英语原文共 26 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

---

The Architecture of Knowledge from the Knowledge of

Architecture

At the verge of the crisis of production and knowledge, the discourse of

university has shown how a modernist theoretical insight upon the nature of

subjectivity could have been integrated with a social concern. It is this concern

that also signifies the evolution of modern analysis throughout the inquiry of the

socio-cultural and political collectivity. The discourse of university in the

reinterpretation of the modernist production and knowledge, in that sense, not

only gives way to understand the societal volatility because of the problems of

disintegration but also reveals what is the real behind those problems. Although

their coexisting circumstances do not directly correspond to May 1968 events,

the engaged conjecture of the Free University of Berlin and Eishin Campus in

Japan are two very distinct campus projects that can be analyzed with such an

inquiry throughout the discourse of university. They are not only significant to

take a traditional or cultural mode of making into account of practicing, as

either modernist or vernacular, but also consequential for integrating the social

concern of a collective demand that having a very active role in the design

progress of those projects. It is such that, the projects give great clues about the

re-interpretation of modern mode of making and generation of knowledge under

the light of the transformation of subjectivity, as the discourse of university.

Accordingly, the novel interpretation of the spatial production that coexists with

the changing social and environmental conditions is necessary for the

assessment of the information age.

The Free University of Berlin has revealed a peculiar interpretation of

modernity in the post-war period. After the attentive CIAM experience that had

been active in urban design especially before the war, it is such an important and

exemplary project of contemporary campus design in the last half of the century.

With the claim of being humanized campus environment formed by its users with

an alternative educational approach after the post-war period, the Free University

of Berlin shows a fine outcome of the new interpretation of scale in the modernist

mode of producing environments in between singular architectural works, and the

planning of urban plots and blocks. With respect to this, the project gets a role of

infrastructural development between the plot and the society that it would

communicate. It is the idea of bdquo;Stem,‟ in that sense, not only taking into account

for the user and social community but also generates a flexible use of the modest

modernist interpretation of the tectonic aspects. The flexibility can be defined in

such a tangible condition that the structural elements has been decided as

demountable so that any change in the needs of space, tectonic aspects and

structure could be responded with that decision.

We are concerned, not with lsquo;architecturersquo; or lsquo;town planningrsquo;, but with the

creation of environment at every scalehellip; The problems which we face in

making our world are entirely new, for our society is entirely newhellip; The

concept of society towards which we strive: that of a completely open, non

hierarchical co-operative in which we all share on a basis of total

participation and complete confidencehellip; The realization, for instance, that the

scene of action of reality is not a three-dimensional Euclidean space but

rather a four-dimensional world in which space and time are linked together

in-dissolutive sets our civilization apart from any others.

Shadrach Woods, one of the designers of the project, declared that the reality

of changing perception of the world had been thrown into the relativity of things

and subjects in time. Accordingly, the project realized shifting spatial production

of changing scale and approach towards the practices of the built environment. So,

the Free University of Berlin Campus carries the claim of being an alternative

approach of modern designing – to show its capacity to accommodate the flexible

kind of approach towards the produced space – interpreted later by its users. So,

rather than directly dictating its functional propositions onto the user, it is designed

hypothetically and intentionally as a building complex integrating the similar

architectural qualities of modernity altered at the turn of the new mode of

planning. What can be regarded as a potential in this designing approach of larger

scale building complex within the smaller scale urban land is the elegance of this

modernity having been carried through the spatial practice after the world war

period.

Though similar to the idea of autonomy of the spatial production in the

creation of environments as changing habitats, the design is rather humbler and

introverted in its character of the architectural formation. So, it carries the idea of

the refined instrumentality of architectural spaces opening-up new possibilities to

its users rather than being a monumental structure or a mythical self-standing

form. Nevertheless, just with this aim, it carries a monumental approach of being

socially, and even politically conscious.[1]With this reclusive approach in language, however, it can still be disputed that the design could further provide

much more potentials of spatial experiences and a new phase for a cultural and

aesthetic emancipation just to left

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

---

资料编号：[240185]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word