. Last, I review online resources, offering researchers material about the city’s architecture and urban environment in the form of images, maps, and drawings, in addition to blogs discussing Cairo’s rich history as well as modern problems.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"51 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116830242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-12DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0068
D. Wiseman, C. Gadd
This article discusses the architecture of Assyria and Babylonia, two kingdoms that were located in modern-day Iraq and surrounding parts of Syria, Turkey, and Iran. This region overlaps with Mesopotamia (an ancient Greek name for the region between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers). The rise to prominence around c. 1800 bce of the cities of Assur in northern Iraq and of Babylon in central Iraq is taken as the article’s starting point. The main focus is, however, on the later histories of Assyria (c. 900–612 bce) and Babylonia (c. 626–538 bce). Both kingdoms can be said to have reached an imperial scale during these periods (Assyria around 730 bce during the reign of King Tiglath-Pileser III, and Babylonia when its armies conquered Assyria in 612 bce). Both empires came to control large parts of western Asia and at times also Egypt. This chapter will, however, focus on Mesopotamia proper, what might be described as its architectural koine (a multiregional shared material culture). The conquest of Babylonia by the Achaemenid Persian armies in 538 bce is taken as the end date. Architecture is an integral part of society and cannot therefore be studied on its own. The discourse on Mesopotamian architecture is notably sparse and uneven (as becomes apparent in this article). The limited nature of the discourse can be explained in several ways. First, although Mesopotamian architects created some of the most renowned buildings of their times, those architects did not write down their ideas, nor did they claim authorship. Ancient textual sources, although abundantly preserved, provide limited information when it comes to architecture. The activity of architecture was instead based on learned practice. Second, the architecture of the region was predominantly constructed of mud bricks supplemented with wood. More-extensive use of stones was generally limited to monumental buildings. Over the centuries, these buildings have collapsed and come to be buried under their own, and later, debris. Generally, only the lowest parts of the ground floor walls have survived. Our knowledge of ancient architecture is therefore dependent on archaeological excavations that commenced in the middle of the 19th century. Third, from the time the first excavations in the region commenced, archaeologists have focused mostly on the big urban centers and their monumental palaces and temples. Archaeologists have become more interested in other types of buildings and settlements over time, but our knowledge remains limited and biased to certain regions and periods. These biases, unfortunately, continue to shape the discourse and limit what can be referenced. Although this chapter does not aim to be comprehensive, it does include a substantial selection of the works that have been published on the architecture of the region.
{"title":"Assyria and Babylonia","authors":"D. Wiseman, C. Gadd","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0068","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the architecture of Assyria and Babylonia, two kingdoms that were located in modern-day Iraq and surrounding parts of Syria, Turkey, and Iran. This region overlaps with Mesopotamia (an ancient Greek name for the region between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers). The rise to prominence around c. 1800 bce of the cities of Assur in northern Iraq and of Babylon in central Iraq is taken as the article’s starting point. The main focus is, however, on the later histories of Assyria (c. 900–612 bce) and Babylonia (c. 626–538 bce). Both kingdoms can be said to have reached an imperial scale during these periods (Assyria around 730 bce during the reign of King Tiglath-Pileser III, and Babylonia when its armies conquered Assyria in 612 bce). Both empires came to control large parts of western Asia and at times also Egypt. This chapter will, however, focus on Mesopotamia proper, what might be described as its architectural koine (a multiregional shared material culture). The conquest of Babylonia by the Achaemenid Persian armies in 538 bce is taken as the end date. Architecture is an integral part of society and cannot therefore be studied on its own. The discourse on Mesopotamian architecture is notably sparse and uneven (as becomes apparent in this article). The limited nature of the discourse can be explained in several ways. First, although Mesopotamian architects created some of the most renowned buildings of their times, those architects did not write down their ideas, nor did they claim authorship. Ancient textual sources, although abundantly preserved, provide limited information when it comes to architecture. The activity of architecture was instead based on learned practice. Second, the architecture of the region was predominantly constructed of mud bricks supplemented with wood. More-extensive use of stones was generally limited to monumental buildings. Over the centuries, these buildings have collapsed and come to be buried under their own, and later, debris. Generally, only the lowest parts of the ground floor walls have survived. Our knowledge of ancient architecture is therefore dependent on archaeological excavations that commenced in the middle of the 19th century. Third, from the time the first excavations in the region commenced, archaeologists have focused mostly on the big urban centers and their monumental palaces and temples. Archaeologists have become more interested in other types of buildings and settlements over time, but our knowledge remains limited and biased to certain regions and periods. These biases, unfortunately, continue to shape the discourse and limit what can be referenced. Although this chapter does not aim to be comprehensive, it does include a substantial selection of the works that have been published on the architecture of the region.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127510600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-23DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0062
C. Vernon
Marion Mahony Griffin (b. 1871–d. 1961) excelled in a range of creative endeavors as extensive as the geographic expanse of her long and storied career. Between 1894 and 1949, Mahony worked as an architect, illustrator, planner, real estate developer, community leader, public speaker, and author in the United States, Australia, and India. From the outset, Mahony’s career included solo commissions, independent exhibitions, and lectures as well as work completed in conjunction with contemporaries who, like Mahony, began their careers in Chicago’s Steinway Hall loft. They included, Frank Lloyd Wright, Hermann von Holst, and Mahony’s husband and professional partner Walter Burley Griffin. Critical interest in Mahony’s contribution to architecture and urbanism mirrors the reception of architectural modernism in the United States. At the beginning of the 20th century, Mahony’s work was examined for its potential to herald a new age. In the middle of the century, it was seen as a possible beacon and alternative to European modernism. Since the dawn of the 21st century, and after a period of apathy toward her work, historians and professionals have begun analyzing Mahony’s practice, its conceptual surround, and the history of its reception to reflect on the transnational routes of architectural modernism, biases in the historiography of architecture, and the potential for an ecologically sensitive approach to urbanism. This trajectory of US reactions to Mahony from hope to apathy to renewed interest is curiously also true of popular and scholarly portrayals of Mahony in other countries. It evinces a US-centric approach to understanding Mahony’s work that, until very recently, obscured the importance of anti-colonialism in shaping Mahony’s visual, spatial, and literary practice after 1914 when she began to live and work outside the United States. New scholarship on Mahony’s work has led to popular and professional acknowledgement of her talent: the Marion Mahony Emerging Practitioner Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology honors a distinguished alumna; Marion’s List is a public register of women working in architecture and the built environment in Australia, launched by Parlour in collaboration with the National Committee for Gender Equity of the Australian Institute of Architects; the Australian Capital Territory Government named the lookout on Mount Ainslie in Canberra, made famous by a Mahony rendering the Marion Mahony Griffin View; and the Chicago Park District and current residents in Mahony’s old neighborhood named a lakefront beach in Chicago the Marion Mahony Griffin Beach Park.
{"title":"Marion Mahony Griffin","authors":"C. Vernon","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0062","url":null,"abstract":"Marion Mahony Griffin (b. 1871–d. 1961) excelled in a range of creative endeavors as extensive as the geographic expanse of her long and storied career. Between 1894 and 1949, Mahony worked as an architect, illustrator, planner, real estate developer, community leader, public speaker, and author in the United States, Australia, and India. From the outset, Mahony’s career included solo commissions, independent exhibitions, and lectures as well as work completed in conjunction with contemporaries who, like Mahony, began their careers in Chicago’s Steinway Hall loft. They included, Frank Lloyd Wright, Hermann von Holst, and Mahony’s husband and professional partner Walter Burley Griffin. Critical interest in Mahony’s contribution to architecture and urbanism mirrors the reception of architectural modernism in the United States. At the beginning of the 20th century, Mahony’s work was examined for its potential to herald a new age. In the middle of the century, it was seen as a possible beacon and alternative to European modernism. Since the dawn of the 21st century, and after a period of apathy toward her work, historians and professionals have begun analyzing Mahony’s practice, its conceptual surround, and the history of its reception to reflect on the transnational routes of architectural modernism, biases in the historiography of architecture, and the potential for an ecologically sensitive approach to urbanism. This trajectory of US reactions to Mahony from hope to apathy to renewed interest is curiously also true of popular and scholarly portrayals of Mahony in other countries. It evinces a US-centric approach to understanding Mahony’s work that, until very recently, obscured the importance of anti-colonialism in shaping Mahony’s visual, spatial, and literary practice after 1914 when she began to live and work outside the United States. New scholarship on Mahony’s work has led to popular and professional acknowledgement of her talent: the Marion Mahony Emerging Practitioner Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology honors a distinguished alumna; Marion’s List is a public register of women working in architecture and the built environment in Australia, launched by Parlour in collaboration with the National Committee for Gender Equity of the Australian Institute of Architects; the Australian Capital Territory Government named the lookout on Mount Ainslie in Canberra, made famous by a Mahony rendering the Marion Mahony Griffin View; and the Chicago Park District and current residents in Mahony’s old neighborhood named a lakefront beach in Chicago the Marion Mahony Griffin Beach Park.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131948170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-27DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0059
Rome was not built in one day. The eternal city was founded in 753 BCE and only few remains dating from the Archaic period survive. The Republican era (from 509 BCE, when the last king was overthrown, to 31 BCE, when Octavian/Augustus became the sole ruler of an empire that extended over three continents) as well as the imperial age, which lasted until Late Antiquity, were characterized by a constant renewal of architectural forms and building techniques, as a consequence of political and social developments. The expansion of the city was never the object of urban planning as we know it today. The cityscape was constantly remodeled thanks to a series of building programs conceived for political reasons and often originating from devastating fires. Unlike Pompeii, Rome is not a dead city and many ancient buildings were reused after Late Antiquity; therefore, countless contributions on its architecture originate not only from excavations but also from architectural surveys and “digs” in the archives. Indeed, the eternal city is a historical palimpsest, with the remains of three thousand years of art and architecture, pagan and Christian, profoundly intermingled in its urban fabric, and not many people have the knowledge, insight, and experience to make sense of such a very demanding research environment. Despite the publication of many books on Roman architecture and building techniques, not a single work has been devoted to the architecture of the city of Rome exclusively. (An exception is Storia dell’Architettura Italiana: Architettura romana; I grandi monumenti di Roma [Hesberg and Zanker 2009, cited under Collections of Papers], which, however, is a collection of essays.) To offer a broader picture, most books deal with the city of Rome along with Roman Italy and the provinces of the empire. Whenever Rome is the only topic, its architecture is never examined from origins through empire and only a specific period or building is taken into consideration. In general, scholarship on Roman architecture has focused on building typologies, materials, construction techniques, issues of design, and urbanism. Ancient literary sources are almost fundamental (this is another important difference between Rome and other cities, such as Ostia or Pompeii) because the historical, political, and social context of Rome’s architecture is unique: suffice it to mention all the monuments—arches, porticoes, temples—related to the triumphal procession, which was held in Rome exclusively, or were built after a successful military campaign with the spoils of war. Yet, a widespread assumption is that Rome is easy to investigate and understand. In reality, the substantial lack of scientific monographs on the majority of ancient Rome’s architectural monuments is explained by the painstaking work and the long time necessary for such studies. The works listed and annotated in this article deal with Rome’s architecture from the Archaic period to Late Antiquity, when Rome becam
冰冻三尺非一日之寒。这座永恒之城建于公元前753年，只有少数古代遗迹幸存下来。共和时代(从公元前509年，最后一个国王被推翻，到公元前31年，屋大维/奥古斯都成为一个横跨三大洲的帝国的唯一统治者)以及帝国时代，一直持续到古代晚期，其特点是建筑形式和建筑技术的不断更新，这是政治和社会发展的结果。城市的扩张从来不是我们今天所知道的城市规划的目标。由于政治原因而构思的一系列建筑项目，城市景观不断被改造，这些项目往往源于毁灭性的火灾。与庞贝不同，罗马并不是一座死寂的城市，许多古代建筑在上古晚期之后被重新使用;因此，对其建筑的无数贡献不仅来自发掘，还来自建筑调查和档案中的“挖掘”。的确，这座永恒之城是一座历史的重写本，三千年来的艺术和建筑遗迹，无论是异教的还是基督教的，都深深地交织在它的城市结构中，没有多少人有足够的知识、洞察力和经验来理解这样一个非常苛刻的研究环境。尽管出版了许多关于罗马建筑和建筑技术的书籍，但没有一本专门研究罗马城建筑的作品。(一个例外是意大利建筑博物馆:罗马建筑博物馆;I grandi monumenti di Roma [Hesberg and Zanker 2009，引自文集]，然而，这是一本文集。)为了提供一个更广泛的画面，大多数书籍都是关于罗马城、罗马意大利和帝国的省份的。当罗马是唯一的主题时，它的建筑从来没有从起源到帝国进行研究，只有一个特定的时期或建筑被考虑在内。总的来说，罗马建筑的学术研究主要集中在建筑类型学、材料、建筑技术、设计问题和城市化。古代文献来源几乎是基本的(这是罗马与奥斯蒂亚或庞贝等其他城市之间的另一个重要区别)，因为罗马建筑的历史、政治和社会背景是独一无二的:只要提到所有与胜利游行有关的纪念碑——拱门、门廊、寺庙就足够了，这些胜利游行只在罗马举行，或者是在一次成功的军事行动后建造的战利品。然而，一个普遍的假设是，罗马很容易调查和理解。实际上，对大多数古罗马建筑纪念碑的科学专著的严重缺乏，是由于这些研究需要艰苦的工作和漫长的时间。本文中列出和注释的作品涉及从古代时期到古代晚期的罗马建筑，当罗马成为一个基督教城市时，该地区在公元3世纪晚期被纳入城墙。这篇文章并不是对建筑的摘要，而是对过去几十年出版的最重要的建筑作品的选择，而且不是全英文的。虽然对罗马建筑的研究必然与考古发掘交织在一起，但本文并不是最新考古活动的参考书目，也不是因为挖掘、地层学和物质文化无关紧要:更简单地说，本文只讨论罗马的建筑。
{"title":"Rome, Origins Through Empire","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0059","url":null,"abstract":"Rome was not built in one day. The eternal city was founded in 753 BCE and only few remains dating from the Archaic period survive. The Republican era (from 509 BCE, when the last king was overthrown, to 31 BCE, when Octavian/Augustus became the sole ruler of an empire that extended over three continents) as well as the imperial age, which lasted until Late Antiquity, were characterized by a constant renewal of architectural forms and building techniques, as a consequence of political and social developments. The expansion of the city was never the object of urban planning as we know it today. The cityscape was constantly remodeled thanks to a series of building programs conceived for political reasons and often originating from devastating fires. Unlike Pompeii, Rome is not a dead city and many ancient buildings were reused after Late Antiquity; therefore, countless contributions on its architecture originate not only from excavations but also from architectural surveys and “digs” in the archives. Indeed, the eternal city is a historical palimpsest, with the remains of three thousand years of art and architecture, pagan and Christian, profoundly intermingled in its urban fabric, and not many people have the knowledge, insight, and experience to make sense of such a very demanding research environment. Despite the publication of many books on Roman architecture and building techniques, not a single work has been devoted to the architecture of the city of Rome exclusively. (An exception is Storia dell’Architettura Italiana: Architettura romana; I grandi monumenti di Roma [Hesberg and Zanker 2009, cited under Collections of Papers], which, however, is a collection of essays.) To offer a broader picture, most books deal with the city of Rome along with Roman Italy and the provinces of the empire. Whenever Rome is the only topic, its architecture is never examined from origins through empire and only a specific period or building is taken into consideration. In general, scholarship on Roman architecture has focused on building typologies, materials, construction techniques, issues of design, and urbanism. Ancient literary sources are almost fundamental (this is another important difference between Rome and other cities, such as Ostia or Pompeii) because the historical, political, and social context of Rome’s architecture is unique: suffice it to mention all the monuments—arches, porticoes, temples—related to the triumphal procession, which was held in Rome exclusively, or were built after a successful military campaign with the spoils of war. Yet, a widespread assumption is that Rome is easy to investigate and understand. In reality, the substantial lack of scientific monographs on the majority of ancient Rome’s architectural monuments is explained by the painstaking work and the long time necessary for such studies. The works listed and annotated in this article deal with Rome’s architecture from the Archaic period to Late Antiquity, when Rome becam","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124017676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-27DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0060
The term Soviet architecture refers to architectural production on the territory of the former Russian Empire under the control of the Soviet power in the aftermath of the revolution of 1917, and in the USSR between its establishment in 1922 and its fall in 1991. In addition to Russian architecture, it includes a variety of other architectural traditions in national republics and autonomous districts. Somewhat simplistically, the history of Soviet architecture has traditionally been divided into three periods: the “avant-garde” (1917–1932), “socialist realism” or “Stalinism” (1932–1955), and late modernism (1955–1991). The neat boundaries between these periods are provided by two political interventions in architecture. The first is the announcement of the results of the second round of the Palace of the Soviets competition (28 February 1932) followed by the Communist Party decree “On the Reconstruction of Literature and Artistic Organizations” (23 April 1932), which abolished independent artistic groups and replaced them with the state-controlled Union of Soviet Architects. The second is the Communist Party decree “On Elimination of Excesses in Design and Construction” (4 November 1955), which enunciated a turn to postwar modernism and standardization. This stylistically and politically motivated periodization reflected the lack of exchange between Soviet and Western architects and scholars during the Cold War. Indeed, while during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Soviet architects remained in dialogue with their international colleagues, in the late 1930s the ties were cut off, while the historicist turn inside the Soviet Union led to the discreditation of early modernist architecture. It was only in the 1960s, when the “thaw” in the Soviet Union and the activization of left politics in Europe (most importantly in Italy and France, which restored cultural and social connections with the Soviet Union) led to the “rediscovery” of Soviet post-revolutionary architecture, which progressive European architects saw as an operative model for their own programs. During the 1970s, the formal aspects of avant-garde Soviet architecture came to the fore in Britain, where they inspired the work of visionary architects later celebrated as the “deconstructivists,” while simultaneously being cleansed of their political and social program. The destabilization of the Soviet Union during the following decade and its eventual collapse led to the rise of political histories of Soviet architecture. All these historiographic traditions significantly favored the avant-garde over the subsequent period, when, it was believed, architecture had lost its autonomy and hence ceased to exist. More recent scholarship questions these assumptions as more and more projects and discussions from the Cold War period are coming to light, elucidating such topics as Soviet architects’ progressive stance on ecology and the sociability of cities, their use of cybernetic methods in urban pla
{"title":"Soviet Architecture","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0060","url":null,"abstract":"The term Soviet architecture refers to architectural production on the territory of the former Russian Empire under the control of the Soviet power in the aftermath of the revolution of 1917, and in the USSR between its establishment in 1922 and its fall in 1991. In addition to Russian architecture, it includes a variety of other architectural traditions in national republics and autonomous districts. Somewhat simplistically, the history of Soviet architecture has traditionally been divided into three periods: the “avant-garde” (1917–1932), “socialist realism” or “Stalinism” (1932–1955), and late modernism (1955–1991). The neat boundaries between these periods are provided by two political interventions in architecture. The first is the announcement of the results of the second round of the Palace of the Soviets competition (28 February 1932) followed by the Communist Party decree “On the Reconstruction of Literature and Artistic Organizations” (23 April 1932), which abolished independent artistic groups and replaced them with the state-controlled Union of Soviet Architects. The second is the Communist Party decree “On Elimination of Excesses in Design and Construction” (4 November 1955), which enunciated a turn to postwar modernism and standardization. This stylistically and politically motivated periodization reflected the lack of exchange between Soviet and Western architects and scholars during the Cold War. Indeed, while during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Soviet architects remained in dialogue with their international colleagues, in the late 1930s the ties were cut off, while the historicist turn inside the Soviet Union led to the discreditation of early modernist architecture. It was only in the 1960s, when the “thaw” in the Soviet Union and the activization of left politics in Europe (most importantly in Italy and France, which restored cultural and social connections with the Soviet Union) led to the “rediscovery” of Soviet post-revolutionary architecture, which progressive European architects saw as an operative model for their own programs. During the 1970s, the formal aspects of avant-garde Soviet architecture came to the fore in Britain, where they inspired the work of visionary architects later celebrated as the “deconstructivists,” while simultaneously being cleansed of their political and social program. The destabilization of the Soviet Union during the following decade and its eventual collapse led to the rise of political histories of Soviet architecture. All these historiographic traditions significantly favored the avant-garde over the subsequent period, when, it was believed, architecture had lost its autonomy and hence ceased to exist. More recent scholarship questions these assumptions as more and more projects and discussions from the Cold War period are coming to light, elucidating such topics as Soviet architects’ progressive stance on ecology and the sociability of cities, their use of cybernetic methods in urban pla","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"25 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130993483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-27DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0061
The maritime Republic of Pisa was one of the central cities of Europe in the High Middle Ages. The port of Pisa was a gateway for international commerce and a junction for Mediterranean travel. Pilgrims, merchants and crusaders waited in Pisa for embarkations to North Africa and the Holy Land, making the city a multinational crossroads. Pisa’s financial and political flowering was expressed in monumental architecture throughout the 11th to the 13th centuries. In the northwestern corner of the city, in today’s Piazza del Duomo, the Late Antique Church of Santa Reparata was replaced by a grand Romanesque cathedral (1064). West of the cathedral a monumental round baptistery replaced an octagonal Late Antique one (1153), perhaps as homage to Pisa’s participation in the First Crusade. In the 13th (or 14th century according to new scholarship) a monumental cemetery known as the “Camposanto” was built north of the cathedral. The great buildings of the Piazza were founded in the height of political and naval power in the 11th to 13th centuries, but received sculptural and fresco decoration even in the greatest time of turmoil until the end of the 15th century. In 1325 Pisa lost dominion over Sardinia and ultimately lost its freedom. Following a failed rebellion in 1405 the city was taken over by Florence. Despite the loss of power and even freedom artistic patronage in the Piazza continued. The art and architecture of the Piazza del Duomo monuments has been a major focus of scholarly attention. However, research has also addressed other medieval churches such as San Michele in Borgo (1016), San Matteo (1027 or 1028), San Paolo a Ripa d’Arno and San Zeno (both documented after 1027), the Hospitaller octagonal church of San Sepolcro (c. 1113) and the oratory of Santa Maria della Spina (founded 1230). Major scholarship has been dedicated to other aspects of Pisa’s past—commercial, social, religious, and political. Scholarship of these complementary historical issues is included here only when it pertains directly to architecture and urbanism. Research of architectural ornament—especially sculpture and fresco—also feature only when analyzed in the broader context of the building. Architectural furnishings in Pisa, such as Nicola Pisano’s pulpit or Guido Bigarelli da Como’s font in the baptistery, are some of the most celebrated pieces of Italian sculpture. Scholarship of these often directly complements the study of their respective architectural settings.
比萨海上共和国是中世纪盛期欧洲的中心城市之一。比萨港是国际贸易的门户，也是地中海旅行的枢纽。朝圣者、商人和十字军在比萨等待前往北非和圣地的船只，使这座城市成为多国的十字路口。从11世纪到13世纪，比萨在金融和政治上的繁荣表现在纪念性建筑上。在城市的西北角，在今天的大教堂广场上，圣帕雷帕塔的晚期古董教堂被一座宏伟的罗马式大教堂(1064年)所取代。在大教堂的西面，一座巨大的圆形洗礼堂取代了一个八角形的古晚期洗礼堂(1153年)，也许是为了向比萨参加第一次十字军东征表示敬意。在13世纪(或14世纪，根据新的学术研究)，一座被称为“坎波桑托”的纪念墓地在大教堂的北面建成。广场上的宏伟建筑建于11至13世纪的政治和海军力量鼎盛时期，但直到15世纪末，即使在最动荡的时期，也有雕塑和壁画装饰。1325年，比萨失去了对撒丁岛的统治权，最终失去了自由。1405年的一次叛乱失败后，该城被佛罗伦萨接管。尽管失去了权力甚至自由，广场上的艺术赞助仍在继续。大教堂广场(Piazza del Duomo)纪念碑的艺术和建筑一直是学术界关注的焦点。然而，研究也涉及了其他中世纪教堂，如博尔戈的圣米歇尔教堂(1016年)、圣马泰奥教堂(1027年或1028年)、圣保罗里帕达阿诺和圣芝诺教堂(都是在1027年之后记录的)、圣塞波尔克罗医院八角形教堂(约1113年)和圣玛丽亚德拉斯皮纳教堂(1230年建成)。主要的奖学金一直致力于比萨过去的其他方面——商业、社会、宗教和政治。这些相互补充的历史问题的学术研究只在与建筑和城市主义直接相关时才包括在这里。对建筑装饰的研究——尤其是雕塑和壁画——也只有在更广泛的建筑背景下进行分析时才具有特色。比萨的建筑装饰，如尼古拉·皮萨诺(Nicola Pisano)的讲坛或吉多·比加雷利·达·科莫(Guido Bigarelli da Como)在洗礼堂的字体，都是意大利最著名的雕塑作品。这些学术研究通常直接补充了对各自建筑环境的研究。
{"title":"Architecture of Pisa","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0061","url":null,"abstract":"The maritime Republic of Pisa was one of the central cities of Europe in the High Middle Ages. The port of Pisa was a gateway for international commerce and a junction for Mediterranean travel. Pilgrims, merchants and crusaders waited in Pisa for embarkations to North Africa and the Holy Land, making the city a multinational crossroads. Pisa’s financial and political flowering was expressed in monumental architecture throughout the 11th to the 13th centuries. In the northwestern corner of the city, in today’s Piazza del Duomo, the Late Antique Church of Santa Reparata was replaced by a grand Romanesque cathedral (1064). West of the cathedral a monumental round baptistery replaced an octagonal Late Antique one (1153), perhaps as homage to Pisa’s participation in the First Crusade. In the 13th (or 14th century according to new scholarship) a monumental cemetery known as the “Camposanto” was built north of the cathedral. The great buildings of the Piazza were founded in the height of political and naval power in the 11th to 13th centuries, but received sculptural and fresco decoration even in the greatest time of turmoil until the end of the 15th century. In 1325 Pisa lost dominion over Sardinia and ultimately lost its freedom. Following a failed rebellion in 1405 the city was taken over by Florence. Despite the loss of power and even freedom artistic patronage in the Piazza continued. The art and architecture of the Piazza del Duomo monuments has been a major focus of scholarly attention. However, research has also addressed other medieval churches such as San Michele in Borgo (1016), San Matteo (1027 or 1028), San Paolo a Ripa d’Arno and San Zeno (both documented after 1027), the Hospitaller octagonal church of San Sepolcro (c. 1113) and the oratory of Santa Maria della Spina (founded 1230). Major scholarship has been dedicated to other aspects of Pisa’s past—commercial, social, religious, and political. Scholarship of these complementary historical issues is included here only when it pertains directly to architecture and urbanism. Research of architectural ornament—especially sculpture and fresco—also feature only when analyzed in the broader context of the building. Architectural furnishings in Pisa, such as Nicola Pisano’s pulpit or Guido Bigarelli da Como’s font in the baptistery, are some of the most celebrated pieces of Italian sculpture. Scholarship of these often directly complements the study of their respective architectural settings.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121688631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-22DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0057
Ziegelsteinabmessungen
Karl Friedrich Schinkel (b. Neuruppin, 1781–d. Berlin, 1841) was a celebrated Prussian architect, theatre set designer, artist, furniture and object designer, urban planner, and civil servant. Born into modest yet respectable circumstances as the son of a deacon, Schinkel, by virtue of his talent and work ethic, rose in his own lifetime to become one of Prussia’s most celebrated cultural figures and its chief royal architect. He worked mostly in Berlin and its surrounding territories, including in some areas that are now part of Poland. His built works suffered heavy destruction during the Second World War, but important examples still survive or have been reconstructed, including the Altes Museum, the Friedrich-Werder Church, the Theatre (Schauspielhaus), and the New Guardhouse in Berlin, as well as the Charlottenhof and Glienicke Palaces in nearby Potsdam. His paintings, drawings, and personal archives can be found mostly in collections in and around Berlin, including at various departments of the Berlin State Museums. Recent debates have surrounded the potential reconstruction of Schinkel’s celebrated masterpiece, the Berlin Bauakademie (which was demolished in 1962), bringing a consciousness of Schinkel’s legacy to the fore in German public life once again. Despite his fame in Germany and his noted status as a reference-point for German avant-garde modernism, Schinkel’s work has remained under-explored in the English language (with some notable exceptions) due to difficulties accessing both his buildings and his archives in the years between the Second World War and German reunification. Since the 1990s, however, Schinkel’s international reputation has been steadily restored due to the efforts of a number of scholars and curators who have sought to disseminate his work more widely than ever before. Schinkel’s oeuvre is as eclectic as the tools and media he employed to realize it are versatile. They reveal traces of neoclassicism and the neogothic, French Enlightenment formalism, German Romanticism and Idealism, and 19th-century historicism. But at the same time, his work resists absolute categorization, by virtue of the fact that he lived and worked suspended between two epochs: he was born too late to be immersed in the worldview of the 18th-century Enlightenment and French Revolution, but nor did he live to see Germany’s development as a fully industrialized and unified nation. Occupying this ambiguous historical moment has given Schinkel’s work a versatility, a freedom, and an inquiring rigor that has assured its originality and enduring value.
{"title":"Karl Friedrich Schinkel","authors":"Ziegelsteinabmessungen","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0057","url":null,"abstract":"Karl Friedrich Schinkel (b. Neuruppin, 1781–d. Berlin, 1841) was a celebrated Prussian architect, theatre set designer, artist, furniture and object designer, urban planner, and civil servant. Born into modest yet respectable circumstances as the son of a deacon, Schinkel, by virtue of his talent and work ethic, rose in his own lifetime to become one of Prussia’s most celebrated cultural figures and its chief royal architect. He worked mostly in Berlin and its surrounding territories, including in some areas that are now part of Poland. His built works suffered heavy destruction during the Second World War, but important examples still survive or have been reconstructed, including the Altes Museum, the Friedrich-Werder Church, the Theatre (Schauspielhaus), and the New Guardhouse in Berlin, as well as the Charlottenhof and Glienicke Palaces in nearby Potsdam. His paintings, drawings, and personal archives can be found mostly in collections in and around Berlin, including at various departments of the Berlin State Museums. Recent debates have surrounded the potential reconstruction of Schinkel’s celebrated masterpiece, the Berlin Bauakademie (which was demolished in 1962), bringing a consciousness of Schinkel’s legacy to the fore in German public life once again. Despite his fame in Germany and his noted status as a reference-point for German avant-garde modernism, Schinkel’s work has remained under-explored in the English language (with some notable exceptions) due to difficulties accessing both his buildings and his archives in the years between the Second World War and German reunification. Since the 1990s, however, Schinkel’s international reputation has been steadily restored due to the efforts of a number of scholars and curators who have sought to disseminate his work more widely than ever before. Schinkel’s oeuvre is as eclectic as the tools and media he employed to realize it are versatile. They reveal traces of neoclassicism and the neogothic, French Enlightenment formalism, German Romanticism and Idealism, and 19th-century historicism. But at the same time, his work resists absolute categorization, by virtue of the fact that he lived and worked suspended between two epochs: he was born too late to be immersed in the worldview of the 18th-century Enlightenment and French Revolution, but nor did he live to see Germany’s development as a fully industrialized and unified nation. Occupying this ambiguous historical moment has given Schinkel’s work a versatility, a freedom, and an inquiring rigor that has assured its originality and enduring value.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124739661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0054
Frank Lloyd Wright (b. 1867–d. 1959) was perhaps the most well-known American architect, and one of the most important figures in modern architecture of the 20th century. After apprenticing in Chicago, importantly with Louis Sullivan in the firm of Adler and Sullivan, Wright began his independent practice in 1893 in the suburb of Oak Park. There, to 1909, Wright developed the spatially expansive and stylistically innovative type of the Prairie House. In this period Wright also designed his first major larger works, the Larkin Co. Administration Building, Buffalo, New York (1902–1906), and Unity Temple, Oak Park (1905–1909). Wright created a home and studio, Taliesin (1911–1913), amid the farmlands of his maternal family in southern Wisconsin. He also designed the Midway Gardens (1913–1914) in Chicago. Wright spent much of the next eight years in Tokyo working on the Imperial Hotel there, which survived the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923. He also designed Hollyhock House (1919–1921) in Los Angeles for Aline Barnsdall, and in 1923–1925, living in Los Angeles, Wright built four “textile block houses.” Based at Taliesin, rebuilt after a second fire in 1925, and in winters from 1937 at Taliesin West near Scottsdale, Arizona, Wright worked with apprentices who formed the Taliesin Fellowship, to create such key works as Fallingwater (1934–1937), at Bear Run in southwestern Pennsylvania, and the S. C. Johnson Company Administration Building (1936–1939) in Racine, Wisconsin. Wright also wrote on new ideas for urbanism, especially his Broadacre City, first exhibited in New York City in 1935. The following year Wright built the first of many Usonian houses designed for clients with modest incomes and featuring many dimensional and material economies while maintaining a sense of spaciousness. In the last phase of his career following World War II, Wright and his apprentices continued to build houses for a national clientele, and such larger works as the S. C. Johnson Company Research Tower (1943–1950) in Racine, the H. C. Price Company Tower (1952–1956) in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, the Marin County Civic Center (1957–1970) in California, and his most influential late work, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (1943–1959) in New York City. Wright’s later public buildings also included a series of religious structures, perhaps most notably Beth Sholom Synagogue, Elkins Park, near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1954–1959), and Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church, Wauwatosa, near Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1956–1963). Oxford University Press online bibliographies usually have 50–150 citations. This bibliography of scholarly literature on Frank Lloyd Wright is limited to about four hundred citations, which is a small percentage of the thousands of publications on Wright from his earliest years through his death in 1959 and continuing through 2020. For publications on Wright through 2002, see Donald Langmead, Frank Lloyd Wright: A Bio-Bibliography (Langmead 2003, cited under Res
弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特(1867-d)1959年)可能是美国最著名的建筑师，也是20世纪现代建筑界最重要的人物之一。赖特在芝加哥的阿德勒沙利文律师事务所(Adler and Sullivan)与路易斯沙利文(Louis Sullivan)学徒后，于1893年在橡树公园(Oak Park)郊区开始独立执业。在那里，到1909年，赖特开发了空间扩展和风格创新的草原屋类型。在此期间，赖特还设计了他的第一个大型作品，纽约布法罗的拉金公司行政大楼(1902-1906)和橡树公园的团结神庙(1905-1909)。赖特在威斯康星州南部他母亲家的农田里建造了自己的家和工作室Taliesin(1911-1913)。他还设计了芝加哥的中途岛花园(1913-1914)。接下来的八年里，赖特大部分时间都在东京建造帝国酒店，这座酒店在1923年的关东大地震中幸免于难。他还在洛杉矶为Aline Barnsdall设计了蜀葵屋(Hollyhock House, 1919-1921)， 1923-1925年，赖特住在洛杉矶，建造了四座“纺织积木屋”。赖特以塔里埃森为基地，1925年第二次火灾后重建，并于1937年的冬天在亚利桑那州斯科茨代尔附近的塔里埃森西部工作，与组成塔里埃森奖学金的学徒一起创作了诸如宾夕法尼亚州西南部贝尔朗的流水(1934-1937)和威斯康星州拉辛的S. C.约翰逊公司行政大楼(1936-1939)等关键作品。莱特还写了关于城市主义的新思想，特别是他的布罗德克城，于1935年首次在纽约市展出。第二年，赖特建造了第一个Usonian住宅，为中等收入的客户设计，在保持宽敞感的同时，具有许多维度和材料经济。在第二次世界大战后他职业生涯的最后阶段，赖特和他的学徒们继续为全国客户建造房屋，以及诸如拉辛的S. C.约翰逊公司研究大楼(1943-1950)，俄克拉荷马州巴特尔斯维尔的H. C. Price公司大楼(1952-1956)，加利福尼亚州的马林县公民中心(1957-1970)等大型作品，以及他最有影响力的后期作品，纽约市的所罗门R.古根海姆博物馆(1943-1959)。赖特后来的公共建筑还包括一系列宗教建筑，也许最著名的是贝丝·肖洛姆犹太教堂，位于宾夕法尼亚州费城附近的埃尔金斯公园(1954-1959)，以及威斯康星州密尔沃基附近沃瓦托萨的报喜希腊东正教教堂(1956-1963)。牛津大学出版社的在线书目通常有50-150次引用。这份关于弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特(Frank Lloyd Wright)的学术文献参考书目只有大约400条引文，这只是从他早年到1959年去世并持续到2020年的数千篇关于赖特的出版物中的一小部分。关于赖特到2002年的出版物，请参阅唐纳德·朗米德，弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特:一个生物参考书目(朗米德2003年，在研究和参考指南下引用)，其中有3500多个条目。对于2002年以来关于赖特的完整参考书目，读者可以参考几个相关的在线学术数据库，如艾弗里建筑期刊索引、艺术史参考书目、美国:历史与生活、应用科学与工程。在这篇牛津参考书目文章中，与赖特作品完成同时出版的作品在很大程度上被省略了，以支持后来对它们的历史描述。在学术写作中，如果作者的文章或书籍章节被同一作者在后来的一本书中大量引用，则省略了对这些早期文章或章节的引用。此外，除了当地和全面的赖特建筑指南外，关于赖特的大量文献几乎完全是摄影或流行的，这些文献大多被省略了。已列入载有实质性文章的摄影卷。未发表的学位论文和论文不包括在内。这些可以通过像dissertation & Theses Global这样的数据库来搜索。
{"title":"Frank Lloyd Wright","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0054","url":null,"abstract":"Frank Lloyd Wright (b. 1867–d. 1959) was perhaps the most well-known American architect, and one of the most important figures in modern architecture of the 20th century. After apprenticing in Chicago, importantly with Louis Sullivan in the firm of Adler and Sullivan, Wright began his independent practice in 1893 in the suburb of Oak Park. There, to 1909, Wright developed the spatially expansive and stylistically innovative type of the Prairie House. In this period Wright also designed his first major larger works, the Larkin Co. Administration Building, Buffalo, New York (1902–1906), and Unity Temple, Oak Park (1905–1909). Wright created a home and studio, Taliesin (1911–1913), amid the farmlands of his maternal family in southern Wisconsin. He also designed the Midway Gardens (1913–1914) in Chicago. Wright spent much of the next eight years in Tokyo working on the Imperial Hotel there, which survived the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923. He also designed Hollyhock House (1919–1921) in Los Angeles for Aline Barnsdall, and in 1923–1925, living in Los Angeles, Wright built four “textile block houses.” Based at Taliesin, rebuilt after a second fire in 1925, and in winters from 1937 at Taliesin West near Scottsdale, Arizona, Wright worked with apprentices who formed the Taliesin Fellowship, to create such key works as Fallingwater (1934–1937), at Bear Run in southwestern Pennsylvania, and the S. C. Johnson Company Administration Building (1936–1939) in Racine, Wisconsin. Wright also wrote on new ideas for urbanism, especially his Broadacre City, first exhibited in New York City in 1935. The following year Wright built the first of many Usonian houses designed for clients with modest incomes and featuring many dimensional and material economies while maintaining a sense of spaciousness. In the last phase of his career following World War II, Wright and his apprentices continued to build houses for a national clientele, and such larger works as the S. C. Johnson Company Research Tower (1943–1950) in Racine, the H. C. Price Company Tower (1952–1956) in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, the Marin County Civic Center (1957–1970) in California, and his most influential late work, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (1943–1959) in New York City. Wright’s later public buildings also included a series of religious structures, perhaps most notably Beth Sholom Synagogue, Elkins Park, near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1954–1959), and Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church, Wauwatosa, near Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1956–1963). Oxford University Press online bibliographies usually have 50–150 citations. This bibliography of scholarly literature on Frank Lloyd Wright is limited to about four hundred citations, which is a small percentage of the thousands of publications on Wright from his earliest years through his death in 1959 and continuing through 2020. For publications on Wright through 2002, see Donald Langmead, Frank Lloyd Wright: A Bio-Bibliography (Langmead 2003, cited under Res","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"152 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125481808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0055
Building technology encompasses all human activities involved in the production of buildings, from the alteration of natural resources for the production of building materials to their processing, transport, and assembly. The Greeks made significant contributions to the history of building technology. The Romans perfected several of their innovations, such as techniques for lifting heavy loads, which survived with little change until the Industrial Revolution. This bibliographic article surveys the construction of Greek architecture, along with its economic and social implications. Specifically, it focuses on the construction of monuments, which for the study of Greek construction technologies are paradigmatic for their innovative building methods and the considerable resources they required. This bibliography’s chronological scope thus covers the full range of development of Greek monumental architecture, from approximately the 8th century bce through the Hellenistic period. Our main sources on Greek building technology and methods include the material remains from ancient buildings, or the impressions they left in the ground; the detailed financial accounts that the Greeks kept for major building projects, some of which are known from inscriptions dating from the 5th century onward; the Latin and Greek works of writers such as Vitruvius, Pliny, and Theophrastus, which include valuable information on natural resources, materials, and construction methods; and ancient (especially Roman) illustrations of working craftsmen or machines involved in the building process. Except in the Greek islands, where walls of unworked stones were always common, the first monumental Greek temples of the 8th to mid-7th centuries bce were made predominantly of perishable materials, not much different from ordinary houses. The remains of their mud brick walls, timber posts, and thatch or clay roofs are rarely preserved and difficult to detect archaeologically. The shift to permanent materials began in the first half of the 7th century bce, when temples appeared with roofs of terracotta tiles and walls of stone ashlars. While mud brick walls and thatch or clay roofs continued to be used for houses, terracotta roofing systems and cut-stone masonry soon replaced perishable materials in the construction of monumental architecture. The northern Peloponnese (at Olympia and in the Corinthia) first developed terracotta roof tiles, which soon spread across the Greek world with regional variations. In the early temples at Corinth and Isthmia, terracotta tile roofs were associated with ashlar walls from the outset. Within the first half of the 7th century bce, ashlar masonry also appeared in Ionia, in the first Temple of Hera at Samos. Roof tiles, however, diffused quicker than cut-stone construction, and mud brick was still used for temple walls throughout the Archaic period, and occasionally beyond. Contingent to the development of cut-stone construction were significant adva
{"title":"Greek Building Technology and Methods","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0055","url":null,"abstract":"Building technology encompasses all human activities involved in the production of buildings, from the alteration of natural resources for the production of building materials to their processing, transport, and assembly. The Greeks made significant contributions to the history of building technology. The Romans perfected several of their innovations, such as techniques for lifting heavy loads, which survived with little change until the Industrial Revolution. This bibliographic article surveys the construction of Greek architecture, along with its economic and social implications. Specifically, it focuses on the construction of monuments, which for the study of Greek construction technologies are paradigmatic for their innovative building methods and the considerable resources they required. This bibliography’s chronological scope thus covers the full range of development of Greek monumental architecture, from approximately the 8th century bce through the Hellenistic period. Our main sources on Greek building technology and methods include the material remains from ancient buildings, or the impressions they left in the ground; the detailed financial accounts that the Greeks kept for major building projects, some of which are known from inscriptions dating from the 5th century onward; the Latin and Greek works of writers such as Vitruvius, Pliny, and Theophrastus, which include valuable information on natural resources, materials, and construction methods; and ancient (especially Roman) illustrations of working craftsmen or machines involved in the building process. Except in the Greek islands, where walls of unworked stones were always common, the first monumental Greek temples of the 8th to mid-7th centuries bce were made predominantly of perishable materials, not much different from ordinary houses. The remains of their mud brick walls, timber posts, and thatch or clay roofs are rarely preserved and difficult to detect archaeologically. The shift to permanent materials began in the first half of the 7th century bce, when temples appeared with roofs of terracotta tiles and walls of stone ashlars. While mud brick walls and thatch or clay roofs continued to be used for houses, terracotta roofing systems and cut-stone masonry soon replaced perishable materials in the construction of monumental architecture. The northern Peloponnese (at Olympia and in the Corinthia) first developed terracotta roof tiles, which soon spread across the Greek world with regional variations. In the early temples at Corinth and Isthmia, terracotta tile roofs were associated with ashlar walls from the outset. Within the first half of the 7th century bce, ashlar masonry also appeared in Ionia, in the first Temple of Hera at Samos. Roof tiles, however, diffused quicker than cut-stone construction, and mud brick was still used for temple walls throughout the Archaic period, and occasionally beyond. Contingent to the development of cut-stone construction were significant adva","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125629224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：