Modernism (original) (raw)
2013, P. Graves-Brown, R. Harrison & A. Piccini (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Modernity is usually considered a creative and productive force. However, modern dreams have also generated destruction and ruins and often failed with disastrous results, especially during the last hundred years. An archaeology of high modernism, then, has to look at the material effects of failed modernist fantasies and utopian projects. In this chapter, representative cases of modern failures will be examined, with a particular focus on materiality and ruination, and some areas for future research will be proposed, such as the study of material tactics of resistance. Usually, modernist fantasies are linked to totalitarian ideologies (fascism, communism). Along with the ruins of fascism and communism, other failed utopias will be taken into consideration here, which have been seldom studied by archaeologists; this is the case with the political fantasies of liberal western regimes and of postcolonial countries. 597
Related papers
Utopia And The Archive. Some Reflections On Archaeology Of Knowledge And The Utopian Thought
The Archaeology of Knowledge represents a powerful “toolbox”, though little used, in order to understand the tradition of utopian thought. Adding to peculiar characteristics widely recognized among scholars, the foucauldian methodology contributes to define it as a multiple discourse that crosses and contains other discourses and discursive formations from different forms of knowledge, such as humanities and social sciences, political philosophy, literature and others. But the Archaeology offers other relevant points of reflexion for the topic, particularly focusing on the cardinal notions of statements and archive. “The archive cannot be described in its totality; – says Foucault – and in its presence it is unavoidable”. There is a “difference” that separates us from the archive of statements: “it deprives us of our continuities; it dissipates that temporal identity in which we are pleased to look at ourselves when we wish to exorcise the discontinuities of history”. The hypothesis is that the utopian thought, operating on the categories of space and time, within a dualist matrix and crossing over discursive boundaries, works in that “border of time that surrounds our presence, which overhangs it, and which indicates it in its otherness”, expressing critical visions and opening new possibilities in the reality. From this point of view, Bloch's concept “not yet” and Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History may enter in consonance with Jameson's “archaeologies of the future”. Engaging the foucauldian philosophy for conceiving utopian thought as a secular messianism may be a political project that challenges the ordinary regimes of production of truths.
An Archaeology of the Contemporary Era
Routledge, 2019
An Archaeology of the Contemporary Era approaches the contemporary age, between the late nineteenth and twenty-first centuries, as an archaeological period defined by specific material processes. It reflects on the theory and practice of the archaeology of the contemporary past from epistemological, political, ethical and aesthetic viewpoints, and characterises the present based on archaeological traces from the spatial, temporal and material excesses that define it. The materiality of our era, the book argues, and particularly its ruins and rubbish, reveals something profound, original and disturbing about humanity. This is the first attempt at describing the contemporary era from an archaeological point of view. Global in scope, the book brings together case studies from every continent and considers sources from peripheral and rarely considered traditions, meanwhile engaging in an interdisciplinary dialogue with philosophy, anthropology, history and geography. The document includes the table of contents and Chapter 1.
Time to destroy. An archaeology of supermodernity
The archaeology of the contemporary past is becoming an important subfield within the discipline and one attractive not only to archaeologists but to social scientists and artists. The period that started with World War I, here identified as “supermodernity,” has been characterized by increasing devastation of both humans and things and the proliferation of archaeological sites, such as battlefields, industrial ruins, mass graves, and concentration camps. The mission of a critical archaeology of this period is not only telling alternative stories but also unveiling what the supermodern power machine does not want to be shown. For this we need to develop a new kind of archaeological rhetoric, pay closer attention to the materiality of the world in which we live, and embrace political commitment without sacrificing objectivity.
Towards an Archaeology of the Contemporary Past
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 2002
Archaeology, defined as the study of material culture, extends from the first preserved human artefacts up to the present day, and in recent years the ‘Archaeology of the Present’ has become a particular focus of research. On one hand are the conservationists seeking to preserve significant materials and structures of recent decades in the face of redevelopment and abandonment. On the other are those inspired by social theory who see in the contemporary world the opportunity to explore aspects of material culture in new and revealing ways, and perhaps above all the central question of the extent to which material culture — be it in the form of objects or buildings — actively defines the human experience. Victor Buchli's An Archaeology of Socialism takes as its subject a twentieth-century building — the Narkofim Communal House in Moscow — and seeks to understand it in terms of domestic life and changing policies of the Soviet state during the 70 or so years since its construction...
Immediately after WW2 numerous large-scale housing estates began to spring up. More often than not they consisted of high-rises. Merely 50 years later a great number of these developments are in the process of demolition or are seriously undergoing restructuring. The Modernistic thoughts, inspired by the CIAM (Congres International d’Architecture Moderne) movement and Le Corbusier seem to have lost the appeal they once held. In this contribution we look into this evolution and more specifically, we focus on the misinterpretation of the importance of the (symbolic) meaning of housing by the Modernist movement. A misjudgment, that eventually resulted in the speedy dismantling of these estates.
Against capitalism: an unfinished archaeological manifesto
This text is a manifesto for a critical study of the material dimension of capitalism (i.e. neo-liberalism) in Romania, in all its aspects: pro-capitalist types of discourse; the restructuring of the discipline in accordance with the values of contemporary capitalist ideology; the material culture of everyday life, public space and economic projects in the capitalist society; the material dimension of legitimation and promotion of capitalist ideology; the material apparatus of the military system mobilized to defend and export capitalism to Eastern Europe; etc. We argue that, conceived this way, archaeology needs to become a form of resistance to and action against capitalist ideology.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
B. Olsen and Þ. Pétursdóttir (eds.) Ruin Memories: Materiality, Aesthetics and the Archaeology of the Recent Past. London: Routledge, 2014