مطالعه تطبیقی مفهوم فضا در معماری بومی و معماری مدرن (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در این مقاله که به بررسی و تحلیل مفهوم فضا در معماری بومی و مدرن پرداخته شده است، ابتدا مفهوم فضا به صورت کلی و فارغ از جهت گیری سبکی و گرایشی به اختصار تبیین گردیده است. پس از آن به ارائه ی تعاریفی از هر کدام از انواع معماری های مذکور با استناد به گفته ی محققان و اندیشمندان حوزه های هنر و معماری پرداخته شده است. سپس با هدف تبیین تفاوت مفهوم فضایی که تخصص گرایان معماری در دوران مدرن، در نظر داشتند، با مفهوم فضایی که کیفیت ناخودآگاه معماری بومی در آن معماری پدید آورده است، براساس یک دسته بندی پنج گانه (با عناوین:1- تهی و ناتهی؛ 2- تخت و خمیده؛ 3- جزء و کل؛ 4- درون و برون؛ 5- جهت یابی و عدم جهت یابی)، مقایسه مفهوم فضا در هرکدام از این انواع معماری با توجه به نوع نگرش و رویکردی که از درون خود آن حوزه، به آنها وجود دارد، صورت گرفته است و در نهایت با مقایسه این مفاهیم در قالب پنج گانه ی مزبور، تفاوت های کیفی مفهوم فضا در دو حوزه بومی و مدرن، ارایه شده که نشان می دهد معماری تخصص گرای مدرن، مفاهیمی از فضا را مبدأ و اصل در کار خود قرار داده است که با انگاره های ذهنی انسان (در شکل اصیل و بومی خود) متفاوت و گاه کاملا متضاد است.The Comparative Study of the Space Concept in the Vernacular Architecture and Modern Architecture
In this article which deals with the survey and analytic concept of space in vernacular and modern architecture, first the concept of space is explicated generally while it is briefly free of style and orientation. Then, it offers explanations of each kind of above mentioned architectures that has been invoked by researchers and intellectuals about art and architecture. Then differences of the space concepts which architecture specialist has been considered in modern era, with those of vernacular architecture as non-specialist product of human, are described in five directional classifications. This comparison of space concepts is based upon view of subjects of inner field of the two kind of architecture: 1- Empty and not empty: for the vernacular person there is no real void in world, but all spaces are full of meaning and spirits. But the thought of modern era is started with making empty of space –as an absolute space. 2- Flat and bent: objective space for the vernacular person –the following subjective space- has a meaningful bend. This is a matter that in modern era has lost because of its separation in two objective and subjective worlds, and the objective space is conceived as a monotonously in contrast with objective duplications. 3- Monotonous and articulated: in the view of the vernacular person, human is a part of a whole coherent and he has forwarding completely will, so he can engage in slight activity in the art or the organization of environment without worrying about missing the wholeness. But in the modern view of architecture making artificial and objective framework is a necessity for having a holistic setting. 4- Inside and outside: in view of vernacular being inside, is an original concept, while understanding of outside is follower. Vernacular human’s subjectivity sees the enclosure as highest satisfactory quality of space and it is the threshold which vastly occupies his mind to be organized. Understanding of modernists from this statement is of two kinds: for orthodox modernists the obscuring boundary of inside and outside or transparency, is seen as the most appropriate quality of space to fit with modern era, but for critical modernists there is some hesitation about the concept and some of them are inclined toward enclosed inner space, but from different view point compared with vernacular people. 5- Orientation and wandering: the context of vernacular architecture is the nature, which is created in coordination with the nature and the nature is directional intrinsically while for modernists it is the metropolis that is the scene of architecture and its obvious as well as desired quality for them is wandering. Finally, with comparison of these concepts in the form of mentioned fivefold, the quality differences of the space concept has been presented which show that the produced space of modernists as specialists of architecture is basically opposite to those of their people who were vernaculars in general view, even in 19th century. This proposes a neglected understanding of space which belongs to these people and is the basis of popular architecture of 20th century which requires another enquiry.
تبلیغات
