An archaeology of lunacy examines the historic lunatic asylum from an interdisciplinary perspective, employing methods drawn from archaeology, social geography, and history to create a holistic view of the built heritage of the asylum as a distinctive building type. In the popular imagination, historic lunatic asylums were dark, monolithic, and homogenous, instruments for social confinement and punishment. This book aims to redress this historical reputation, showing how the built environment and material worlds of lunatic asylums were distinctive and idiosyncratic – and highly regional. They were also progressive spaces and proving grounds of architectural experimentation, where the reformed treatment practices known as moral management were trialled and refined. The standing remains of the nineteenth-century lunatic asylum system represent a unique opportunity to study a building-type in active transition, both materially and ideologically. When they were constructed, asylums were a composite of reform ideals, architectural materials, and innovative design approaches. An archaeological study of these institutions can offer a materially focused examination of how the buildings worked on a daily basis. This study combines critical analysis of the architecture, material remains, and historical documentary sources for lunatic asylums in England and Ireland. Students and scholars of later historical archaeology and built heritage will find the book a useful overview of this institutional site type, while historians of medicine will find the focus on interior design and architecture of use. The general public, for whom asylums frequently represent shadowy ruins or anonymous redevelopments, may be interested in learning more about the buildings.
Chinese representation at the Venice Biennale (1993–2003)
’. Here the choice to revisit the evolution of the inner courtyard – which
was typical of Chinese architecture – was seen as a means of revisting everyday
life in China in a very concrete way, notably the imposition of the common
dining room after 1949. This practice, banned since the 1980s, allowed the
return of more individualised architectural forms. This made clear that
the great historyofarchitecture was not what interested Jun Jiang. Instead,
the exhibition focused on the practices of recycling, and the awareness of the
transitory, which structured the history
ideological or religious bias. To this end, he attempted to compose a historyofarchitecture that took into account ‘the specific mode of building’ (‘el modo
particular de las fábricas’) of the Romans, Goths and Arabs, while remaining
aware of the problems posed by imitation, reuse and stylistic appropriation. This
awareness led him to state that
los godos imitaron algo de los romanos [en el modo particular de las fábricas]:
aunque también ellos, metieron en España el modo de edificar que llamamos
Moderno o Gótico, diferenciándose de las órdenes que tuvieron Griegos y
A loyalist mural on the Donegall
Let us explore the country house-flag analogy further. The
opening passage of Lucy Bryson and Clem McCartney’s book Clashing
Symbols clarifies the
of a local medieval tradition, which often made the introduction of
all’antica styles unnecessary.
In the historyofarchitecture, the existence of a Renaissance style can no
longer be identified exclusively with the use of classical orders. Likewise,
responses to all’antica culture varied widely across Europe as a result of specific
political conditions of cities and regions, local conceptions of the ancient past
as well as the strength of medieval traditions. In southern Italy in the fifteenth
century, antiquarian culture drew upon not only the large quantity of
, built by Jacob Vogdes, carpenter, 1810–12.
common to building producers in cities across the Atlantic world between
1750 and 1830 –widely recognized as a period of critical transformation
in historiesofarchitecture in Britain and its colonies. Bookended by
the beginning of the modern era in architectural design at mid-century
and by the absolute division between ‘architecture’ and ‘building’ at the
end of the Georgian era, these date parameters also embrace the birth
and efflorescence of neoclassicism (the first self-consciously ‘modern’
categories, resembling the standard of comfort and the level of respect accorded the
passengers in three classes on pre-1945 trains. It is not just that 1989
introduced a new periodization in western history, demarcating a new
“before-and-after” date similar to 1914 or 1945; the reunification of
Europe meant that much twentieth-century history had to be revised in
the light of what could be learned and understood after 1989 about the
period between 1933 and 1989. For example, the historyofarchitecture in the twentieth century written in the postwar era gave far greater
Reconceptualising British landscapes through the lens of children’s cinema
Catherine Spooner and Emma McEvoy (eds), The
Routledge Companion to the Gothic (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), pp. 73–82; p. 78.
10 See Banister Fletcher, A HistoryofArchitecture (London: Athlone Press, University of
London, 18th edition, 1975), p. 613.
British landscapes through the lens of children's cinema
11 See David Bland, The Illustration of Books (London: Faber and Faber, 1962), p. 72;
John Harthan, The History of the Illustrated Book (London: Thames and Hudson,
1981), p. 201.
12 Higson, ‘ “Britain’s outstanding contribution to the film” ’, p. 77.
Architecture and rumour
The historiesofarchitecture and design need not always centre upon facts.
Sometimes the more revelatory elements can be how people thought the
design process occurred. Rumour and anecdote have a significant role in
collective design knowledge, as the following example demonstrates. One
piece of information that I frequently encountered in my interviews with
print-workers was that the Gov’s building was originally based on plans
for a hospital. Seven interview participants discussed the hospital idea,
although the matter was consigned
Germany’s other modernity
Interpretation in the HistoryofArchitecture’, History and Theory 45
(2006), pp. 153–177. Much more interesting are the possibilities opened
up by Thomas Gieryn in ‘What Buildings Do’, Theory and Society 31
(2002), pp. 35–74.
Panayotis Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modern Architecture
(Cambridge, MA, 2001).
Mitchell Schwarzer, ‘History and Theory in Architectural Journals:
Assembling Oppositions’, Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians 3 (1999), pp. 342–348.
Mari Hvattum and Christian Hermansen