{"title":"审美焦虑","authors":"M. Lozanovska, C. Logan","doi":"10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This editors’ issue of Fabrications is primarily concerned with the anxieties aroused by migration. Aesthetic Anxiety, as described and dissected in this issue, refers to both the prevalent anxieties connected with migrant experiences of inhabitation, as well the anxieties of state protection. The theme may at first invoke aesthetic theory or critical theories related to the rise of postmodern anti-aesthetics in architecture and art, a theme explored in Architecture and Ugliness (by Wouter Van Acker and Thomas Mical, review in this issue). The theme will suggest to others an engagement with critical cultural theories. For the authors included here joining “anxiety” to “aesthetic” raises concerns related to architecture as cultural production, and how diaspora aesthetics challenge conceptions of culture or cultural particularity. Diaspora aesthetics and its interest in everyday life and actual lived social processes draws on theories that challenge “taken-for-granted” framings precisely because the diasporic is a trans-cultural and trans-national concept and serves as metaphor to rethink national boundaries of aesthetic production. The collective implication of the work presented here under the banner of Aesthetic Anxiety is that an architecture of migration involves aesthetic production and that such production disrupts the visual imaginary of national cultures. The theme aims to expand the aesthetic field of reference by shifting its focus. Informed by key theoretical developments in cultural studies and the social sciences – notably those connected with the work and legacy of Stuart Hall, Pierre Bourdieu and James Clifford – architectural historians have revised their approach to architectural historiography. Gülsüm Baydar’s theoretical reflection on cultural particularity mobilises a critique of conventional, canonical framings and their systematic dependence on architectural categorisation. Anthony King’s work revises architecture within the rise of globalisation, and outlines ways to analyse ethno-burbs and their links tomigration histories. Two key anthologies –Drifting: Architecture andMigrancy (Cairns 2004) and Ethnoarchitecture and the politics of migration (Lozanovska 2016) outline the breadth of the field and highlight key research areas. Why “anxiety”? Migration gives rise to fears about security and territory revealing ways that diversity, identity and cultural production are entangled with protective narratives of the nation-state. Aesthetic judgements of migrant architecture are key to this fear. In the late 1980s, published during the heyday of multicultural policy in Australia, Judith Vulker proposed topics for debate FABRICATIONS 2020, VOL. 30, NO. 2, 149–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930","PeriodicalId":42105,"journal":{"name":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","volume":"30 1","pages":"149 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aesthetic Anxiety\",\"authors\":\"M. Lozanovska, C. Logan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This editors’ issue of Fabrications is primarily concerned with the anxieties aroused by migration. Aesthetic Anxiety, as described and dissected in this issue, refers to both the prevalent anxieties connected with migrant experiences of inhabitation, as well the anxieties of state protection. The theme may at first invoke aesthetic theory or critical theories related to the rise of postmodern anti-aesthetics in architecture and art, a theme explored in Architecture and Ugliness (by Wouter Van Acker and Thomas Mical, review in this issue). The theme will suggest to others an engagement with critical cultural theories. For the authors included here joining “anxiety” to “aesthetic” raises concerns related to architecture as cultural production, and how diaspora aesthetics challenge conceptions of culture or cultural particularity. Diaspora aesthetics and its interest in everyday life and actual lived social processes draws on theories that challenge “taken-for-granted” framings precisely because the diasporic is a trans-cultural and trans-national concept and serves as metaphor to rethink national boundaries of aesthetic production. The collective implication of the work presented here under the banner of Aesthetic Anxiety is that an architecture of migration involves aesthetic production and that such production disrupts the visual imaginary of national cultures. The theme aims to expand the aesthetic field of reference by shifting its focus. Informed by key theoretical developments in cultural studies and the social sciences – notably those connected with the work and legacy of Stuart Hall, Pierre Bourdieu and James Clifford – architectural historians have revised their approach to architectural historiography. Gülsüm Baydar’s theoretical reflection on cultural particularity mobilises a critique of conventional, canonical framings and their systematic dependence on architectural categorisation. Anthony King’s work revises architecture within the rise of globalisation, and outlines ways to analyse ethno-burbs and their links tomigration histories. Two key anthologies –Drifting: Architecture andMigrancy (Cairns 2004) and Ethnoarchitecture and the politics of migration (Lozanovska 2016) outline the breadth of the field and highlight key research areas. Why “anxiety”? Migration gives rise to fears about security and territory revealing ways that diversity, identity and cultural production are entangled with protective narratives of the nation-state. Aesthetic judgements of migrant architecture are key to this fear. In the late 1980s, published during the heyday of multicultural policy in Australia, Judith Vulker proposed topics for debate FABRICATIONS 2020, VOL. 30, NO. 2, 149–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930\",\"PeriodicalId\":42105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"149 - 152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fabrications-The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
本期编辑出版的《捏造》主要关注移民引发的焦虑。正如本期所描述和剖析的,审美焦虑既指与移民居住体验相关的普遍焦虑,也指国家保护的焦虑。该主题可能首先援引美学理论或与建筑和艺术中后现代反美学兴起有关的批评理论,这是《建筑与丑陋》(Wouter Van Acker和Thomas Mical,本期综述)中探讨的主题。该主题将向其他人建议参与批判性文化理论。对于本文中的作者来说,将“焦虑”与“美学”结合起来,引发了人们对建筑作为文化生产的关注,以及散居美学如何挑战文化或文化特殊性的概念。流散美学及其对日常生活和实际生活社会过程的兴趣借鉴了挑战“理所当然”框架的理论,正是因为流散是一个跨文化、跨民族的概念,是重新思考美学生产国界的隐喻。在“审美焦虑”的旗帜下呈现的作品的集体含义是,迁移的建筑涉及审美生产,这种生产扰乱了民族文化的视觉想象。该主题旨在通过转移焦点来拓展审美参考领域。在文化研究和社会科学的关键理论发展——尤其是与斯图尔特·霍尔、皮埃尔·布迪厄和詹姆斯·克利福德的工作和遗产有关的理论发展——的指导下,建筑历史学家修改了他们的建筑史学方法。Gülsüm Baydar对文化特殊性的理论反思动员了对传统、规范框架及其对建筑分类的系统依赖的批判。安东尼·金的作品在全球化兴起的背景下对建筑进行了修订,并概述了分析民族打嗝及其与移民历史联系的方法。两本重要选集——《漂流:建筑与移民》(Cairns 2004)和《民族建筑与移民政治》(Lozanovska 2016)概述了该领域的广度,并突出了关键研究领域。为什么是“焦虑”?移民引发了对安全和领土的担忧,揭示了多样性、身份认同和文化生产与民族国家的保护叙事纠缠在一起的方式。对移民建筑的审美判断是这种恐惧的关键。20世纪80年代末,Judith Vulker在澳大利亚多元文化政策的鼎盛时期发表了《2020年捏造》第30卷第2期149–152的辩论主题https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930
This editors’ issue of Fabrications is primarily concerned with the anxieties aroused by migration. Aesthetic Anxiety, as described and dissected in this issue, refers to both the prevalent anxieties connected with migrant experiences of inhabitation, as well the anxieties of state protection. The theme may at first invoke aesthetic theory or critical theories related to the rise of postmodern anti-aesthetics in architecture and art, a theme explored in Architecture and Ugliness (by Wouter Van Acker and Thomas Mical, review in this issue). The theme will suggest to others an engagement with critical cultural theories. For the authors included here joining “anxiety” to “aesthetic” raises concerns related to architecture as cultural production, and how diaspora aesthetics challenge conceptions of culture or cultural particularity. Diaspora aesthetics and its interest in everyday life and actual lived social processes draws on theories that challenge “taken-for-granted” framings precisely because the diasporic is a trans-cultural and trans-national concept and serves as metaphor to rethink national boundaries of aesthetic production. The collective implication of the work presented here under the banner of Aesthetic Anxiety is that an architecture of migration involves aesthetic production and that such production disrupts the visual imaginary of national cultures. The theme aims to expand the aesthetic field of reference by shifting its focus. Informed by key theoretical developments in cultural studies and the social sciences – notably those connected with the work and legacy of Stuart Hall, Pierre Bourdieu and James Clifford – architectural historians have revised their approach to architectural historiography. Gülsüm Baydar’s theoretical reflection on cultural particularity mobilises a critique of conventional, canonical framings and their systematic dependence on architectural categorisation. Anthony King’s work revises architecture within the rise of globalisation, and outlines ways to analyse ethno-burbs and their links tomigration histories. Two key anthologies –Drifting: Architecture andMigrancy (Cairns 2004) and Ethnoarchitecture and the politics of migration (Lozanovska 2016) outline the breadth of the field and highlight key research areas. Why “anxiety”? Migration gives rise to fears about security and territory revealing ways that diversity, identity and cultural production are entangled with protective narratives of the nation-state. Aesthetic judgements of migrant architecture are key to this fear. In the late 1980s, published during the heyday of multicultural policy in Australia, Judith Vulker proposed topics for debate FABRICATIONS 2020, VOL. 30, NO. 2, 149–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930