笑料

IF 0.2 4区 艺术学 0 ARCHITECTURE
William M. Taylor
{"title":"笑料","authors":"William M. Taylor","doi":"10.1080/13264826.2021.1986937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can a building be funny? According to contributing author and editor Michela Rosso and the essayists assembled for Laughing at Architecture, the answer is clearly “yes”—although essential to perceiving the butt of any kind of joke, understanding context counts for a lot. The choice of image for the volume’s cover is apropos: an eighteenth-century illustration of London’s fashionable elite mounting the vertiginously steep staircase to the Royal Academy at Somerset House on their way to see the new art season’s collection of paintings. (Visitors to the Courtauld Institute Gallery today can stumble in their footsteps.) The winding stair at Somerset House—barely reconciling an elegant half-circular plan with the functional requirement of access to multiple levels of the building—must have been as challenging for the architect William Chambers to detail as it was for his patrons to negotiate in person. In the illustration, the art-goers appear falling, head-over-heels, crinolines and fleshy backsides exposed to public view, a satirical slant on salon exhibitionism. Of course, the joke is not about just any old stair, designer or occasion. Rather, the scene relies on context for its comedy, on several forms of insider knowledge—of architectural history, construction, culture and custom, to name a few—although one wouldn’t say the drawing is an “inside joke” per se. Rosso introduces the volume, citing contributions to her longstanding interest in the relationship between architecture and humour that evolved from earlier research on parody and the historiography of English modernism. Rosso’s encounter with rare comic almanacs of London’s Great Exhibition in 1851 at the Yale Centre for British Art in New Haven was particularly formative in the development of interests she addresses throughout this volume. Likewise, period caricatures by William Hogarth and George Cruikshank that came before and after the Exhibition, and additional, lesser-known historical documents, as well as insightful, but generally limited contemporary scholarship on the subject all suggested to Rosso there was a major caesura for research to fill. Each essay explores this in more or less chronological order, while each is able to stand alone and address contextual matters in sufficient detail. Rosso and her contributors largely forego obtuse speculation on the philosophical or psychological reasons for joke-telling (over to Bergson and Freud). The essays, therefore, largely proceed without a general account of humour and its relationship to architecture (reception theory gets short shrift—nothing funny there), with Rosso observing early on that:","PeriodicalId":43786,"journal":{"name":"Architectural Theory Review","volume":"25 1","pages":"381 - 384"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laughing Matter\",\"authors\":\"William M. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13264826.2021.1986937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Can a building be funny? According to contributing author and editor Michela Rosso and the essayists assembled for Laughing at Architecture, the answer is clearly “yes”—although essential to perceiving the butt of any kind of joke, understanding context counts for a lot. The choice of image for the volume’s cover is apropos: an eighteenth-century illustration of London’s fashionable elite mounting the vertiginously steep staircase to the Royal Academy at Somerset House on their way to see the new art season’s collection of paintings. (Visitors to the Courtauld Institute Gallery today can stumble in their footsteps.) The winding stair at Somerset House—barely reconciling an elegant half-circular plan with the functional requirement of access to multiple levels of the building—must have been as challenging for the architect William Chambers to detail as it was for his patrons to negotiate in person. In the illustration, the art-goers appear falling, head-over-heels, crinolines and fleshy backsides exposed to public view, a satirical slant on salon exhibitionism. Of course, the joke is not about just any old stair, designer or occasion. Rather, the scene relies on context for its comedy, on several forms of insider knowledge—of architectural history, construction, culture and custom, to name a few—although one wouldn’t say the drawing is an “inside joke” per se. Rosso introduces the volume, citing contributions to her longstanding interest in the relationship between architecture and humour that evolved from earlier research on parody and the historiography of English modernism. Rosso’s encounter with rare comic almanacs of London’s Great Exhibition in 1851 at the Yale Centre for British Art in New Haven was particularly formative in the development of interests she addresses throughout this volume. Likewise, period caricatures by William Hogarth and George Cruikshank that came before and after the Exhibition, and additional, lesser-known historical documents, as well as insightful, but generally limited contemporary scholarship on the subject all suggested to Rosso there was a major caesura for research to fill. Each essay explores this in more or less chronological order, while each is able to stand alone and address contextual matters in sufficient detail. Rosso and her contributors largely forego obtuse speculation on the philosophical or psychological reasons for joke-telling (over to Bergson and Freud). The essays, therefore, largely proceed without a general account of humour and its relationship to architecture (reception theory gets short shrift—nothing funny there), with Rosso observing early on that:\",\"PeriodicalId\":43786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Architectural Theory Review\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"381 - 384\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Architectural Theory Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2021.1986937\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Architectural Theory Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2021.1986937","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一座建筑会很有趣吗?根据特约作家兼编辑Michela Rosso和为《嘲笑建筑》而聚集的散文家们的说法,答案显然是“是的”——尽管理解上下文对理解任何类型的笑话都至关重要。该卷封面的图像选择很恰当:一幅18世纪的插图,描绘了伦敦时尚精英登上陡峭的楼梯,前往萨默塞特宫的皇家学院,前往观看新艺术季的绘画收藏。(如今,参观考陶尔德学院美术馆的游客可能会跌跌撞撞地跟随他们的脚步。)萨默塞特宫(Somerset House)蜿蜒的楼梯对建筑师威廉·钱伯斯(William Chambers)来说,细节设计和顾客亲自协商一样具有挑战性。在这幅插图中,艺术观众似乎摔倒了,从头到脚,穿着海百合花和肉肉背暴露在公众视野中,这是对沙龙暴露癖的讽刺。当然,这个笑话不仅仅是关于任何一个旧楼梯、设计师或场合。相反,这一场景依赖于其喜剧的背景,依赖于几种形式的内部知识——建筑历史、建筑、文化和习俗等等——尽管人们不会说这幅画本身就是一个“内部笑话”。Rosso介绍了这本书,引用了她对建筑和幽默之间关系的长期兴趣的贡献,这种兴趣源于早期对戏仿和英国现代主义史学的研究。罗索在纽黑文的耶鲁英国艺术中心遇到了1851年伦敦大展览的罕见漫画年鉴,这对她在整本书中阐述的兴趣的发展尤其有影响。同样,展览前后威廉·霍加斯和乔治·克鲁克申克的时代漫画,以及其他鲜为人知的历史文献,以及关于这一主题的有见地但普遍有限的当代学术,都向罗索表明,有一个重要的研究空白。每一篇文章都或多或少地按时间顺序探讨这一点,而每一篇都能够独立地并足够详细地处理上下文问题。罗索和她的贡献者基本上放弃了对讲笑话的哲学或心理原因的迟钝猜测(转向柏格森和弗洛伊德)。因此,这些文章在很大程度上没有对幽默及其与建筑的关系进行一般性的描述(接受理论受到了冷落——没有什么好笑的),罗索很早就注意到:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laughing Matter
Can a building be funny? According to contributing author and editor Michela Rosso and the essayists assembled for Laughing at Architecture, the answer is clearly “yes”—although essential to perceiving the butt of any kind of joke, understanding context counts for a lot. The choice of image for the volume’s cover is apropos: an eighteenth-century illustration of London’s fashionable elite mounting the vertiginously steep staircase to the Royal Academy at Somerset House on their way to see the new art season’s collection of paintings. (Visitors to the Courtauld Institute Gallery today can stumble in their footsteps.) The winding stair at Somerset House—barely reconciling an elegant half-circular plan with the functional requirement of access to multiple levels of the building—must have been as challenging for the architect William Chambers to detail as it was for his patrons to negotiate in person. In the illustration, the art-goers appear falling, head-over-heels, crinolines and fleshy backsides exposed to public view, a satirical slant on salon exhibitionism. Of course, the joke is not about just any old stair, designer or occasion. Rather, the scene relies on context for its comedy, on several forms of insider knowledge—of architectural history, construction, culture and custom, to name a few—although one wouldn’t say the drawing is an “inside joke” per se. Rosso introduces the volume, citing contributions to her longstanding interest in the relationship between architecture and humour that evolved from earlier research on parody and the historiography of English modernism. Rosso’s encounter with rare comic almanacs of London’s Great Exhibition in 1851 at the Yale Centre for British Art in New Haven was particularly formative in the development of interests she addresses throughout this volume. Likewise, period caricatures by William Hogarth and George Cruikshank that came before and after the Exhibition, and additional, lesser-known historical documents, as well as insightful, but generally limited contemporary scholarship on the subject all suggested to Rosso there was a major caesura for research to fill. Each essay explores this in more or less chronological order, while each is able to stand alone and address contextual matters in sufficient detail. Rosso and her contributors largely forego obtuse speculation on the philosophical or psychological reasons for joke-telling (over to Bergson and Freud). The essays, therefore, largely proceed without a general account of humour and its relationship to architecture (reception theory gets short shrift—nothing funny there), with Rosso observing early on that:
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
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