عنوان مقاله [English]
Today discussing about the semiotics has become an important issue for practitioners and theorists of surrounding urban, architecture and art. This study sought to analyze the semiotic space of Iranian theater as well as socially and culturally art of the past and now and also to recognize and understand the implications of the semiotic body type.
The purpose of this research can contribute to the architectural space in contemporary theater in order to create a worthful space for Iranian plays.
The sample, which has been analyzed in this study, is the one that has been created independently after the advent of Islam which has a specific space for its performances.
These samples include Taziyeh as a ritual show.
This descriptive - analytical study is based on theoretical evidence from Iranian performances. Library and Archives are data collection forms. Finally, after checking Taziyeh as Iranian show, we extract semiotic aspect items and through defining and redefining the patterns, the discussion of semiotic compliance is achieved.
Accordingly, the theoretical framework of this research is the semiotic approach in dealing with the semiotics and investigation so that, according to some basic definitions that are used in semiotics is mandatory. These concepts explain various subjects for semiotic different emphasis and in the semiotics of all systems that play a fundamental role on this Science. In this regard for dramatic representation of reality in the show, conventional methods of linguistics and semantics are used in this context, Ferdinand de Saussure studies theorists such as Charles Sanders Peirce are the main comments on this issue.
The research method is analytical documents. That utilizes the resources and documents available at the library's data collection, the history of the views expressed antecedents of the semiotics of the sign and the mark in a comparative perspective views to achieve a comprehensive definition and definitions Passion adapting the display space which will eventually show the way to represent signs on the Passion according to the definitions introduce semiotics.
The research hypothesis is that the signs in Iranian theater with the kind of display location have a relationship with the executive.
In terms of definitions and basic concepts of semiotics, which marks the first step is often overlooked examination the issue of whether the subject is really a sign or not? So we need to know what the symptoms
To get the answer, first of all we briefly investigate differences between the signs and symbols: signs are discussed more generally than symbols. Symbols are informed from material factors and certainly do not have transceiver but sign is a form of symbol and also has a transmitter inform and receiver.
In the result for comparing the theories, de Saussure and Pierce were examined in logic Saussure sign, signifying process based on freedom and voluntary association of two inseparable elements with phonetic impression (Significant) and imagine a concept (Signified). But unlike Saussure Pierce have the potential dynamic and fertile meaning and the same semiotic interpretation approach, Pierce notes that the categories of signs (icon, symbol, index) is not conclusive therefore interpretation of facilities is flexible
Passion with a glimpse into structural semiotic Saussure, was benefited from highly performance language, agree and opposition reading of bad people and good people while colors and symbols are the same components which are performative and are unified under the forms of Taziyeh.
Taziyeh is associated with dynamics of the symptoms that sometimes occur beyond the individual, flexibility of its core performance and passive benefits so in this case we are not facing with acting sign but we are facing with lots of passive action and this is why the dramatic peaks and landing is not dramatic situation but at the moment the scene is tagged weapons and people and … which realized in the form of "meta Semitic of theater ".
The realistic foundation of Taziyeh is based on iconic sign, however we never spoke about trademark icon and symbol and index because sings in theater are different from look of each audience and it depends on the time, location, cultural. But since the show ritual rooted in the culture of a people and their religion is bound up with its main function, so this difference in religious views of the realistic theater to the public is different. Since quite a prominent figure in the religious views of the administrative structure is totally coherent theoretical doctrine can also be interpreted recent Semiotics. Performing sings symptoms such as props, people and movements in the level of dominance means sacred ritual mourning participation instead of maintaining any particular can only be referred to narrative. Function of metalinguistic dramatic works of the distinguished Taziyeh executive symptoms or interpretation is interpreted at the level of Semitic of Taziyeh.
Ahmadi, B. (2004). From Pictorial Signs to the Text: Toward the Semiotics of Visual Communication. Tehran:
Nashr- E- Markaz.
Ansari, M. B. (2009). Introduction to Semiotics and Semiotics of Theater, Journal of Sahne, 64-65.
Azizi, M. (2009). Ru- Hozi Theater and Evolve it. Journal of Theatre, 42-43, 190-200 .
Bahar, M. (1998). From Myth to History. Tehran: Cheshmeh.
Banimasoud, A. (2006). Semiology’s Role in the Formation of Kitsch Postmodern Architecture, Architecture &
Culture Quarterly, (23), 155-156.
Beiza’I, B. (2004). Iranian Theater. Tehran: Roshangaran & Woman Studies.
Bozorgnia, Z. (2006). Iranian Tekiy-E & Hosseini-E, Tehran: Sufian.
Chelkowski, P. (1987). Taziyeh; Ritual and Drama in Iran,Tehran: Elmi-Farhangi.
Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The Basics (M. Parsa, Trans.). Tehran: Sureh–Mehr.
Cobley, P., Jansz, L. (2001). Introducing Semiotics (M. Nabavi, Trans.). Tehran: Shirazeh Publications and Research.
Davarpanah, A. (2012). Introduction to the Management and Use of Symbols and Signs in Urban Space, Tehran:
Eco, U. (1979). A Theory of Semiotics. Milan: Bloomington.
Esslin, M. (2008). The Field of Drama (M. Shahba, Trans.). Tehran: Hermes.
Eugene, F.; Pacsal, C. (1945). Voyage en Perse. (H. Nursadeghi, Trans.) Tehran: Naghsh-E-Jahan.
Gharibpour, B. (2005). Theatre in Iran.Tehran: Cultural Research Bureau.
Guiraud, P. (2001). Semiologie, 2ed. mise’a Jour (M. Nabavi, Trans.).Tehran: Agah.
Konderatof, A. (1983). Languages and Linguistics (A. Solh ju, Trans.). Tehran: Iran Yad.
Kowzan, T. (1975). Litterature et Spectacle: Paris.
Nassirian, A. (1963). A Look at the Persian Theater. Journal of Kaveh (Munich), (1), 52-57.
Safavi, K. (2004). An Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Sureh–Mehr.
Shafeii, B. (2009). The Grand Hotel, Nasr Theater. Architect (Iranian Bimonthly on Architecture and Urban Design),
Yousefian Kenari, M. J. (2007). The Meta Semitic of Taziyeh, The Art, an Specialized Informative and Critical
Monthly Book Review, (111-112), 44-51.
Yousefian, SH. (2004). Taziyeh: The Greatness Show in Iran, Journal of Khial, (12), 66-83.