請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/20066完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 畢恆達(Herng-Dar Bih) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ke-Run Li | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李可潤 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T02:39:32Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2020-11-13 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2020-10-22 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 刁穎(2010)《塗鴉壁畫對公共空間的視覺效應研究》。中國西南大學碩士學位論文。 王志弘(2003)<臺北市文化治理的性質與轉變1967-2002>。《臺灣社會研究季刊》,52,121-186。 王志弘(2010)<文化如何治理? 一個分析架構的概念性探討>。《世新人文社會學報》,11,1-38。 王志弘(2011a)<文化治理、地域發展與空間政治>。《文化治理與空間政治》。群學。 王志弘(2011b)<文化治理是不是關鍵詞?>。《臺灣社會研究季刊》,82,205-212。 王志弘(2012a)<新文化治理體制與國家–社會關係:剝皮寮的襲產化>。《世新人文社會學報》,13,31-70。 王志弘(2012b)<臺北市人行空間治理與徒步移動性>。《臺灣社會研究季刊》,88,1-40。 王志弘(2014)<文化治理的內蘊衝突與政治折衝>。《思與言:人文與社會科學雜誌》,52(4),65-109。 王志弘(2015)< 領域化與網絡化的多重張力:「地方」概念的理論性探討>。《城市與設計學報》,23,71-100。 王明嘉(1995)<從視覺影像到視覺意義>。《藝術家雜誌》,261-265。 牛瑋瑋(2011)<對大字報研究的回顧>。《今傳媒》,19(1),137-138。 方孝謙(1999)<什麼是再現?跨學門觀點初探>。《新聞學研究》,60,115-148。 田穀(1992)<「塗鴉」:一種病態社會文化現象>。《理論觀察》,3,47-48。 西朔(1985)<紐約壁書主義:邊陲藝術、地下藝術與21世紀新俚語>。《時報雜誌》,272,39-43。 向勇(2019)<創意旅遊:地方創生視野下的文旅融合>。《人民論壇·學術前沿》,11,64-70。 李美蓉(1988)<塗鴉藝術從何來?>。《現代美術》,19,46。 李美蓉(2001)<反文化到藝術主流之一:紐約塗鴉藝術>。《美育》,123,46-57。 李煒(2007)《塗鴉藝術與公共空間》。中央美術學院碩士學位論文。 呂虹(2008)《「塗鴉」:公共空間的私人表達》。北京大學碩士學位論文。 吳文光(2000)<藝術家現場:訪問張大力>。《今日先鋒》,9。 吳彥明(2011)<治理 [文化治理]: 傅柯, 班奈特與王志弘>。《臺灣社會研究季刊》,82,171-204。 周尚意、楊鴻雁、孔翔(2011)<地方性形成機制的結構主義與人文主義分析:以798和M50兩個藝術區在城市地方性塑造中的作用為例>。《地理研究》,30(09),1566-1576。 徐志堅(2001)《走近壁畫·壁畫創作與設計》。福建美術出版社。 秦情(1985)<壁書藝術:從紐約到臺北>。《時報雜誌》,272,37-38。 夏鑄九(1993)《公共空間》。臺北市: 行政院文化建設委員會。 畢恆達 (1993)<物的意義-一個交互論的觀點>。《國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報》, 7,97-110。 畢恆達、郭一勤、夏瑞媛(2008)<台灣的街頭塗鴉文化>。《臺灣社會研究季刊》,70, 79-12。 陳重成(2010)<全球化語境下的本土化論述形式: 建構多元地方感的彩虹文化>。《遠景基金會季刊》,11(4),43-96。 許巖(2017)《淺談中西方塗鴉異同及啟發》。北京服裝學院學位論文。 黃文定(2011)< 跨越都會多重邊界: 從 HA Giroux 邊界教育學探究後塗鴉文化在課程與教學上的意涵>。《 課程與教學》,14,1-25。 黃海紅(2009)<從媒介傳播看文革時期大字報的異化>。《東南傳播》,7,127-128。 喬丹(2013)《從美國早期塗鴉到柏林牆藝術的價值轉變》。東北師範大學學位論文。 楊熾宏(1985)<在牆壁上塗寫的藝術GRAFFITI>。《藝術家》,116,78-82。 塗芝瑄、葉房蒲(2017)<塗鴉系譜學:畢恆達在南方鬼飛踢>。《文化研究季刊》, 158。 廖凰玎(2011),<淺論都市治理之法規與政策以臺北市街頭藝人為例>。《文化軌跡—文化治理的挑戰與創新國際研討會論文集》。國立臺灣藝術大學藝術與文化政策研究所。 樊清熹(2013)《後現代視角下的塗鴉藝術研究》。武漢理工大學學位論文。 劉若辰(2005)<大字報中的傳播變異及權力關係>。《華南農業大學學報(社會科學版)》,2,100-104。 劉俊裕(2007)<文化全球化:一種在地化的整合式思維與實踐>。《國際文化研究》,3(1),1-30。 劉望(2010)<論現代塗鴉藝術的返璞歸真>。《大舞臺》,5,107-108。 劉雅鳴、史林靜(2018)<改革開放40週年·「刷」在農村牆上的時代變遷>。《新華每日電訊草地週刊》, 9。 劉麗群(2015)《從文化角度分析班克西的範本塗鴉作品中的社會發聲》。廣東外語外貿大學學位論文。 魏敏瑩、劉雲剛(2018)<1990年代以來廣州城市塗鴉空間的形成與嬗變:基於空間生產的視角>。《人文地理》,33(2),43-49。 羅平漢(2004)<大字報的興衰>。《檔案》,1,36-38。 Abel, E. L., Buckley, B. E. (1977). The handwriting on the wall: Toward a sociology and psychology of graffiti . Praeger. Alderman, D. H. (2002). Writing on the Graceland wall: On the importance of authorship in pilgrimage landscapes. Tourism Recreation Research, 27(2), 27-33. Armheim, R.(1998)《藝術與視知覺》(滕守堯、朱疆源譯)。四川人民出版社。 Austin, J. (2001). Taking the train: How graffiti art became an urban crisis in New York City. Columbia University Press. Ball, D., Snizek, W. (2006). Desk top graffiti: An unobtrusive measure of student culture and campus climate. National Social Sciences Perspectives Journal, 32(1), 5-13. Bang, H. P. (2004). Culture governance: Governing self‐reflexive modernity. Public Administration, 82(1), 157-190. Barker, C.(2008)《文化研究理論與實踐》(羅世宏等譯)。五南。 Becker, H. A. (1982). Art worlds. University of California Press. Benn, S. I., Gaus, G. F. (Eds.). (1983). Public and private in social life. Taylor Francis. Bennett, T. (1992).Putting policy into cultural studies. In L. Grossberg., C. Nelson P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 23-37). Routledge. Bloch, S. (2016). Why do graffiti writers write on murals? The birth, life, and slow death of freeway murals in Los Angeles. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(2), 451-471. Boyer, M. C. (1993). The city of illusion: New York's public places. In P. L. Knox (Ed.). The restless urban landscape (pp. 111-126). Prentice Hall. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Wiley. Clark, J. (1998). Medern Asian art. University of Hawaii Press. Cole, C. M. (1991). Oh wise women of the stalls...'. Discourse Society, 2(4), 401-411. Collingwood, R. G.(1987)《藝術原理》(王至元、陳華中譯)。中國社會科學出版社。 Cooke, P. (Ed.). (1989). Localities : The Changing Face of Urban Britain. Unwin Hyman. Crang, M.(2003)《文化地理學》(楊淑華、宋慧敏譯)。南京大學出版社。 Cresswell, T. (1992). The crucial ’where’ of graffiti: A geographical analysis of reactions to graffiti in New York. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10(3), 329-344. Cresswell, T.(2006)《地方》(徐苔玲、王志弘譯)。群學。 Cresswell, T. (1996). In place/out of place: Geography, ideology and transgression. University of Minnesota Press. Curtis, A., Mills, J. W. (2011). Crime in urban post-disaster environments: A methodological framework from New Orleans. Urban Geography, 32(4), 488-510. Dean, M. (2003). Cultural governance and individualization. In H. P. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication (pp. 117-139). Manchester University Press. Dennant, P. (1997). Urban expression... urban assault... urban wildstyle... New York City graffiti. American studies project, Thames Valley University, London. Dickens, L. (2008). Placing post-graffiti: The journey of the Peckham Rock. Cultural Geographies, 15, 471-496. Doran, B. J., Lees, B. G. (2005). Investigating the spatiotemporal links between disorder, crime, and the fear of crime. The Professional Geographer, 57(1), 1-12. Evans, G. (2016). Graffiti art and the city: From piece-making to place-making. In H, I. Ross (Ed.), Routledge handbook of graffiti and street art (pp. 168-182). Routledge. Eyles, J. (1985). Senses of place. Silverbrook Press. Farnia, M. (2014). A thematic analysis of graffiti on the university classroom walls: A case of Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(3), 48-57. Feldman, E. B. (1971). Varieties of visual experience: Art as image and idea. Abrams. Feldman, E. B. (1992). Varieties of visual experience. Abrams. Ferrell, J. (1996). Crimes of style: Urban graffiti and the politics of criminality. Northeastern University Press. Ferrell, J., Weide, R. D. (2010). Spot theory. City, 14(1/2), 48-62. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. Routledge. Foote, K. E. (1988). Object as memory: The material foundations of human semiosis. Semiotica, 69(3-4), 243-268. Foucault, M. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M., Miskowiec, J. (1986). Of other spaces. Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80. Ganz, N. (2004). Graffiti world. Thames Hudson. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books. Gumprecht, B. (2007). The campus as a public space in the American college town. Journal of Historical Geography, 33(1), 72-103. Habermas, J. (1991) The structural transformation of the public sphere. The MIT Press. Habermas, J.(1999)《公共領域的結構轉型》(曹衛東等譯)。學林出版社。 Halsey, M., Young, A. (2006). Our desires are ungovernable: Writing graffiti in urban space. Theoretical Criminology, 10(3), 275-306. Harcourt, B. E. (2009). Illusion of order: The false promise of broken windows policing. Harvard University Press. Harris, R. (1995). Signs of Writing. Routledge. Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. American Geographical Society. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. University of California Press. Harvey, D. (2001). Globalization and the ’spatial fix’. Geographische Revue, 3(2), 23-30. Henderson, G. (2009). Placelessness. In John, R., et. al. (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (pp. 539-541). Blackwell. Hertzberger, H.(2008)《建築學教程: 空間與建築師》(劉大馨、古紅纓譯)。天津大學出版社。 Iveson, K. (2007). Publics and the city. Blackwell. Iveson, K. (2010). The wars on graffiti and the new military urbanism. City, 14(1-2), 115-134. Jorgensen, B. S., Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233-248. Keizer, K., Linderbert, S., Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322(5908), 1681-1685. Kohn, M. (2004). Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. Routledge. Kramer, R. (2017). The rise of legal graffiti writing in New York and beyond. Springer. Kriegel, L. (1993). City living: Graffiti: Tunnel notes of a New Yorker. The American Scholar, 62(3), 431-436. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Basil Blackwell. Lofland, L. H. (2017). The public realm: Exploring the city's quintessential social territory. Routledge. Manco, T. (2004). Street logos. Thames Hudson. Massey, D. (1997). Power geometry and progressive sense of place. In J. Bird (Eds.), Mapping the future: Local cultures global change (pp. 59-69). Taylor Francis. McAuliffe, C. (2012). Graffiti or street art? Negotiating the moral geographies of the creative city. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(2), 189-206. Nwoye, O. G. (1993). Social issues on walls: Graffiti in university lavatories. Discourse Society, 4(4), 419-442. Pan, L. (2014a). Who is occupying wall and street: graffiti and urban spatial politics in contemporary China. Continuum: Journal of Media Cultural Studies, 28(1), 136-153. Pan, L. (2014b). Writing at the end of history: reflections on two cases of graffiti in Hong Kong. Public Art Dialogue, 4(1), 147-166. Phillips, S. A. (1999). Wallbangin': Graffiti and gangs in LA. The University of Chicago Press. Phillips, S. A. (2016). Deconstructing gang graffiti. In J. I. Ross (Ed.), Routledge handbook of graffiti and street art (pp. 88-100). Routledge. Phillips, S. A. W. (1996). Graffiti. In J. Turner (Ed.), The dictionary of art . Grove. Reisner, R. G., Wechsler, L. (Eds.), (1974). Encyclopedia of graffiti. MacMillan. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion. Richardson, D. (1999) Is graffiti art? The Annual World Congress of the International Society for Education Through Art, Brisbane, Australia. Rodriguez, A. Clair, R. (1999). Graffiti as communication: Exploring the discursive tensions of anonymous texts. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 1–15. Ross (Ed.).(2016). Routledge handbook of graffiti and street art (pp. 168-182). Routledge. Ruppert, E. S. (2006). Rights to public space: Regulatory reconfigurations of liberty. Urban Geography, 27(3), 271-292. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603-651. Schacter, R. (2016). Graffiti and street art as ornament. In J. I. Ross (Ed.), Routledge handbook of graffiti and street art (pp. 181-197). Routledge. Scheepers, I. (2004). Graffiti and urban space. University of Sydney. Snyder, G. J. (2011). Graffiti lives: Beyond the tag in New York’s urban underground. New York University Press. Snyder, G. J. (2016). Long live the tag: Representing the foundations of graffiti. In Avramidis, K., Tsilimpounidi, M., (Eds.), Graffiti and Street Art(pp. 264-273). Routledge. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell. Soja, E. W. (2013). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press. Steele, F. (1981). The sense of place. CBI. Taylor, R. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Westview Press. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press. Tuan, Y. F. (1990). Topophilia: A study of environmental perceptions, attitudes, and values. Columbia University Press. Valjakka, M. (2013). Graffiti in China–Chinese Graffiti?. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 29(1), 61-91. Valjakka, M. (2015). Negotiating spatial politics: Site-responsive urban art images in mainland China. China Information, 29(2), 253-281. Valjakka, M. (2016a). Claiming spaces for urban art images in Beijing and Shanghai. In J. I. Ross (Ed.), Routledge handbook of graffiti and street art (pp. 397-411). Routledge. Valjakka, M. (2016b). Contesting transcultural trends: Emerging self-identities and urban art images in Hong Kong. In J. I. Ross (Ed.), Routledge handbook of graffiti and street art (pp. 412-428). Routledge. Van Loon, J. (2014). ‘Just writing your name?’ An analysis of the spatial behaviour of graffiti writers in Amsterdam. Belgeo. Revue belge de géographie, 3, 1-17. Waclawek, A.(2015)《塗鴉與街頭藝術》(趙成清譯)。上海人民出版社。 Walzer, M. (1986). The politics of Michel Foucault In D. C. Hoy (Ed.), Foucault: A critical reader (pp. 51-68). Blackwell. Weisel, D. L. (2009). Graffiti, problem-oriented guides for police. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Wilson, J. Q., Kelling, G. L. (1982).Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 3, 29-38. Young, A. (2010). Negotiated consent or zero tolerance? Responding to graffiti and street art in Melbourne. City, 14(1/2), 99-114. Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Blackwell. CS老徐(2013年5月26日)。「紙上談兵」。2019年8月12日,取自:https://weibo.com/p/1005051356715437/home?is_search=0 visible=0 is_all=1 is_tag=0 profile_ftype=1 page=8#_rnd1591864732213。 七月之歌-翔(2013年6月14日)。隧道塗鴉修復之我見。2019年8月12日,取自:https://weibo.com/p/1005052474235192/home?profile_ftype=1 is_all=1 is_search=1 key_word=隧道塗鴉修復之我見#_0。 王東城(2014年10月5日)。廈大芙蓉隧道塗鴉是否抹白引爭議,遊客影響正常通行。2019年8月15日,取自:http://www.mnw.cn。 共青團廈門大學委員會(2012年6月06日)。關於舉辦「廈門大學2012年畢業季塗鴉活動」的通知。2019年8月15日,取自:https://tw.xmu.edu.cn/32/05/c3487a78341/page.htm。 宋權爽(2013年5月22日a)。芙蓉隧道對於我們到底意味著什麼。2020年2月20日,取自:http://www.renren.com/251757474/profile。 宋權爽(2013年5月24日b)。駁《請不要「保護」塗鴉牆》。2020年2月20日,取自:http://www.renren.com/251757474/profile。 李澤正,周拙恒(2013年6月14日)。隧道風波一廈門大學芙蓉隧道塗鴉事件。2019年8月31日,取自:http://www.ibeidou.org/posts/52c6a3cfd4579b4ea6025b6f。 吳奕婧(2013年4月9日)。誰家的芙蓉隧道。2018年8月12日,取自:https://feelyoung.xmu.edu.cn/info/1010/1172.htm。 沈宇波、陳遙(2015年11月11日)。廈門大學限遊引熱議 記者體驗美麗校園「人性化管理」。2018年8月12日,取自:http://www.mnw.cn/。 袁青青、吳雪瑩(2014年8月27日)。廈大芙蓉隧道塗鴉「我愛你,再見」遭千次毒手。2019年8月18日,取自:http://news.163.com/14/0827/12/A4LH71T400014AEE.html。 許雪毅(2014年8月25日)。「最文藝隧道」遇「到此一遊」:芙蓉隧道遭亂塗。2019年8月21日,取自:http://www.http://m.fznews.com.cn/dsxw/2014-8-25/2014825MGtRGvLYDD21849_4.shtml。 陳鵬程(2019年12月16日)。遊客「到此一遊」後,廈大超美校景慘遭「毒手」!如何保護?校方說…。2020年3月25日,取自:https://www.sohu.com/a/360768964_404519。 黃昕宇(2018年12月20日)。被告席上的塗鴉青年。2020年6月26日,取自:https://www.jiemian.com/article/2725246_qq.html。 馮誠(2013年5月21日a)。廈大的領導請將校園還於學生。2020年2月20日,取自:http://www.renren.com/23908173/profile。 馮誠(2013年5月24日b)。請不要「保護」塗鴉牆。2020年2月20日,取自:http://www.renren.com/23908173/profile。 馮誠(2013年5月25日c)。關於塗鴉牆的最後一文。2020年2月20日,取自:http://www.renren.com/23908173/profile。 馮誠(2013年5月27日d)。關於芙蓉隧道520。2020年2月20日,取自:http://www.renren.com/23908173/profile。 喬陽(2013年5月25日)。關於「芙蓉隧道」事件與「保護塗鴉」的幾點想法。2020年2月25日,取自:https://www.jianshu.com/p/1Yy5yi。 雷妤(2014年1月1日)。「最文藝的隧道」遭惡意塗鴉引公憤:廈大學生呼籲文明觀光。2020年2月20日,取自:http://www.qlwb.com.cn/2014/0101/74708.shtml。 賈葭(2015年11月7日)。花20塊進門的大學永遠不配一流。2018年8月12日,取自:http://dajia.qq.com/blog/487050058164224。 曹熠婕(2014年1月16日)。回首廈大「限遊」這一年。2020年6月17日,取自:https://baowei.xmu.edu.cn/0a/88/c572a2696/page.htm。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/20066 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 塗鴉藉助嘻哈文化的全球化傳入中國,結合中國固有的塗鴉意識,逐步形成具有本土特徵的中國塗鴉形制。在中國,塗鴉被去污名化,大多數時候官方成爲塗鴉活動的組織者,塗鴉精神已逐步消失。中國塗鴉是缺乏組織與系統化的公共藝術行為。研究基於治理工具化、合法化、地方感(性)與空間公共性等視角出發,發展出「塗鴉治理術」的分析概念。因此本研究以廈門大學隧道空間為對象、媒介和場域,釐清知識生產、權力施展和行為規訓的運作。 塗鴉的低成本、藝術性、視覺衝擊力等特質,在中國成為活化空間、城市治理、事件記錄的工具,也被作為地方創生的一種手段。廈大芙蓉隧道塗鴉匯集了各種塗鴉的樣式,且塗鴉客的動機也不同。官方在不同階段對隧道塗鴉有著不同的想象,從功能性意義轉變為行銷學校的一種方式。亦即芙蓉隧道聚集了中國大部分塗鴉相關議題。隧道塗鴉充当了美化空間的工具,既是塗鴉者生命經驗的再現,同時也是大眾與官方共同參與地方創生的結果。塗鴉是作為街頭藝術的一種形式,被官方徵用與收編,成為為國家治理,鞏固政權的工具。 在中國,官方控制了公共空間的話語權。具有公共屬性的大學校園,其圍牆切割了其與社會的關聯,呈現出相對封閉的空間,也隱喻著管理者對校園空間權力的主張和邊界安全的焦慮感。廈大校園的空間管制,並不是開放與限制的二元對立關係,兩者是社會行動者之間的不斷互動、思辨與協商,從而探尋出理性的「邊界」。「邊界」不一定是空間維度的物質性邊界,可能是時間維度的邊界,或者是規模邊界。所以廈大校園空間的衝突不僅表現在物理空間的衝突,還體現在不同階段遊客對空間環境的「破壞」或不文明的行為。大多數師生、媒體、社會大眾認為這種行為是破壞學校的公共資源。然而,從塗鴉定義的視角理解該行為則是一種對話的機制。 隧道塗鴉牆被官方徵用作為政績宣傳欄,表象上是塗鴉牆被破壞和隧道空間内的衝突誘發的因素,實際上是官方重塑隧道空間的權屬,並藉由隧道塗鴉的影響力強化宣傳的屬性。官方行為引發大衆的抵制,反對其意識形態的注入和野蠻式行為,最終公共輿論和公眾參與阻止該事件的發生。事件也引發了大眾對隧道塗鴉的屬性、保存、修復措施、權屬等問題的討論。研究發現塗鴉被「破壞」嚴重的現象,出現了「秩序黨」、「挺修派」、「自由派」等三種因應破壞現象的行動主體。爭論的焦點是隧道塗鴉牆是否應該保持自由塗鴉的權力。在中國,個體權利不被主張狀況下,官方建構一種意識形態的社會秩序和集體利益優先的意識,事實上大眾參與才是隧道塗鴉的重要組成部分。 不同時期的隧道塗鴉規則決定了行動者地方生產,同時也促使了隧道地方身份的轉變。研究發現政府和校方是隧道塗鴉的實際推手,一方面是吸引更多的觀光客,成為行銷廈門和廈大的工具;另一方面大肆批評訪客對塗鴉的破壞,發佈了限制遊客的嚴苛規章制度。研究發現隧道塗鴉地方或地方感的生產過程,受到社會結構和個體行動者的共同影響,難以剝離開。隧道塗鴉地方感的形塑經歷了校方引導、學生自發、訪客互動、校方管制措施等幾個階段力量的運作。從人文主義視角而言,個人情感是受到了新世代情感記憶、塗鴉或媒體再現、消費文化等因素的影響。從社會建構視角而言,政府的城市定位和校方管制措施的影響,而校方在不同階段也呈現出對塗鴉的不同態度。 另外,研究發現隧道塗鴉建構的地方與地方感概念是由身體操演的地方與地方感再現、根植性與身體移動性、全球與地方等三種張力的組裝。此外,廈大元素的文創產品作為地方感的延續,此時的地方感不再受到時空的限制,建構了行動者與隧道塗鴉的連結。實際上文創產品是反映在行動者中新世代群體與塗鴉再現校園生活記憶的關聯,是新世代共同記憶的生產與再生產。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Graffiti are highly controversial urban social phenomenon, and the focus of controversy is about the crossing, deconstruction and reshaping of boundaries. This study takes Xiamen University Furong Tunnel graffiti as the research object, and proposes the analytic framework of 'Graffiti Governance' based on the perspectives of governance instrumentalization, legalization, sense of place and space publicity. Popular graffiti have been a Chinese tradition, in which wall slogans, big-character posters and graffiti use the wall as the carrier. Slogans and big-character posters help the government carry out its policy role. The slogan plays an important role in the development of Chinese society and records the changes of the times. The emergence of slogans shows the need for official rule and the development of communication tools. The big-character poster becomes a weapon utilized by people in the political fight to seek personal political gain. Graffiti are a product of the globalization of hip-hop culture as they were introduced into China. Together with China’s inherent graffiti awareness, they gradually formed a graffiti presentation with local characteristics. In China, graffiti have been de-stigmatized and most of graffiti activities are officially organized, while the original spirit of graffiti has gradually disappeared, as there is a lack of organized and systematic public art activities. The low cost of graffiti changes the space environment. Combined with strong visual impact, it can become a means of place making, as well as a tool for space activation, urban governance and event recording. The Furong Tunnel graffiti are a collection of different graffiti styles reflecting various motivations from the authors. Officials, at different stages, have different expectations for tunnel graffiti, ranging from graffiti’s basic functionality to a tool for branding the university. The Furong Tunnel gathers all the graffiti-related issues in China. Graffiti are a tool to beautify the tunnel space, it is also the reproduction of the graffiti's own life experience, and the tool and result of the public and the official participation in place making. Graffiti, as a form of street art, are utilized by the government to govern the country and consolidate its ruling power. In China, the officials are in control of public space. University campus space shows a phenomenon of restriction and closure, which reflects administrators' sense of anxiety about campus space power and border security. The spatial control of Xiamen University campus is not about a binary opposition between openness and restriction. The two are in constant interaction, speculation and negotiation between actors, so as to explore rational 'boundaries'. The 'boundary' is not necessarily the physical boundary of the spatial dimension, but may also be the boundary of the time dimension, or the boundary of scale. The space conflict on the Xiamen University campus is a physical space conflict or an act of 'destroying' the graffiti of the tunnel by tourists. Most teachers and students, the media, and the general public believe that it is destroying the school’s public resources. The behavior in graffiti is defined as a mechanism for dialogue.. The destruction of the graffiti wall and a large number of conflicts caused by crowds have become the reason for the official requisition of the graffiti wall and an opportunity for the government to control the public space and use tunnel graffiti to promote political achievements. The official actions lead to conflict, and the public opposes the infusion of official ideology and barbaric behavior. Public opinion and public participation prevented it from happening. The result of the event also prompted public discussion on the attributes, preservation issues, restoration measures, ownership and other issues of tunnel graffiti. The study has found that graffiti have been severely 'destroyed', and there have been three main actors in response to the phenomenon of destruction, including the 'Party of Order', the 'Supporters', and the 'Liberals'. The focus of the argument is the right to draw the graffiti freely on the graffiti wall. In China, individual rights are suppressed, giving way to the social order and collective interests established by the government. In fact, public participation is an important part of tunnel graffiti. The social structure of tunnel graffiti in different periods determines the local production of the actors and also promotes the transformation of the local identity of the tunnel. The government and the university promoted the graffiti in the tunnel. On the one hand, they try to attract more tourists to Xiamen City and Xiamen University; On the other hand, they protect the graffiti by criticizing visitors for vandalizing the graffiti and restricting visitors. The study has found that the production process of tunnel graffiti or sense of place is influenced by social structure and individual actors. The sense of place of tunnel graffiti is composed of school guidance, students' spontaneity, visitors' interaction and school control measures. From the perspective of humanism, personal emotions are influenced by generations of emotional memory, graffiti or media representation, consumer culture and other factors. From the perspective of social construction, the city positioning and control measures of the municipal government and the school are influenced, and the school presents different attitudes towards graffiti at different stages. In addition, the study has found that the concept of place and sense of place constructed by tunnel graffiti is the assembly of three tensions, namely, sense of place and representation of sense of place, rootedness and body mobility, and the global and the local. In addition, the cultural and creative products of Xiamen University are the continuation of the sense of place, which is no longer limited by time and space, and it constructs a connection between the actors and the tunnel graffiti. In fact, the products created above are reflected in the association between the new generation group of actors and the memory of school life reproduced by graffiti, and are the production and reproduction of the common memory of the new generation. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T02:39:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2110202016552600.pdf: 9892973 bytes, checksum: cc1a217ce3235e83ecd520ccdb19c2d6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 II 摘要 IV 目錄 IX 圖目錄 XI 第一章 導論 1 第一節 塗鴉之謎:反叛、街頭藝術與治理工具 1 第二節 文獻探討 2 第三節 問題意識與研究架構 29 第二章 工具化:中國塗鴉的發展脈絡 41 第一節 傳統壁畫塗鴉 41 第二節 站在牆上的歷史 42 第三節 中國塗鴉的類目 51 第四節 隧道塗鴉的地方創生 67 第五節 小結:中國塗鴉大眾與官方的協商 71 第三章 公共空間公共性:隧道塗鴉的空間實踐 75 第一節 社會行動的校園空間實踐 75 第二節 公共空間實踐衝突 78 第三節 隧道空間政治化 82 第四節 隧道塗鴉的異化 88 第五節 小結:管制下公共空間的塗鴉行動 93 第四章 地方感:塗鴉地方的社會建構論 96 第一節 塗鴉地方身份的建構 96 第二節 隧道塗鴉的地方感與地方性 104 第三節 塗鴉的集體記憶 113 第四節 小結:重塑隧道塗鴉的地方感 122 第五章 合法性:管理制度下行動者的協商 125 第一節 「被污染」的塗鴉 125 第二節 隧道塗鴉屬性之辯 136 第三節 社會行動的互動、思辨與協商 148 第四節 隧道塗鴉的權屬與管理 153 第五節 小結:建構塗鴉的社會秩序 160 第六章 結論:芙蓉隧道塗鴉空間的爭奪 162 參考文獻 166 附錄1 訪談對象的相關資料 174 附錄2 芙蓉隧道塗鴉全部塗鴉 176 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 廈門大學芙蓉隧道塗鴉的治理、認同與地方 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Governance, Identity and Place of Furong Tunnel Graffiti in Xiamen University | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 109-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王志弘(Chih-hung Wang),康旻杰(Min Jay KANG),方念萱(Nien-Hsuan Fang),邱啟新(Chih-Sin Chiu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 塗鴉治理術,身體移動性,地方性,地方創生,空間實踐, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | graffiti governance,body mobility,locality,place making,space practice, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 181 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202004302 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2020-10-22 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 建築與城鄉研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 建築與城鄉研究所 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2110202016552600.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 9.66 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
