The purpose of this paper is to review and analyse the influence of Hegel on architectural historiography. With the point of view that Hegel is the origin of architectural history, this study try to find out how Hegel’s philosophy and aesthetics deeply influenced the principle and method of architectural historiography. As a kind of meta-history Hegel’s idealism played a important role in the interpretation of architecture and its historiography. We can call it Hegelian legacy and it gave a determinant idea in the discours of architecture, especially Modernism. With a critical view point this study tries to reveal the mythical character of the premise and hypothesis of Hegel’s historicism and also reviews its positive aspects in the history of writing architectural history. Today Hegelian thinking in architectural historiography is seriously criticized and considered as a old way of writing history. But this study tries to find a possibility to recognize the contemporary architectural situation with Hegel’s concept of universal history. The return of Hegel necessarily does not mean the idea of totality and universality in practice as like in Modernism, but to widen the recognition in contemporary practice and historiography.

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.

Balhae(698~926) was the ancient state which opened the Nambuk-guk period with the Unified Silla. But Balhae architecture began to included in the history of Korean architecture only about 15 years ago, such as the books written by Yun Jang-seop or Ju Nam-cheol. I discussed four issues related to Balhae architecture in this paper. First, I criticized the excavation report of 24 stones remains at Jiangdong in Duhua city, and I asserted the ondol site belonged to different period. Second, I also interpreted that the building found on the tombs no.13 and no.14, in the Longhai burial area in Helong city must be a wooden stupa. Third, Balhae played some important roles in the history of ondol. It developed Koguryeo ondol in terms of structure, gave an opportunity to the ruling class to adopt ondol for the first time, and passed the heating system down to the Jurchen, the ancestor of the modern Manchurian. Fourth, the Russian-Korean joint research team excavated seven building sites in Koksharovka 1 fortress from Russian territory these four years, and it is reasonable to assume the fortress was the center of Anbyeon-bu, one of 15 local government districts in Balhae. I guess this buildings were the royal shrine built by resisters after the fall of Balhae, and the vessel stands found there must be used for ancestral memorial ceremony inside them.

The starting point of this study is the concerning of simple behavioral pattern that whoever enters the inner space with taking off his shoes should go out from the position where he laid his shoes. The using of Ondol (floor heating room) and Maru (lifted wood floor) had changed the architectural space from chair-sitting to floor-sitting space, and it also made the behavior of taking off the shoes at the entrance of building and stepping on the lifted floor. This simple behavior has possibility to make lots of changes to the culture of architectural design. With this noticeable point, this paper is talking about the cultural feature of Korean traditional architecture, especially about the influence of tanking off and putting on shoes. The matter of shoes has changed diverse aspects of building and layout planning. It maximized the difference between front and rear part of building and characterized the lateral extension of Korean traditional house. The ritual space also had evolved from chair-sitting to floor-sitting space according to the type of ritual behavioral pattern. The change on the single building level had influenced on the layout planning of architectural complex. For examples, the parallel layout of ChangDeok-gung palace and the long sequential process to the main pavilion of Buddhist temple are the result of the matter of shoes. And NuGak(樓閣), the double-storied pavilion, on the axis of entering sequence’s node is one of the unique planning elements that makes possible to go through the building without taking off the shoes and also makes upper level space for staying. In short, Korean traditional architecture that has the chair-sitting spatial origin of the East Asian cultural sphere has pursued new architectural issues and planning methods according to evolution to the floor-sitting culture.

This study is on the pedagogical convention of architectural history in Korea, especially that of Western Architecture. Recent institutional change in architectural school in Korea has caused overall restructuring of academic program. In spite of extension in the field of history there was no progress of method and way of thinking. There is no change in the point of view to see the western architecture and its history as a unique and specialized phenomenon in the civilization of mankind. Because of no recognition about for what, for whom, and how to, and because of orientalism, the cultural position of western architectural history and its narrative was not asked. With the help of post-colonialism, de-constructivism and critical historiography this paper tries to show the fundamental premise of western architectural history as a myth and show its prejudice as not being justifiable. The background of the discourse there has been a representation effect with regard to knowledge as a power. we need to escape from this kind of cognitional frame With the analysis of the its premise and narrative we can find it is a historical construct that was made in the age of imperialism. In fact it has a lot of false information and problematic point of view. The Identity and originality of western architecture and its history has no logical reason or foundation if we think that it depends on the difference and comparison with other civilization. For example the explanation of its historical origin western architecture has big difference with Islamic architecture in spite of the resemblance each other. This paper try to show several reasons that discourse of western architectural history can not be survived any longer. So we need to reconstruct new pedagogy with deconstruction for the students of non western, or Korean students. Because it has important effect to see and think about architecture and its history.

The German Werkbund, which was founded in 1907, played an important role in the history of modern architecture. Its exhibition 1914 in Cologne is estimated as a meaningful event in the development of modern architecture. Especially two examples, among which were built at that time, are worthy of notice. The one is the 'Modelfactory' by Walter Gropius and the other 'Glashaus' by Bruno Taut. Generally in the Textbook on the history of modern architecture, the Taut's Glashaus is rarely mentioned or described as a early example of some expressionistic architecture, while the Modelfactory by Gropius is regarded as an essential workpiece in the early stage of modern movement. the time of searching alternative not only from rationalistic modernism but also postmodernism and today in the time of plurality, Taut's Glashaus could bring us more interesting and meaningful aspects in architectural design. Through investigating the background in the planning stage and analysing the composition of space, construction, circulation etc. it is to try to understand the building as really as what it was. Furthermore, historical meanings of the building in the modern architecture is reinterpreted in the following aspects; what should be reflected in architecture and how could 'Zeitgeist' be architecturally adopted?