Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1971366
J. Gatley
{"title":"Le Corbusier in the Antipodes: Art, Architecture and Urbanism","authors":"J. Gatley","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1971366","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1971366","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"455 - 457"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45299255","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.2006432
Kirsten Day, P. Raisbeck
ABSTRACT A meeting of architects in Melbourne at a popular comedy venue in 1978, ended in disarray. It should be no surprise, after all John Pinder’s Collingwood venue, which opened in 1976, was called, “The Last Laugh Theatre Restaurant and Zoo.” There were fisticuffs, yelling, hoodlum activity, violence, and a huge amount of drunkenness. The meeting was to establish an alternative to the conservative RAIA from outside the organisation rather than within. But mayhem developed, probably in part due to there being no set agenda, and the event came to be inscribed in the mythologies of Melbourne architecture and culture as yet another failed uprising by a troublesome underbelly. Using material gained from public and private archives, as well as interviews, this paper traces the trajectories of this event. This event is important in Australian architecture as Melbourne architects processed the ideals of the Whitlam project (1972–75). Moreover, the meeting at the Last Laugh signifies the emergence in architectural discourse of a larrikinism, as Australian architects embraced post-modernism seeking to counter a patrician and cringe-worthy recent history.
{"title":"The Last Laugh and Its Afterlife: Emerging Narratives in 1970s Melbourne Architecture","authors":"Kirsten Day, P. Raisbeck","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.2006432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.2006432","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A meeting of architects in Melbourne at a popular comedy venue in 1978, ended in disarray. It should be no surprise, after all John Pinder’s Collingwood venue, which opened in 1976, was called, “The Last Laugh Theatre Restaurant and Zoo.” There were fisticuffs, yelling, hoodlum activity, violence, and a huge amount of drunkenness. The meeting was to establish an alternative to the conservative RAIA from outside the organisation rather than within. But mayhem developed, probably in part due to there being no set agenda, and the event came to be inscribed in the mythologies of Melbourne architecture and culture as yet another failed uprising by a troublesome underbelly. Using material gained from public and private archives, as well as interviews, this paper traces the trajectories of this event. This event is important in Australian architecture as Melbourne architects processed the ideals of the Whitlam project (1972–75). Moreover, the meeting at the Last Laugh signifies the emergence in architectural discourse of a larrikinism, as Australian architects embraced post-modernism seeking to counter a patrician and cringe-worthy recent history.","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"336 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44007054","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1971365
Uroš Čvoro
{"title":"Balkanization and Global Politics: Remaking Cities and Architecture","authors":"Uroš Čvoro","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1971365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1971365","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"457 - 459"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42650674","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1971368
Matthew Mindrup
{"title":"Review of: Valuing Architecture: Heritage and the Economics of Culture","authors":"Matthew Mindrup","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1971368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1971368","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"459 - 461"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45966492","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.2006428
K. Olsen
ABSTRACT This article examines how complex food production systems developed by Kulin Nation people over centuries in the physical landscape around Emerald, in the Dandenong /Koran Warrabin Range/s east of Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) were transformed in the late nineteenth century, through colonisation and, especially, the operations of C. A. Nobelius’ Gembrook Nurseries, into the largest commercial fruit tree nursery in the Southern Hemisphere. Using the colonial archive and contemporary sources, the research demonstrates shared aspects of landscape resources and infrastructures as they were used by both Kulin Nation and settler communities, and also some of the fundamental differences in modes of access to these resources. Photographic evidence in particular documents how the scale and speed of change through industrial-scale colonial horticulture massively impacted the landscape within a matter of years, if not seasons, resulting in disruption to and destruction of Indigenous landscape systems. This analysis seeks to address the ways in which Australian histories can continue to be re-framed to better acknowledge and respect Australian Aboriginal histories, and confirms the importance of revisiting historically settler-focused understandings and heritage assessments of Australian landscapes to better acknowledge the complex uses and values of these places for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. I acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land where I live and work, the people of the Kulin Nations, and pay respect to their Elders and other Aboriginal people.
{"title":"Broadening Histories of Designed Landscapes: The Case of the Gembrook Nurseries and the Dandenong Ranges/Koran Warrabin Range","authors":"K. Olsen","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.2006428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.2006428","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines how complex food production systems developed by Kulin Nation people over centuries in the physical landscape around Emerald, in the Dandenong /Koran Warrabin Range/s east of Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) were transformed in the late nineteenth century, through colonisation and, especially, the operations of C. A. Nobelius’ Gembrook Nurseries, into the largest commercial fruit tree nursery in the Southern Hemisphere. Using the colonial archive and contemporary sources, the research demonstrates shared aspects of landscape resources and infrastructures as they were used by both Kulin Nation and settler communities, and also some of the fundamental differences in modes of access to these resources. Photographic evidence in particular documents how the scale and speed of change through industrial-scale colonial horticulture massively impacted the landscape within a matter of years, if not seasons, resulting in disruption to and destruction of Indigenous landscape systems. This analysis seeks to address the ways in which Australian histories can continue to be re-framed to better acknowledge and respect Australian Aboriginal histories, and confirms the importance of revisiting historically settler-focused understandings and heritage assessments of Australian landscapes to better acknowledge the complex uses and values of these places for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. I acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land where I live and work, the people of the Kulin Nations, and pay respect to their Elders and other Aboriginal people.","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"427 - 454"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44013383","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1930918
Alexander Bala
agency of Eastern European architects and planners should not be ignored, who actively employed this discourse of difference to secure new commissions overseas, to claim more resources back home, and to make sense of their deployment abroad. Stanek also characterises Eastern European architectural labour in the Global South as postcolonial. He illustrates how the arrival of Eastern European architects was perceived as offering the hope of breaking the vicious circle of postcolonial underdevelopment in which the damage inflicted by colonial dominance could be undone only with the resources and knowledge from the former colonisers. While a radical break from that circle had not been achieved, Stanek suggests that the presence of socialist design labour certainly complicated the scenarios and offered alternative possibilities. Stanek conceptualises practices of global cooperation between socialist and developing countries as socialist worldmaking, but the conception remains under-developed. While the term “worldmaking” was coined by Nelson Goodman (1978) to conceptualise worlds as malleable constructs based on different views, theories, or workings of the world, Goodman has not been mentioned at all in the book. Édouard Glissant’s notion of worldness (mondialité) is only mentioned in passing. Lacking fuller explication of the notion of worldmaking, the difference between worldmaking and globalisation Stanek seeks to articulate remains obscure. His arguments on socialist worldmaking could be further strengthened by offering more evidence and analysis on its effects from the perspectives of developing societies under study. It would also help to add an assessment on how this contributed to the building of the Soviet Union as a global player in the carefully controlled game of the Cold War through both material and discursive processes. Despite these minor problems, Architecture in Global Socialism makes a significant contribution to both Cold War studies and architectural history. Based on extensive archival research, Stanek offers an insightful and integrative historical investigation into Cold War modernism by showing its global actualisations as continually shifting geometries of multiple determinations and heterogeneous actors among diverse sites. Illustrated with a good range of previously unpublished images and written in an accessible style, this interdisciplinary book will interest both scholars and general readers.
{"title":"Cold War and Architecture: The Competing Forces that Reshaped Austria after 1945","authors":"Alexander Bala","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1930918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1930918","url":null,"abstract":"agency of Eastern European architects and planners should not be ignored, who actively employed this discourse of difference to secure new commissions overseas, to claim more resources back home, and to make sense of their deployment abroad. Stanek also characterises Eastern European architectural labour in the Global South as postcolonial. He illustrates how the arrival of Eastern European architects was perceived as offering the hope of breaking the vicious circle of postcolonial underdevelopment in which the damage inflicted by colonial dominance could be undone only with the resources and knowledge from the former colonisers. While a radical break from that circle had not been achieved, Stanek suggests that the presence of socialist design labour certainly complicated the scenarios and offered alternative possibilities. Stanek conceptualises practices of global cooperation between socialist and developing countries as socialist worldmaking, but the conception remains under-developed. While the term “worldmaking” was coined by Nelson Goodman (1978) to conceptualise worlds as malleable constructs based on different views, theories, or workings of the world, Goodman has not been mentioned at all in the book. Édouard Glissant’s notion of worldness (mondialité) is only mentioned in passing. Lacking fuller explication of the notion of worldmaking, the difference between worldmaking and globalisation Stanek seeks to articulate remains obscure. His arguments on socialist worldmaking could be further strengthened by offering more evidence and analysis on its effects from the perspectives of developing societies under study. It would also help to add an assessment on how this contributed to the building of the Soviet Union as a global player in the carefully controlled game of the Cold War through both material and discursive processes. Despite these minor problems, Architecture in Global Socialism makes a significant contribution to both Cold War studies and architectural history. Based on extensive archival research, Stanek offers an insightful and integrative historical investigation into Cold War modernism by showing its global actualisations as continually shifting geometries of multiple determinations and heterogeneous actors among diverse sites. Illustrated with a good range of previously unpublished images and written in an accessible style, this interdisciplinary book will interest both scholars and general readers.","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"296 - 299"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43230974","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1938815
M. Lozanovska, C. Logan
Khan-Magomedov’s publication Pioneers of Soviet Architecture (1987, English translation) provided scholars outside of the socialist world with an introduction to what we now know as Russian Constructivist architecture and how it gave shape to the early ideals of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Sigfried Giedion did not mention the Constructivists or the entire field of Soviet and Soviet-influenced architecture in Europe in his seminal Space, Time and Architecture. In fact Soviet architecture barely rated a mention aside from in the work of a small group of specialist scholars in the late 1960s. European and North American scholarship on the Bauhaus eventually introduced the Constructivists and looked elsewhere as a response to the perceived ills of architecture in Western Europe. At the time of Khan-Magomedov’s publication, a massive compilation and examination of previously unseen visual and documentary material, western architectural historiography especially in the English-speaking world was at best uninformed, at worst disinterested in architecture of the communist and socialist world. For those working and teaching or learning in western institutions, architectural history was missing the part played by the architects and educators in the communist and socialist worlds. Once the moment of the Constructivists was appropriated into the teleology of the western avant-garde, the architectural shaping of communist and socialist society beyond the 1920s was further distanced and increasingly derided. And yet after World War II, a paradox emerges. The “postwar” is a predominant trope for the history of modern architecture and its instrumental role in the modernisation of society; but how can the post-war be conceptualised as separated from the Cold War, when both are internal to the same periodisation of history? It is the tension between this chronological overlap and yet discursive absence that has given rise to the theme of this issue of Fabrications, and which is presented by the formatting of the diagonal slash, reminiscent of the theoretical double coding of the 1990s, a decade that marks the end of the Cold War. Following the defeat of Hitler and Nazi Germany by Stalin’s Red Army in 1945, the world was caught in the grip of a political confrontation between the USA and the USSR, one which dominated the international environment for more than 40 years (1947–1991). While the Cold War meant the end of WWII in Europe, wars erupted in the Asia-Pacific region, most obviously in Vietnam and Korea, but also in Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia to name just a few. The Cold FABRICATIONS 2021, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 147–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1938815
{"title":"Post-war/Cold-War in the Region","authors":"M. Lozanovska, C. Logan","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1938815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1938815","url":null,"abstract":"Khan-Magomedov’s publication Pioneers of Soviet Architecture (1987, English translation) provided scholars outside of the socialist world with an introduction to what we now know as Russian Constructivist architecture and how it gave shape to the early ideals of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Sigfried Giedion did not mention the Constructivists or the entire field of Soviet and Soviet-influenced architecture in Europe in his seminal Space, Time and Architecture. In fact Soviet architecture barely rated a mention aside from in the work of a small group of specialist scholars in the late 1960s. European and North American scholarship on the Bauhaus eventually introduced the Constructivists and looked elsewhere as a response to the perceived ills of architecture in Western Europe. At the time of Khan-Magomedov’s publication, a massive compilation and examination of previously unseen visual and documentary material, western architectural historiography especially in the English-speaking world was at best uninformed, at worst disinterested in architecture of the communist and socialist world. For those working and teaching or learning in western institutions, architectural history was missing the part played by the architects and educators in the communist and socialist worlds. Once the moment of the Constructivists was appropriated into the teleology of the western avant-garde, the architectural shaping of communist and socialist society beyond the 1920s was further distanced and increasingly derided. And yet after World War II, a paradox emerges. The “postwar” is a predominant trope for the history of modern architecture and its instrumental role in the modernisation of society; but how can the post-war be conceptualised as separated from the Cold War, when both are internal to the same periodisation of history? It is the tension between this chronological overlap and yet discursive absence that has given rise to the theme of this issue of Fabrications, and which is presented by the formatting of the diagonal slash, reminiscent of the theoretical double coding of the 1990s, a decade that marks the end of the Cold War. Following the defeat of Hitler and Nazi Germany by Stalin’s Red Army in 1945, the world was caught in the grip of a political confrontation between the USA and the USSR, one which dominated the international environment for more than 40 years (1947–1991). While the Cold War meant the end of WWII in Europe, wars erupted in the Asia-Pacific region, most obviously in Vietnam and Korea, but also in Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia to name just a few. The Cold FABRICATIONS 2021, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 147–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1938815","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"11 S10","pages":"147 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41269232","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1945794
Rowan Gower, P. Hogben
ABSTRACT The choice of New Delhi as the location for the first Australian diplomatic building to be constructed after the Second World War reflected the growing significance of India in relation to the spread of Communism in Asia. As the importance of diplomatic representation and activity for Australia within India grew, so too did the need for suitable premises. For this purpose, arguments were made for the erection of new buildings in New Delhi for Australia’s Department of External Affairs. From initial design ideas in 1951, it took over ten years for the Head of Mission residence to be completed in 1962, and then another four years for the chancery to be opened in 1966. This paper describes the process that led to the construction of the first of these – the HOM residence – which involved two different design concepts, one based on an Australian colonial stylistic idiom and the other on a modern regionalist approach. The paper examines these two concepts for their representational intent, revealing that the desired image of respectful dignity was open to architectural interpretation which itself depended on the political complexities and practical challenges facing the Australian government in its effort to construct a diplomatic building in India in the 1950s.
{"title":"From Colonial Revival to Architectural Regionalism: Representational Alteration in the Case of Australia’s Head of Mission Residence in New Delhi","authors":"Rowan Gower, P. Hogben","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1945794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1945794","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The choice of New Delhi as the location for the first Australian diplomatic building to be constructed after the Second World War reflected the growing significance of India in relation to the spread of Communism in Asia. As the importance of diplomatic representation and activity for Australia within India grew, so too did the need for suitable premises. For this purpose, arguments were made for the erection of new buildings in New Delhi for Australia’s Department of External Affairs. From initial design ideas in 1951, it took over ten years for the Head of Mission residence to be completed in 1962, and then another four years for the chancery to be opened in 1966. This paper describes the process that led to the construction of the first of these – the HOM residence – which involved two different design concepts, one based on an Australian colonial stylistic idiom and the other on a modern regionalist approach. The paper examines these two concepts for their representational intent, revealing that the desired image of respectful dignity was open to architectural interpretation which itself depended on the political complexities and practical challenges facing the Australian government in its effort to construct a diplomatic building in India in the 1950s.","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"235 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43062666","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1945341
Alex Young Il Seo
ABSTRACT This article examines patterns of human habitation in the South Korean border following the Korean War. Focussing in Daema-ri frontier village in Cheorwon abutting the Demilitarised Zone, I analyse how architecture was used by the state as a versatile territorial mechanism for spreading and concentrating populations; its efficiency as a spatio-political device governing selected populations under a certain order desired by the state; and its contradictory role as a platform for political struggles which contests many fundamental aspects of the state prerogatives. Through my examination of Daema-ri’s spatial development – from an illegal, temporary makeshift shelter to a permanent state village – I argue that the frontier settlements, though portrayed as the state solution to emergency induced by the influx of refugees, was actually an outcome of a self-created disorder. It proposes a new analytical framework for the frontier settlements to be considered not simply as a border problem, but as an important architectural tool used by the modern state to establish a centralised system of control over its territory and population.
{"title":"Governing Human Habitation outside the Normal Order: Architectural Mechanism of the South Korean Frontier Villages","authors":"Alex Young Il Seo","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1945341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1945341","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines patterns of human habitation in the South Korean border following the Korean War. Focussing in Daema-ri frontier village in Cheorwon abutting the Demilitarised Zone, I analyse how architecture was used by the state as a versatile territorial mechanism for spreading and concentrating populations; its efficiency as a spatio-political device governing selected populations under a certain order desired by the state; and its contradictory role as a platform for political struggles which contests many fundamental aspects of the state prerogatives. Through my examination of Daema-ri’s spatial development – from an illegal, temporary makeshift shelter to a permanent state village – I argue that the frontier settlements, though portrayed as the state solution to emergency induced by the influx of refugees, was actually an outcome of a self-created disorder. It proposes a new analytical framework for the frontier settlements to be considered not simply as a border problem, but as an important architectural tool used by the modern state to establish a centralised system of control over its territory and population.","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"180 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46204624","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2021.1930920
Soon-Tzu Speechley
back on its pre-war “pioneers of modernism,” lamenting the leading position that Austrian modernist architecture had lost after the war. According to Plazter, what happened following the occupational period and after CIAM Austria disbanded “still waits appraisal” from future scholars. At the very end, Platzer briefly mentions Hans Hollein, a young architect at the time and a key transitional figure in Austrian architecture between the occupational period and present day. Hollein is the figure who could either complete or break the arc of the “Austrian identity construct” in the twentieth century. While Platzer richly furnishes the post-war milieu with abundant material and detailed analysis, her discussion ends anticlimactically. She eschews postoccupational developments (in which Hollein played a central role) that have since restored Austria’s leading position in the global architectural discourse, demonstrated by contemporary practices such as Coop Himmelb(l)au and the rise to international prominence of the University of Applied Arts Vienna and the University of Innsbruck over the past thirty years. Platzer gestures towards some open questions in the field of architectural history, such as: what is the legacy of the “Austrian identity construct” in architecture today? To what extent is it linked to its pre-war “pioneers of modernism”? The effects of the occupational period for the “Austrian identity construct” in the twentieth century have yet to be explicated. Above all, Platzer has established solid historical ground for scholars to pursue these questions. It is now incumbent upon future scholars to draw out the larger threads that extend across the twentieth century, from Wagner and Loos to post-occupational and contemporary practices, including those of Hans Hollein and Coop Himmelb(l)au.
{"title":"Contested Space Revisited: George Town, Penang Before and After UNESCO World Heritage Listing","authors":"Soon-Tzu Speechley","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1930920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1930920","url":null,"abstract":"back on its pre-war “pioneers of modernism,” lamenting the leading position that Austrian modernist architecture had lost after the war. According to Plazter, what happened following the occupational period and after CIAM Austria disbanded “still waits appraisal” from future scholars. At the very end, Platzer briefly mentions Hans Hollein, a young architect at the time and a key transitional figure in Austrian architecture between the occupational period and present day. Hollein is the figure who could either complete or break the arc of the “Austrian identity construct” in the twentieth century. While Platzer richly furnishes the post-war milieu with abundant material and detailed analysis, her discussion ends anticlimactically. She eschews postoccupational developments (in which Hollein played a central role) that have since restored Austria’s leading position in the global architectural discourse, demonstrated by contemporary practices such as Coop Himmelb(l)au and the rise to international prominence of the University of Applied Arts Vienna and the University of Innsbruck over the past thirty years. Platzer gestures towards some open questions in the field of architectural history, such as: what is the legacy of the “Austrian identity construct” in architecture today? To what extent is it linked to its pre-war “pioneers of modernism”? The effects of the occupational period for the “Austrian identity construct” in the twentieth century have yet to be explicated. Above all, Platzer has established solid historical ground for scholars to pursue these questions. It is now incumbent upon future scholars to draw out the larger threads that extend across the twentieth century, from Wagner and Loos to post-occupational and contemporary practices, including those of Hans Hollein and Coop Himmelb(l)au.","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"31 1","pages":"299 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43163991","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：