건축의 정의 -현재에 대한 단서를 찾기 위한 역사적 연구-

초록

(Background and Purpose) Each era of the past has generated its definition of architecture. However, it is a quite common opinion that, after the critical revision of the Modern Movement, our age was not able - or not interested – anymore in producing a shared architectural notion. Nowadays, the world of theory is fragmented into an innumerable amount of individual positions. This apparent cultural disengagement is noticeable even in the most global contemporary source of information, Wikipedia, whose definition of architecture is so broad as to appear a non-definition. This study believes that the definition of Wikipedia, although not elaborated in an academic context, represents the prevailing architecture thinking of our time. Nevertheless, it argues that, paradoxically, such a broad and apparently generic definition may be the most exact interpretation of our epoch’s architectural spirit. The verification of this hypothesis –whose validity would show that our era too was able to elaborate its definition of architecture- is the primary purpose of the research. (Method) Some fundamental definitions of the past have been reviewed and compared with Wikipedia’s to verify the research assumption. The results of the comparison, in turn, have been confronted with the literature that debates the current status of architectural culture. The historical analysis has been circumscribed to the definitions elaborated in the Early Modern Age. The selection criteria were necessarily exclusive, but following the mainstream of the studies dealing with this theme. (Results) The historical review allowed identifying and selecting nine crucial definitions, from Leon Battista Alberti (15th c.) to Mies van der Rohe (20th c.). The comparison of those definitions with Wikipedia’s and, subsequently, critical literature led to the following findings. In the first place, Wikipedia’s definition consists of a compilation of the most significant theoretical achievements of the past, considered all equally valid, even when in contrast with each other. Secondly, the definition is certainly broad, but, because of its historical awareness, cannot be considered merely generic. It is, instead, a conscious “collage” inspired by a relativist and pluralist critical attitude. Such an attitude is comparable to that of the historical periods defined by scholars as "mannerist," namely, not aiming at creating new paradigms, but at critically re-elaborating what has been produced in the past. Finally, the literature review shows how, in the opinion of many critics, contemporary architecture is also going through a phase of mannerism. (Conclusions) Based on the above, we can assume that the definition was chosen as a representative of our time, inclusive, conciliatory, and multifaceted, summarizes well the relativist and pluralist (i.e., “mannerist”) tendency of the period we live in. According to the initial hypothesis, therefore, our age, too, seems to have been able to define its idea of architecture.

키워드