本研究の目的は，人形用キモノの形態学的特徴から衣服のデザイン要素としての「キモノらしさ」を明らかにすることである。人形用のキモノは，和裁の理論にとらわれない方法で，人のキモノをより特徴が際立つように簡略化し，再構成したものであると考えられる。人形用キモノの特徴を調査するため，1/6 スケールの着せ替え人形「

」用に作られた 17 点のキモノ作品例を収集し，分類した。実際にそれらの人形用キモノを再現し，制作過程の検証と形の観察を行った。各作品の特徴を人のキモノと比較し，材料と各パーツの構成の関係，制作の難易度，各部の幅の比率，人形の身体の形との関係に着目した。考察の結果，キモノらしさのデザイン要素は，人形用キモノ全体に共通する特徴としての一定の形の要素に加え，布幅に由来する各部の幅の比率，材料を無駄なく生かす使い方にあると結論づけた。また人形のキモノがこれらの要素を踏まえつつ，自由な解釈により制作された様子を示した。

抄録全体を表示

 From MoMA`s “Ealy Modern Architecture: Chicago 1870-1910” exhibition in 1933 and through the publishing of Carl Condit`s The Chicago School of Architecture in 1964, the typical overview on the Chicago school of architecture in late nineteenth century and the “Chicago Construction” have been firmly formed from aesthetic, formalistic, and structural points of view.

 In this essay, first we examine closely the discourses on William Le Baron Jenney`s Home Insurance Building(1885), which was once deemed to be the first metal framed structural building. In William Mundie`s manuscript, Skeleton Construction, Its Origin and Development, in 1932, despite the fact that it was written one year after the demolition of the building and the concomitant investigation on the structure of it, Mundie described the building as of metal framed construction. Regarding emphasis on the transition of the building construction, namely from traditional bearing wall system to framed construction, his description is considered to be also contemporary with MoMA`s emphasis on the same transition of building construction for modern architecture. On the other hand, in 1964, Condit described the building as an example of early curtain wall adoption not as that of metal framed structure, discussing from the same structural point of view. Condit also made criticism of the building from aesthetic and formalistic points of view, which were again the same as those of MoMA`s.

 Closely examining these discourses and the typical floor plan, we attempt to position them in historical perspective.

 Going back to the middle and late nineteenth century, the age of Jenney himself, we also attempt to reevaluate the “primitive hut in Manila,” which Jenney once saw on his trip to Philippine in his boyhood, as another great inspiration source of “Chicago Construction” again. The notion of “primitive hut” was an important one in the nineteenth century architectural history, in Eugene Viollet-le-Duc`s writings for example. In other words, by going back to Jenney`s age, we attempt to give a proper appreciation to the locale where the U.S. expansion to the Pacific Ocean by whaling which brought Jenney to Philippine and gave him an encounter with the “primitive hut” in Manila, and the notion of “primitive hut” in French theory of architectural history, merged into one architect to form the idea of “Chicago Construction.”

抄録全体を表示

In this paper I discuss the question of “oneness” and “plurality” and their interactions in contemporary Russian literature and cinema in which Russian national identity is represented in various ways. At the outset of our discussion, I pay attention to the controversy between Solzhenitsyn and Siniavskii in the first half of the 1980’s. While Solzhenitsyn attacked his contemporary liberal Russian dissidents, including Siniavskii, as “pluralists”, the latter ironically criticized Solzhenitsyn as “the founder of new edinomyslie.” The contrast between the two positions can be understood as the conflict between oneness-oriented nationalism and pluralistic liberalism that would continue to be one of the most important undercurrents in contemporary Russian culture. With this controversy in mind as a prehistory, we will then discuss the following works:
(1) Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together (2001–2002)
(2) Nikita Mikhalkov’s Film 12 (2007)
(3) Denis Gutsko’s novel Russkogovoriashchii (2005) and Eduard Bagirov’s novel Gastarbaiter (2007)
Two Hundred Years Together is a historical study in two volume devoted to the complex relationship between Russians and Jews through the last two hundred years. 12 is a remake of Sidney Lumet’s famous 12 Angry Men (1957), but it is entirely adapted to the contemporary Russian situation in which the Russian, according the film director, should play the role of the strong protective father-in-law toward other minor nationalities. While the Russianness is not challenged in the above-mentioned two cases and both Solzhenitsyn and Mikhalkov seem to take their Russian national identity for granted, the younger writers, such as Gutsko and Bagirov have completely different starting points: their background and experience do not allow them to speak of Russia in terms of its “oneness.” Gutsko’s autobiographical hero is a Russian, but speaks Russian with a Georgian accent as he was born and raised in Tbilisi, and he experiences absurd difficulties in getting a new Russian passport after repatriating to his mother’s native town Rostov-na-Donu. Bagirov was born in Turkmenistan between an Azerbaijani father and a Russian mother, and his autobiographical hero comes to Moscow to try his fortune in this enormous city abundant with a lot of opportunities open to non-Russian newcomers as well as venomous prejudices and even hatred toward them on the side of Russian inhabitants. In the case of these new writers, we see that in the present “postmodern” situation the classical dichotomy between Russian/ non-Russian is being deconstructed and a search is beginning for a new Russian identity based on fluidity and plurality of identities.

抄録全体を表示

The agreement reached in Minsk on 7-8 December 1991 to create a Commonwealth of Independent States was signed by the leaders of three slavic countries. The agreement stated that, “the USSR as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases its existence”. Ukrainian president Kravchuk stated that it had prevented the uncontrolled disintegration of the former Soviet Union, but “We cannot allow ourselves to be locked in the Commonwealth, we should go in search of wide ranging relations with other countries”, added he. Many Ukrainians regarded CIS more sceptically than president Kravchuk. According to an opinion poll conducted after signing of the Minsk accords, Ukrainians were the most pessimistic of the three founding states.
Elected as the first president of Ukraine, Kravchuk shortly succeeded to establish an authoritarian regime. He introduced several new institutions which strengthened his presidential power. By shifting his position from “sovereign communist” to the “fighter for Ukrainian independent statehood” Kravchuk neutralized his former opponents. Also he recruited many key persons from opponents camp to the higher governmental posts. But Kravchuk's authoritarian regime lasted barely one year. New prime minister L. Kuchima challenged Kravchuk in power game and weakened Kravchuk's position last winter. Kravchuk's authoritarian regime was further weakened by the economic crises in Ukraine.
Since Ukraine's ratification of its independence in December 1991, its quarrels with Russia grabbed international headlines. During the early months of 1992, Russo-Ukrainian relations reached so low an ebb that many observers felt the big possibility of the Ukraine's retreat from the CIS. However, an reapprochment has taken place. An agreement was reached between the two sides on many of the outstanding areas of conflict at the Dagomys summit meeting in June 1992 between president Yeltsin and Kravchuk. Although there are still many points of conflict between them, relations between them have become quite stable.
From the begining Ukraine did not possess strong loyality to the CIS. Ukraine regarded CIS as an economic cooperative organization. Therefore, Ukraine was always against the CIS as a unit of political-military integration. If CIS would be strengthened as a political institution like the former Soviet Union, Ukraine would likely choose the alternative of “exit” from the CIS.
Finally, what is the meaning and impact of the independence of Ukraine in the region? From the Baltic to the Black Sea, there are now six new independent states, including Ukraine. These western parts of the former Soviet Union can be called the “New Eastern Europe”. thrusts Central Europe (former Eastern Europe) to the west and at the same time pushes Russia to the east.

抄録全体を表示