重访竞争空间:联合国教科文组织世界遗产名录前后的槟城乔治镇

Soon-Tzu Speechley
{"title":"重访竞争空间:联合国教科文组织世界遗产名录前后的槟城乔治镇","authors":"Soon-Tzu Speechley","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2021.1930920","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1930920\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2021.1930920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回到战前的“现代主义先驱”,哀叹奥地利现代主义建筑在战后失去了领导地位。根据Plazter的说法,占领时期和奥地利CIAM解散后发生的事情“仍有待未来学者的评估”。在最后,Platzer简要地提到了Hans Hollein,他是当时一位年轻的建筑师,也是奥地利建筑从占领时期到现在的关键过渡人物。霍莱因是一个既可以完成也可以打破20世纪“奥地利身份结构”弧线的人物。虽然普拉泽用丰富的材料和详细的分析丰富了战后的环境,但她的讨论却以虎头收尾。她避开了职业后的发展(Hollein在其中发挥了核心作用),这些发展已经恢复了奥地利在全球建筑话语中的领先地位,当代实践如Coop Himmelb(l)au以及维也纳应用艺术大学和因斯布鲁克大学在过去三十年中的国际地位。普拉泽提出了建筑史领域的一些开放性问题,例如:“奥地利身份结构”在今天的建筑中留下了什么遗产?它在多大程度上与战前的“现代主义先驱”有联系?占领时期对20世纪“奥地利身份结构”的影响尚未得到阐明。最重要的是,普拉泽为学者们探究这些问题奠定了坚实的历史基础。现在,未来的学者有责任找出贯穿20世纪的更大的线索,从瓦格纳和卢斯到后职业和当代的实践,包括汉斯·霍莱因和库普·希梅尔布(1)au的实践。
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
Contested Space Revisited: George Town, Penang Before and After UNESCO World Heritage Listing
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.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
25.00%
发文量
26
期刊最新文献
From Hilltop Landmarks to Suburban Place Makers: Brisbane’s Post-War Religious Territories and Communities The Politics of the Visual: Immigrant Architecture in Melbourne’s Tourist Brochures Magnifying the Terrace: David Saunders and the Cross Street Co-Operative Housing Development Form, Function and Monumentality: A Critical Analysis of Jørn Utzon’s Late Work on the Sydney Opera House An Antipodean Attica
×
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