Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0030
Qinghua Guo
This bibliography is a summation of our present knowledge of building materials used in China from prehistoric (c. 3000 bce) to premodern times (18th century). Earth, timber, stone, bricks, and tiles are the major materials developed with construction purposes. Earth and wood rendered as tu-mu are a synonym for construction work used throughout the history. In the case of earth, for example, it was used to build not only architecture but also infrastructure (such as city walls) with different techniques (e.g., direct molding and cob, rammed earth with framework and adobe [mud bricks]). China is well known for its long tradition of historical documentation; however building materials in early imperial times were only occasionally mentioned in literature, and their manufacture details were recorded in a few documents. The oldest written source in existence is the Yingzao Fashi (1103). A large number of historic buildings survived from the Ming-Qing times are timber-framed. Therefore, timber architecture has been studied more intensely than the others. And, scholarly attention has put more on the later period of Chinese architecture. Critical study of Chinese architecture did not begin until the 20th century. In the field of building materials, the academic work was scarce. Obviously, the study overlaps with a number of fields: construction, technology, architecture, and archaeology. Within the topic, this bibliography is organized in five categories: timber, stone and earth, bricks and tiles, mortars, coating and painting. Timber includes various prefabricated elements and units, such as columns, beams and block-bracket sets (dou-gong). Over time, Chinese timber architecture developed into a modular design and building standard as a system. Wooden buildings require coatings for weather proofing, which led to application of decorative coatings and paints. Drainage and waterproofing had been major issues for buildings and structures, which resulted in the development from adobe to bricks and tiles. Each section reviews main issues and lists recent scholarly contributions, as well as important database sources.
{"title":"Building Materials of Chinese Architecture","authors":"Qinghua Guo","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0030","url":null,"abstract":"This bibliography is a summation of our present knowledge of building materials used in China from prehistoric (c. 3000 bce) to premodern times (18th century). Earth, timber, stone, bricks, and tiles are the major materials developed with construction purposes. Earth and wood rendered as tu-mu are a synonym for construction work used throughout the history. In the case of earth, for example, it was used to build not only architecture but also infrastructure (such as city walls) with different techniques (e.g., direct molding and cob, rammed earth with framework and adobe [mud bricks]). China is well known for its long tradition of historical documentation; however building materials in early imperial times were only occasionally mentioned in literature, and their manufacture details were recorded in a few documents. The oldest written source in existence is the Yingzao Fashi (1103). A large number of historic buildings survived from the Ming-Qing times are timber-framed. Therefore, timber architecture has been studied more intensely than the others. And, scholarly attention has put more on the later period of Chinese architecture. Critical study of Chinese architecture did not begin until the 20th century. In the field of building materials, the academic work was scarce. Obviously, the study overlaps with a number of fields: construction, technology, architecture, and archaeology. Within the topic, this bibliography is organized in five categories: timber, stone and earth, bricks and tiles, mortars, coating and painting. Timber includes various prefabricated elements and units, such as columns, beams and block-bracket sets (dou-gong). Over time, Chinese timber architecture developed into a modular design and building standard as a system. Wooden buildings require coatings for weather proofing, which led to application of decorative coatings and paints. Drainage and waterproofing had been major issues for buildings and structures, which resulted in the development from adobe to bricks and tiles. Each section reviews main issues and lists recent scholarly contributions, as well as important database sources.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124383812","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 : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0037
J. F. Frakes
Looking into the architecture and urbanism of a particular geographic section of the vast Roman Empire makes sense, both because of the great diversity of cultures that preceded Roman conquest in all those territories and because social and economic conditions varied region by region. This bibliography covers the 2nd century bce to the turn of the 4th century ce. The fields that explore issues of Roman architecture over the last century have moved from questions that presuppose a central coordinated authority that meant to produce empire-wide unity, with architecture being a key visualization of Roman power, to questions that look more carefully for local motives and adaptations that emerged from the confrontation with Roman power. Similarly, analysis of Roman urban patterns have moved over the decades from inquiries that presuppose an underlying homogeneity in the ritual underpinnings of city planning (and the economic systems that sustained them) to questions of how topography, religion, and local status structures both caused and resulted from regional adaptations. This bibliography presents studies drawn mainly from the 1980s to the present with an intention to introduce key texts that have shaped and summarized the fields. After a brief bibliography of sources for pre-Roman urbanism in the west, there are presented a variety of works that study subregions: specifically, the three Iberian provinces of Taraconnensis, Beatica, and Lusitania; the four Gallic provinces of Narbonensis, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, and Belgica; the two Germanic provinces of Germania Inferior and Superior; and the province of Britannia. Roman architecture in Italy and in the provinces of western North Africa, the Danube region, and the eastern empire are the subjects of other bibliographies in this series. After these regional treatments come two bibliographies that approach the subject differently; the first listing studies of particular building types in the western provinces, and the second offering archaeological syntheses of specific Roman cities or sites. Finally, a concise list of major periodicals and online resources pertinent to the subject is appended.
{"title":"Ancient Architecture and Urbanism in Western Europe (pre-Roman, Roman)","authors":"J. F. Frakes","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0037","url":null,"abstract":"Looking into the architecture and urbanism of a particular geographic section of the vast Roman Empire makes sense, both because of the great diversity of cultures that preceded Roman conquest in all those territories and because social and economic conditions varied region by region. This bibliography covers the 2nd century bce to the turn of the 4th century ce. The fields that explore issues of Roman architecture over the last century have moved from questions that presuppose a central coordinated authority that meant to produce empire-wide unity, with architecture being a key visualization of Roman power, to questions that look more carefully for local motives and adaptations that emerged from the confrontation with Roman power. Similarly, analysis of Roman urban patterns have moved over the decades from inquiries that presuppose an underlying homogeneity in the ritual underpinnings of city planning (and the economic systems that sustained them) to questions of how topography, religion, and local status structures both caused and resulted from regional adaptations. This bibliography presents studies drawn mainly from the 1980s to the present with an intention to introduce key texts that have shaped and summarized the fields. After a brief bibliography of sources for pre-Roman urbanism in the west, there are presented a variety of works that study subregions: specifically, the three Iberian provinces of Taraconnensis, Beatica, and Lusitania; the four Gallic provinces of Narbonensis, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, and Belgica; the two Germanic provinces of Germania Inferior and Superior; and the province of Britannia. Roman architecture in Italy and in the provinces of western North Africa, the Danube region, and the eastern empire are the subjects of other bibliographies in this series. After these regional treatments come two bibliographies that approach the subject differently; the first listing studies of particular building types in the western provinces, and the second offering archaeological syntheses of specific Roman cities or sites. Finally, a concise list of major periodicals and online resources pertinent to the subject is appended.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115228027","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 : 2019-06-17DOI: 10.5040/9781350088719.0023
Anna Vallye
The Bauhaus is a paradigmatic institution of 20th-century art, in some contexts synonymous with the aesthetic and discursive institution of modernism itself. Founded in 1919 in the city of Weimar, Germany, the Bauhaus school of design (Staatliches Bauhaus) was formed through the merger of the Weimar Grand Ducal Saxon schools of fine and applied arts by its first director, the architect Walter Gropius. Having attracted controversy and persecution in the tense political environment of the Weimar Republic, the Bauhaus was forced to relocate twice (to Dessau in 1925 and to Berlin in 1932) before it was finally shut down by the Nazis in 1933. The move to Dessau, however, gave Gropius an opportunity to design and build a new headquarters for the school, which became one of the most iconic contributions to modern architecture. The Bauhaus also lived on in a constellation of attempts to revive its pedagogical and design principles in a range of geographical contexts through the century. More than that, the “Bauhaus” has entered the lexicon of modern art as a formal and conceptual entity, a “style” and an “idea,” with a profound impact on the visual culture of our time. The Bauhaus school was a wellspring of boundary-breaking experiments across the arts, including architecture, industrial and typographic design, theater, photography, textiles, painting, and sculpture. Through the full array of its initiatives, the Bauhaus emerged as an extended interrogation of the changing status and social role of art in the age of industrial production. At its core, however, the Bauhaus was a collective invention of many gifted instructors and students, who shaped the institution as a laboratory of cooperative living, working, and learning. Studies of individual artists and designers, many with distinguished careers beyond the school (Josef and Anni Albers, László and Lucia Moholy-Nagy, Johannes Itten, Marcel Breuer, Oskar Schlemmer, Marianne Brandt, Gunta Stölzl, Hannes Meyer, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Herbert Bayer, and many others) have done much to complicate Bauhaus historiography, demonstrating that its pedagogical philosophies and design approaches shifted with patterns of individual influence and undermining the notion of a cohesive and singular Bauhaus “idea.” The scope of scholarly interest in the institution is matched by the range of artistic disciplines and approaches it encompassed. This means that the extant Bauhaus literature in a plurality of languages and formats could fill a small library building. The 2019 centennial of the school’s founding has provided a fresh infusion of up-to-date scholarship.
包豪斯是20世纪艺术的典范机构，在某些情况下与现代主义本身的美学和话语机构同义。包豪斯设计学院(Staatliches Bauhaus)于1919年在德国魏玛市成立，由魏玛大公撒克逊美术和应用艺术学院合并而成，由建筑师沃尔特·格罗皮乌斯(Walter Gropius)担任首任院长。由于在魏玛共和国紧张的政治环境中受到争议和迫害，包豪斯学院被迫搬迁两次(1925年搬到德绍，1932年搬到柏林)，最终在1933年被纳粹关闭。然而，搬到德绍给了格罗皮乌斯一个设计和建造学校新总部的机会，这成为现代建筑最具标志性的贡献之一。包豪斯也经历了一系列尝试，在整个世纪的一系列地理环境中复兴其教学和设计原则。不仅如此，“包豪斯”作为一种形式和概念实体、一种“风格”和一种“思想”进入了现代艺术的词典，对我们这个时代的视觉文化产生了深远的影响。包豪斯学院是艺术领域突破边界实验的源泉，包括建筑、工业和排版设计、戏剧、摄影、纺织品、绘画和雕塑。通过一系列的创新，包豪斯成为了对艺术在工业生产时代不断变化的地位和社会角色的延伸质疑。然而，包豪斯的核心是许多天才教师和学生的集体发明，他们将这所学校塑造成一个合作生活、工作和学习的实验室。对个别艺术家和设计师的研究，许多人在学校之外有杰出的职业生涯(Josef和Anni Albers, László和Lucia Moholy-Nagy, Johannes Itten, Marcel Breuer, Oskar Schlemmer, Marianne Brandt, Gunta Stölzl, Hannes Meyer, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Herbert Bayer，以及许多其他人)，已经做了很多使包豪斯历史编纂复杂化的工作。这表明它的教学哲学和设计方法随着个人影响的模式而改变，破坏了包豪斯凝聚力和单一“理念”的概念。该机构的学术兴趣范围与它所涵盖的艺术学科和方法的范围相匹配。这意味着现存的多种语言和形式的包豪斯文学可以填满一个小图书馆。2019年的百年校庆为学院提供了最新的奖学金。
{"title":"Bauhaus","authors":"Anna Vallye","doi":"10.5040/9781350088719.0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350088719.0023","url":null,"abstract":"The Bauhaus is a paradigmatic institution of 20th-century art, in some contexts synonymous with the aesthetic and discursive institution of modernism itself. Founded in 1919 in the city of Weimar, Germany, the Bauhaus school of design (Staatliches Bauhaus) was formed through the merger of the Weimar Grand Ducal Saxon schools of fine and applied arts by its first director, the architect Walter Gropius. Having attracted controversy and persecution in the tense political environment of the Weimar Republic, the Bauhaus was forced to relocate twice (to Dessau in 1925 and to Berlin in 1932) before it was finally shut down by the Nazis in 1933. The move to Dessau, however, gave Gropius an opportunity to design and build a new headquarters for the school, which became one of the most iconic contributions to modern architecture. The Bauhaus also lived on in a constellation of attempts to revive its pedagogical and design principles in a range of geographical contexts through the century. More than that, the “Bauhaus” has entered the lexicon of modern art as a formal and conceptual entity, a “style” and an “idea,” with a profound impact on the visual culture of our time. The Bauhaus school was a wellspring of boundary-breaking experiments across the arts, including architecture, industrial and typographic design, theater, photography, textiles, painting, and sculpture. Through the full array of its initiatives, the Bauhaus emerged as an extended interrogation of the changing status and social role of art in the age of industrial production. At its core, however, the Bauhaus was a collective invention of many gifted instructors and students, who shaped the institution as a laboratory of cooperative living, working, and learning. Studies of individual artists and designers, many with distinguished careers beyond the school (Josef and Anni Albers, László and Lucia Moholy-Nagy, Johannes Itten, Marcel Breuer, Oskar Schlemmer, Marianne Brandt, Gunta Stölzl, Hannes Meyer, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Herbert Bayer, and many others) have done much to complicate Bauhaus historiography, demonstrating that its pedagogical philosophies and design approaches shifted with patterns of individual influence and undermining the notion of a cohesive and singular Bauhaus “idea.” The scope of scholarly interest in the institution is matched by the range of artistic disciplines and approaches it encompassed. This means that the extant Bauhaus literature in a plurality of languages and formats could fill a small library building. The 2019 centennial of the school’s founding has provided a fresh infusion of up-to-date scholarship.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127590085","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}
Frank Furness (12 November 1839–27 June 1912) took an original course that accelerated the transformation of American architecture from an art rooted in the past to one that responded to the rapidly changing materials, technologies, and circumstances of the Industrial Age. After study in New York in the atelier of Richard Morris Hunt, Furness served as an officer in the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry, winning the Medal of Honor in the largest cavalry battle of the Civil War at Trevilian Station, Virginia, in 1864. Furness entered practice when a new generation, arising from the city’s industrial culture, had taken control of Philadelphia’s economy and institutions. Its leaders, many from the Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts, proposed to hold an international exhibition in Philadelphia, ostensibly to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration of Independence, but with the larger goal of representing to the nation and the world the extraordinary innovations in modern design initiated in Philadelphia. When the Centennial Exhibition opened in May 1876, Furness had already completed half a dozen banks in the downtown area, the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, and two religious buildings in the institutional center as well as numerous houses scattered across the elite residential district, a bank, and various pavilions at the fair. Those buildings introduced him to Centennial Exhibition visitors from both the United States and abroad. During more than forty years of practice, Furness and his various offices (Fraser, Furness & Hewitt; Furness & Hewitt, Frank Furness; Furness & Evans; Furness, Evans & Co.) produced designs for nearly 800 projects, the vast majority of which were built. Some 200 were commissioned by the nation’s largest railroads, including the Philadelphia and Reading, the Baltimore and Ohio, and the Pennsylvania Railroad. By the end of the century, Furness found himself largely excluded from the professional narrative as architects working from historical models found his ahistorical work inscrutable. Furness introduced the literature of family friends, Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson, to the young architects working in his office, including Louis Sullivan (b. 1856–d. 1924), William L. Price (b. 1861–d. 1916), and George Howe (b. 1886–d. 1955). George Howe, who, like Sullivan and Price, shared the experience of the Furness office, laid out an American genealogy for modern architecture in his essay “What Is This Modern Architecture Trying to Express?” (1930) that included “Wright, Sullivan, and Price.” These architects and their students, from Irving Gill to Louis Kahn, carried on the discipline found in Furness’s architecture into our own time.
{"title":"Frank Furness","authors":"G. E. Thomas","doi":"10.9783/9780812294835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812294835","url":null,"abstract":"Frank Furness (12 November 1839–27 June 1912) took an original course that accelerated the transformation of American architecture from an art rooted in the past to one that responded to the rapidly changing materials, technologies, and circumstances of the Industrial Age. After study in New York in the atelier of Richard Morris Hunt, Furness served as an officer in the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry, winning the Medal of Honor in the largest cavalry battle of the Civil War at Trevilian Station, Virginia, in 1864. Furness entered practice when a new generation, arising from the city’s industrial culture, had taken control of Philadelphia’s economy and institutions. Its leaders, many from the Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts, proposed to hold an international exhibition in Philadelphia, ostensibly to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration of Independence, but with the larger goal of representing to the nation and the world the extraordinary innovations in modern design initiated in Philadelphia. When the Centennial Exhibition opened in May 1876, Furness had already completed half a dozen banks in the downtown area, the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, and two religious buildings in the institutional center as well as numerous houses scattered across the elite residential district, a bank, and various pavilions at the fair. Those buildings introduced him to Centennial Exhibition visitors from both the United States and abroad. During more than forty years of practice, Furness and his various offices (Fraser, Furness & Hewitt; Furness & Hewitt, Frank Furness; Furness & Evans; Furness, Evans & Co.) produced designs for nearly 800 projects, the vast majority of which were built. Some 200 were commissioned by the nation’s largest railroads, including the Philadelphia and Reading, the Baltimore and Ohio, and the Pennsylvania Railroad. By the end of the century, Furness found himself largely excluded from the professional narrative as architects working from historical models found his ahistorical work inscrutable. Furness introduced the literature of family friends, Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson, to the young architects working in his office, including Louis Sullivan (b. 1856–d. 1924), William L. Price (b. 1861–d. 1916), and George Howe (b. 1886–d. 1955). George Howe, who, like Sullivan and Price, shared the experience of the Furness office, laid out an American genealogy for modern architecture in his essay “What Is This Modern Architecture Trying to Express?” (1930) that included “Wright, Sullivan, and Price.” These architects and their students, from Irving Gill to Louis Kahn, carried on the discipline found in Furness’s architecture into our own time.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114227908","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 : 2018-10-29DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0005
D. Gyure
The literature of school architecture tends to break in two different directions. On one hand, practical advice guides written by architects and educators date back to the middle third of the 19th century; they were supplemented by a continuous stream of articles relating to design issues in educators’ and architects’ professional journals. By the early 20th century, they developed into extensively illustrated records of contemporary school buildings and design standards. These design guides continue to be published today, often with brief historical analyses included, in recognition of the specialty field that school architecture has become. The other trend for school architecture literature is toward historical analysis. This path has been less vigorously pursued, however, and architectural histories of schools, their spaces, and equipment appeared infrequently until the 1990s. Today, the importance of school buildings, and the many functional, inspirational, and symbolic roles they play, is widely accepted. Scholars have favored post–World War II schools over counterparts from other times, and, in general, the 20th century has been more popular with historians than previous periods. The consistent narrative in these works has involved the impact of evolving ideas about educational theory and practice on architectural spaces. As more histories are published, the field is broadening beyond its long-standing emphasis on American and English topics and the dominance of English-language publications. This collection of sources, which looks only at primary and secondary education, unfortunately reflects that Anglo-American orientation.
{"title":"Schools","authors":"D. Gyure","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0005","url":null,"abstract":"The literature of school architecture tends to break in two different directions. On one hand, practical advice guides written by architects and educators date back to the middle third of the 19th century; they were supplemented by a continuous stream of articles relating to design issues in educators’ and architects’ professional journals. By the early 20th century, they developed into extensively illustrated records of contemporary school buildings and design standards. These design guides continue to be published today, often with brief historical analyses included, in recognition of the specialty field that school architecture has become. The other trend for school architecture literature is toward historical analysis. This path has been less vigorously pursued, however, and architectural histories of schools, their spaces, and equipment appeared infrequently until the 1990s. Today, the importance of school buildings, and the many functional, inspirational, and symbolic roles they play, is widely accepted. Scholars have favored post–World War II schools over counterparts from other times, and, in general, the 20th century has been more popular with historians than previous periods. The consistent narrative in these works has involved the impact of evolving ideas about educational theory and practice on architectural spaces. As more histories are published, the field is broadening beyond its long-standing emphasis on American and English topics and the dominance of English-language publications. This collection of sources, which looks only at primary and secondary education, unfortunately reflects that Anglo-American orientation.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128630096","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：