従来、堀辰雄研究において東京と軽井沢は、主として作家自身の人生経験との関わりから言及されてきた。モダン都市東京を舞台とした水族館他の初期短編と、美しい村風立ちぬなどの<軽井沢文学>は、生い立ちの空間としての東京と、療養․安住の場としての軽井沢という二つの空間の志向性が別々に論じられてきたが、それは研究の枠組みを定型化させる結果を招き、多様なアプローチを妨げる原因になってきたと思われる。本稿では、このような従来の研究を批判する立場から、堀辰雄文学における空間に対する新しい解釈を試みるべく、上記作品を中心に彼の小説テクストに現れている東京と軽井沢の表象の包括的な分析を行い、その特徴を明らかにした上で、堀辰雄文学の始まりと言われる聖家族の空間設定を分析することで、堀辰雄文学における東京から軽井沢への移行の問題について考察する。これまでの作家論的な接近とは異なる見地から、断絶した空間として捉えられてきた東京と軽井沢の表象を連続線上に置いて分析することによって、堀辰雄の<軽井沢文学>に対する新たな視座を提示することを試みる。

Many contemporary architectural avant gardes tend to use painting as a medium to create architecture which goes beyond the rationalized spatial conception of modem architecture represented by perspectivism. They produce non perspective drawings to represent spatial Ideas, and expand it through poetic imagination to create an unexpected architectural form and space. This paper attempts to analyze the historical origin and background of dominance of drawing in the production of architecture. It was with the invention of perspective that architectural representation became important tool for architectural production. Thereafter, drawing was considered prior to actual building and architecture was considered a three dimensional realization of two dimensional drawing. Modernist avant gardes such as Cubism shattered the rationalized pictorial space of perspective and found a new pictorial space. They tried to extend it to three dimensional space through parallel projection largely based on the Hildebrand's theory of pure visibility. However, due to the ambiguity of the position of the viewing subject, their attempts could not succeed in creating a new architecture. The new architectural avant garde of the 70's rediscovered the early 20th century avant gardes in their attempt to create a new architecture which can register the fragmented spatial condition of contemporary society, and used painting as a medium to create architecture. Their difference from the early avant gardes was that they used poetic imagination rather than parallel projection in the process of projecting three dimensional space and form from the painting. However, their architecture cannot escape the scopic field of perspectivism in that they rely on the picture plane and the distance between object and viewing subject. Therefore, I conclude that in order to create architecture which goes beyond the rationalized space of modern architecture, it is necessary to resort to other tradition of modern architecture than visual one.