• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.37-56
• /
• 2006

Introducing International Style, P. Johnson and H. R. Hitchcock gave three standards to be the Modern, volume and surface, regularity, and exclusion of applied decoration. In spite of the negation of stylistic, formal approach in the Modernist Manifestoes, one usually have understood Modernity in Architecture with its formal character, especially with no ornament and flat, abstract, white surface. Modernism as a new paradigm in architecture have emphasized that there is no representation of anything outside and only present architecture in itself. They said that Modernism only cared about the language of Architecture without figural reference. So apparently there is no way to prove to its Modernity with formal condition. Modernity is in Spirit and contents. But actually we understand well its existence by visual communication This study deals with this difficult situation how Modernity represents itself without visual media and asks the question how simultaneously it presents its thingness and materiality In order to analyse contradictory situation between representation and presentation in Modern Architecture we need to survey the historical process of changing position of ornaments and its meaning in time. With the crisis of representation the role of ornament have seriously changed and divided. It caused the two situation in pre-Modern Architecture. Firstly, Architecture tend to be a high art and formal expression became important much more. The Use of Ornament became a kind of fashion to show the power, class, money. Secondly, Ornament lost its cultural weight and the structure and material aspect became the central in architecture. Rational Structuralism would be the essential character in Modern Architecture. Here the theory of G. Semper and A. Loos on cladding(dressing) and Ornament can help its problems and limits. In the situation without conventional ornament Modernists need to present modernity with new media that only show the thing itself and by that it does not represent any thing else as like the value, idea outside buildings. They believed that only it concerned esthetics and morality in architecture. But in reality it referred to art and machines as like ships, aircraft, and cars. By excluding Ornament and showing the process of clearing, abstract, flat, white surface 'represent' Modernity by the indirect way referring the concept of transparency, reason, sanitation, tectonics, etc. An Ideology and myth intervened architectural discourse to make the doxa about the representation in Architecture. Surface must be a different kind of media and message that can communicate in different way with compared to conventional Ornament. Decorated Shed by R. Venturi and Post-Functionalism by P. Eisenman, that are the most famous post-modern discourse, shows well difficult and contradictory condition in contemporary architecture concerning representation and form, meaning and form.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.116
• /
• pp.251-281
• /
• 2017

The Parmenidean tradition of logos which previous researches fail to fully appreciate has three dimensions of reality-knowledge-discourse. Parmenides is not just an ontologist, as the traditional view emphasizes, but also an epistemologist, as the revisionist view begins to emphasize, and, at the same time, a meta-discourser, as those two established views fail to embrace. In order to reach the third view which fully grasps such a dynamic and integrated feature of Parmenides, we should closely pay attention to the organic interconnectedness of three discourse parts of truth-doxa-proem, especially the significance of proem and meta-discourse. In the Eleatic tradition of discourse, the figure who clearly appreciated and further developed such an authentic feature of Parmenides' discourse is not, as one might easily expect, one of the second-generation Eleatics, but Gorgias who has commonly been positioned at the opposite side of Eleatism. This paper investigates how he actually both innovated and succeeded the Parmenidean tradition of logos; especially, it characterizes his discourse as an antilogy(antilogia) from within the tradition: as a 'devil' advocate' who complemented and completed Parmenidean persuasion by positing the Parmenidean tradition of logos as an arena of a huge intellectual discipline and cultivation, offering himself as a sparring partner to it, and bringing up an antilogy. In the process of this antilogy he performed in his rhetorical speeches such as the Encomium of Helen and the Defense of Palamedes he experimented and examined a possibility of persuasion operating independently from truth, which, however, is not merely sacrificing truth in favor of persuasiveness and probability (to eikos) as Plato criticized mainly focussing on his 'philosophical' writing On not-being. Rather, it was an 'opposition for opposition's sake' and serious play which purported to provide balance and flexibility to contemporary intellectual society which had too much inclined towards truth and knowledge and become stiff and to put weight on the opposite side of mainstream. It is wholly our eranos (i.e. our share of contribution) to summon and examine such sophistic tradition for the sake of the task of our times, not for the sake of Plato's task, that we should build up a healthy culture of discourse where we can share serious play.