「自由中國」的文化論述乃是台灣戰後初期政治社會運作重要的一環,伴隨著依賴現代性的開展,它往往呈現爲不同的現代化面貌,並且在國府權力合法化的機制中扮演著微妙的角色。建築既是文化的產物,既是空間性的中介與呈顯,自不能免除國族意識形態的影響,是以,台灣戰後初期的建築專業者會捲入自由中國論述的波濤是相當自然的。藉由理論的播接、透過空間活動的實踐、以及真實空間的營造等,包括文化守成主義者在內之不同陣營的專業者不斷地論述了他們對於「現代中國建築」的理解,從而蔚成了台灣戰後初期不同國族想像花繁葉茂的狀況。本研究旨在透過論述分析對台灣戰後初期文化守成主義者建築實踐的國族想像建構情形作一研究,除了考掘他們「現代中國性」論述生產的社會歷史根源外,亦希望釐清其美學操作原則及認識論預設,以作爲未來建築實踐攻錯的參考。
The Discourse of 'Free China as a Nation' had played a key role in the social-political operation of early postwar Taiwan. Accompanied by the development of dependent modernity, it often appeared as diverse faces, and occupied the fatal moment of the legalizing mechanism of KMT government. Historically, the discourse of 'China as a nation' was burgeoning from the ethnic resistance against western colonialism. Paradoxically, though it was the product of modernity and had become the start engine of societal modernization, it often reversed itself to be the opposite side of progressivism in the historical process. What we had seen the modern or tradition controversy happened in postwar Taiwan was just the evidence. Nevertheless, through the grinding process imposed by historical powers, it should always not only alter its own character and transform itself into various editions of 'Modern China' discourses, but also start the running of historical wheel. Architecture, as the product of culture and both the medium and outcome of spatiality, is hardly released from the affection of nationalism. In fact, by the articulating of different theories, the practicing of spatial activities, and the building of real space, professionals of early postwar Taiwan belonging to different ideological camps, the cultural conservative included, continuously expressed what they thought about the modern Chinese architecture. Their explanations formed the plentiful and multiple imaginations of 'China as a nation'. This research aims to investigate the concrete processes of Chinese nationalists' architectural sailings practiced by the cultural conservatives in early postwar Taiwan. We hope not only to excavate the power-operation genealogies of Chineseness hidden in their architectural discourses, but also to reveal the very relationship between nationalists' architectural practices and the establishment of identities.