بازخوانی انتقادی آرای متفکران دربارهٔ «زمان و معماری» از آغاز دورهٔ روشنگری (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مفهوم زمان از دوره روشنگری وارد گفتمان معماری مغرب زمین شده و کاربرد آن از قرن بیستم تا به اکنون به اوج خود رسیده است. تاریخ معماری، نشان می دهد که لایه های مختلفی از مفهوم زمان در معماری وجود دارد و هر تصوری از زمان نیز به فهمی از معماری می انجامد. به رغم این نقش مهم، آرای مختلف درباره «زمان و معماری» تا اندازه ای مبهم و متناقض می نمایند. هدف این پژوهش به دید آوردن آرای موجود است، به گونه ای که ساحت های مختلف «زمان و معماری» به نحوی به سامان آشکار شود. بدین منظور آرای موجود به روش «تحلیل مضمون» خوانش و تحلیل شده است. براساس این آراء که با مراجعه به منابع مکتوب جمع آوری شده اند، آنچه نتیجه می شود سه نحو تلقی از زمان در معماری، در قالب زمان به مثابه «حال مستمر»، «روزمرگی» و «نسبت حضور و غیاب» است. این سه، همراه با تصورات مختلفی از معماری اند: 1- معماری «برآمده از روح دوران» و «برآمده از امری الوهی»؛ 2- معماری «هماهنگ با امر رایج» و «قابل انطباق با متغیرهای روزمره»؛ و 3- معماری به مثابه «آشکارگی پیوند پوشیدگی ناپوشیدگی»، «بهبود امر حاضر» و «ساختن و نمایش «تفاوت» حضور و غیاب». پس از پرداختن به خاستگاه فکریِ رویکردها و مسائل موجود در آن ها و تبیین وجوه افتراق و اشتراک میانشان روشن می شود که آنچه باعث بروز مسائلی در آن ها شده است برآمده از نگاه سلطه گرانه انسان در مقام معمار و یا صاحب نظر معماری به زمان است.A critical reinterpretation of thinkers' views on "time and architecture" since the Enlightenment period
The history of architecture indicates that multiple layers of the concept of time exist within this field, with each conception of time leading to a distinct understanding of architecture. Despite its significant role, existing opinions regarding "time and architecture" often appear ambiguous and contradictory. The aim of this research is to clarify these viewpoints and present the diverse dimensions of "time and architecture" in an orderly and comprehensible manner. To achieve this, the study employs thematic analysis through an interpretive approach. This research focuses on published theoretical texts in architecture, with an emphasis on Western sources and their translations. The selection of sources has been purposeful, meaning that efforts were made to cover a diversity of opinions while also drawing from the works of prominent theorists. The findings reveal three approaches to understanding time in architecture, conceptualized as time as "a continuous present," "everyday matters," and "the relationship of presence and absence." These three approaches correspond to distinct understandings of architecture: 1. Architecture as the acceptance of the spirit of the age and divine.'; 2. Architecture as the acceptance of the current and adaptability to the everyday; 3. Architecture as the revelation of the relationship between concealment and unconcealment, the improvement of the present, and the making and display of the differentiation of presence and absence. In the first approach, time is seen as absolute, infinite, and external to the realm of architecture. Although there is a sense of continuity in this approach that links past, present, and future, what often occurs is a predominant emphasis on the "present". The second approach critically addresses the homogeneity and totalitarianism of the first by focusing on the everyday and the natural flow of human life. In its extreme form, the historicist aspect of this approach views human life solely in terms of "change" while neglecting "continuity." Despite their differences, both the first and second approaches share the limitation of being unable to explain untimely moments. In both perspectives, architecture is perceived as submissive to time as an entity that exists in the present. Contrary to these views, the third approach emphasizes that time is not merely defined by presence and critiques this relationship. In this view, architecture is no longer seen as submissive to time; rather, it has the potential to "make," "improve," or "reveal" it. In this third inclination, which advocates for "making" and "improving," architecture is perceived as an active endeavor. Thus, while these two inclinations emphasize diverse aspects of human life, they tend to focus on these aspects only in terms of how they can be improved or how they display the "differences" between past and present in their extreme forms. Meanwhile, the perspective that considers architecture as the revelation of time seeks to explore various dimensions of temporality in both finite and absolute terms. Ultimately, it becomes clear that the problems arising from the extreme tendencies of these various approaches are rooted in a domineering viewpoint held by humanity, as architects and theorists, regarding time.
تبلیغات
