This editors’ issue of Fabrications is primarily concerned with the anxieties aroused by migration. Aesthetic Anxiety, as described and dissected in this issue, refers to both the prevalent anxieties connected with migrant experiences of inhabitation, as well the anxieties of state protection. The theme may at first invoke aesthetic theory or critical theories related to the rise of postmodern anti-aesthetics in architecture and art, a theme explored in Architecture and Ugliness (by Wouter Van Acker and Thomas Mical, review in this issue). The theme will suggest to others an engagement with critical cultural theories. For the authors included here joining “anxiety” to “aesthetic” raises concerns related to architecture as cultural production, and how diaspora aesthetics challenge conceptions of culture or cultural particularity. Diaspora aesthetics and its interest in everyday life and actual lived social processes draws on theories that challenge “taken-for-granted” framings precisely because the diasporic is a trans-cultural and trans-national concept and serves as metaphor to rethink national boundaries of aesthetic production. The collective implication of the work presented here under the banner of Aesthetic Anxiety is that an architecture of migration involves aesthetic production and that such production disrupts the visual imaginary of national cultures. The theme aims to expand the aesthetic field of reference by shifting its focus. Informed by key theoretical developments in cultural studies and the social sciences – notably those connected with the work and legacy of Stuart Hall, Pierre Bourdieu and James Clifford – architectural historians have revised their approach to architectural historiography. Gülsüm Baydar’s theoretical reflection on cultural particularity mobilises a critique of conventional, canonical framings and their systematic dependence on architectural categorisation. Anthony King’s work revises architecture within the rise of globalisation, and outlines ways to analyse ethno-burbs and their links tomigration histories. Two key anthologies –Drifting: Architecture andMigrancy (Cairns 2004) and Ethnoarchitecture and the politics of migration (Lozanovska 2016) outline the breadth of the field and highlight key research areas. Why “anxiety”? Migration gives rise to fears about security and territory revealing ways that diversity, identity and cultural production are entangled with protective narratives of the nation-state. Aesthetic judgements of migrant architecture are key to this fear. In the late 1980s, published during the heyday of multicultural policy in Australia, Judith Vulker proposed topics for debate FABRICATIONS 2020, VOL. 30, NO. 2, 149–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930

中文翻译：

---

审美焦虑

本期《Fabrications》编辑主要关注移民引起的焦虑。正如本期所描述和剖析的那样，审美焦虑既指与移民居住经历相关的普遍焦虑，也指国家保护的焦虑。该主题可能首先会援引与建筑和艺术中后现代反美学兴起相关的美学理论或批判理论，这是在《建筑与丑陋》中探讨的主题（Wouter Van Acker 和 Thomas Mical，本期评论）。该主题将建议其他人参与批判性文化理论。对于此处包括的作者而言，将“焦虑”与“美学”结合起来引发了对作为文化生产的建筑的关注，以及散居美学如何挑战文化或文化特殊性的概念。散居美学及其对日常生活和实际生活社会过程的兴趣借鉴了挑战“理所当然”框架的理论，正是因为散居是一种跨文化和跨国概念，并作为重新思考美学的国界的隐喻生产。在此以审美焦虑为旗帜的作品的集体含义是，移民建筑涉及审美生产，而这种生产破坏了民族文化的视觉想象。该主题旨在通过转移焦点来扩展美学参考领域。了解文化研究和社会科学的关键理论发展——特别是与斯图尔特·霍尔的工作和遗产相关的那些，皮埃尔·布迪厄 (Pierre Bourdieu) 和詹姆斯·克利福德 (James Clifford) – 建筑历史学家已经修改了他们的建筑史学方法。Gülsüm Baydar 对文化特殊性的理论反思激发了对传统规范框架及其对建筑分类的系统依赖的批判。Anthony King 的作品在全球化的兴起中修正了建筑，并概述了分析民族郊区及其与移民历史的联系的方法。两本关键选集——漂移：建筑与移民（凯恩斯 2004 年）和民族建筑与移民政治（Lozanovska 2016 年）概述了该领域的广度并突出了关键研究领域。何为“焦虑”？移民引起对安全和领土的担忧，这揭示了多样性、身份和文化生产与民族国家的保护性叙事纠缠在一起。对移民建筑的审美判断是这种恐惧的关键。在 1980 年代后期，在澳大利亚多元文化政策的鼎盛时期发表，Judith Vulker 提出了辩论主题 FABRICATIONS 2020, VOL。30，没有。2, 149–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2020.1757930