اندیشه معماری در آیینه نظریه های معاصر معماری

این مقاله در پی آن است که آیا نظریه‌های معماری محمل مناسبی برای اندیشه معماری بوده‌اند؟ منظور از اندیشه معماری تفکرات معماران در هنگام طراحی و اجرای ساختمان است، همچنین مباحثی که در دانشکده‌های معماری طرح می‌شود. به این منظور ابتدا صورت‌های گوناگون اندیشه معماری را تعریف می‌کند؛ نخست اندیشیدن معمار با قواعد برخاسته از عالم معماری، دوم اندیشه صاحب‌نظران با قواعد برخاسته از اندیشه، و سوم آن چیزی در معماری که بر شناخت و هستی مخاطبان اثر می‌گذارد. از میان محصولات معماری (ساختمان‌ و طرح‌ها و متن‌ها) متن‌های نظری را به‌عنوان صریح‌ترین محمل اندیشه معماری مورد بررسی قرار می‌دهد. نظریه‌های معماری را با نظریه‌های علمی و هنری مقایسه می‌کند تا دریابد اندیشه‌ای که در قالب نظریه در‌می‌آید ناگزیر از در نظر گرفتن کدام قواعد است. تنها بخشی از اندیشه معماری در نظریه‌های معماری یافت می‌شود که بتواند در قالب‌ زبان درآید. بخشی از اندیشه معماری در صورت ساختمانی معماری و در رابطه‌اش با محیط حاضر است. در نهایت رابطه نظریه‌های معماری را با شاخه‌های دانش می‌سنجد تا امکاناتی که نظریه‌های معماری برای اندیشیدن در معماری فراهم کرده است، آشکار شود. نظریه پل ارتباطی اندیشه معماری با دیگر صورت‌های شناخت است و از این طریق دامنه تصورات معماری را گسترده کرده است.

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 1960’s. 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 architects’ mind and thinking has been made in order to find out architects’ 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 Heidegger’s Philosophy & Nelson Goodman’s 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 designers’ thought, and recognizing the architecture effects on mind), they cannot represent architects’ mind totally.

(1.4 مگابایت) دانلود مقاله