Share

Copyright @ 2018 Architectural heritage journal website 沪ICP备08004455号  Power by:www.300.cn

Search
>
>
>
2017年第二期(总第六期)
Page view:
Issues name

2017年第二期(总第六期)

没有此类产品
立即订阅
加入订单
Content
Editorial

2017年第二期(总第六期)

Corresponding parameter set not found, please add it in property template of background
暂未实现,敬请期待
暂未实现,敬请期待
There are no products in the shopping cart, so buy it now!

单册订购

更多期刊

第14期2
2019年第1期(总第13期)

中国乡土(风土)建筑是在中国传统文化的历史背景下形成的,受诸如宗教、礼俗、风水等特定的历史文化影响至深,如果不从文化和社会的角度来研究,就难以得出正确的结论。福建又是一个奇特的地方:交通闭塞、方言复杂、文化多元、工匠体系各成流派。我研究福建传统建筑与文化30多年,得出了从民系出发,以“语言-民系-建筑类型”的演变过程为入手点,来研究福建及其周边地区建筑类型的学术思路,提出了福建乡土建筑为“闽海系”与“客家系”并存的格局这一学术观念。其中,“闽海系”的又可细分为“闽南支系”“莆仙支系”“闽东支系”“闽北支系”“闽中支系”以及延伸到粤东的“潮汕支系”,而“客家系”在福建只有“闽西客家”这一分支。在此学术思路指导下,形成了对福建乡土建筑的一种独特的研究体系,也在很大程度上影响了其他省份的乡土建筑研究。 本期的《研究聚焦》栏目收录了5篇文章,周易知《闽系核心区风土建筑的谱系构成及其分布、演变规律》是呼应我关于福建民系划分的一篇重要文章,作为本期福建风土建筑研究的开篇之作倒是十分契合。另外四篇文章分别对应“闽海系”乡土建筑的4个支系,包括张玉瑜《福建土堡营造中的模数化与标准化》(闽中支系),蔡宣皓《闽东大厝的建筑术语体系与空间观念研究》(闽东支系),成丽、顾煌杰《闽南沿海传统民居平面尺度规律研究》(闽南支系)及徐粤《广东潮汕及客家风土聚落的同构性研究》(潮汕支系)。4篇文章分别分析对应支系的营造体系、建筑术语、平面尺度或空间观念等,探讨乡土建筑特定的内在逻辑,并总结其规律性的经验。 《理论与历史》栏目中有两篇研究福建客家系的文章,李筱茜、黄婧琳探索了闽西客家楼阁建筑土木合构的独特建构形式,欧玄子以闽西“九厅十八井”建筑的大木作建造技艺为例做了社会人类学的分析。另一篇魏峰、郭焕宇的文章则用建筑美学的视角谈厦门(闽南支系)侨乡民居建筑装饰的审美文化特点。 《案例解析》栏目里,齐晓瑾《场所与纪念性——理解一座福建神祠》和唐黎洲、李浈《转译与移植——福建元坑真神堂的神圣原型与现实拼贴》讲了两个福建乡土神圣场所的故事,无论是当地的民间信仰还是外来宗教,其在与当地乡土社会互动的过程中或多或少会发生各种变迁,对这种变迁的考察有助于对乡土建筑乃至乡土社会的进一步理解。最后,丁昶等人的《宁德传统村落空间结构特征及保护发展研究——以屏南县康里村为例》以福建屏南一个小村落为例,分析了传统村落保护发展中的若干问题,并提出相应对策。 本期《沃菲尔德风土图记》以壁画为主题。刚刚得到詹姆斯·沃菲尔德教授逝世的消息,本期应该是他自己写的最后一篇了,谨在此也表达了我们对他的敬意和怀念之情。 戴志坚 本期客座主编 中国民居建筑大师 厦门大学建筑学院教授

2016/1

'Architectural Heritage' in the modern sense is quite a new concept derived from the enlightenment modernity (abbreviated as modernity below). In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the European society started to phase out of the pre-industrial period and wished for a new and wholly rational era, how to deal with the physical remains of the past civilizations, such as architectural monuments and historic places, became an inevitable challenge. Presumably as a resistance to the radical social changes in this period, a heated debate on how to deal with the old and new districts in the city was raised among the architectural pioneers in the West. This debate lasted for more than a century, leading to the birth of modern architectural heritage conservation. The essence of modernity lies first in the acceptance of evolutionary approach based on instrumental rationality. For this reason, the continued renewal of architecture seems a matter of course. Old buildings not suited to contemporary times should justifiably be replaced by new ones to embody the concept of material modernity in architecture. For example, in the mid-19th century, Haussmann Plan made fundamental changes to old Paris city in order to solve the political and social problems at that time. During this process over half of the old buildings built since the medieval times were removed. Such material modernization seemed as radical as the Great French Revolution happened more than half a century before at the same place. Ironically, the radical changes in Paris during this period awakened value rationality in architecture, leading to the birth of heritage conservation laws in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. From then on, drastic demolishment and reconstruction could no longer go unchecked. A century later, the similar progression of city reconstruction took place in China. The 'curse' of material rationality swept across the country, and the radical reconstruction of the existing built areas has led to the disappearance of many historic places. However, it is worth noting that most architectural heritages conserved in Paris are earlier industrial artifacts from the Neo-classical period, whereas most historic places in the urban and rural areas of China are relics from the pre-industrial age and turned out to be too difficult to be preserved in today’s socio-economic context. Therefore, we have forever lost or been going to lose the local diversity of historical environment and 'native feeling' (F. L. Wright). Here lie three vital problems that we Chinese professionals need to encounter together. The first is how many heritages can we retain during the radical urban development? The second is how many today’s architecture could be turned into tomorrow’s architectural heritage? And the third is could today’s architecture preserve any identity of the time and place? In effect, all these issues are vital to the ‘soft power’ of a society. Since the advent of the new millennium, the spread of globalization and urbanization has dissolved regional cultural differences with a higher speed and endangered local traditions to a greater extent. Yet the desire for local identity and heritage conservation is also becoming stronger all over the world. In China, we are happy to see that architectural conservation has gradually been accepted by the public, and has become one of the social values and moral doctrines. More importantly, people start to realize that many historic architecture and places are still in use in our daily life, and the purpose of architectural conservation is to efficiently control change rather than to restrain development. In this sense, conservation is composed of two equally important aspects. One is preservation which means keeping the original historic artifacts. The other is continuation which means the essential spatial addition to the preserved historic artifacts in order to achieve regeneration. Here regeneration refers to ‘revitalization’ or ‘adaptive reuse’ rebased on preservation and continuation. Thus, architectural heritage conservation should not be treated separately, but should be put in the context of regional economic and social development. The history of architectural heritage research can be traced back to more than 80 years ago when Zhu Qiqian established the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture in 1930. Zhu’s research contributed to the discipline of Chinese architectural history established by Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen and provided the academic foundation for the preservation and renovation of traditional architectural heritage. However, considering the socio-political atmosphere of the 1930s, the aim of their research is to organize, evaluate, and chronicle the historical documents and material remains in order to search for the national identity through architectural vocabulary. This led to a prolonged debate between traditional styles and modern styles lasted for several decades, whils

2016/2

Keeping on the columns of World Heritage and vernacular heritage projects with three articles in each, in this issue, we will see classic cases in the research and preservation of human heritage such