پديد آورندگان :
ايماني، ناديه نويسنده استاديار دانشكده معماري و شهرسازي دانشگاه هنر تهران , , صبوري، نگار نويسنده ,
چكيده فارسي :
اين مقاله در پي آن است كه آيا نظريه‌هاي معماري محمل مناسبي براي انديشه معماري بوده‌اند؟ منظور از انديشه معماري تفكرات معماران در هنگام طراحي و اجراي ساختمان است، همچنين مباحثي كه در دانشكده‌هاي معماري طرح مي‌شود. به اين منظور ابتدا صورت‌هاي گوناگون انديشه معماري را تعريف مي‌كند؛ نخست انديشيدن معمار با قواعد برخاسته از عالم معماري، دوم انديشه صاحب‌نظران با قواعد برخاسته از انديشه، و سوم آن چيزي در معماري كه بر شناخت و هستي مخاطبان اثر مي‌گذارد. از ميان محصولات معماري (ساختمان و طرح‌ها و متن‌ها) متن‌هاي نظري را به‌عنوان صريح‌ترين محمل انديشه معماري مورد بررسي قرار مي‌دهد. نظريه‌هاي معماري را با نظريه‌هاي علمي و هنري مقايسه مي‌كند تا دريابد انديشه‌اي كه در قالب نظريه در‌مي‌آيد ناگزير از در نظر گرفتن كدام قواعد است. تنها بخشي از انديشه معماري در نظريه‌هاي معماري يافت مي‌شود كه بتواند در قالب زبان درآيد. بخشي از انديشه معماري در صورت ساختماني معماري و در رابطه‌اش با محيط حاضر است. در نهايت رابطه نظريه‌هاي معماري را با شاخه‌هاي دانش مي‌سنجد تا امكاناتي كه نظريه‌هاي معماري براي انديشيدن در معماري فراهم كرده است، آشكار شود. نظريه پل ارتباطي انديشه معماري با ديگر صورت‌هاي شناخت است و از اين طريق دامنه تصورات معماري را گسترده كرده است.
چكيده لاتين :
Architecture is not only building, technology, and drawings, but also discourse, meaning, communication, and concept, i.e. thinking and thought. This paper reconsiders the well-known aesthetic questions, this time in the field of Architecture; do the theoreticians act better than architects in thinking about architecture? Is there any specialized field in architectural thought that makes it intangible for philosophers? Are there any concepts in architecture that cannot be translated into language? Is architecture like other arts contributed to the enterprise of understanding the world equally like different sciences? This paper, organized thematically, has examined some of the major contemporary theories of art and architecture to find out the nature of architectural thought especially what does constitute architectural thought? In other words, how architectural thought does relate to writings such as theories of architecture? In the first part, we consider the ubiquity of architectural thought, whether in theoretical or practical issues. This ubiquity has made architectural thought indeed complex and complicated. Do we need a special pattern of thought to think about architecture? We come to differentiate between several forms of architectural thought. Three kind of thinking can be recognized in architecture discipline. Here, we will introduce major media type for each form. The first form of architectural thought is philosophical thinking with the subject matter of architecture and with the question about the nature of architecture, which was generally introduced to architects and architecture schools after 1960ʹs. Although it reveals those characteristics of architecture that are not well considered, naturally it is limited to concepts. The second form of architectural thought is the way in which architects deal with the questions of design, which became recognizable by introducing the word "design" into architecture nomenclature, in modern times. The main focus of practices in this field is the methodology of design. Anyway the analogy between what happened in the architectsʹ mind and thinking has been made in order to find out architectsʹ way of creating. The third form of architectural thought is the way in which architecture, by its existence and its presence, has affected human experience, perceiving, and understanding of the world. This form of artistic thought entered aesthetics vocabulary after Heideggerʹs Philosophy & Nelson Goodmanʹs theory. Actually this form of thought can be pursued in several language metaphors and expressions that are related to the architecture. The second part of the paper is dedicated to the relationship between architectural thought and the architecture theory. Therefore, we will compare theory in architecture with theory in sciences and humanities; although architectural theory is the best conveyor of thoughts and the best way of connection to other human experiences in art, philosophy and sciences, as Wittgenstein experienced, knowing the best theories about architecture cannot make a person an architect. Therefore, it might be that architects experience another form of thinking which is somehow analogous to thinking and cannot be translated into theories. Despite the fact that theories can talk about each three forms of architectural thought (in considering the meaning of architecture, analyzing designersʹ thought, and recognizing the architecture effects on mind), they cannot represent architectsʹ mind totally.
