Чари й парадокси історицизму
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 condi...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2009 |
|---|---|
| Автор: | |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | Ukrainian |
| Опубліковано: |
Інститут мистецтвознавства, фольклористики та етнології iм. М.Т. Рильського НАН України
2009
|
| Назва видання: | Студії мистецтвознавчі |
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/27620 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | Чари й парадокси історицизму/ С. Шліпченко // Студії мистецтвознавчі. — К.: ІМФЕ НАН України, 2009. — № 3(27). — С. 7-19 . — Бібліогр.: 40 назв. — укр. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-27620 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-276202011-10-11T12:04:54Z Чари й парадокси історицизму Шліпченко, С. Філософія мистецтва 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. 2009 Article Чари й парадокси історицизму/ С. Шліпченко // Студії мистецтвознавчі. — К.: ІМФЕ НАН України, 2009. — № 3(27). — С. 7-19 . — Бібліогр.: 40 назв. — укр. 1728–6875 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/27620 7.01 : 111.852 uk Студії мистецтвознавчі Інститут мистецтвознавства, фольклористики та етнології iм. М.Т. Рильського НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
Ukrainian |
| topic |
Філософія мистецтва Філософія мистецтва |
| spellingShingle |
Філософія мистецтва Філософія мистецтва Шліпченко, С. Чари й парадокси історицизму Студії мистецтвознавчі |
| description |
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. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Шліпченко, С. |
| author_facet |
Шліпченко, С. |
| author_sort |
Шліпченко, С. |
| title |
Чари й парадокси історицизму |
| title_short |
Чари й парадокси історицизму |
| title_full |
Чари й парадокси історицизму |
| title_fullStr |
Чари й парадокси історицизму |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Чари й парадокси історицизму |
| title_sort |
чари й парадокси історицизму |
| publisher |
Інститут мистецтвознавства, фольклористики та етнології iм. М.Т. Рильського НАН України |
| publishDate |
2009 |
| topic_facet |
Філософія мистецтва |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/27620 |
| citation_txt |
Чари й парадокси історицизму/ С. Шліпченко // Студії мистецтвознавчі. — К.: ІМФЕ НАН України, 2009. — № 3(27). — С. 7-19 . — Бібліогр.: 40 назв. — укр. |
| series |
Студії мистецтвознавчі |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT šlípčenkos čarijparadoksiístoricizmu |
| first_indexed |
2023-10-18T17:24:15Z |
| last_indexed |
2023-10-18T17:24:15Z |
| _version_ |
1796141449472901120 |