|
|
| 首页 | Master | 作品 | 招聘 | 招标 | 动态 | 热帖 | 杂志 | 帮助 | 搜索 | 注册 | 登录 | Blog 积分 简历 |
|
» ABBS 论坛 » 纯粹建筑论坛
» 理论
动态 | 热帖 | 招聘 | 杂志 |
|
 |
  
|
| Re:‘Truth to material’ vs ‘The principle of cladding’ [精华] |
archu
发贴: 112 
|
 2005-03-20 04:36 
      学术研究的根本是映照分析和影响实践。脱离了当时的建筑实践的背景以及由之产生的学术讨论的背景，以及未理清其随时间的发展变迁，肯定会觉得问题多多。----As you already pointed out. 没有仔细看所有的帖文，用此图表来表达我的思考，未必成熟，可能会有用。 B与D、C与D、A与B甚至B与C…都可以形成互为批评或论战。 refers to diagram above 学术概念的映照涵盖对象并不是绝对不变和边界明晰的... Chinese old words: ge wu zhi zhi. But sometimes, 'ge' is really a confusing matter and it generates interesting and confusing arguments. 一开始 (from 19th century ?) truth to material的映照对象基本上是B, 一开始the principle of cladding的映照对象基本上是D，显示为对立的两个美学系统(honest or not)。如 discussion on 阿尔托1947-9的MIT的贝克楼和另一建筑师1979-81建于同一校园内的Whitaker College of Health Sciences。 当考虑到瓦格纳的Postal Savings Bank（建于1904-6），则它can be looked to be 同处两个系统，是truth to material / honest的cladding. truth to material涵盖的对象可以扩展为B、C。 路斯的The Principle of Cladding的映照对象是C，he did not suport D. 而Akos Moravanszky 的则是 C、D, 主要argue for D's culture meaning. 同时他反对狭隘的truth to material把D归为不被赞同的做法。虽然他没有明确表达，我认为在他看来D也可以是truth to material的或广义的truth to material。所以，truth to material涵盖的对象可以又一次扩展为B、C、D。(或者严格地说，C、D又分为truth to material的C、D 和not truth to material的C、D。truth to material涵盖的对象扩展为B和truth to material的C、D。但not truth to material的C、D的例子好象很少或不值得研究。 truth to material or not严格地说并不等于truth to observer’s understanding of material or not 即honest or not。而这又恰恰是很多讨论中的理解或所指。) truth to what? -------Truth to nature of material or truth to observer’s understanding of material或称为honest 的 这正是引发混乱的模糊起源之一，严格地说两概念并不等同但常常被等同。 and what is the nature of material?-------Cutting stone in sheets is following its nature or not? Layers of different materials adhered or constructed together are following their nature or not? 在这个问题上也同样有不同理解… truth to------not truth to; cladding---solid ; honest---not honest. Their opposit relations are like this. ..... 综上， truth to material和the principle of cladding并不是两个严格对立的概念或系统, It depends on different understanding and discussion, as its academic history shew。后者甚至可以包含于广义的前者(the principle of cladding就是为追求好的cladding而被提出的)，或有交集, 。而狭义的前者是针对反模仿欺骗的cladding而被提倡的。前人的学术讨论走过了很多，又非同时同地，难免概念所指不统一。而且并非模糊没有意义，模糊概念所映照的日益丰富的实践的价值辩论促进各种可能性的实践and understanding的水平提高与进化发展------ABCD都可以是高水平的设计与建造, depends on designer and observer。 The diagram transformed like this in my thinking process: first,  second,  last  Suddenly I can not input Chinese in my computer , so I added some more above and here in English in the last editing. My thought above may not be very right but I think it may bring more thinking... For the words"matter,material,materiality, materialization", in one context they can have their right translations and meanings. But do not wish the Chinese word has the same meaning in all kinds of contexts as the English word. Different context, different translation. But each of 'materiality' and 'materialzation' may be set to a new Chinese word because these two concepts did not exist in old Chinese, I think. I think we can say: using MATERIALs for MATERIALIZATION of a mass of MATTER, then you get a MATERIALITY of the whole MATTER. (MATERIALITY is for the whole, and it comes together with MATERIALIZATION.) If you like it, you can translate it into Chinese because I can not type in Chinese now.
archu edited on 2005-03-20 12:48
|
已读帖子 新的帖子 被删帖子
|
|
|
|
返回ABBS首页 | 设计 | 室内 | 景观 | 建材 | 设备 | 卫浴 | 展览 | 照明
招标服务 | 广告服务 | 招聘服务 | 隐私政策 | 联系我们 | 设为首页
违法、有害信息举报：QQ 1764506 电话 028-61998486
Powered by Jute Powerful Forum® Version Jute 1.5.5 Ent
Copyright © 1998-2024 ABBS.com All Rights Reserved.