| 요약1 |
This study tries to compare the architectural thought of Michel Foucault with that of Manfredo Tafuri in order to make clear the architectural identity as a social institution. In Michel Foucault' 5 case, the archeology of discourse and the geneology of power were central method to understand the history of occidental society since the Renaissance. Four him, architecture is assumed as a mechanism of operation which make the power effectively radiate in th space. He thinks that a new discursive space was arranged since the 18th century in Europe, the architecture played a role to coordinate divers powers. Mafredo Tafuri, architetural historian, depends on the criticism of ideology in search of the relation between the economic system of capitalism and modern architecture and urbanism. He thinks that all architecture is an institution. And any attempt to overthrow the institution, is bound to sec itself turned into a positive contribution and into an ideology. So all architectural attempts to conceal the contradiction of capitalism are negated. This different perspective on architecture exposes many points of dispute: historical periodization, disciplinary limit of architecture, understanding of Enlightenment architecture, utopia and heterotopia, etc. |