| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 建築與城鄉研究所 === 89 === The pursuit of “Modern Chinese Architecture” is one of the most predominant theses of architectural discourse and spatial practice in postwar Taiwan. This essay analyzes the representative cases of these architectural discourse and spacial practice. The author’s main argument is that the alternation of architectural styles and the debates of aesthetics in the discourse and spatial practice of “Modern Chinese Architecture” were exactly the mobilization of feelings and the competition of hegemonies in the field of cultural symbolic representation which were dominated by sorts of historical forces and agents. By the way of performing symbolic codes and predominant ideologies such as nationalism and modernity, “Modern Chinese Architecture” performed on the landmarks in the cities as a part of the process to construct the new hegemony and social relationship. The whole discourse and spatial practice of “Modern Chinese Architecture” closely related to the specific historical situations and the process of social changes in postwar Taiwan. On the one hand, it was the representation of competition among predominant power blocs and the aestheticised politics; on the other hand, it related to the emotional conflicts and the construction of cultural identity of the masses during the changes of social power relationship.
However, in the essentialist problematic of “Modern Chinese Architecture” itself, the unawareness of the complex relationships among space, knowledge and power, and the tendency towards idealism and formalism in architectural practice and the construction of professional discourse resulted in the failure of the whole practice of “Modern Chinese Architecture” to reach the core of the historical change and the power structure, and therefore the practice could neither have the initiative to master the reality of politics and economy, decolonize comprehensively, nor break through the historical predicament of cultural identity. For these reasons, the author finally suggests going beyond the problematic of “Modern Chinese Architecture” and raising another question with new perspectives.
|
|---|
