Chinese and foreign papers on architectural history: 3200 words

Research on the Architectural History of China at the End of the Century

Abstract: Since the opening to the outside world in the late 1970s, various philosophical methodologies and schools of thought have prevailed in the post-war West in 20 130 years and even recently 10 and 2000. Among them, the methodological model of binary separation is the first, such as the "surface structure-deep structure" model of structuralism, the "signifier-signified" model of semiotics, the "scientific and objective physical world-life world of pure consciousness" model of phenomenology, and various architectural history and theoretical theories derived from it. Gestalt psychology, environmental psychology, new historiography, Gombrich's art history theory, and even natural science methods, etc., are refreshing and eye-opening. Keywords: the present situation of architectural history in China For us young scholars, the whole 1980s can be said to be an era of methodology, and architectural history and theoretical research are no exception. Since the opening to the outside world in the late 1970s, various philosophical methodologies and schools of thought have prevailed in the postwar West in the years of 2O-3O and even 10 and 2O. Among them, the methodological model of binary separation is the first, such as the "surface structure-deep structure" model of structuralism, the "signifier-signified" model of semiotics, the "scientific and objective physical world-life world of pure consciousness" model of phenomenology, and various architectural history and theoretical theories derived from it. Gestalt psychology, environmental psychology, new historiography, Gombrich's art history theory, and even natural science methods, etc., are refreshing and eye-opening. Under the influence of these methodologies, young people's academic orientation focuses on macro-generalization, abstract speculation and bold interpretation and inference of architectural history, hoping to enlighten reality and foresee the future, rather than being unwilling to be "learned" by traditional textual research and empirical research. There have been a number of brilliant masterpieces, which apply western learning, summarize the past and discuss the present. But in the view of orthodox historiography, just like any historical theory research, no matter what method is adopted in the study of architectural history, its purpose should be to solve some problems, cause some thinking or provide some reference. Without a profound empirical foundation and academic accomplishment, all kinds of "historical philosophy", "theoretical framework" and "models" about architecture are just a flash in the pan, with more lightning and less rain and dew. Because the inference is hasty, it is not helpful to history; Cold thinking, there is no chance in the world. These views are a little harsh on young students and may not be right, but they reflect that there are too many "theories" in architectural philosophy. Although there are great differences in levels, few people are interested in exploring architectural history, and even less comment on architectural reality. Let's put aside the "theory" here. On the one hand, from the perspective of "history", we should admit that the criticism of logical positivism at the level of philosophical methodology is by no means equal to the denial of empirical methods in the study of specific problems, and the "avant-garde" in the study of architectural history is unbearable. Indeed, in the past 10 years, there were not many high-level achievements in studying the architectural history of China with these "new methodologies" and "new perspectives". Does this mean that although methodology itself has its own vitality, the era of one-sided treatment of methodology in architectural history research should be over. However, the real crisis in the study of China's architectural history is not here. Take the study of the history of ancient architecture in China as an example. First of all, any substantial progress in this research depends on the solid knowledge of objects and documents, and sometimes even on the old methods of Chinese studies such as phonology and exegetics. However, the actual situation is often more "bold assumptions" than "careful verification", especially for many young scholars, who are weak in this respect due to subjective and objective reasons. Secondly, the "national chess game" cooperation and focused research situation has been difficult to maintain. However, the contemporary research conditions for information enjoyment are still far away. Coupled with the pragmatic attitude of society and even related institutions to the study of architectural history, and the exhaustion of funding sources. This makes this science more and more obscure and shrinking, and its successors are lacking. Nevertheless, in recent years, the research on the architectural history of China has achieved Pei Ran, which is encouraging. For example, Mr. Fu Xinian's research on the style, composition and symbol of royal architecture in Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties. Yang Hongxun's Research on the Restoration of Ancient Famous Buildings, Pan, Guo and his academic echelon's Series Research on the Relationship between Architectural Culture and Chinese and Foreign Buildings, Ningsheng Wang's Analysis of Ancient Cultural Anthropology, Long and his academic echelon's Series Research on the Disaster Prevention of Ancient Buildings, Lu, Huang and Lu's investigation of some typical traditional houses in southern China respectively, and Mr. Cao Xun's careful textual research on the proposition of ancient buildings, Mr. Zhang's inference of China's architectural sub-cultural circle, and Mr. Zhang's research on Dunhuang architecture, sir. Of course, special mention should also be made of the research on the history of modern architecture in China hosted by Mr. Wang Tan and the investigation and study of local architecture conducted by Mr. Chen Zhihua. All these have greatly affected the expansion and deepening of the research field of China's architectural history. Fu Zi's five-volume "Architectural History of China" and "Architectural Art History of China" will comprehensively reflect the research level and achievements of ancient architecture in China in recent years. The research objects of the history of foreground architecture are the thoughts and skills of architecture in history (or "craftsmen"), the temporal and spatial development sequence of architecture, the historical value of architecture and its influence on later generations, reality and even the future. Tai Shigong's thought of "studying the changes of ancient and modern times" is still the gist of managing the history of architecture. Of course, you can also add "distinguishing similarities and differences between China and foreign countries." There are two aspects in the cross-century study of China's architectural history. First, in terms of history, taking the history of ancient architecture in China as an example, with the continuous increase of new archaeological data in recent ten years, such as the nature of the primitive social architectural site in Dahankou, the ancient Sanxingdui site in Guanghan and the early urban site in Mangshan, Zhengzhou, the architectural technology of the version has been moved up. The progress of brick-making technology at Joo Won? site in Qishan, the evidence of the mausoleum system by the first imperial tomb site, the discovery of the architectural layout and style of Jiucheng Palace in Tang Dynasty and the in-depth study of local dwellings all provide a new data basis for supplementing and partially rewriting the ancient architectural history of China. It should be pointed out that the future architectural history of China should absorb more knowledge, methods and research experience from archaeology, cultural anthropology, cultural history, art history, science and technology history and other related disciplines. Another aspect of the study involves the relationship between architectural history and reality. Facing the society and connecting with practice is an opportunity for the study of architectural history to get out of the predicament. For example, the study of vernacular architecture is not only a survey of residential materials, but also a record of human landscape, and more importantly, it should be a countermeasure study of some traditional living styles in China that have adapted to the protective transformation of natural ecology in the process of rapid urbanization in rural areas. This task may be partly undertaken by the study of architectural history in China. Of course, these tasks require knowledge preparation in sociology, cultural anthropology and rural planning. Another example is the protection of cultural relics and its technical research. Many foreign architecture departments have set up preservation majors. The author once attended the 10th ICOMOS Congress in Colombo, and saw with his own eyes that some third world countries have a strong awareness of the protection of their historical buildings, and the protection measures are highly technical and the research is quite in-depth. These studies are mainly completed by archaeologists and architectural history experts. Moreover, it is not only the protection of cultural relics, but also the protection, development and utilization of cultural landscapes in historical areas are part of the research plan of the transformation project with the large-scale development of urban and rural reconstruction. Therefore, it is considered that the first-class architecture departments in China should also set up the specialty of historical building protection, so as to conduct in-depth research in this field and provide a base for cultivating high-level professionals. Computer-aided research should be introduced into this field, and a database of historical building data and images should be established to cooperate with maintenance, restoration and protection design. In addition, there is a discussion on the relationship between architectural culture and realistic architectural creation, which is also a major field of architectural history and theoretical research in China in the future. Some architectural culture theories often use "three-stage", first explain what is "culture" and then discuss what is "architectural culture". Finally, talk about architecture. In fact, architecture has been the carrier of culture since ancient times and the most concentrated and profound thing left by cultural history. The discussion of architectural culture should start from the building itself, and then extend and interweave into other related cultural fields, forming an atmosphere of commenting and criticizing the relationship between society, culture, space and architecture. It should be pointed out that one of the most obvious manifestations of the disconnection between the study of architectural history and architectural culture and the actual creation is the proliferation of "small pavilions" on high-rise buildings in Beijing in recent years. The architectural field lacks theoretical and practical summary and sublimation of the dispute between tradition and innovation for more than half a century, and lacks multiple criticisms and value judgments on urban space and its historical theory; The lag of urban design control function leads to the confusion of translating traditional architectural language into modern architectural language, which leads to the mediocrity and degradation of rhetoric; And the misunderstanding and misleading of the historical consciousness and modern concept of urban landscape in decision-making, which puts forward mandatory requirements for the rigid "grafting" of ancient and modern times. All these make a considerable part of the "Ten Small Pavilions" look like the old concept of "national form", but they are far less dazzling than several retro trends of thought and their works in the history of modern architecture in China. This obviously involves an important historical theoretical research topic in the future-the "sustainable development" of urban landscape context, not just a question of how to preserve the "ancient capital style". It will be of great practical significance if the study of China's architectural history can contribute to this from one angle. The cross-century study of China's architectural history needs to look back and look forward, understand the whole and a corner, summarize ancient and modern architects and explore the formation of new urban and rural landscape context. In my opinion, these are the two main directions of the future research on the architectural history of China.