Repetition and difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and modernity's (im)moral landscape: a commentary

Maycroft, Neil (2002) Repetition and difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and modernity's (im)moral landscape: a commentary. Ethics, Place and Environment, 5 (2). pp. 135-144. ISSN 1469-6703

Documents
Repetition and Difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and Modernity’s (Im)moral Landscape
This article engages with the relationship between social theory, architectural theory and material culture. The article is a reply to an article in a previous volume of the journal in question (Smith, M. (2001) ‘Repetition and difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and modernity’s (im)moral landscape’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 4(1), 31-34) and, consequently, is also a direct engagement with another academic's scholarship. It represents a critique of their work as well as a recasting of their ideas, arguing that the matter in question went beyond interpretative issues to a direct critique of another author's scholarship on both Le Corbusier and Lefebvre. A reply to my article from the author of the original article was carried in a later issue of the journal (Smith, M. (2002) ‘Ethical Difference(s): a Response to Maycroft on Le Corbusier and Lefebvre’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 5(3), 260-269).
[img]
[Download]
[img]
Preview
PDF
Lefebvre,_Le_Corbusier.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

113kB

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1366879022000020202

Abstract

This article engages with the relationship between social theory, architectural theory and material culture. The article is a reply to an article in a previous volume of the journal in question (Smith, M. (2001) ‘Repetition and difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and modernity’s (im)moral landscape’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 4(1), 31-34) and, consequently, is also a direct engagement with another academic's scholarship. It represents a critique of their work as well as a recasting of their ideas, arguing that the matter in question went beyond interpretative issues to a direct critique of another author's scholarship on both Le Corbusier and Lefebvre. A reply to my article from the author of the original article was carried in a later issue of the journal (Smith, M. (2002) ‘Ethical Difference(s): a Response to Maycroft on Le Corbusier and Lefebvre’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 5(3), 260-269).

Item Type:Article
Additional Information:This article engages with the relationship between social theory, architectural theory and material culture. The article is a reply to an article in a previous volume of the journal in question (Smith, M. (2001) ‘Repetition and difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and modernity’s (im)moral landscape’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 4(1), 31-34) and, consequently, is also a direct engagement with another academic's scholarship. It represents a critique of their work as well as a recasting of their ideas, arguing that the matter in question went beyond interpretative issues to a direct critique of another author's scholarship on both Le Corbusier and Lefebvre. A reply to my article from the author of the original article was carried in a later issue of the journal (Smith, M. (2002) ‘Ethical Difference(s): a Response to Maycroft on Le Corbusier and Lefebvre’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 5(3), 260-269).
Keywords:Modernity, Lefebvre, Le Corbusier, maycroft498
Subjects:K Architecture, Building and Planning > K110 Architectural Design Theory
Divisions:College of Arts > Lincoln School of Art & Design
ID Code:1259
Deposited By: Bev Jones
Deposited On:02 Oct 2007
Last Modified:13 Mar 2013 08:26

Repository Staff Only: item control page