از عملکردگرایی تک بُعدی تا مکان گرایی چندظرفیتی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیأت علمی دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

2 کارشناس ارشد معماری، گرایش آموزشی و فرهنگی- دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

نگاهی تحلیلی به ادبیات معماری مدرن نشان می دهد که جبرنگری در ابعاد مختلف به خصوص رابطه فرم و عملکرد برخواسته از تعریفی محدود از انسان و نیازهای انسانی است. این پژوهش با بهره گیری از مطالعات اسنادی و کتابخانه ای با روش تحلیلی- استنتاجی و با هدف واکاوی مفهوم عملکرد در مقابل شعار فرم تابع عملکرد است؛ مطرح می شود و مسأله مورد بحث این است که مفهوم عملکرد چه نسبتی با نیاز سنجی انسان دارد؟ این مقاله با تکیه بر روانشناسی اکولوژیک و روانشناسی انسان گرا و همچنین ازطریق تحلیل محتوای بیانات و نظریه های هنجاری و تجربی موجود در معماری مورد بررسی قرار می گیرد. یافته های این پژوهش نشان م یدهد که عملکرد در یک فرم از یک سو به نیازهای استفاده کنندگان و انگیزه های درونی آن ها و از سوی دیگر به توانایی های بالقوه شکل و فرم کالبدی محیط باز می گردد. بنابراین از یک طرف مفهوم عملکردگرایی با مجموعه وسیعی از خصوصیات انسانی چون نمادگرایی یا معناشناسی درگیر بوده و از طرف دیگر به نگرش معمار نسبت به مجموعه ای از پدیده ها مرتبط می باشد. لذا یک طرح، طیف وسیعی از نیازهای انسانی را به عنوان بخشی از عملکرد بنا شامل می شود؛ که در تعریف معماران مدرن از عملکرد حذف شده بود و عملکرد را با تحلیل های علمی و مکانیکی قیاس می کردند. قیاس کردن عملکرد با چنین تحلیل هایی نمی توانست معیار درستی برای برآورده کردن نیاز های بالفعل و بالقوه استفاده کنندگان از بنا باشد. لذا به جای مفهوم محدود عملکردگرایی، کیفیت چند ظرفیتی مکان ، که بر اساس نیازهای انسانی و قابلیت های محیطی شکل می گیرد، می توان د پارادایمی جهت شناخت وسیع تر نسبت فرم و عملکرد و تأمین کننده نیازهای بالفعل و بالقوه انسانی در معماری باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

From One-dimensional Functionalism to Multivalent Place-based Architecture

نویسندگان [English]

  • Karim Mardomi 1
  • Behbood Zandaveh 2
1 Assistant Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 M.A. in Design of Educational/Cultural Architecture, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

An analytical look at modern architecture literature suggests that its most important slogan "form follows the function" was changed to such a slogan to explain the weak function of modern architecture followers. Sullivan's slogan was not correctly understood by pioneers of modern architecture in different aspects of humanitarian needs and it's just used to describe the appearance of humanitarian needs for function. This slogan is a basis for showing the relationship between form and function in order to present a limited model between human and his needs.
This study utilizes a librarian documents and analytical method with the aim of analyzing the concept of function against the slogan of "form follows the function". The question is that: what is the relationship between needs assessment of human being and function?
By investigating the temporary literature of architecture it can be found that architectures and theorists tried to present different slogans in order to challenge with the slogan of modern architecture in order to offer a better model of human needs to show the relationship between form and function. Therefore, the modern architecture tried to find out a complete model of human needs and training designers in order to not only learn related science and technology to the designing but also to pay attention the most basic needs of humans in global level.
A one-dimensional view of most modern architects to the function shows that they considered psychological and spiritual needs of human as well as biological needs.
But choosing the wrong model of human needs and lack of sufficient knowledge about psychological and environmental needs can be the main cause of lack of achieving a comprehensive definition of function.
Today, in contrast to the modern era, various models of human needs in the realm of related knowledge to architecture have defined which are associated with the development of theoretical foundations of architecture models. Therefore paying attention to the needs, behaviors and human activities and creating a variety of potential capacities in architectural environment, can appropriate mechanisms with a specified range regarding to its origin or concept.
What will guide the behavior are external motivations although the behavior sustainability depends on the final goals of the organism. The ultimate goals of organisms are the basic needs that Maslow refers to.
Studying the needs of humans reveal that the concept of beauty, encompassing all levels of human needs and it is present in all stages and therefore it is impossible to distinguish between beauty and function. Function which basis is the human needs can include different aspects: social, psychological, semantic and aesthetic at any moment and give more capabilities to the space to provide a richer places.
The place determines human behaviors while physical constraints and limitations and too much specialization will reduce the manner of a place. Moreover human try to meet his needs through connection with the environment and change its potential based on his internal Maslow's need and he can create a proper place through change in levels of physical environment and its potentials.
This paper, based on ecological psychology and humanist psychology as well as content analysis of experts' opinions and normative theories and experimental architecture will be examined.
The findings of this research presents that function in a form depends on internal needs of users and their needs as well as the potential ability of shape and form of the environment.
So on the one hand, the concept of function-oriented has involved with a wide range of human characteristics such as symbolism and semantics and on the other hand the architect's attitude is related to a set of phenomena.
Therefore, a plan includes a range of human needs as a part of function; which in the modern architecture description had been removed from the function. Modern architects compare the function with the scientific and mechanical analysis which cannot be a good indicator to meet the present and potential needs of users of buildings.
Therefore, instead of the narrow concept of functionalism, Multivalent quality of a Place- most of forms and objects not only have original usages but also additional potential and value which will increase their efficiency-which is based on the human needs and environmental requirements can present a paradigm to wider understand of form and function relationship and also meet human potential and present needs in architecture.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Human Needs
  • Functionalism
  • flexibility
  • Place Orientation
  • Multivalent

Afshar Naderi, K. (1999). From Form to Space, Memar Magazine, 5.

 Afshar Naderi, K. (1999). From Use to Place, Memar Magazine, 6.

 Alexander, C. (1969). Major Changes in Environmental Form Required by Social and Psychological Form, Ekistics,

28, 7885.

 Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Buildings, Oxford University Press, New York.

 Alexander, C., Ishakawa, S., Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford

University. Press, New York.

 Antoniades, Anthony C. (1990). Poetics of Architecture: Theory of Design (A. Aay, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Soroush

Publications.

 Banham, R. (1960). Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, Praeger, New York.

 Curtis, William J. R. (1996). Modern Architecture since 1900 (M. Goudarzi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Samt Publications.

 Collins, P. (1998). Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture, 17501950 (H. Hoseinpoor, Trans.). Tehran, Iran:

Qatreh Publication.

 Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, Houghton, Mifflin, Boston.

  (1977). The theory of Affordance (R. Shawand & J. Bransford, Eds.). Perceiving, Acting and Knowing,

Halsted, New York.

  (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

 Giedion, S. (1940). Space, Time and Architecture, Mass, Harvard UP, Cambridge.

  (1958). Architecture, You and Me, Mass, Harvard UP, Cambridge.

 Gombrich, E. H. (1963). Mediations on a Hobby Horse, Phaidon, London.

 Gropius, W. (1935). The New Architecture and the Bauhaus, Faber and Faber, London.

 Ghobadian, V. (2003). Theories and Concepts in Contemporary Western Architecture. Tehran, Iran: Culture Studies.

 Gutheim, F., ed. (1941). Frank Lloyd Wright: Selected Writings, Duall, New York.

 Grutter, J. K. (1987). Asthetik der Architektur (J. Pakzad & A. Homayoun, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Shahid Beheshti

University Publications.

 Hall, E.T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension (M. Tabibiyan, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran Publications.

 Hertzberger, H. (1998). Lessons for Students in Architecture 3rd Ed Translation: Bahman Mir Hashemi. Khabaz

BeheshtiTehran Arad Publication.

 Koffka, Kurt (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology, Harcourt Brace, New York and London.

 Lang, Jon (1994). Urban Design: The American Experience, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

  (1994a). The New Functionalism and Architectural Theory, Unpublished Manuscript.

 Le Corbusier (1923). Towards a New Architecture, Praeger, New York.

  (1987). The Decorative Art of Today, The Architectural Press, London.

 Le Corbusier, P. J. (1927). Five Points of a New Architecture, pp. 153155, (T. Benton & C. Benton, Ed.) (1975).

Form and Function: A Source Book for the History of Architecture and Design 18901939, Crosby Lockwood

Staples, London.

 Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology, McGrawHill, New York.

  (1938). Will and Needs, pp. 283299, (William D. Ellis, Ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, Routledge

and Kegan Paul, London.

 Maslow, Abraham H. (1954). Motivation and Personality (4ͭ ͪ ed) (A. Rezvani, Trans.). Mashhad, Iran: Astan Qods

Razavi.

 Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York.

 Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd Ed.). New York: Harper & Ro.

Moore, Fuller. (1998). Understanding Structures (M. Golabchi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran Publications.

 Mozayani, M. (1997). Of Time and Architecture. Tehran, Iran: Shahr Sazi Va Memarie Iran.

 MoholyNagy, L. (1932). The New Vision: from Material to Architecture, Brewer, New York.

  (1937). The New Bauhaus and Space Relationships, Chapter V, pp. 104110, (R. Kostelanetz, Ed.) (1974),

MoholyNagy, Documentary Monographs in Modern Art, Allen Lane, London.

  (1937a). The First Program Announcement, The New Bauhaus, Chicago, Fall 1937. In Richard

 MoholyNagy, Laszlo (1944). Design Potentialities, Chapter IV, pp. 8190, (R. Kostelanetz, Ed.) (1974). Moholy

Nagy, Documentary Monographs in Modern Art, Allen Lane, London.

 Motalebi, G. (1998). A Theory of Meaning in Architecture and Urban Design: An Ecological Approach, Unpublished

Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of the Built Environment, The University of New South Wales, Sydney.

 Motalebi, Q. (2000). Environmental Psychology: A New Discipline at Service of Architecture and Urban Design.

HONARHAYEZIBA, 10, 5267

 NorbergSchulz, C. (1975). Meaning in Western Architecture (M. Qayyoomi Bidhendi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Farhangestan

Honar Publication.

 Padovan, Richard (2002). Towards Universality: Le Corbusier, Mies+De Stijl, Routledge, London.

 Read, Herbert, ed. (1934). Art and Industry.

 Rossi, A. (1982). The Architecture of the City, Mass, MIT Press, Cambridge.

 Sullivan, L. (1896). The Tall Building Artistically Considered, (R. Twombly, Ed).

  (1988), Louis Sullivan: The Public Papers, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

 Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

  (1974). Functionalism, Yes, But, Statement for the Symposium, the Pathos of Functionalism, In Architecture

and Urbanism, 47, (November), 3334, Berlin.