写在石头上的证据:对叙利亚和格鲁吉亚教会建筑关系(或不关系)的评价

E. Leeming
{"title":"写在石头上的证据:对叙利亚和格鲁吉亚教会建筑关系(或不关系)的评价","authors":"E. Leeming","doi":"10.1163/9789004375314_007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anyone seeking to become acquainted with the history of Georgian Architecture will soon become aware of the fact that the field is fraught with methodological problems and has been largely static since the death of Giorgi Chubinashvili in 1973. Chubinashvili was the dominant figure in the field throughout the Soviet era and the subject is still controlled by his students, who have failed to significantly move the discipline forward in the forty-five years since his death. Whilst Chubinashvili may be credited as the founding father of the modern disciplines of art and architectural history in Georgia and is notable for his extensive publications, in common with a number of Soviet scholars his output is now widely viewed as being of variable quality. Particular instances where recent research has proved Chubinashvili’s suppositions to be wrong will be discussed later in this chapter but here it is important to highlight from the outset the fact that his limitations are rooted in three particular issues. The first is that he was handicapped by working on a largely ecclesiastical architectural tradition in a time and place where theological knowledge was unavailable and actively forbidden as an area of research, meaning that he could only study the monuments in a schematic manner that divorced form from function; this facilitated the development of a typology of ecclesiastical architecture that did not question the developing ritual needs of the","PeriodicalId":137518,"journal":{"name":"Architecture and Asceticism: Cultural interaction between Syria and Georgia in Late Antiquity","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evidence Written in Stone: An Evaluation of the Relationship (or Not) of Syrian and Georgian Ecclesiastical Architecture\",\"authors\":\"E. Leeming\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789004375314_007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anyone seeking to become acquainted with the history of Georgian Architecture will soon become aware of the fact that the field is fraught with methodological problems and has been largely static since the death of Giorgi Chubinashvili in 1973. Chubinashvili was the dominant figure in the field throughout the Soviet era and the subject is still controlled by his students, who have failed to significantly move the discipline forward in the forty-five years since his death. Whilst Chubinashvili may be credited as the founding father of the modern disciplines of art and architectural history in Georgia and is notable for his extensive publications, in common with a number of Soviet scholars his output is now widely viewed as being of variable quality. Particular instances where recent research has proved Chubinashvili’s suppositions to be wrong will be discussed later in this chapter but here it is important to highlight from the outset the fact that his limitations are rooted in three particular issues. The first is that he was handicapped by working on a largely ecclesiastical architectural tradition in a time and place where theological knowledge was unavailable and actively forbidden as an area of research, meaning that he could only study the monuments in a schematic manner that divorced form from function; this facilitated the development of a typology of ecclesiastical architecture that did not question the developing ritual needs of the\",\"PeriodicalId\":137518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Architecture and Asceticism: Cultural interaction between Syria and Georgia in Late Antiquity\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Architecture and Asceticism: Cultural interaction between Syria and Georgia in Late Antiquity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375314_007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Architecture and Asceticism: Cultural interaction between Syria and Georgia in Late Antiquity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375314_007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

任何试图了解格鲁吉亚建筑历史的人都会很快意识到,这个领域充满了方法论问题,自1973年Giorgi Chubinashvili去世以来,这个领域基本上是静止的。在整个苏联时代,丘比纳什维利是该领域的主导人物,这门学科仍然由他的学生控制,在他去世后的45年里,他们未能显著推动这门学科的发展。虽然丘比纳什维利可能被认为是格鲁吉亚现代艺术和建筑史学科的奠基人,并以其广泛的出版物而闻名,但与许多苏联学者一样,他的作品现在被广泛认为质量参差。最近的研究证明Chubinashvili的假设是错误的具体情况将在本章稍后讨论,但在这里,重要的是要从一开始就强调,他的局限性植根于三个特定问题。首先,他的工作受到了很大程度上的教会建筑传统的限制,当时神学知识是不可获得的,而且被禁止作为研究领域,这意味着他只能以一种示意图的方式研究这些纪念碑,而这种方式与形式和功能脱节;这促进了教会建筑类型学的发展,不质疑宗教仪式的发展需求
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Evidence Written in Stone: An Evaluation of the Relationship (or Not) of Syrian and Georgian Ecclesiastical Architecture
Anyone seeking to become acquainted with the history of Georgian Architecture will soon become aware of the fact that the field is fraught with methodological problems and has been largely static since the death of Giorgi Chubinashvili in 1973. Chubinashvili was the dominant figure in the field throughout the Soviet era and the subject is still controlled by his students, who have failed to significantly move the discipline forward in the forty-five years since his death. Whilst Chubinashvili may be credited as the founding father of the modern disciplines of art and architectural history in Georgia and is notable for his extensive publications, in common with a number of Soviet scholars his output is now widely viewed as being of variable quality. Particular instances where recent research has proved Chubinashvili’s suppositions to be wrong will be discussed later in this chapter but here it is important to highlight from the outset the fact that his limitations are rooted in three particular issues. The first is that he was handicapped by working on a largely ecclesiastical architectural tradition in a time and place where theological knowledge was unavailable and actively forbidden as an area of research, meaning that he could only study the monuments in a schematic manner that divorced form from function; this facilitated the development of a typology of ecclesiastical architecture that did not question the developing ritual needs of the
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信