This research aims to investigate Park Kilyong’s architectural theory and critique of Gyeongseong (Seoul) buildings, expressed in his ‘Overview of Modern Buildings in Gyeongseong’ and ‘Critique of Gyeongseong Buildings’ (Samcheolli, Sept. and Oct. 1935); and ‘Architectural Form of the 100% Function’ and ‘The Modern and Architecture (1)-(4)’ (Dong-A Daily, 28 Jul. to 1 Aug. 1936). As a result, it is confirmed that Park had the functionalist theory of modern architecture, which suggests that Korean architects of the Japanese colonial period were accommodating the contemporary trend of world architecture. However, Park shows his fundamental limitations in the fact that the main content of his articles was a verbatim translation of two Japanese references (Kurata, 1927; Ishihara, 1929) without proper indications. Despite the limitations, his texts are still meaningful since he formed his own architectural theory on the basis of what he translated; and indeed his critique of Gyeongseong buildings, however simple, was based on the theory. This research makes a critical analysis of Park’s functionalist theory from both the 1930s’ and present points of view and compares his commentaries on Gyeongseong architecture with those by Ko Yu-seop (1932) and Hong Yunsick (1937), illustrating how Korea perceived architecture and modernism in 1930s.

One of the essential characteristics of Lewis Mumford’s architectural criticism is the coherent emphasis on symbolism. Such emphasis stems from his understanding of city and humanity in the context of civilization: first, that the architecture symbolizes institutions of urban civilization; second, that the technical aspect of human nature should be balanced with its artistic aspects. Mumford believed that each architectural type requires an appropriate symbolic expression corresponding to its purpose and that a new symbolic expression, in a new cultural context, should replace the conventional expression. He took symbolism for an intuitional expression, and read multi-layered meanings of architecture: ‘practical function’ by way of rational reason and ‘symbolic function’ by way of intuition. He pursued a balance between practicality and beauty to rectify the situation of modern civilization, in which symbolism, the expression of its intuitional aspect, is in crisis. Ultimately, for Mumford, the essential task of architectural critic is of the interpretation of symbolism, aiming at the correspondence and communication between the architect(artist)’s intuition and critic(interpreter)’s via the media of symbol. The critic can play some privileged role of interpreting even symbols unintended by the architect. The ideal architectural critic, after all, would be the one who is able to understand the city, technology and human beings in the perspective of civilization and to interpret the architect’s artistic expression in its highest form through intuition. Mumford established himself as such a critic and evaluated the status of aesthetic accomplishment of his contemporary architecture and technological civilization, giving emphasis on the artistic practice in architecture as a solution.

The core idea of the critical regionalism could be summarized as a self-conscious synthesis between universal civilization and world culture. After World War Ⅱ, it has been applied to architecture for overcoming the problem of Industrial Capitalism and uniformity of 20th century Modern Architecture. Naturally, religious architecture cannot also be an exception in this cultural trend, thus we can also apply the critical regionalism to the Korean Catholic Church Architecture with the basic premise that the Traditional Western and Modern Style Church Architecture should be regarded as universal civilization, and the Traditional Korean Architecture and endemicity as one of world culture. In the context, this article attempts to analyze the regionality of Korean Modern Catholic Church Architecture constructed between the 19th century and 1980's, and how it has been differently transformed with the view of the critical regionalism. Its analysis will be carried out within three types; transformation of the Traditional Korean Architecture and the influence of Japanese Modern Architecture, representation of the Traditional Korean Architecture, and abstraction of the Traditional Korean Architecture with each advantages and disadvantages.

This writing is to understand some trends and its meaning of Regionalism Architecture in Jeju Island since 1950's.This thesis began with an interestin the identity crisis implicitin the simultaneous striving formodernism and the so-called regionalvalues in Jeju Island.Regionalism is a response in architecturalterms to re-establish continuity in a given place between pastand presentforms,and also a uniqueresultrelated to particularplaces,culturesand climatesin region.Thisisone wayoflookingattheissuesofregionalidentity. Thestudy began by observing thegeneralcharacteristicsofcontemporary ideason Regionalism inJejuarchitecture.Thismeansthattracingthehistoryofdevelopmentof Regionalism architecture in research area is notthe focus ofthis thesis.The thesis demonstratesthatRegionalism architecturesin Jeju showssometrendsrelated to the local cultural elements (or ideas) such like traditionalarchitectural forms,natural environment,local construction-materials,etc.In summation,in the perspective of Regionalism architecture,mostofbuildingsin Jeju bring outthem only asvernacular architectureasitwasonceproduced,by thesimplecombination andimitation without anycreativeinteractionoftheregionalculture. Istressthe pointin thispaperthat,in overthelastfifty years,therehavebeen very narrowed attemptstodesign theregionalvaluesin themain,and alsopointout thatthereareproblemsinthemannerinwhichlocalarchitectshavegoneabouttrying to define the regional themes.So,a grate depth is required to understand the phenomenonthatJejuareaiswithitsvariousnuancesoftraditions,art,culture,climate and lightand then to reinterpretitinto the modern building type with allthe high sense.In addition to that,someconclusionsarereached on futuredirectionsand the significanceofthestudy.

Manfredo Tafuri's Ideological criticism in architecture has opened a new horizon to interpreting architecture in modern capitalist architecture for it views architecture not just as a style or formal invention, but in terms of socio-economical process. It offered a comprehensive understanding of a chaotic situation of contemporary architecture and historical meaning modern architectural movements in relation with capitalistic development. However, it has been criticized as architectural pessimism which does not allow any possibility for progressive architectural practice. It was also criticized of epidemiological problem of how one could be outside ideology without assuming true consciousness against false consciousness of ideology. Tafuri solves this problem by assuming Althusserian activist concept of knowledge and suggest the concept of labor of writing history of critical historians, instead of a design for utopian society, as a possible critical architectural practice. However, I argue that ultimately ideological criticism does not deny architectural practice itself, nor researches on formal characteristics of architecture. The problem lies rather in the architectural intellectuals' attachment to the traditional concept of architect as a from giver to the society. By rejecting this myth and broadening the concept of architectural practice from design to production, we can find that Ideological problem is not architectural pessimism, but rather it opens up a new way of approaching to the problem of architectural practice in modern capitalist society.

The language of architecture is a kind of tool which helps people to experience the environment not as the thing itself but as a meaningful one. It, gathered by place, constitutes 'genius loci', as the existential structures. It, in other words, gives a thing 'cognitive quality', and serve people to 'dwell' because 'a place is a gathering thing with concrete presence.' Our environment, only when it possesses the language, presents itself as a namable thing or an understood world. Such a meaningful identification is dwelling. The modern world is a complex melting-pot. It is 'complexities' and 'contradiction'. The language of architecture is never created, rather it is selected by needs of the time and the place. In this sense, architectural design means discovery and interpretation of the poetic order of architypal form and style, and the poetic order is a way for people to dwell in the humanistic sense. These reminds me of Martin Heidegger's statement : 'Architecture belongs to poetry, and its purpose is to help man to dwell.'