The main purpose of this study is to reveal the properties and specialities of architectural space after Modernism. Space was the main theme of Modernity in architecture and they insist Modern architectural space had its own characteristics compared with the earlier period. With view that another paradigm of space is rising as a criticism of and departure from Modernity, this study try to show what is the contents of difference and how it express in reality. We can find a new trends in architectural spaces, that are the production of totally different circumstantial background as like information society, digital media environment, post structuralism, new science and heterotopian situation in urbanism. We can call it Post-Modernity in architectural space that would find the ‘Otheness' and expand the territory of architecture. It means not only the change of architectural space itself but also different cognition and perception of space is taking place. Contemporaru architectural space has lost its materiality and conventional socio-cultural functions. Dematerialization and media or image -like being is the new characteristics instead. It demands a new way of being in a different life-world as well as the new experience of architecture.

Introducing International Style, P. Johnson and H. R. Hitchcock gave three standards to be the Modern, volume and surface, regularity, and exclusion of applied decoration. In spite of the negation of stylistic, formal approach in the Modernist Manifestoes, one usually have understood Modernity in Architecture with its formal character, especially with no ornament and flat, abstract, white surface. Modernism as a new paradigm in architecture have emphasized that there is no representation of anything outside and only present architecture in itself. They said that Modernism only cared about the language of Architecture without figural reference. So apparently there is no way to prove to its Modernity with formal condition. Modernity is in Spirit and contents. But actually we understand well its existence by visual communication This study deals with this difficult situation how Modernity represents itself without visual media and asks the question how simultaneously it presents its thingness and materiality In order to analyse contradictory situation between representation and presentation in Modern Architecture we need to survey the historical process of changing position of ornaments and its meaning in time. With the crisis of representation the role of ornament have seriously changed and divided. It caused the two situation in pre-Modern Architecture. Firstly, Architecture tend to be a high art and formal expression became important much more. The Use of Ornament became a kind of fashion to show the power, class, money. Secondly, Ornament lost its cultural weight and the structure and material aspect became the central in architecture. Rational Structuralism would be the essential character in Modern Architecture. Here the theory of G. Semper and A. Loos on cladding(dressing) and Ornament can help its problems and limits. In the situation without conventional ornament Modernists need to present modernity with new media that only show the thing itself and by that it does not represent any thing else as like the value, idea outside buildings. They believed that only it concerned esthetics and morality in architecture. But in reality it referred to art and machines as like ships, aircraft, and cars. By excluding Ornament and showing the process of clearing, abstract, flat, white surface 'represent' Modernity by the indirect way referring the concept of transparency, reason, sanitation, tectonics, etc. An Ideology and myth intervened architectural discourse to make the doxa about the representation in Architecture. Surface must be a different kind of media and message that can communicate in different way with compared to conventional Ornament. Decorated Shed by R. Venturi and Post-Functionalism by P. Eisenman, that are the most famous post-modern discourse, shows well difficult and contradictory condition in contemporary architecture concerning representation and form, meaning and form.

본 논의는 필자가 경험한 다양한 생활 속에서, 즉, 일상, 영화, 학술적 문헌, 연구경험 등에서의 경험들을 기초자료로 하여, 다문화라는 특정 주제아래 성찰 중 형성된 이야기로 구성되어 있다. 이러한 이야기들을 중심으로 한국에서 급격히 진행되고 있는 다문화 현상을 이해하고자 하였다. 이를 통해 현 시류에서 논의되어야 하는 이론적 배경으로서 탈근대주의를 제안하고 있으며, 교육적 실행으로서 비판교육학의 필요성을 주장, 강조하고 있다. 본 논의가 가지고 있는 다양한 의미는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 일상적 텍스트(text)와 학문적 텍스트를 동시에 사용하여 현 시류에서 다문화에 대한 관점의 학문과 실제의 괴리를 보여주고자 하는데 의미가 있다. 이는 다문화 교육을 위해서는 선행되어야할 과제로서 현장 중심 기초연구의 필요성을 제시하고 있다. 둘째, 다양한 이론과 방법론적 ‘짜집기’를 통해 연구의 새로운 형식을 제고하고자 하였다. 즉, 영화 텍스트의 사용, 이야기방법론, 자기생애사이야기, 탈근대주의 등을 통해 기술한 탈형식적인 논의 방식은 기존의 문학과 같은 학문과 연계성을 가지고 있는 간학문간 글쓰기 양식으로서 정하여진 틀에 고정되어 있는 현 거대담론식의 논의 형식에서 탈피한 새로운 구성의 가능성을 제시하고 있다.