Vestnik MGSU 1/2013
  • Skopina Maria Valentinovna - Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (NNGASU) Candidate of Architectural Sciences, Senior Lecturer; +7 (831) 430-54-92, Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (NNGASU), 65 Il’inskaya St., Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russian Federation; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pages 66-71

In the first part of the article, notions of «τόπος» and «hora» are opposed as the archetypes of «the place». For example, a more exact size of a place (the size that appeals to the characteristics of “topos”) can be defined using cartographical terms measured a priori or through the connection with other places. As for the size of “hora”, it is characterized by a certain degree of relativity. In the second part of the article, subjective and objective connections of a person and a place are analyzed. Etienne Souriau`s point of view is cited as an example. According to his opinion, a certain part of the space can represent a place on condition that it is the subject of cognition. Also, Georges Perec`s view is considered, according to which a measurable size of a place doesn`t always coincide with a perceptional, tangible size (which is a characteristic of “hora”). A similar reflection can be found in Martin Heidegger`s, Maurice Merleau-Ponty`s, Georges Didi-Huberman`s researches. Positions of representatives of the humanistic geography are studied. They believe that a place has a size of “hora”, not a topographical size. That is, a place is determined not through geographical coordinates (a position in space) but through the meaning which people attribute to a certain part of space.The third part of the article has the author’s reflections about the fact that the 20th century brought the notion of «non-place» as opposed to the notion of «place». This term was introduced by French anthropologist Marc Augé. The notion of «non-place» is opposed to the notion of «anthropological place» (lieu antropologique), that is opposed to the place which has anthropological characteristics. «Non-places» are spaces without their own sense and purpose. They give rise to new scales of communication, relations and movements in the post-industrial society.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2013.1.66-71

  1. Rey-Debove J. and Rey A., editors. Le nouveau petit Robert. Paris, Dictionnaire Le Robert, 2000, 2949 p.
  2. Berque A. Les raisons du paysage. Paris, Hazan Publ., 1995, 192 p.
  3. Souriau Å., Souriau A. Vocabulaire d’esth?tique. Paris, PUF Publ., 2010, 1472 p.
  4. Malnic E. Folies de jardin. Paris, Ch?ne Publ., 1996, 143 p.
  5. Yi-Fu Tuan. Espace et lieu; la perspective de l’exp?rience. Paris, Infolio Publ., 220 ð.
  6. Martin Heidegger. Stroit’, zhit’, myslit’. [To Building, to Live, to Deliberate]. Essais et conf?rences (1958). Traduit de l’allemand par Andr? Pr?au. Gallimard Publ., Paris, 2003, pp. 182—183.
  7. Merleau-Ponty M. L’oeil et l’esprit. Paris, Gallimard, 2007, 93 p.
  8. Aug? Ì. Non-lieux, introduction ? une antropologie de la surmodernit?. Paris, Seuil Publ., 1992, 155 p.


Results 1 - 1 of 1