1. Introduction

This paper elucidated the useful scope of archival processing for architectural materials regarded as research materials in architectural history after the modern age in Japan, where the way of processing architectural materials has not been established yet, and therefore, many unprocessed materials may exist as hidden collections. First, records surveys and records processing from the 1980s to the present were summarized (Chap. 2–4). Subsequently, the records were characterized into architectural material types by comparing architectural research material types to research material types from history and archaeology (Chap. 5). Finally, the usefulness of the archival processing was examined for each type of architectural material (Chap. 6).

2. Phase 1 (1985–1996): Systematic surveys

First, Terunobu FUJIMORI conducted two location surveys on architectural publications and drawings of “Modern Japan” from the first year of the Meiji era in 1868 to the 20th year of the Showa era in 1940. Both surveys focused on Japanese architects who first appeared during the Meiji era.

3. Phase 2 (1997–2007): Systematic processing and Interest in archival science

Second, the research records by Chuta ITO, the pioneer of architectural history in Japan, were processed in the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). His work included more types of records than that of any of the abovementioned architects. In 2000, the National Museum of Nature and Science in Japan commissioned a survey by the AIJ on “architectural materials.” The AIJ continued this survey as its own project and conducted the study tour to the US in 2013. The tour led Japanese architectural historians to show a keen interest in collection policies and archival processing for managing and preserving architectural research materials.

4. Phase 3 (2008–): Expanding surveys and studying processing

Subsequently, the AIJ conducted a national survey on “modern architecture materials,” commissioned by the National Archives of Modern Architecture, which opened in 2013. Some educational institutions had begun both processing architectural materials and studying their processing during Phase 2. These differ from archival processing in that they focus on architectural drawings, and one drawing was considered a basic unit.

5. Comparison

Then, the targets of the surveys and the processing were characterized. Before Phase 1, research material types related to architectural history were mainly remains and documents. In 1930, Saburo HORIKOSHI classified architectural research materials made in the Meiji era into six types; however, it was only after the war in 1945 that serious studies on the Meiji era as the modern age were conducted. In this chapter, those architectural material types were systematically categorized by being compared to research material types from history and archaeology. Based on the architectural material types, the targets of the survey and the processing were characterized.

6. Consideration

After examining the usefulness of the archival processing by referring to four types of architectural materials, it was found that archival processing was highly effective for research records by historians or design records by designers. Those records are called “secondary architectural materials” or “architectural design materials” in this paper.

7. Conclusion

Archival processing was highly effective for architectural materials such as architectural records by historians or designers, after the modern age in Japan. However, exceptions may occur depending on (i) the activity of the records’ creator, (ii) the records’ owner, and (iii) the age of the records’ creation.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examined Hideto Kishida's Formative ideas in Architecture Design in the early Showa period by analyzing the principles and various aspects, found from his lecture manuscripts, comments to Cyureito (the monumental tower to the faithful died in battle) and works of tombstone and pedestals of bronze statues in the same period. Strong feeling to the elementary geometry can be felt with use of aesthetics principles, such as symmetry, balance and repetition, and by quoting trials of advanced arrange theory (“Dynamic Symmetry” advocated by Jay Hambidge) to the three‐dimensional and expression of modernism architecture, the attitude to apply those to the architecture can be recognized. A technical point of view was insufficient in explanations of modernism. Also Kishida did not reject the continuity from the past, and he intended to exchange with tradition. Against “Kochiku”, emphasis on “Kosei” came to the surface, and most of the ideas for architecture matched with Le Corbusier's statement in “Toward an Architecture” (1923).

抄録全体を表示

This paper discussed on the lecture policy and its theoretical characters of Hideto Kishida's "Kenchiku Keikaku" class at the Tokyo imperial university, based on analysis of the lecture manuscripts "Introduction to the architectural design" (1937) and the syllabus. Kishida considered the field as a subject to "designing architecture" in building up his two classes of "Kenchiku Keikaku" and "Isho and Soshoku (design and decoration)." He held lectures attached with history, design and planning while developing what he had succeeded from Yasushi Tsukamoto. With the assistance of such catchphrases as "Architecture is a container of human life" and "Necessity is the sole mistress of art" by Otto Wagner, Kishida established a theory to position architecture as a form of art. He also repeatedly explained about the meaning of Locality (specialty) throughout the lecture, in which he introduced a historical view in his attempt to back up the theory of dwelling development.

抄録全体を表示

 This paper is the first part of a study of discourses by Makino Masami (1903-1983) in modern Japan, and is based on a study presented at Architectural Institute of Japan Kinki Branch research report (Planning system) in 2010 and 2015. The purpose of this paper is to clarify and to examine his theory of architectural evolution and the controversy over it. After graduating from Tokyo Imperial University (present the University of Tokyo) in 1927, Makino was employed at the Okura-doboku Corporation (present Taisei Corporation). He went to France, and became a disciple of Le Corbusier in 1928. After he returned to Japan in 1929, he was widely active as a writer, a lecturer and an architect, and then a treatise called “Kenchiku-shicho o kataru (On the architectural theory)”, in which he pointed out the laws concerning architectural evolution.
 In the second chapter, some historians presented the view that Makino did not give a lecture titled “Kenchiku-shicho o kataru” with the same name as his treatise, but the author clarified Makino gave the lecture from some articles of academic journal “Architecture Journal” and other journals of architecture published.
 In the third chapter, the author digested the treatise “Kenchiku-shicho o kataru”, consisting of 4 chapters. The points of these chapters are as follows: 1) There is a nature that exists constantly inside an architecture, called “Idenshitsu (gene)”, “Kenchiku no honshitsu (the essence of architecture)”, or “Kenchiku-shicho (architectural thought)”. 2) The essence of Japanese architecture is discussed by applying the theory of architectural evolution to Japanese architecture. The points concerning it are as follows: the Japanese mind who love nature, simplicity, implicity, and neatness. 3) Modern architectural thought focuses on functionalism and efficiency including economy. International architecture especially attaches more importance to the economy than a straight external appearance. 4) The similarities between Japanese and modern architectural thoughts is discussed, and proposes a future course that Japanese architecture should take in response to it.
 In the fourth chapter, the author ascertained the various responses which the “Kenchiku-shicho o kataru” evoked. Particularly the controversy over the theory of architectural evolution, between Makino and Magara Tozo (1904-1985), held in “Architecture Journal” in 1930 were intense.
 In the fifth chapter, the author chronologically summarized the developments and points of the controversy. Magara criticized the ideal side of the theory of architectural evolution from the historical materialism point of view. He claimed that the essence of architecture did not a priori exist, scientifically derived from experiment and observation of social and economic facts rather than idea. Makino objected that the thought which emphasizes economic factor was a biased view.
 The theory of architectural evolution was metaphorically explained by the evolution of a biological species, then the gene, called “Idenshitsu”, “Kenchiku no honshitsu” or “Kenchiku-shicho”, did not exist outside the architecture but inside one. A form exposed from it and kept in step with the times, thus he did not attach importance to an old form. Magara's criticisms, however, were very severe and based on a Marxist point of view. In the 1920s, Marxism rapidly spread among the students in higher schools of the old system and imperial universities as the socialist movement became more popular and some books about Marxism based upon historical materialism were published. Then the architectural histories and theories based on historical materialism was published. The controversy over Makino's theory reflected the intellects and students class spirit during the Taisho era.

抄録全体を表示