Matching Items (395)
Description
The end of the nineteenth century was an exhilarating and revolutionary era for the flute. This period is the Second Golden Age of the flute, when players and teachers associated with the Paris Conservatory developed what would be considered the birth of the modern flute school. In addition, the founding in 1871 of the Société Nationale de Musique by Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921) and Romain Bussine (1830-1899) made possible the promotion of contemporary French composers. The founding of the Société des Instruments à Vent by Paul Taffanel (1844-1908) in 1879 also invigorated a new era of chamber music for wind instruments. Within this groundbreaking environment, Mélanie Hélène Bonis (pen name Mel Bonis) entered the Paris Conservatory in 1876, under the tutelage of César Franck (1822-1890). Many flutists are dismayed by the scarcity of repertoire for the instrument in the Romantic and post-Romantic traditions; they make up for this absence by borrowing the violin sonatas of Gabriel Fauré (1845-1924) and Franck. The flute and piano works of Mel Bonis help to fill this void with music composed originally for flute. Bonis was a prolific composer with over 300 works to her credit, but her works for flute and piano have not been researched or professionally recorded in the United States before the present study. Although virtually unknown today in the American flute community, Bonis's music received much acclaim from her contemporaries and deserves a prominent place in the flutist's repertoire. After a brief biographical introduction, this document examines Mel Bonis's musical style and describes in detail her six works for flute and piano while also offering performance suggestions.
ContributorsDaum, Jenna Elyse (Author) / Buck, Elizabeth (Thesis advisor) / Holbrook, Amy (Committee member) / Micklich, Albie (Committee member) / Schuring, Martin (Committee member) / Norton, Kay (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
ContributorsMatthews, Eyona (Performer) / Yoo, Katie Jihye (Performer) / Roubison, Ryan (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-03-25
ContributorsHoeckley, Stephanie (Performer) / Lee, Juhyun (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-03-24
Description
In recent years, the length of time people use and keep belongings has decreased. With the acceptance of short-lived furniture and inexpensive replacements, the American mentality has shifted to thinking that discarding furniture is normal, often in the guise of recycling. Americans are addicted to landfills. The high cost of landfill real estate and other considerable ecological impacts created by the manufacturing of furniture should persuade people to give their belongings a longer life, but in reality, furniture is often prematurely discarded. This grounded theory study takes a multi-method approach to analyze why some types of furniture are kept longer and to theorize about new ways to design and sell furniture that lasts well past its warranty. Case studies bring new insight into designer intention, manufacturer intent, the world of auction-worthy collectables and heirlooms, why there is a booming second-hand furniture market and the growing importance of informed interior designers and architects who specify or help clients choose interior furnishings. An environmental life cycle assessment compares how the length of furniture life affects environmental impacts. A product's life could continue for generations if properly maintained. Designers and manufacturers hoping to promote longevity can apply the conclusions of this report in bringing new pieces to the market that have a much longer life span. This study finds areas of opportunity that promote user attachment, anticipate future repurposing, and provide services. This thinking envisions a paradigm for furniture that can re-invent itself over multiple generations of users, and ultimately lead to a new wave of desirable heirloom furniture.
ContributorsIngham, Sarah (Author) / White, Philip (Thesis advisor) / Wolf, Peter (Committee member) / Underhill, Michael (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
ContributorsMcClain, Katelyn (Performer) / Buringrud, Deanna (Contributor) / Lee, Juhyun (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-03-31
Description
The greatest challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century is our ability to reconcile the capacity of natural systems to support continued improvement in human welfare around the globe. Over the last decade, the scientific community has attempted to formulate research agendas in response to what they view as the problems of sustainability. Perhaps the most prominent and wide-ranging of these efforts has been sustainability science, an interdisciplinary, problem-driven field that seeks to address fundamental questions on human-environment interactions. This project examines how sustainability scientists grapple with and bound the deeply social, political and normative dimensions of both characterizing and pursuing sustainability. Based on in-depth interviews with leading researchers and a content analysis of the relevant literature, this project first addresses three core questions: (1) how sustainability scientists define and bound sustainability; (2) how and why various research agendas are being constructed to address these notions of sustainability; (3) and how scientists see their research contributing to societal efforts to move towards sustainability. Based on these results, the project explores the tensions between scientific efforts to study and inform sustainability and social action. It discusses the implications of transforming sustainability into the subject of scientific analysis with a focus on the power of science to constrain discourse and the institutional and epistemological contexts that link knowledge to societal outcomes. Following this analysis, sustainability science is repositioned, borrowing Herbert Simon's concept, as a "science of design." Sustainability science has thus far been too focused on understanding the "problem-space"--addressing fundamental questions about coupled human-natural systems. A new set objectives and design principles are proposed that would move the field toward a more solutions-oriented approach and the enrichment of public reasoning and deliberation. Four new research streams that would situate sustainability science as a science of design are then discussed: creating desirable futures, socio-technical change, sustainability values, and social learning. The results serve as a foundation for a sustainability science that is evaluated on its ability to frame sustainability problems and solutions in ways that make them amenable to democratic and pragmatic social action.
ContributorsMiller, Thaddeus R. (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Redman, Charles L. (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Wiek, Arnim (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Today, we use resources faster than they can be replaced. Construction consumes more resources than any other industry and has one of the largest waste streams. Resource consumption and waste generation are expected to grow as the global population increases. The circular economy (CE) is based on the concept of a closed-loop cycle (CLC) and proposes a solution that, in theory, can eliminate the environmental impacts caused by construction and demolition (C&D) waste and increase the efficiency of resources’ use. In a CLC, building materials are reused, remanufactured, recycled, and reintegrated into other buildings (or into other sectors) without creating any waste.
Designing out waste is the core principle of the CE. Design for disassembly or design for deconstruction (DfD) is the practice of planning the future deconstruction of a building and the reuse of its materials. Concepts like DfD, CE, and product-service systems (PSS) can work together to promote CLC in the built environment. PSS are business models based on stewardship instead of ownership. CE combines DfD, PSS, materials’ durability, and materials’ reuse in multiple life cycles to promote a low-carbon, regenerative economy. CE prioritizes reuse over recycling. Dealing with resource scarcity demands us to think beyond the incremental changes from recycling waste; it demands an urgent, systemic, and radical change in the way we design, build, and procure construction materials.
This dissertation aims to answer three research questions: 1) How can researchers estimate the environmental benefits of reusing building components, 2) What variables are susceptible to affect the environmental impact assessment of reuse, and 3) What are the barriers and opportunities for DfD and materials’ reuse in the current design practice in the United States.
The first part of this study investigated how different life cycle assessment (LCA) methods (i.e., hybrid LCA and process-based LCA), assumptions (e.g., reuse rates, transportation distances, number of reuses), and LCA timelines can affect the results of a closed-loop LCA. The second part of this study built on interviews with architects in the United States to understand why DfD is not part of the current design practice in the country.
Designing out waste is the core principle of the CE. Design for disassembly or design for deconstruction (DfD) is the practice of planning the future deconstruction of a building and the reuse of its materials. Concepts like DfD, CE, and product-service systems (PSS) can work together to promote CLC in the built environment. PSS are business models based on stewardship instead of ownership. CE combines DfD, PSS, materials’ durability, and materials’ reuse in multiple life cycles to promote a low-carbon, regenerative economy. CE prioritizes reuse over recycling. Dealing with resource scarcity demands us to think beyond the incremental changes from recycling waste; it demands an urgent, systemic, and radical change in the way we design, build, and procure construction materials.
This dissertation aims to answer three research questions: 1) How can researchers estimate the environmental benefits of reusing building components, 2) What variables are susceptible to affect the environmental impact assessment of reuse, and 3) What are the barriers and opportunities for DfD and materials’ reuse in the current design practice in the United States.
The first part of this study investigated how different life cycle assessment (LCA) methods (i.e., hybrid LCA and process-based LCA), assumptions (e.g., reuse rates, transportation distances, number of reuses), and LCA timelines can affect the results of a closed-loop LCA. The second part of this study built on interviews with architects in the United States to understand why DfD is not part of the current design practice in the country.
ContributorsCruz Rios, Fernanda (Author) / Grau, David (Committee member) / Chong, Oswald (Committee member) / Parrish, Kristen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This paper discusses the second phase of sustainability in the field of design and identifies the success factors of design innovation in the ethnic craft industry in northern Thailand. This study explored craftspeople’s capital, their means of developing it, and potential routes to sustainable development on the capital.
The literature review examines three topics: (1) ethnic identity and craft; (2) northern Thailand and hill tribes; and (3) design thinking, vulnerability, and resilience.
Empirical research was conducted with hill tribe craftspeople in northern Thailand. Seven types of capital—human, social, natural, physical, financial, cultural, and emotional capital—were identified through interviews and observation. Those types of capital indicated what the craftspeople wanted and needed.
The key findings were as follows: First, social capital has a close relationship with both human capital and emotional capital, indicating that for craftspeople, networks and membership ensure knowledge and increase connections with friends and family. Secondly, emotional capital is affected by financial capital. Financial capital refers to the monetary resources used to achieve craftspeople’s livelihood objectives. The craftspeople required high order volumes to earn to more money and thus improve their economic condition; they experienced more stress when order volumes were low. Third, financial capital is not related to social and cultural capital. Graphs implied certain relationship among them, with the reasons varying depending on the individual craftsperson’s environment. A high level of social and cultural capital does not affect low financial capital, and vice versa. Finally, cultural capital directly influences emotional capital because the happiness of hill tribe craftspeople is related to their identity and dignity as craftspeople.
The literature review examines three topics: (1) ethnic identity and craft; (2) northern Thailand and hill tribes; and (3) design thinking, vulnerability, and resilience.
Empirical research was conducted with hill tribe craftspeople in northern Thailand. Seven types of capital—human, social, natural, physical, financial, cultural, and emotional capital—were identified through interviews and observation. Those types of capital indicated what the craftspeople wanted and needed.
The key findings were as follows: First, social capital has a close relationship with both human capital and emotional capital, indicating that for craftspeople, networks and membership ensure knowledge and increase connections with friends and family. Secondly, emotional capital is affected by financial capital. Financial capital refers to the monetary resources used to achieve craftspeople’s livelihood objectives. The craftspeople required high order volumes to earn to more money and thus improve their economic condition; they experienced more stress when order volumes were low. Third, financial capital is not related to social and cultural capital. Graphs implied certain relationship among them, with the reasons varying depending on the individual craftsperson’s environment. A high level of social and cultural capital does not affect low financial capital, and vice versa. Finally, cultural capital directly influences emotional capital because the happiness of hill tribe craftspeople is related to their identity and dignity as craftspeople.
ContributorsLee, Hyojin (Author) / Takamura, John (Thesis advisor) / O’Neill, Gerald Daniel (Committee member) / Chhetri, Nalini (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
ContributorsHur, Jiyoun (Performer) / Lee, Juhyun (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-03-01
ContributorsZaleski, Kimberly (Contributor) / Kazarian, Trevor (Performer) / Ryan, Russell (Performer) / IN2ATIVE (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-09-28