تأمّلی بر بنیانهای معرفت شناختی معماری معاصر

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشجوی دوره تخصصی دکتری معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

یکی از مباحثی که هنر و معماری سال های اخیر را به لحاظ مبانی نظری تحت الشعاع قرار داده، مباحث مرتبط با دانش"معرفت شناسی" و زیرشاخه های آن می باشد."نسبیّت شناخت" از مهم ترین مباحث مطرح در قلمرو معرفت شناسیِ هنر معاصر می باشد که با مسائلی نظیر تعیین جایگاه پدید آور اثر هنری، مخاطب اثر، چگونگی شکلگیری فرآیند فهم اثر و تعیین سهم هر یک در ب هوجود آمدن واقعه فهم مرتبط می شود. این مسائل ریشه در حوزه ای از معرفت شناسی تحت عنوان"معرفت شناسیِ متن" دارند که امروزه بیش از سایر زیرشاخه های معرفت شناسی، در زیرشاخه هرمنوتیک و به طور خاص هرمنوتیک مدرن نمود یافته است. مطابق با آخرین نظریاتی که در حوزه "معرفت شناسیِ متن" ارائه شده، همه فهم‌ها متأثر از پی شداوریِ مفسرین هستند و پی شداوری ها متأثر از سنت و تاریخ هستند. سنت و تاریخ هم در فراشدی سیال درحال تغییر دائم بوده، فاقد ثبات و ایستای یاند. طبق این نگاه، هر نوع ابژه ای از جمله ابژه های معماری باید متناسب با این فراشدِ سیال ارائه شده، از هندسه هایی در طراحی آثار معماری استفاده شود که متناظر با اصل "نسبیت شناخت" باشند. در این مقاله ضمن اتخاذ رویکردی تاریخی – تفسیری با بهره گیری توأمان از روش استدلالی – منطقی، پس از تعریف اجمالی "دانش معرفت شناسی " به تبیین اصل "نسبیت شناخت" به عنوان یکی از مهم ترین اصول معرفت شناسی معاصر پرداخته، سپس بررسی تأثیرات این اصل بر تحول های معماری معاصر پرداخته شده است. در قسمت پایانی مقاله نیز به نقد این نهضت فکری در بستری معرفتی –فلسفی پرداخته، نشان خواهیم داد که نسب یگراییِ محضی که بر پایه بنیان های فلسفی"معرفت شناسی متن" بیان می شود سبب می شود تا نتوان به هیچ معیار و ضابط های برای شناخت و ارزیابیِ روشمند آثار استناد نمود که این امر، ارزش فهم را دچار چالشی جدّی میکند چرا که هر فهمی را موجّه می نمایاند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Query about the Epistemological Foundations of Contemporary Architecture

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abdolhamid Noghrekar 1
  • Karim Mardomi 2
  • Mohammad Mannan Raeisi 3
1 Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran
3 Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

One of the issues in theoretical architecture having been considered in recent decades is epistemology and its branches. The changeability of perception is one of the most important issues considered in this field. It is related to subjects such as the role of creativity in architectural work, audience of the architectural work and the process of the perception for understanding the work’s meaning. These subjects are derived from a branch in epistemology which is called “epistemology of texture”. According to the latest theories in this branch, all the perceptions of audiences are affected by their prejudices and their prejudices are influenced by external subjects such as history. Meanwhile, these external subjects are changing constantly. Due to this point of view, all the objects should be presented compatibly with this changeable process. Therefore, in designing architectural works, geometries which are compatible with changeability and relativity of perception should be used. The basic idea in theoretical field which will be specified in this article is considering an architectural work as a texture so that its meaning could be reviewed based on its components such as its signs in a decoding process. Thus, the major issue in this article is derived from the relationship between architecture and epistemology, especially the contemporary epistemology of texture. Considering this, there are some important questions in the theoretical field of architecture such as can a final meaning for an architectural work be assumed or can a certain framework for discussing architectural work, its architect and its audience be presented or not? Different steps for specifying and responding to these questions consists of the following stages: In the first stage, epistemology and its mission in encountering the other fields of knowledge will be defined. In the second stage, contemporary epistemology of texture and one of its most important principles which is called “Perception relativity” will be defined. In this part, major consequences of perception relativity in the field of interpretation and perception of the architectural works are explained. To this end, the claims of some of the most important theorists in this field such as Gadamer, Derrida and Palmer are referred to. In the third stage, the relationship between the contemporary architecture and epistemology of texture will be explained. In this part, the effects of this theoretical field on the designing process of architectural works will be shown. For reaching this target, some of the works of famous architects such as Eisenman and Tschumi will be referred to. In the next stage, the theoretical foundations of epistemology of texture will be evaluated. Finally, based on this evaluation, the findings of this research will be presented to prove that it is necessary to reconstruct the theoretical foundations of the contemporary epistemology to achieve a certain framework for reviewing the meanings of the architectural works more logically. This is due to the fact that the result of performing the recommendations presented by the contemporary epistemology of texture concludes that any framework and fixed principle for evaluating architectural works can’t be accessed. Therefore, according to these recommendations, all of the perceptions are acceptable.It is obvious that such a theory will conclude rejecting any preference among different perceptions. Consequently, it will decrease the value of perception highly. On the other hand, according to the findings of this research, the effects of the contemporary epistemology of texture on contemporary architecture will cause a kind of epistemological anarchism in the process of perceiving the meanings of the architectural works. Consequently, it will lead to rejecting any specific framework for discussing the architect, his work and audience. Therefore, it’s not a reliable theory for applying to the design process of the architectural works. In this article, interpretive-historical research has been utilized to access the cited targets in the first data gathering step. Moreover, logical-argumentative research is used in analysis of the data and drawing conclusion. At the end, it is necessary to consider some different theories in the field of the contemporary epistemology of texture such as philosophic hermeneutic, deconstruction and etc., but in this article those notes which are common among them are emphasized and verification of the issues which separate them from each other is avoided. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Epistemology of Texture
  • Contemporary Architecture
  • Perception Relativity
  • author
  • audience

-- Adorno, T. (2004). Aesthetic Theory (Hullot-Kentor.R , Trans.). Continuum International Publishing Group.

-- Ahmadi, B. (1998). Creativity and Freedom, essays about hermeneutics and aesthetics. Tehran: Center Press

-- Ahmadi, B. (1992). Of images to text. Tehran: Center Press

-- Ahmadi, B. (2001). Structure and interpretation of the text. Tehran: Center Press

-- Amoli Larijani, S. (1997). New review interpretations of Islamic sources. Qabasat Journal, 3, 95 – 103.

-- Ayatollahi, H. (2008). Hermeneutic approach to review the different aspects of understanding. Art Bulletin, 11,

44-57.

-- Barthes, R. (1998). Laventure semiologique. Paris: Editions du Seuil

-- Barthes, R. (1990). S/Z. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers

-- Bowers, J. (2008). Introduction to two-dimensional design, Understanding form and function. (K.Jurabchy,

Trans.). Tehran: Rowzaneh Press

-- Broadbent, J. (1996). Deconstruction. (M. Mozayani, Trans.). Tehran: Publication of processing enterprises and

urban planning.

-- Carroll, L. (1982). Complete works. London: Chancellor Press.

-- Copleston, F. (1996). History of Philosophy . (M.Minavi and others, Trans.). Tehran: Soroush Press.

-- Curtis, W. (2006). Cubism and new concepts of space. (S.Mousavi, Trans.). Eskan Magazine,February 2006, 41-

47.

-- Derrida, J. (1987). Positions .(A.Bass, Trans.). London: The Athlone Press.

-- Eisenman, P. (1988). EN Terror Firma: In Trails of Grotextes in Form, Being, Absence, Architecture and philosophy.

New York: Rizzoli

-- Gadamer, H. (1977). Philosophical Hermeneutics. (D. Linge, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

-- Gadamer, H. (1986). The Idea of Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy. (C.Smith, Trans.). New Haven: Yale

University Press.

-- Gadamer, H. (1989). Truth and Method. (J. Weinsheimer & D.Marshall, Trans.). New York: Crossroad.

-- Grout, L., & Wang. D (2007). Research methods in architecture. (A.Einifar, Trans.). Tehran: Tehran University

Press.

-- Hakim, N. (2003). Contextual architecture and its pioneers. Architect Magazine, 20, 4-7.

-- Heidegger, M. (1998). Being and Time. (J. Macquarrie, Trans.). New York: State University of New York Press.

-- Hirsch jr, E. (1976). The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

-- Holub, R. (2004). Jurgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. (H.Bashiriyeh, Trans.). Tehran: Ney Press.

-- Hosainzadeh, M. (2002). Epistemology. Qom: Imam Khomeini Institute Publications.

-- Hosainzadeh, M. (2006). Foundations of religious knowledge. Qom: Imam Khomeini Institute Publications.

Javadi Amoli, A. (2007). Shariat in the mirror of knowledge. Qom: Asra Press.

-- Kress, G. & Leeuwen, V. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammer of Visual Designs. London: Routledge.

-- Lash, S. (1990). Sociology of Postmodernism. London: Routledge.

-- Nesbitt, K. (1996). Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology of architectural theory1965-1995 .

New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

-- Nietzsche, F. (1968). The will to power. (W.Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

-- Noghrekar, A. (2008). Introduction to Islamic identity in architecture and urbanism. Tehran: Payam-e sima Press.

-- Palmer, R. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation theory. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

-- Parsania, H. (2011). Critical methodology of Sadraee wisdom. Qom: Tomorrow Book Press.

-- Raeisi, M. (2010). Architecture as Text: Analysis of possible interpretations of a architectural work. Manzar Magazine,

7, 50-53.

-- Ranjbar, A. (2010). Structure and methodology. Pamphlet of Architecture research. Iran University of Science and

Technology.

-- Schultz, C. (2008). Meaning in western architecture. (M.Ghaiyoomi Bidhendee, Trans.). Tehran: Academy of Art

Publication.

-- Shirazi, M. (2002). Architectural semiotics. Architect Magazine, 16, 14-16.

-- Sojudi, F. (2009). Semiotics: Theory and Practice. Tehran: Publication of Science.

-- Vaezi, A. (2002). Introduction to Hermeneutics. Book Review Journal, 23, 115-146.

-- http://archidose.blogspot.com. Retrieved May 24, 2011

-- http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com. Retrieved September 12, 2011

-- http://www.daniel-libeskind.com. Retrieved May 22, 2011