عنوان مقاله [English]
In recent decades, researchers have attempted to solve the ideological crisis of urban planning in the form of “Creativity” discourse under the titles of “Creative City”, “Creative Cultural Jobs”, “Cultural Planning”, “Cultural Territory”, “Cultural Industry”, etc., which have relied on cultured creative middle class( from the cultural urban regeneration point of view. On the other hand, Urban Gentrification policies that have appeared in the struggle over the culture and its meaning on spatial planning are related to this issue. But it seems that the process of a creativity action in the organism of the mankind have not been studied by researchers. Thus, they have used the culture for defining some concepts like Creative City and Creative Class, only as a tool of economic growth, not necessarily for social-economic development of the societies. Whereas the culture is arising from social-historical work of human’s mediated actions it makes everyone aware of his subject in the world. In this study, it is explained that the creativity is a product of thinking and cognition process, all the people are creative, despite of the class they belong to, how environment can restrict or encourage the creativity, and what is the interplay between creativity and urban space. Our hypothesis is that, first of all, the people are creative, and differences are in their attempt, perseverance and quest for trust. Thus we study the relationships between men and the environment, how culture and social dynamism in urban space can be formed during the attempts for solving daily problems by changing mental schemas. When a person discovers a new answer for a problem, he makes a new mental schema and will change his previous mental schema. During this interaction between objectivity and subjectivity, creativity will be arising from the process of internalizing and externalizing, when the discovered mental schema is a new one. It will be proved that a creative urban space is the base of manifestation, appearance and growth of creativity of the people who have rights of expression and action. The motivation of creative action will become permanent when the socially made value of labor of people will be achieved by themselves. With regard to the aim of this paper, our method has oriented to monism approach and dialectics of subjectivity and objectivity of creativity and urban space. Our method has three dimensions: First, system approach and structural analysis; second, linkage analysis of all relations of system and its mechanism of functions; and third, dynamism of processes of system. Thus, process of dialectics between objectivity and subjectivity of creativity and urban space is in the process of social system as a whole. Therefore our first apriority in this method is that human and environment and especially urban environments which are elements of one social system as a whole, and each of them have its own function and complexity in their relationships and have effects the processes and whole dynamism of social system. But stability of dynamism of social system is depend on regulation between functions and serves progress of system. By this approach, we can explain relationship between mankind and his environment in the stable process of “becoming” and dynamism of social system. In this regard it is obvious that our findings in this research might be divided to three issues: One, relation between mankind and process of its creativity. Two, social dynamism of society and public sphere and its effects on characterizing process manifestation of urban space. Three, relation between urban space and creativity. We suggest researchers, who wants to study and work about creative urban space and creativity, refer to social psychology and cognitive psychology papers, because understanding creative city issue depends on understanding relationship between: 1) cognition process, thought and creativity in the perspective of cognitive psychology; 2)existence of democracy, freedom of expression, and freedom of action which is related to the sociology; and 3)spatial order and public space as the most important factor of social growth, production, and development opportunities. Thus, in research and analysis public domain and urban space, not only morphology and form of urban space must be considered but also the contents and characters of social–cultural forces, that reflects historical, cultural, social and physical potentialities of cities should be studied.