The purpose of this study is to critically investigate the ways in which scholars and architects in Korea have theorised the tradition in Korean architecture from the early 20th century to the present. After opening the door to foreign powers, the most important issue to be resolved in Korea architecture has been the modernization of the traditional architecture. The successful modernization of Korean traditional architecture depends on successful theorization of the tradition. However, many attempts to theorise the uniqueness of tradition in Korean architecture had not been instrumental to the modernization of Korean traditional architecture. The reason why they were not successful lies in the lack of philosophical and methodological reflection upon how to approach the tradition. They were either trapped in ambiguous essentialism without systematic methods and theories, or simply inventing the tradition from the vantage point of the present. This paper argues that in order to theorise the tradition, one need to translate the tradition into contemporary architectural vocabularies. What is important in translating the tradition is not to directly apply contemporary concepts and perceptual frame of architecture to traditional architecture but to find the gaps and differences between the two. This will open hermeneutic spaces to translate the tradition into useful principles and vocabularies of comtemporary architecture.

The tasks of writing history is to reconstruct the past in order to understand the present condition and to envision the future. Modern architectural histories in the west have assumed this role, from Winckelmann to Giedion. Likewise, history of Korean modern architecture has to serve this purpose. However, existing histories of Korean modern architecture simply list up stylistic changes from western eclectic architecture to modernism without any historical narratives explaining the transition from Korean traditional architecture to modern architecture. History of Korean modern architecture has simply been understood as a unilateral process of transplantation of western architecture into Korea. This paper points out two major problems underlying this kind of historiography of Korean modern architecture. The one is formalistic approach which sees history of modern architecture mainly as a process of formal and stylistic changes. The other is humanistic approach which sees modern architects as agents of history. This paper argues that this kind of history writings has limitations since modernity of Korean architecture is fundamentally different from that of the west. and that specific tasks that Korean modern architectural history has to address are then two folds;(re)connecting the past architectural tradition to the present and forming self-identity of Korean architecture.

The effect of silver ion solution on the growth of Microcystis aeruginosa UTEX 2388 (cyanobacterium) and Chlorella sp. KCTC AG20136 (green alga) was investigated using separated and mixed culture in filtered natural water and BG11 medium. In separated cul

Modernism in architecture is a very complex and contradictory phenomena. So much so that it has been defined in various ways throughout the history, depending on one's position in the cultural and historical circumstances. It is thus necessary to map out the various concepts of modernism and their relationships in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of modern architecture. This paper attempts to define the various positions as functionalism, formalism and artistic avant-gardism, and to trace their history from the early twentieth century to the present. The change of the concept of modernism from functionalism to artistic avant-gardism seems a logical process in the history of western modem culture. The tendency of contemporary architecture to be more abstract and self referential artistic practice reflects the fragmentation of modern culture and the separation of art and technology. The validity of this position, of course, depends on how one evaluates the role of modern art in the situation of modern culture. It could be viewed either negatively or positively. However, this position is problematic in that it disregards the fundamental differences between architecture and other arts and distanced architecture farther from its material base. Given this historical perspective on the concept of modernism, modernism in Korea should not viewed simply identical to the western modernism, nor should western modernism be imported uncritically. The characteristics of her modernization and their differences from the west should be considered, along with the different status and role of architecture in korean modern society.