Have library access?
IP:44.200.194.255
  • Theses

展示首爾:語言與空間實踐

Displaying Seoul: Language and Spatial Practice

Advisor : 夏鑄九
For better promotion, authorized us if you are the author.

Abstracts


空間為一社會造物,作為社會造物不僅牽涉空間的物質生產,亦伴隨大量的口說、文本等語言的生產。本文論證語言與空間作為社會實踐,最終如何物質化為實質的形式語言。語言的生產與特定社會脈絡下的權力關係有關,牽涉說話者的社會位置,以及誰決定可以說話或說什麼話。因此,圍繞空間生產的大量口說與文本(規劃報告、建築計畫書、競圖條件書、法令等),具有表達權力的意志或服務特定利益的作用。在此一框架下的設計實踐,透過專業語言的解讀,轉化為空間的形式、功能與意義。因此空間實踐為權力與抵制權力的寫作,攸關不同社會作用者的角力與公共論述之有無。或者說都市政治菁英與市民社會間的空間實踐,有可能是相互衝突的兩條平行線,亦有可能併合生產共享的語言與空間形式,攸關「過程」的設計。 在此理論認識基礎上,本文以2000年後首爾的都市意象工程為對象,分析空間形塑過程中語言的競逐。這些市府推動的計畫宣稱是為了滿足都市競爭力所必要的品牌、文化、歷史與生態環境,必須清除混亂缺乏特色的城市景觀與都市活動,替代為一組更具可參觀性的展示複合體,以獲取文化認同、市民榮耀與振興經濟等多重利益。然而,公共空間的文化展示亦攸關不同社會主體對地點使用、歷史詮釋、規劃想像等差異的認同,需要在對話、協商或衝突過程獲取共識。在全球化與民主化的年代,首爾首長意圖建立企業化政府的效率以及制度化的市民參與模式,然而,在個人政治利益與獨斷作為下,終究顯露權力的慾望,將權力這一方的語言穿透市民團體的論述戰壕,書寫在都市政策、規劃報告、競圖條件書等文本上。 設計實踐在此既定的架構下,透過專業論述的再詮釋轉換為一組具有意義的圖像、文本與空間語言,關鍵即在於是誰的象徵與意義。清溪川計畫中廣場的象徵語言、壁畫、公共藝術、博物館;首爾廣場的草地與管理條例;光化門廣場的銅像、花卉景觀、歷史水路與展示館;東大門世界設計廣場的名牌建築、考古遺址、既有建築保存等,皆為一組政策論述與形式配套的展示複合體,框架了特定視域,決定了什麼是公共文化。然而,權力最終被自身的危機所擊潰,從「市民為顧客」轉向「市民即市長」、從「設計迷」轉向「社會設計」的歷史轉機中,市民過去的抵抗性語言獲得實踐機會。 首爾經驗提供了反思專業實踐的機會,即公共設計中過程的設計與空間形式本身的關係。亦即,若語言與空間實踐的過程得以藉由開放的、溝通的過程所推展,容納多元的聲音與語言交會,空間實踐的過程即有機會生產公眾可共享的語言與可意會的空間形式,這是市民主體的生產與另一種城市意象工程(alternative social imagineering)。

Parallel abstracts


Space is a social product. As a social object, space configures not only material but also textual and oral products. This thesis discusses the process of both language and space, as social practices materialize into a substantial formal language. The production of language concerns the power relationship within certain social contexts. As a result, the abundant oral and text materials produced around space (planning reports, architectural programming, design competition guidelines, and laws and regulations, et cetera) function as a representation of power or services to certain interests. Under this framework, and through the interpretation of professional language, the application of designs transforms into the forms, functions, and meanings of the space. The spatial practice of power and counter-power could be two conflicting parallel lines. However, they could also intertwine and produce a common language and spatial forms through the fields of interaction and communication. Basing on this theoretical hypothesis, this thesis studies the image construction projects of Seoul after 2000. All of the projects promoted by the city government were claimed to make Seoul more competitive by clearing up disorganized activities and landscapes to cater to the distinctive branding, cultural, historical and ecological city. Under the policy rhetoric of cultural identity, citizen pride, and economic revival, these exhibitionary complexes aim to enhance the readability and visitability of public spaces. But the cultural display in public spaces concerns the different identities of various social groups regarding the significance of places, historical interpretations, and future imagination. In this globalized and democratic era, the mayor of Seoul intended to introduce a new governing strategy that combines entrepreneurial government and institutionalized citizen participation. Nevertheless, the mayor’s desire for power was revealed due to his own political interests and arbitrary practices. The language of power, as a result, infiltrated the citizen groups’ discourse and was presented in texts such as planning policies, project reports, and design competition guidelines. The design practices converted these languages into images and spaces that possess significant meanings. The key is who owns the signification and meanings. The urban stream restoration, urban plazas, and branding architecture framed particular visual substances. Moreover, the political power embedded in these sites also defined the essence of public culture. Nevertheless, power was eventually defeated by its crisis. In moments of historical transformation such as from “citizens as customers"to “citizen as mayor” and from “design mania” to “social design,” citizens got the chance to exercise their language of resistance. The Seoul experience grants us the opportunity to reflect on professional practices in which the interferences throughout the design process bears more significance than the spatial form itself. In other words, if the practice of language and space develops through an open and participatory process while encompassing multiple voices and languages, the practice could, therefore, produce socially shared languages and spatial forms. This process will be the design for the public and a production of alternative social imagining of the city.

References


Harvey, D. (2001). The art of rent: Globalization and commodification of culture. In Harvey, D. (Ed. ), Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. pp.394-411. NY: Routledge.
陳熒興(2003)。歐登伯格物體藝術之研究。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文。
Barrett, J. (2011). Museums and the public sphere. John Wiley & Sons.
Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of museum: History, theory, politics. London; New York: Routledge.
Bevan, R. (2007) .The destruction of memory: Architecture at war. London: Reaktion books.

Cited by


李心瑩(2008)。生態博物館的理想與實踐—以台北縣立十三行博物館為例〔碩士論文,國立臺北藝術大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6835/TNUA.2008.00043
黃爾晧(2012)。鏡中桃花源—北投溫泉博物館觀光吸引力之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.01467
胡曉玄(2008)。八里左岸遊憩資源觀光吸引力之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.10366
黃仁志(2006)。消費社會中的古蹟再利用-台北市的案例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.01669
王斐儒(2005)。蘭博家族的歷程與展望〔碩士論文,國立臺北藝術大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0014-1202200714123500

Read-around