عنوان مقاله [English]
Identity crisis and facing the cultural invasion of the west, which is the result of changes caused by the advent of modernism to non-western societies, has been discussed in recent decades. Not only in Iran but also in other countries, this discussion has led to the advent of trends concerning continuity of identity. What has been neglected in these tendencies is a comparative approach to the works and experiences of other nations. Therefore, this research conducts an analytical-comparative overview on contemporary architecture of Iran, India and Japan with a heuristic approach in given time periods. Japan is the country that has been able to take the challenge of contradiction between tradition and modernism and change it into an opportunity for the interaction of tradition and modernism. India has also somewhat succeeded in achieving this goal, too. The most important questions in this article are:
1. How the Indian and Japanese architecture have been able to obtain identity in the international community?
2. Which characteristics led the architects such as Raj Rawal, Balkar Khan Dashi and Chalz Korea from India, and Kisho Kurokawa, Kenzo Tange and Tadao Endo from Japan to be able to introduce the architecture of India and Japan in the international level?
After determining the theoretical frameworks, the theoretical information of the research was analyzed based on previous research. The theoretical information gathering is explained based on references to previous books and research. To assess the evolution of the three countries, three columns were designed in three tables (1), (2) and (3) to examine the architectural evolution during three periods; pre-modernism, modernism and post-modernism. The reason for choosing these three countries as case studies is their main similarity in having effective factors in architecture. In addition to having ancient histories, each of these three countries were influenced by the powerful religions of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism to some degree. The reason for choosing the last hundred years period for this research is the foreign countries’ attention to this period.
Architects who are known internationally and their works have been introduced as contemporary works with identity, architects who have won international prizes, architects who have founded a style or method identifying architecture, and architects with acceptable theoretical and practical ideas and works in contemporary architecture have been selected. The choice of architects is based on the characteristics of their works in using traditional elements and architectural design standards at their time. Therefore, Seyed Hadi Mirmiran, Kamran Diba and Farhad Ahmadi from Iran; Raj Rewal, Balkrishna Doshi and Charles Correa from India and Kisho Kurokawa, Kenzo Tange and Tadao Ando from Japan were elected.
Due to main differences between social, cultural and architectural structures in these countries, sometimes, positioning and classifying the intellectual trends has not been simply possible. Sometimes, these differences have caused contradiction of positioning. Therefore, a flexible approach is elected for further comparison and analysis. The main focus has been based on steady and consistent principles.
Cited terms are the same concepts that architects and critics have addressed for describing architectural criteria. As a result, for a case analysis, a set of key words was collected to determine the level of information which was used in the subsequent analysis. Studies reveals that there are common principles in the architecture of the countries, each of which has played a fundamental role in the formation of content, space and structure. Their role are explored in traditional architecture as well as contemporary architecture. Religious thoughts, naturalism, geometry, simplicity, hierarchy, climate, flexibility, space, decoration, materials and cost reduction are the common principles in the architecture of these three countries.
For explanation of analytic terms of the research, buildings from Iran, India and Japan with architectural identity, and the buildings known internationally as contemporary works with identity, and the ones that have succeeded in creating and interaction between tradition and modernism were further scrutinized. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of these buildings suggests that there are several indicators for giving identity to a building. In order to recognize a building as a contemporary one with significant identity, some criteria for assessing native identity and global contemporary standards must be identified.
This article concludes that architects have succeeded in achieving contemporary architectural style that offer identity. They have used some methods to create modern buildings (body, materials, producing technology) and indigenous features (concepts, decoration, spatial relationships) in design. It seems that what is understood by the native respondent is not very coordinated with the understanding of an international audience. A categorization of needs and answers must be made to respond to the addressees’ comprehensive understanding of the identity.