• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.7-16
• /
• 2017

One of the essential characteristics of Lewis Mumford's architectural criticism is the coherent emphasis on symbolism. Such emphasis stems from his understanding of city and humanity in the context of civilization: first, that the architecture symbolizes institutions of urban civilization; second, that the technical aspect of human nature should be balanced with its artistic aspects. Mumford believed that each architectural type requires an appropriate symbolic expression corresponding to its purpose and that a new symbolic expression, in a new cultural context, should replace the conventional expression. He took symbolism for an intuitional expression, and read multi-layered meanings of architecture: 'practical function' by way of rational reason and 'symbolic function' by way of intuition. He pursued a balance between practicality and beauty to rectify the situation of modern civilization, in which symbolism, the expression of its intuitional aspect, is in crisis. Ultimately, for Mumford, the essential task of architectural critic is of the interpretation of symbolism, aiming at the correspondence and communication between the architect(artist)'s intuition and critic(interpreter)'s via the media of symbol. The critic can play some privileged role of interpreting even symbols unintended by the architect. The ideal architectural critic, after all, would be the one who is able to understand the city, technology and human beings in the perspective of civilization and to interpret the architect's artistic expression in its highest form through intuition. Mumford established himself as such a critic and evaluated the status of aesthetic accomplishment of his contemporary architecture and technological civilization, giving emphasis on the artistic practice in architecture as a solution.

• Journal of East-Asian Urban History
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.163-190
• /
• 2020

This paper aims to introduce and understand critically the work of Edward Soja, mainly the First part of the which develops his own concepts, such as 'synekism', 'trialectics of space', 'regionality' and 'geohistory'. Most of all, in explaining Geohistory, he emphasizes three 'Urban revolutions': First Urban revolutions in Jericho and ÇatalHüyük, which shows first synekism as proto urban society, Second in Ur and other Sumerian cities where appeared a concentrated power of central government and its transcendental ideologies, and Third in Manchester and in Chicago, typical capitalist cities. These three urban revolutions don't correspond to the established historical periodization. In order to understand these revolutions, it is necessary to comprehend the concept of 'machine' of G. Deleuze and F. Guattari, inspired, in fact, by Lewis Mumford - Primitive Territorial machine, Barbaric Despotic machine, and Civilized Capitalist machine. However, these periodization and concepts of E. Soja have to be applied very cautiously in accordance with concrete historical sources, avoiding theoretical distortion on positivity of historical facts.