《大辩论:20世纪80年代伦敦的运动与冲突

R. Christie
{"title":"《大辩论:20世纪80年代伦敦的运动与冲突","authors":"R. Christie","doi":"10.55939/a5016p9v9h","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1984 HM King Charles III, then HRH The Prince of Wales, gave the infamous speech to the RIBA in which he was critical of a proposed new extension to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. The fervour unleashed in the press signified a unique moment when architecture, conservation, planning and development became a much – and still – talked about part of the public discourse in Britain. Conservation theory had dictated since its early guidelines of practice that new additions to historic works should be clearly distinguished from their original host or the existing environment. Historicism, imitating the existing architecture within an urban setting was taboo, a notion that went back to Ruskin and the anti-scrape lobby of Morris. Unravelling the events of the 1980s, however, reveals that the desire to copy past forms as a means of retaining the past maintained an ongoing and strong legacy. It had become a method of seeking refuge from the failures of modernism and the divergence between traditional and modern forms, language and techniques. Openly acknowledged that modernism was anti- historic and anti-urban, classicism and medieval towns and forms offered the example of outdoor rooms and a predominance of solids over voids. For the then Prince and his many followers, including vast members of the public, the use of a traditional architectural style as infill in a classically inspired building setting was “good” design practice. At this point, ironically, the retreat to historicism also comprised not only mimicking traditional details but also their playful reinterpretation through an esoteric postmodernism. But the topic of new into old had become confused: the critical issue was one of urban design and not the language of infill architecture. Three case studies within the historic core of the City of London, the basis of criticism in Charles’ speeches of 1984 and 1987, will be explored through the popular press in order to understand their lessons and relevance to the complexity of current contemporary conflicts in historic urban areas.","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Great Debate: Campaigns and Conflicts in London in the 1980s\",\"authors\":\"R. Christie\",\"doi\":\"10.55939/a5016p9v9h\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1984 HM King Charles III, then HRH The Prince of Wales, gave the infamous speech to the RIBA in which he was critical of a proposed new extension to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. The fervour unleashed in the press signified a unique moment when architecture, conservation, planning and development became a much – and still – talked about part of the public discourse in Britain. Conservation theory had dictated since its early guidelines of practice that new additions to historic works should be clearly distinguished from their original host or the existing environment. Historicism, imitating the existing architecture within an urban setting was taboo, a notion that went back to Ruskin and the anti-scrape lobby of Morris. Unravelling the events of the 1980s, however, reveals that the desire to copy past forms as a means of retaining the past maintained an ongoing and strong legacy. It had become a method of seeking refuge from the failures of modernism and the divergence between traditional and modern forms, language and techniques. Openly acknowledged that modernism was anti- historic and anti-urban, classicism and medieval towns and forms offered the example of outdoor rooms and a predominance of solids over voids. For the then Prince and his many followers, including vast members of the public, the use of a traditional architectural style as infill in a classically inspired building setting was “good” design practice. At this point, ironically, the retreat to historicism also comprised not only mimicking traditional details but also their playful reinterpretation through an esoteric postmodernism. But the topic of new into old had become confused: the critical issue was one of urban design and not the language of infill architecture. Three case studies within the historic core of the City of London, the basis of criticism in Charles’ speeches of 1984 and 1987, will be explored through the popular press in order to understand their lessons and relevance to the complexity of current contemporary conflicts in historic urban areas.\",\"PeriodicalId\":445270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55939/a5016p9v9h\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a5016p9v9h","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1984年,时任威尔士亲王的查尔斯三世国王在英国皇家建筑师学会发表了一篇臭名昭著的演讲,他在演讲中批评了特拉法加广场国家美术馆的新扩建计划。媒体上释放的热情标志着一个独特的时刻,建筑、保护、规划和发展成为英国公众话语中经常谈论的一部分。保护理论从其早期的实践指导方针开始就规定,对历史作品的新增加的部分应该与它们原来的宿主或现有的环境明确区分开来。在城市环境中模仿现有建筑的历史主义是禁忌,这个概念可以追溯到罗斯金和莫里斯的反刮刮游说团。然而,揭开20世纪80年代的事件,揭示了复制过去的形式作为保留过去的一种手段的愿望保持了持续和强大的遗产。它已经成为一种逃避现代主义失败和传统与现代形式、语言和技术分歧的方法。公开承认现代主义是反历史和反城市的,古典主义和中世纪的城镇和形式提供了室外房间的例子,固体压倒了空洞。对于当时的王子和他的众多追随者,包括广大公众来说,在古典风格的建筑环境中使用传统建筑风格是一种“良好”的设计实践。在这一点上,具有讽刺意味的是,向历史主义的撤退不仅包括模仿传统的细节,还包括通过深奥的后现代主义对它们进行有趣的重新诠释。但新变旧的话题已经变得混乱:关键问题是城市设计,而不是填充建筑的语言。作为查尔斯1984年和1987年演讲中批评的基础,我们将通过大众媒体对伦敦金融城历史核心的三个案例进行研究,以了解他们的经验教训以及与历史城市地区当前当代冲突的复杂性的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Great Debate: Campaigns and Conflicts in London in the 1980s
In 1984 HM King Charles III, then HRH The Prince of Wales, gave the infamous speech to the RIBA in which he was critical of a proposed new extension to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. The fervour unleashed in the press signified a unique moment when architecture, conservation, planning and development became a much – and still – talked about part of the public discourse in Britain. Conservation theory had dictated since its early guidelines of practice that new additions to historic works should be clearly distinguished from their original host or the existing environment. Historicism, imitating the existing architecture within an urban setting was taboo, a notion that went back to Ruskin and the anti-scrape lobby of Morris. Unravelling the events of the 1980s, however, reveals that the desire to copy past forms as a means of retaining the past maintained an ongoing and strong legacy. It had become a method of seeking refuge from the failures of modernism and the divergence between traditional and modern forms, language and techniques. Openly acknowledged that modernism was anti- historic and anti-urban, classicism and medieval towns and forms offered the example of outdoor rooms and a predominance of solids over voids. For the then Prince and his many followers, including vast members of the public, the use of a traditional architectural style as infill in a classically inspired building setting was “good” design practice. At this point, ironically, the retreat to historicism also comprised not only mimicking traditional details but also their playful reinterpretation through an esoteric postmodernism. But the topic of new into old had become confused: the critical issue was one of urban design and not the language of infill architecture. Three case studies within the historic core of the City of London, the basis of criticism in Charles’ speeches of 1984 and 1987, will be explored through the popular press in order to understand their lessons and relevance to the complexity of current contemporary conflicts in historic urban areas.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reimagining West Sumatra’s Architectural Identity: Is the Pointy Silhouette Enough? “Beware the Snufflebust, My Son!”: Clough Williams-Ellis in New Zealand, 1947-1948 W. M. Dudok and Hilversum: Architect and Municipal Planner; Dissemination of this Interconnection amongst Australian Architects, 1925-1955 Andrew McCutcheon, Evan Walker and David Yencken: Tracing Cross-Disciplinary Understandings in Architecture in 1970s Melbourne Crossing Landscape and Architecture: Embodiment of A-Perspectival Space in Wang Shu’s Oblique Drawings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1