| ³í¹®¸í |
1930³â´ë ºÏÀ¯·´ °ÇÃàÀÇ µðÅ×ÀÏ ºÐ¼®À» ÅëÇÑ ÀüÅ뼺°ú ±Ù´ë¼º °íÂû / A Study on Tradition and Modernity Through the Analysis of Architectural Details in Northern European Architecture of the 1930s |
| ÀúÀÚ¸í |
ÃÖÁöÇý;Á¤Çö¼º ;À̳ª¿¬ ;ÀÓÁ¾¿± |
| ¼ö·Ï»çÇ× |
Çѱ¹¹®È°ø°£°ÇÃàÇÐȸ ³í¹®Áý, Åë±Ç Á¦90È£ (2025-05) |
| ÆäÀÌÁö |
½ÃÀÛÆäÀÌÁö(13) ÃÑÆäÀÌÁö(8) |
| ÁÖÁ¦¾î |
µðÅ×ÀÏ; 1930³â´ë; ºÏÀ¯·´ °ÇÃà; ÀüÅ뼺; ±Ù´ë¼º; ¿¡µå¿öµå R. Æ÷µå; ±º³ª ¾Æ½ºÇ÷éµå; ¾Ë¹Ù ¾ËÅä ; Detail; 1930s; Northern European Architecture; Tradition; Modernity; Edward R. Ford; Gunnar Asplund; Alvar Aalto |
| ¿ä¾à2 |
This study examines how architectural detail mediated the relationship between tradition and modernity in Nordicarchitecture of the 1930s. It expands the notion of detail beyond mere finishing to encompass structural stability, functionalefficiency, and emotional meaning as an integrated design element. Such an approach to detail offers significant insight forcontemporary architecture that seeks harmony between technology and culture. Focusing on key works by Gunnar Asplund andAlvar Aalto, the study applies Edward R. Ford¡¯s typology of detail emphasis on joint, expression of constructibility, andmetaphorical use of motifs as an analytical framework. Asplund reinterpreted classical compositional principles by integratingthem with steel structures and concrete techniques, thereby developing a unified language of form and technology. Aalto, inturn, expanded functionalism by embedding regional traditions and emotive spatial experiences into his architectural detailsthrough metaphor. This analysis reveals that detail functions not as a binary marker between tradition and modernity, but as amediating and integrative strategy that reflects and synthesizes both. |