-
Notes
- University of Minnesota Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Notes Introduction 1. Murray Fraser, “All Phenomenology and No Substance,” The Architect’s Journal 382, no. 17 (March 23, 1995): 42–43. 2. Ole Bouman and Roemer van Toorn, “I Am Trying to Save the Phenomenology of Architecture: Interview with Oswald Mathias Ungers,” Archis 2 (February 1993): 58–65. 3. See especially Anthony Vidler, The Architectural Uncanny (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992). The book collected a series of lectures first presented at the Architectural Association in London in 1989. 4. Herbert Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1982), 473. 5. Ann Fulton, Apostles of Sartre: Existentialism in America, 1945–1963 (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1999), 135. 6. John McCumber, Time in the Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2001). 7. Dermot Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology (London: Routledge, 2000), 204. 8. For an account of the theological turn in phenomenology see Dominique Janicaud, Le tournant théologique de la phénoménologie française (Combas: Éditions de L’Éclat, 1991). 9. David Farrell Krell, “A Malady of Chains: Husserl and Derrida on the Origins of Geometry and a Note to the ‘Archeticts’ of the Future,” Architectural Design 67, no. 5–6 (May–June 1997): 12–15. 10. Mark Wigley, The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derrida’s Haunt (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993). 11. Mark Wigley, “Heidegger’s House: The Violence of the Domestic,” Columbia Documents of Architecture and Theory D 1 (1992): 91–121. 12. See Mark Jarzombek, The Psychologizing of Modernity: Art, Architecture, History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Significant inroads into the history of the reception of phenomenology in architectural discourse have also been made in Hilde Heynen’s “Worthy of Question: Heidegger’s Role in Architectural Theory” (1993), later reworked into her book Architecture and Modernity (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999). Heynen critiqued Norberg-Schulz and Frampton for what she saw as their one-sided reading of the concept of dwelling as being-athome and their disregard of Heidegger’s notion of “homelessness.” Also important is K. Michael Hays’s “The Structure of Architectural Phenomenology” in Newsline: Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation, Columbia University 3, no. 4 (December 1990–January 1991): 5, which compared how Kenneth Frampton, Daniel Libeskind, Peter Eisenman, and Michael Graves understood the relationship between subject and object phenomenologically. 13. See Michael Benedikt, For an Architecture of Reality (New York: Lumen Books, 1987), and Benedikt, Deconstructing the Kimbell: An Essay on Meaning and Architecture (New York: SITES/Lumen Books, 1991). 14. Zeynep Çelik, “Kinaesthetic Impulses: Aesthetic Experience, Bodily Knowledge, and Pedagogical Practices in Germany, 1871–1918” (PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007). 263 15. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou, “Introduction,” in Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics 1873–1893, ed. Julia Bloomfield, Kurt W. Forster, and Thomas F. Reese, trans. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou (Santa Monica, Calif.: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 1–85. 16. Giulio Carlo Argan, Walter Gropius e la Bauhaus (Torino: G. Einaudi, 1951), 11. My translation. 17. Reyner Banham, “Neo-Liberty: The Italian Retreat from Modern Architecture,” Architectural Review 746 (March 1959): 231. 18. Ernesto Nathan Rogers, “Tradizione e attualità nel disegno,” Zodiac 1 (1957): 272, trans. by Jorge Otero-Pailos. See also the general discussion of tradition, 95–102, 247–51, 269–74. 19. Ernesto Nathan Rogers, “L’evoluzione dell’architettura: Risposta al custode di frigidaires,” Casabella Continuità 228 (June 1959): 2–4. 20. Ernesto Nathan Rogers, “The Phenomenology of European Architecture,” in A New Europe, ed. Stephen R. Graubard (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964), 438–42. 21. On the reasons why Italian architects turned from phenomenology to critical theory, see Vittorio Gregotti and Jorge Otero-Pailos, “Interview with Vittorio Gregotti: The Role of Phenomenology in the Formation of the Italian Neo-Avant-Garde,” Thresholds 21 (Fall 2000): 40–46. For a good overview of the Italian debates on the relationship of modernism to history, see Luca Molinari, “Between Continuity and Crisis: History and Project in Italian Architectural Culture of the Postwar Period,” 2G 3, no. 15 (2000): 4–11. 22. Jorge Otero-Pailos, “Ernesto Rogers and Enzo Paci: Tradition as Lifeworld,” in “Theorizing the Anti-Avant-Garde: Invocations of Phenomenology in Architectural Discourse, 1945–1989” (PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001). 23. Jacques Maritain to Labatut, March 13, 1961, Box 7, Jean Labatut Papers, Princeton University Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, trans. by Jorge Otero-Pailos. 24...