تدقیق و تحدید حوزه شمول و نمود نشانه ها در معماری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

معماران در طراحی های خود، اهداف متعددی را دنبال م یکنند. یکی از مهم ترین این اهداف، فراتر از پاسخ به عملکردها، تجلی مفاهیم عمیق و تأمل برانگیز در محیط زندگی می باشد. چراکه وجه تمایز انسان از سایر موجودات قوه ناطقه او و نیازهای مربوط به آن است. هدف از انجام این پژوهش تبیین مفهوم نشانه و ارتباط آن با معنا در حوزه معماری و تعیین محدوده شمول و نمود نشان هها در مباحث طراحی معماری است. فرض بر این است که "مفهوم"،"ارزش"،" معنا" و "باورها"، با گذر از لایه های متعدد و به واسطه ابزارهای کالبدی قابل دریافت می شوند. در واقع آنچه ب هعنوان معماری نمود پیدا م یکند، بر مفاهیمی دلالت دارد که معماری برای بیان آن شکل گرفته است. این رابطه دلالتگری و شیوه های متجلی شدن آن در بنا، به واسطه انتخاب های معماران های است که موجب تفاوت در جلوه نهایی یک اثر معماری می شود. پرسش اصلی این است که دلالت های معمارانه نشانه، چگونه قابل دسته بندی هستند و مرز بین انواع نشانه ها در معماری چگونه قابل تشخیص و تمییز است؟ در این مقاله، برای پاسخ به این پرسش، شیوه های مختلف دلالت های معمارانه و شیوه های نمود کالبدی آن در آثار معماری در چارچوب مباحث علم نشانه شناسی، به عنوان یکی از مرتبط ترین علوم با مفاهیم دلالتگری، مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است. روش تحقیق کیفی و رویه عملی آن، استفاده از مطالعات مکتوب در زمینه نشانه شناسی و معماری بوده است. ابتدا داده ها و نظریه های مرتبط با این مباحث، گردآوری و در جداول استخراجی خلاصه شدند. سپس با مطالعه و تحلیل مقایسه ای آنها، روابط جدیدی حاصل شد که در ادامه در جداولی گردآوری شدند. نکات حاصل از مطالعه مقایسه ای مصداق های معماری، به طبقه بندی جدیدی از نشانه ها در معماری و تحدید و تدقیق حوزه شمول و نمود مباحث نشانه شناسی در معماری انجامید. بدین ترتیب نشانه ها در معماری در یک طیف چهارتایی از شمایل، نمایه- شمایل، نمایه و نماد، طبقه بندی شدند و جایگاه انواع استعاره در معماری در این طبقه بندی تعیین و تبیین شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Classification of Semiotics in Architecture: The Delimitation and Clarification of Manifestation and the Inclusion Domain of Semiotics in Architecture

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sahar Bagheri 1
  • Alireza Einifar 2
1 M.A. in Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The objective of architectural design, beyond responding to functions, is the expression of deep and thought provoking concepts in life and meeting perceptual need of man. In the process of architectural design, architects confront the scourge of transforming a concept to an architectural body. It is assumed that “concepts”, “values”, “beliefs” convert
into matter by passing through several layers and means of functional linguistic or physical means, so it will obtain the affordance of converting into a physical body, and it is the same in architecture. Final architectural body includes different form and shape according to the architect’s decision making, his/her knowledge of sign-making and ability
to apply them in his design. The purpose of this study is to explain the concept of the sign and its relationship with semantics in architecture domain and limiting the coverage and manifestation scope of signs in architectural design issues. The key question is “how the architectural implication of signs can be classified in the field of architecture and how can the boundaries between different kinds of signs in architecture be recognized and distinguished”. The content of this study is qualitative while literature review and theoretical studies on this topic were gathered through the library method. Then the data was processed and evaluated and the lack of transparency and borders in sign classifications
in the field of architecture was clearly explained. This understanding led to defining a new relationship between different levels in architectural symbols. Regarding to that , we referred to different ways of architectural signifying. As this concept is rooted in semiotic science, reviewing some points to obtain an overall understanding of semiotics was useful
for rooting exploration of architectural implications. In the following, sample works of architectural signifying were studied. The results of these studies are presented in extracted tables. Through these tables and the result of performed studies, some results are obtained as theoretical achievements of this research in the beginning and are summarized in deductive tables at the end. Many studies in the field of semiotics, in abundance, consider sign symbol in the same way. Moreover, in many cases, the lack of clear separation and distinction between index and symbols in the field of architecture causes many contradictions in architecture examples from the perspective of semiotics. In fact the boundaries between types of signs as well as clear and precise definition of the symbol are not provided. On the other hand, some theorists expressed the metaphors as signs in architecture but the exact location of metaphor in the context of architectural semiotics has not been expressed. All these studies led to offering a new classification of signs in architecture and the delimitation and clarification of manifestation and the inclusion domain of semiotics in architecture through an inductive table. So that, signs in architecture were classified in a range of foursome in the order of icon, Index- icon, Index and symbols. The exact boundary that makes it easy to differentiate symbol from other signs was defined. On the   other hand, the relationship between signifier and signified in each of these four categories and their subcategories are mentioned and concrete examples are presented for the better understanding of these divisions. The other outcome of this article is defining and clarifying the position of metaphor in architecture in the same classification. When architecture is supposed to meet the performance and perception at the same time, it is manifested in one of three forms which are: 1. Iconic signs (Tangible metaphor), 2. Index-icon (Intangible metaphor) and, 3. Index (combinatorial metaphor). In addition, the hierarchy of sign importance in architecture is showed in this table according to the discoverability of meaning in architecture through different choices of signs. Furthermore, the meaning of symbolic architecture and symbol, as of one of the signs’ divisions in the field of architecture, was elaborated. Generally, Symbolic Architecture is referred to as Intangible Metaphoric Architecture by mistake. Symbolic Architecture is clarified in this article as a quite distinct architecture that is only responsive to the perceptual needs which is divided into two types of Mediated and non-mediated in its semantic aspect. Theoretical outcome of this article is useful for more accurate understanding of symbols in architecture. For instance, it can be used as criteria to identify and classify examples of architecture and as a guide in design stage to choose the appropriate strategy by the architect, as well.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Sign
  • Index
  • Icon
  • Metaphor
  • Architectural Signifying

Ahmadi, B. (1992). From Pictorial Signs to the Text: Toward the Semiotics of Visual Communication, First Edition, Tehran: Markaz Publications, 52-72.

Alston, William, P. (2002). Philosophy of Language, (A. Iranmanesh, A. Jalili, Trans.). First Edition, Tehran: Sohrevardi, Tehran, 137.

Antoniades, Anthony C. (2002). ‎Poetics of Architecture: Theory of Design. Vol. I: Strategies Toward Subtle Architectural Creativity, AAy, A., First Edition, Tehran: Soroush Publications, 61-90.

Barthes, R. (1985), L᾽ Aventure Sémiologique. Paris: Seuil.

Bell, P.A., Fisher, J.D, Baum, A. & Greene, T.C. (1990). Environmental Psychology, Third Edition, Holt, Rinehart& Winston, Inc., London.

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. & Tiesdell, S. (2012). Public Places Urban Spaces the Dimensions of Urban Design, (Gharaei. F., Trans.). Third Ed., Tehran, Tehran Art University Press, 167-187.

Daad. S. (2008). Dictionary of Literary Terms, Fourth Ed., Tehran: Morvarid.

Eco, Umberto (1980). Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture. In Geoffrey Broadbent and Richard Bunt and Charles Jancks eds. Signs, Symbols and Architecture. Chichester: John Wiley& Sons, 25.

Eco, Umberto (1968). Function and Sign: Semiotics in Architecture, in the City and the Sign: an Introduction to Urban Semiotics, Gottdiener, M. and Lagopoulos, A., (ads), New York, Columbia University Press.

Grutter, Jorg Kurt (2010). Ästhetik der Architektur: Grundlagen der Architektur-Wahrnehmung, Pakzad. J, Tehran: Center for Rehabilitation of the Blind Country Rudaki, 501-523.

HamidRafiei. M (2000). Introduction to the Concept of Symbol and Sign, Journal of Architecture and Culture, 79-1158379.

Innis, Robert E. editor. (1985). Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Iran Industrial Design (September 2010). Semiotics in Product Design, Retrieved from http://www.newdesign.ir/search.asp?id=739&rnd=9265, 2013.02.09

Jorgen Dines, J., Larsen, S. (2009). Signs in Use: An Introduction to Semiotics, Miremadi. 2nd Edition, Tehran: Varjavand.

Kosari. M. (2008). Semiotics of Mass Media, Quarterly Journal of Media, Vol. XIX (73), 38. 

Krampen, M., Oehler, K., Posner, R., Sebeok, TA. & von Uexküll, T. (1987). Classics of Semiotics. New York: Plenum Press.

Lang, Jon T. (2009). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design, (A. Einifar, Trans.). 3d Ed., Tehran: Tehran University Publication, 230-246.

Larsen, S. E. (1994) “Semiotics”, in R. E Asher, editor-in-chief, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 3821-3832.

MahvashMohamadi, Z. (2008). Qualitative of Light in Architecture: Animating the Body, Processing Space with an Emphasis on Mosques in Iran. Advice of Alireza Einifar, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Fine Arts, Tehran University.

Necipoglu, G. (2000). The Topkapı Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture: Topkapı Palace Museum Library MS H, )B. Ghayoumi, Trans.). Tehran: Rozaneh.

Noghrehkar, A. (2008). Introduction to Islamic Identity in Architecture, Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, 271, 428.

Safavi Mobarhan, Z. (2000). Symbol and Sign, Journal of Architecture and Culture, 79-1158279, 3-7.

Saussure, F. (1972). Cours de LinguistiqueGénérale, Edited by Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.

Shirazi, M. (2002). Architectural Semiotics, Journal of Architect, 16, 14-16.

Schultz, D.; Schultz, S. (1998). Theories of Personality, (S. Mohammadi, Trans.). Tehran: Homa Publication.

Sojoudi, F. (2008). Functional Semiotics, Tehran: Elm Publication, 17-37.