Показати простий запис статті

dc.contributor.author Шліпченко, С.
dc.date.accessioned 2011-10-10T09:51:17Z
dc.date.available 2011-10-10T09:51:17Z
dc.date.issued 2009
dc.identifier.citation Чари й парадокси історицизму/ С. Шліпченко // Студії мистецтвознавчі. — К.: ІМФЕ НАН України, 2009. — № 3(27). — С. 7-19 . — Бібліогр.: 40 назв. — укр. uk_UA
dc.identifier.issn 1728–6875
dc.identifier.uri http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/27620
dc.description.abstract The paper offers a twofold perspective on the subject/phenomenon of historicism: its ideology, on one hand, and its architectural manifestations – on the other. Regarding architecture as a product of a way of thinking, the author tries to trace the roots of historicist ideology, focuses on the conditions of thought of the XIX cent. and certain considerations that informed the production of architecture. Clearly (and it was demonstrated by many thinkers and architectural historians – e. g. Gadamer, Pérez-Gómez, Foucault, Vidler, Tafuri, Krauss, Schorske, or Habermas) the XIX cent. faced head-on the crisis of representation, and thus – the crisis of the subject (as transition from traditional /cosmic/ order to historical one). Traditionally, architectural discourse has been largely a discourse of form and has been dominated by debates that revolve around a question of style, trapped, in fact, within the realm of ‘symptoms’. Trying to investigate “the underlying causes”, the author explores specific ideas brought about by Modernity: History /historicity/, evolution and development /idea of ‘becoming’/, instrumentality, and fragmentation. Hence, we have a “museum-like” vision of culture, where history of architecture appeared as a succession of styles (history of architecture as Stilgeschihte) put forward by Semper, or Durand’s comparative combinatoric tableaux of historic buildings and types. It’s that ‘reification’ of culture (when one can substitute the whole body of primary culture by its mental/abstract/ construction) that gave birth to historicism as an ideology and practice of seeking historic appropriatedness – ‘comparing the relevance which is now to its relevance in the past,’ as Habermas puts it. Not only Viennise Ringstrasse (with its “four crown diamonds” – Parliament, Cityhall, University, and Theater), but also Horodetsky’s projects (St. Nicolas Cathedral, National Gallery, Kenassa, or village /’zemskii’/ hospital), let alone numerous examples of pseudo-Bizantine architecture of the late XIX cent. serve a perfect case in point. uk_UA
dc.language.iso uk uk_UA
dc.publisher Інститут мистецтвознавства, фольклористики та етнології iм. М.Т. Рильського НАН України uk_UA
dc.relation.ispartof Студії мистецтвознавчі
dc.subject Філософія мистецтва uk_UA
dc.title Чари й парадокси історицизму uk_UA
dc.title.alternative Charms and Paradoxes of Historicism uk_UA
dc.type Article uk_UA
dc.status published earlier uk_UA
dc.identifier.udc 7.01 : 111.852

Файли у цій статті

Ця стаття з'являється у наступних колекціях

Показати простий запис статті


Розширений пошук


Мій обліковий запис