روش شناسی بازخوانی نظام معانی محیطی در بافت های تاریخی، نمونه موردی: محله صیقلان رشت

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانش آموخته دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران.

چکیده

رویکرد به شناخت معنی در محیط ساخته شده به ویژه در گونه های خاصی از آن نظیر بافت های تاریخی امروزه اغلب مورد توجه بوده و در مطالعات متعددی مورد بحث و تأکید قرار گرفته است. در این بین، بازشناسی معانی محیطی تاریخی این بافت ها )دوره های گذشته و زمان تکوین آن ها(، از این حیث که می تواند موجب شناخت صحیح تر زمینه شکل گیری محیط ها، ارزیابی درست تغییرات و تحولات پدید آمده در گذر زمان و لذا درک مناسب دلایل وجود تفاوت های احتمالی در معانی محیط شود، ضرورت و اهمیت خاصی دارد. هدف این پژوهش یافتن روش های مقدور و معقول برای شناخت معانی محیطی تاریخی فضاهای تاریخی و قدیمی بوده و بدین منظور از روش های تحقیق تفسیری  تاریخی و استدلال منطقی بهره گرفته است. گردآوری اطلاعات به صورت اسنادی و میدانی )مشاهده و مصاحبه( انجام شده است. بر این اساس، در این تحقیق با بهره گیری از رویکردهای ساختارگرایی و نشانه شناسی در معماری و شهرسازی به مثابه مدل عملیاتی تحقیق و تمرکز بر بستر تاریخی مشخصی )محله صیقلان شهر رشت(، سه روش مختلف جهت حصول به اهداف، نتیجه گیری و پیشنهاد شده است: 1- روش شناخت ویژگی های فضا در دوره تاریخی مبتنی بر شناخت شالوده و ساختار آن و درک معانی مستتر در ساختار فضا 2- درک رابطه بین زمینه و بستر کالبدی  فضایی محیط های تاریخی و تحولات حادث شده در جهان بینی و ایدئولوژی مخاطبان و جامعه بهره بردار در گذر زمان 3- شناخت تغییرات پدید آمده در نظام های بیانی مرتبط با محیط که اغلب جنبه ذهنی داشته و با اتکاء بر روش نشانه شناسی و بازشناسی تفاوت سطوح نشانه ای عناصر و مجموع هها در دوره های زمانی مختلف صورت می گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Methodology of Reviewing the “Meaning” ofEnvironments in Historical Contexts, Case Study: Seyghalan Neighborhood in Rasht

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Kazemi
Ph.D. in Urbanism, Faculty of Art & Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Approach to cognition of meaning in built environment, especially in historical contexts, has been discussed in several researches. Recognition of historical meanings in these contexts (in past periods and the time that they were composing) can be useful and necessary, because they help to have correct awareness of methods and situations of composing such places. It also is effective for evaluating of environmental changes in different terms, so it gives perfect perception of reasons of differences that often can see in environmental meanings. Browsing of prior researches about environmental meaning shows that there are many cultural, phenomenological and perceptual approaches in cognition and explaining of effective parameters on forming environmental meaning, but minority of them try to study this subject based on a methodological approach. These contexts usually had some special architectural and urban elements and complexes (in different scales) which were symbolic and reflected individual and social values in built environment in historical terms. In a simple definition, “meaning” is all of the subjects that an object causes to be for an observer. There are two levels of meanings in built environments: sensible meanings which are the result of person- form visual relations, and symbolic, cultural and historical meanings that notice to none-spatial concepts in built environments. Perceptions of symbolic meanings need to recognize the society that form these built environments. It is possible that these meanings change in different terms which can fundamentally transform social norms and individual and public visions. This research looks for possible and logical methods to give historical environmental meanings in old and historic contexts and uses interpretive- historical and logical argument research methods to reach these aims. Based on formal and conceptual differentiations of historical contexts with contemporary urban environments, recognition of meaning in the primary terms that contexts were been forming, it has to be done through a special methodology, because there is not accessibility to their builders or users. Data collecting has done through field study (observation and interview) and archive. Base on these factors, this research has used structuralism and semiotics approaches in architecture and urbanism and focused on Seyghalan neighborhood in Rasht as a historical context. Research area (case study) was a part of main structure of Rasht in its historic terms that had some urban functions like religious school, bathes, Khahar Emam holy shrine and Bazar that was connected to main Bazar of city. Structuralism believes that “meaning” in built environment is achieved by functional and symbolic correlation between different parts of environment when they are perceive by people’s mind. This specific relationship between elements of space (or place) is named structure. This structure is a place that includes many of sings, symbols and elements that have symbolic relationships and many of its meanings can be interpreted and perceived by semiotic methods. Semiotics is used as a method that can reveal environmental meaning by signs and symbols. In this method, meaning is a result of relation between sign and person which relatesa signifier to a specific signified, base on the hermeneutic method. This approach believes that form of architectural elements and the ways of composition with larger complexes in urban contexts have such principles and rules that notice to none-material concepts and it’s possible to recognize its meanings. As conclusion, this research suggests 3 different methods to reach to expected aims: 1- Method of cognition of space’s properties in historic terms with focusing on structure and then perception of meaning that is closed and unexposed in this structure. In thismethod, understanding main role of structural elements of historical spaces is importantand necessary. 2- Perception of the relationship between physical and spatial context of historical environment and changes that has taken place in world-view and ideology of people. Based on this method, changes in religious, social and materialistic values cause different meanings in people’s perceptions. 3- Cognition of transformations that have occurred in articulate frameworks related to environment and often is subjective. This method does base on semiotics approach and recognition of differences that are in symbolic levels in buildings and complexes indifferent terms.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Meaning
  • Historical Environments
  • methodology
  • Structuralism
  • Semiotics
-- Ahmadi, B. (2005). Of Images to Text. Tehran, Center Press.

-- Ahmadi, B., Mohajer, M., Nabavi, M. (2006). Modern Hermeneutics: Selected Essays. Tehran: Center Press.

-- Ardalan, N., Bakhtyar, L. (2002). Sense of Unity. (H. Shahrokh, Trans.). Tehran: Khak Press.

-- Bacon, E. (2007). Design of Cities. (Taheri, F. Trans.). Tehran: Publication of Center of Urbanism and Architectural

Studies.

-- Boogaart, T.A. (2001). The Power of Place: From Semiotic to Ethno geography, Journal of Middle States Geographer,

34, 38-47.

-- Cheshmahzangi, A. (2013). Constructing Identity in Place Making: Identifying Forms and Purposes of Urban

Identities, Open Journal of Architectural Design, 1(1), 17-22.

-- Degen, M. M. (2008). Sensing Cities, New York: Academy.

-- Grout, L., Wang, D. (2009). Research Methods in Architecture. (Einifar, A. Trans.). Tehran: Tehran University

Press.

-- Forty, A. (2000). Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture, Thames and Huston

-- Gawlikawska, A. (2013). From Semanticsto Semiotics. Communication of Architecture, Architecture et Artibus,

1, 50-61.

-- Habib, F. (2006). Searching in the Meaning of Urban Form. HONAR-HA-YE-ZIBA, 25, 5-12.

-- Hamidi, M. (1997). Structure of Tehran: Vol. 1. Tehran: Sazman Moshaver Fanni va Mohandesi Shahr-e Tehran

-- Heidegger, M. (1996). Building, Dwelling and Thinking. (Ahmadi, B. Trans.), Modern Hermeneutics: Selected

Essays. Tehran: Center Press.

-- Kazemi, A. (2011). Home or House, Transforming of Meaning Base on Society’s Changes, 1st National Conference

of Iranian House, Shiraz: Islamic Azad University.

-- Lang, J. (2002). Creating Architectural Theory. (Einifar, A. Trans.). Tehran: Tehran University Press.

-- Lynch, K. (1998). A Theory of Good City Form. (Bahreyni, S.H. Trans.). Tehran: Tehran University Press.

-- Motallebi, GH. (2001). Environmental Psychology a New Knowledge for Architecture and Urban Design,

HONAR-HA-YE-ZIBA, 10, 52-67.

-- Naghizadeh, M. (2005). Principles of Religious Art in Islamic Culture, Vol. 1. Tehran, Nashr-e Farhang-e Eslami.

-- Naghizadeh, M. (2005). Perception of Beauty and Identity of City, Isfahan, Municipality of Isfahan.

-- Nasar, J. L. (1998). The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

-- Nesbitt, K. (2007). Theorizing New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory. (Shirazi, M.R.

Trans.). Tehran, Ney Press.

-- Norberg-Schulz, C. (2003). Architecture, Meaning and Place. (Borazjani, V.N. Trans.). Tehran, Nashr-e Jan-e

Jahan.

-- Rapaport, A. (2005). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A None-verbal Communication Approach. (Habib. F.

Trans.). Tehran: Pardazesh va Barnamerizi Shari Co

-- Safardust, A. (2005). Searching of Rasht Urban Identity. Tehran: Omran va Behzasi Shahri Co.

-- Tavallaei, N. (2007). Integrated Urban Form. Tehran: Amir Kabir Press.

-- Walmsley, D.J. (1988). Urban Living: The Individual in the City, Harlow: Longman Scientific and Technical

-- Whyte, W. (2006), How Do Buildings Mean? Some Issues of Interpretation in The History of Architecture, Journal

of History and Theory, 45.