![]() ![]() The paper explores visibility as a category to describe certain characteristics of the This intellectual intervention was realized through the journal’s consistent presentation of architectural debate and criticism, in particular the writings of Zeng Zhaofen, the organization of design and essay writing competitions contributed by undergraduate students and the translation and publication of Western scholarship, particularly the intensive introduction of space theory. It disseminated the discourse of modernism and subverted the dominant culture entangled with the discourse of tradition (the emphasis on style, formal or spiritual similarity, and national in form, socialist in content). It argues that the journal became the most radical platform to deliberately cultivate an emerging culture of architecture. This article used his theory as a conceptual tool to investigate the role of the Chinese architectural journal Architect in the process of cultural struggle in 1980s China. His analysis on culture allows us to grasp the dynamics of cultural production in general and architectural production in particular. By tracing a brief panorama in the three main models of the public sphere (Habermas, Arendt, Negt & Kluge's models), the paper suggests going beyond the public sphere by envisioning publicness as a socio-anthropological principle characterized as being an empirical reality, as being pre-political and pre-institutional, as well as a process linked to social imaginaries.īritish cultural theorist Raymond Williams claimed that culture was a constant negotiation process between the dominant, the emergent and the residual cultures. It does not absolutely depend on a capital Public or on a public sphere model to emerge and be felt by all members of a society. Publicness is, first of all, a matter of cohesion and consensus on values in a society, reached through a communicative process that occurs in almost every social interaction. The latter cannot be reduced to the strict formulation of the public sphere. The former consubstantiates a specific normative principle of legitimate political decision-making, as well as a peculiar space of communication and an ensemble of specific publics. I propose to separate what is an historical and idealized construct-the public sphere-from the socio-anthropological principle-publicness. Despite the dysphoric development of the public sphere in post-modern societies, public action and communicative activity can easily be discerned if one recognizes that rational-critical deliberation is not the exclusive means to exercise it. This paper contends the public sphere is a restrictive approach to public action. Each one of these principles highlights different concepts: in the field of visibility we need to address inter-visibilities in public visibilities we need to address proto-visibilities in verge of becoming full-visibilities through the synchrony of collective attention and in mediated visibility it is imperative to deal with super-visibility as an extreme effect of an intense modulation perpetrated by communication technologies. Since the social category of visibility is a central aspect of communication and media studies, we will be interrogating it through three distinct ways: visibility as a field whose symbolic determination results in the constitution of different regimes of visibility visibility as a pivot-concept of publicness since it is this public quality that transforms proto-visibility into a full accomplished visibility and, third, the transmutations and dangers stemmed from media's production of visibility. In this paper, we suggest three lines of empirical and theoretical investigation in the topic of visibility: a sociological (symbolic) axis a collective (publicness) axis and a technological (media) axis. An analysis of visibility will provide us with a precise perspective how these processes occur. Paradoxically, by amplifying visibility, media create new forms of invisibility. The concept of visibility has become a problematic one as hypervisibility gave rise to new forms of opacity that are formed not through secrecy but by its opposite, pan-visibility.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |