良好形式的范例。德语进程监控与连续性建设

Amelie Ochs
{"title":"良好形式的范例。德语进程监控与连续性建设","authors":"Amelie Ochs","doi":"10.14746/aq.2021.32.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beginning with the Bauhaus anniversary in 2019, new perspectives are being revealed on GDR design. This promises a revision of the German design historiography of the last decades, which was dominated by West-German perspectives. Referring to this trend in research, my essay questions the German history and historiography of design. After the Second World War, the German historiography of art followed the paradigm of the Cold War (Abstraction in the West, Socialist Realism in the East). The historiography of design followed this schema by distinguishing “socialist” from “capitalist” design. To this day, this prevents “transnational” perspectives. In contrast to this, I agree with the argument that the consolidation of the two German states occurred with reference to the (old) concept of “good form”, among other things. Even though the different discourses refer to similar objects and references, they are structured by different interpretations of the term “Good Form”, referring to the ruling ideology of the particular state. It represents a central argument in aesthetic education (Geschmackserziehung), which contained moral and political values. In 1950s West Germany, the Deutscher Werkbund, an organization which was involved in processes of institutionalization in both the political and design historical field, was  the main driver of this discourse. In contrast to this, the institutionalization of design in the GDR was organized by the state. Nevertheless, distinctive parallels in the discourses in East and West suggest the lasting impact of the Werkbund. Consequently, I argue that the discursive foundations, which were laid in the 1950s at the latest, had a lasting influence on “German-German” (deutsch-deutsch) design historiography and have recently opened up a pan-German (gesamtdeutsch) perspective.","PeriodicalId":345400,"journal":{"name":"Artium Quaestiones","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vom Paradigma der Guten Form. Deutsch-deutsche Geschmackserziehung und Kontinuitätskonstruktion(en)\",\"authors\":\"Amelie Ochs\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/aq.2021.32.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Beginning with the Bauhaus anniversary in 2019, new perspectives are being revealed on GDR design. This promises a revision of the German design historiography of the last decades, which was dominated by West-German perspectives. Referring to this trend in research, my essay questions the German history and historiography of design. After the Second World War, the German historiography of art followed the paradigm of the Cold War (Abstraction in the West, Socialist Realism in the East). The historiography of design followed this schema by distinguishing “socialist” from “capitalist” design. To this day, this prevents “transnational” perspectives. In contrast to this, I agree with the argument that the consolidation of the two German states occurred with reference to the (old) concept of “good form”, among other things. Even though the different discourses refer to similar objects and references, they are structured by different interpretations of the term “Good Form”, referring to the ruling ideology of the particular state. It represents a central argument in aesthetic education (Geschmackserziehung), which contained moral and political values. In 1950s West Germany, the Deutscher Werkbund, an organization which was involved in processes of institutionalization in both the political and design historical field, was  the main driver of this discourse. In contrast to this, the institutionalization of design in the GDR was organized by the state. Nevertheless, distinctive parallels in the discourses in East and West suggest the lasting impact of the Werkbund. Consequently, I argue that the discursive foundations, which were laid in the 1950s at the latest, had a lasting influence on “German-German” (deutsch-deutsch) design historiography and have recently opened up a pan-German (gesamtdeutsch) perspective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":345400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Artium Quaestiones\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Artium Quaestiones\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/aq.2021.32.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artium Quaestiones","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/aq.2021.32.3","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

从2019年包豪斯周年纪念开始,人们开始对东德的设计有了新的看法。这有望对过去几十年由西德观点主导的德国设计史学进行修订。参考这一研究趋势,我的论文对德国历史和设计史学提出了质疑。二战后,德国的艺术史学遵循了冷战的范式(西方的抽象主义,东方的社会主义现实主义)。通过区分“社会主义”和“资本主义”设计,设计史学遵循了这一模式。直到今天,这阻碍了“跨国”视角。与此相反,我同意这样一种观点,即两个德意志国家的合并与“良好形式”(旧的)概念有关,以及其他一些东西。尽管不同的话语涉及相似的对象和参考,但它们是由对“好形式”一词的不同解释构成的,它指的是特定国家的统治意识形态。它代表了美学教育(Geschmackserziehung)的中心论点,其中包含道德和政治价值。在20世纪50年代的西德,德意志工人联盟(Deutscher Werkbund),一个在政治和设计历史领域都参与制度化进程的组织,是这种话语的主要驱动力。与此相反,德意志民主共和国的设计制度化是由国家组织的。然而,东方和西方话语中独特的相似之处表明了工会的持久影响。因此,我认为,最迟在20世纪50年代奠定的话语基础,对“德国-德国”(deutsch-deutsch)设计史学产生了持久的影响,并在最近开辟了一个泛德国(gesamtdeutsch)的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vom Paradigma der Guten Form. Deutsch-deutsche Geschmackserziehung und Kontinuitätskonstruktion(en)
Beginning with the Bauhaus anniversary in 2019, new perspectives are being revealed on GDR design. This promises a revision of the German design historiography of the last decades, which was dominated by West-German perspectives. Referring to this trend in research, my essay questions the German history and historiography of design. After the Second World War, the German historiography of art followed the paradigm of the Cold War (Abstraction in the West, Socialist Realism in the East). The historiography of design followed this schema by distinguishing “socialist” from “capitalist” design. To this day, this prevents “transnational” perspectives. In contrast to this, I agree with the argument that the consolidation of the two German states occurred with reference to the (old) concept of “good form”, among other things. Even though the different discourses refer to similar objects and references, they are structured by different interpretations of the term “Good Form”, referring to the ruling ideology of the particular state. It represents a central argument in aesthetic education (Geschmackserziehung), which contained moral and political values. In 1950s West Germany, the Deutscher Werkbund, an organization which was involved in processes of institutionalization in both the political and design historical field, was  the main driver of this discourse. In contrast to this, the institutionalization of design in the GDR was organized by the state. Nevertheless, distinctive parallels in the discourses in East and West suggest the lasting impact of the Werkbund. Consequently, I argue that the discursive foundations, which were laid in the 1950s at the latest, had a lasting influence on “German-German” (deutsch-deutsch) design historiography and have recently opened up a pan-German (gesamtdeutsch) perspective.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信