قید معماری؛ وجوه و حدود آن. جستاری در تحول نظام مفهومی معماری متاثر از رجوع به قابلیت | ||
| معماری اقلیم گرم و خشک | ||
| دوره 11، شماره 17، شهریور 1402، صفحه 121-139 اصل مقاله (810.8 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/ahdc.2023.20056.1738 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سمیرا عادلی* 1؛ هادی ندیمی2 | ||
| 1مربی گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری صبا، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران | ||
| 2استاد معماری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| قابلیت مفهومی نوپا در گفتمان معماری است که ضمن پاسخگویی به چالش های مرتبط با مسئله معنا این امکان را فراهم آورده از منظری نو به اثر معماری بنگریم و مبتنی بر اندیشه ای نو درباره آن بیندیشیم. ماحصل این تحول، استحاله نظام مفهومی معماری و زایش و برجسته شدن سلسله ای از مفاهیم دیگر است. تبیین این مفاهیم گام نخست در تضمین کارایی و هوده مفهوم قابلیت در مقام نظر و عمل خواهد بود. این پژوهش با دغدغه بی هوده و ابتر ماندن این مفهوم، متوجه اقتضائات مفهومی حضور قابلیت در گفتمان معماری شده است. بر همین مبنا، ضمن طرح مفهوم قید به عنوان زوج مفهومی قابلیت در تلاش است بستری نظری برای تبیین این مفهوم بگشاید و به ارائه مدلی نظری برای تدقیق فهم آن بپردازد. رویکرد این پژوهش کیفی است که مبتنی بر استدلال منطقی و روش توصیفی_ تحلیلی محقق شده است. در همین راستا نخست برخی اقتضائات نظری مفهوم قابلیت از طریق بسط آن و با تکیه بر مفاهیم کنج و شبکه تعاملی اثر معماری تبیین می شود و مبتنی بر آن وجاهت و اعتبار مفهوم قید معماری عیان می گردد. در ادامه وجوه و حدود قید معماری از طریق ترسیم ساختار مفهومی آن تبیین می شود. این ساختار ماهیتی سه وجهی دارد که با تکیه بر سه مؤلفه مولد، کارکرد و قلمرو قید چارچوب بندی شده است. ساختار ترسیمی مبتنی بر ویژگی هایی طیف گونه همچون همسازی، ماهیت سلسله مراتبی، سختی و حقیقی بودن قیود امکان تمییز گونه های مختلف قید معماری را از یکدیگر ممکن می سازد و بدین طریق فهمی عمیق تر از قید معماری به دست می دهد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| قابلیت؛ قید؛ معماری؛ شبکه تعاملی؛ کنج | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Constraint in Architecture Typology and theoretical basis with reference to the concept of affordance | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Samira Adeli1؛ hadi NADIMI2 | ||
| 1Department of architecture, saba faculty of art and architecture, Shahid Bahonar university of kerman, kerman, iran | ||
| 2faculty of architecture and urban planning, shahid Beheshti university. Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract This research, concerning the effective presence of the concept of affordance in contemporary architectural discourse, addresses the overemphasis placed on practical aspects of the concept of affordance and the ignorance of theoretical thinking about this concept and the inevitable conceptual evolutions which emerge. Consequently, the concept of constraint is going to be introduced and clarified while providing a theoretical basis in reference to a more developed understanding of the concept of affordance in architecture. The research concentrates on explaining a clear ontology and introducing a conceptual structure for the concept of constraint, which leads to a comprehensive typology of architectural constraints. This research is conducted through a qualitative approach and relies on the most recent scientific theories to develop a compatible concept of affordance in architecture. Furthermore, based on logical thinking and analytical methods the concept of constraint is going to be developed. At the first step the concept of affordance is developed based on the Heideggerian point of view. Consequently, a theoretical basis is established to introduce and clarify the concept of constraint through developing the concept of niche into architectural interaction field. (A.I.F). Then a three-dimensional conceptual structure based on the origin, function and domain of the architectural constraints is organized. The results of this research provide the basic theoretical knowledge required to have a deeper understanding of the two fundamental concepts of contemporary architectural discourse: affordance and constraint. The study confirms the undeniable essential role of constraint in the perception and creation of architecture. Constraints are the value of the architectural characters, being put by the members of A.I. F. Constraints guarantee the affordances architectural work is going to afford. Consequently, they guarantee the meaning and the truth of architecture. Thinking on constraint brings about the potential to prove a new perspective in theoretical aspects of architectural knowledge and consequently affects the practice of architecture. Key words: affordance, constraint, architecture, architecture interaction field, niche. Structured Extended Abstract Introduction Affordance, emerging in the last few decades as a new fundamental concept in architectural discourse, not only addresses the challenges of meaning in architecture but also offers a new fresh perspective on architectural issues. This new orientation leads to the evolutions in concepts of architecture: the emergence of the new ones and the reorganization of the current. Identifying these changes can be considered the first basic step forward to guarantee the efficiency and effectiveness of this new concept. This research concerning the fruitful life of the concept of affordance in contemporary architectural discourse addresses the over emphasis placed on practical aspects of this concept and the complete ignorance of theoretical thinking about it. Accordingly, one of the emerging changes in architectural concepts rooted in the presence of affordance, is going to be studied through introducing the concept of constraint being paired with the concept of affordance. To provide a deeper understanding of this emerging concept, the research concentrates on explaining a clear ontology and providing a Conceptual structure for the concept of constraint, which leads to a comprehensive typology of architectural constraints. Research method This research is conducted through a qualitative approach and relies on the most recent scientific theories to develop a compatible concept of affordance in architecture. Furthermore, based on logical thinking and analytical methods the concept of constraint is going to be introduced and clarified. Results and Discussion As the first step the concept of affordance is developed based on the Heideggerian point of view, which leads to a more comprehensive and compatible understanding of the concept of affordance in architecture and the emergence of the concept of architectural interaction field (A.I.F) through developing the concept of niche. Consequently, a theoretical basis is established to introduce the concept of constraint. Then a three-dimensional conceptual structure is organized to provide a more compatible and deeper understanding of the concept of constraint in architecture. From Gibson point of view, affordance attributes the meaning and the value of architecture to the action opportunities the work of architecture offers. It also emphasizes the unique and bilateral relation between each architectural work and its niche. Based on the Heideggerian relational ontology the concept of niche could be developed into a world that each architectural work contains. the world which could be called architectural interaction field (A.I.F). A.I.F is a network of relations and interactions bearing the meaning of that architectural work. A.I.F contains all the ways in which architecture interacts with its addresses both human and non-human and contains the structured set of affordances it affords for them. Each specific work of architecture is created to offer a set of main and fundamental affordances satisfying the specific hierarchy of needs of the users of that architectural work, which requires many sets of supporting human and non-human affordances to be offered, and a set of many relations between A.I.F characters to be established. The A.I.F characters can be classified as inside and outside characters in terms of belonging to the work of architecture. Inside characters are related to architectural elements and their properties, and outside characters are of human, nature, space, time, or human-made objects. To afford affordances architectural characters should have been subject to the constraints of A.I.F members. Constraints guarantee the affordances. They place value on the architectural characters. they determine the essential or desirable properties or relations. In this research based on three aspects of constraints including their function, domain and origin, a three-dimensional structure is introduced. The conceptual structure clarifies the typology of the constraints in architecture and develops a deeper understanding of constraints. In terms of origin two types of constraint is recognized: interior and exterior. Interior constraints are the ones generated from within architectural characters while the exterior constraints generate from human, nature, place, time, or human-made objects. Constraints place the value of architectural elements including mass and space characters in three different scales by determining their physical/constructional, functional, and symbolic/meaningful properties and relations. Conclusion the results of this research provide the basic theoretical knowledge required to have a deeper understanding of the two fundamental concepts of contemporary architectural discourse: affordance and constraint. This study confirms the undeniable essential role of constraint in the perception and creation of architecture. Constraints are the value of the architectural characters, being put by the members of A.I. F. Constraints guarantee the affordances architectural work is going to afford. Consequently, they guarantee the meaning and the truth of architecture. Thinking on constraint brings about the potential to prove a new perspective in theoretical aspects of architectural knowledge and consequently affects the practice of architecture. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| affordance, constraint, architecture, interaction field, niche | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
راپاپورت، آموس. (1392). معنی محیط ساخته شده؛ رویکردی در ارتباط غیر کلامی. ترجمه: فرح حبیب. تهران: سازمان فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات شهرداری تهران. عادلی، سمیرا. (1400). تبیین فرم در معماری(رساله دکتری منتشر نشده). هادی ندیمی، محمد رازجویان. دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. عادلی، سمیرا و هادی ندیمی. (1401). فرم به مثابه قابلیت؛ زیر بنای نظری و چارچوب مفهومی معنای معماری. صفه(1)32: 40-21. کوهن، تامس ساموئیل. (1396). ساختار انقلاب های علمی. ترجمه: سعید زیبا کلام. تهران: سمت. لاوسون، برایان. (1392). طرحان چگونه می اندیشند؛ ابهام زدایی از فرآیند طراحی. ترجمه: حمید ندیمی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. محمدی، محسن، حمید ندیمی، و محمودرضا ثقفی. (1396). جستاری در کاربرد مفهوم قابلیت در طراحی و ارزیابی محیط ساخته شده. صفه 27(77): 33- 21. مشرقی، گلناز و حمید رضا انصاری. (1402). هستی شناسی قید در فرآیند طراحی. صفه (1)33: 24-9. نقدبیشی، رضا، شهین دخت برق جلوه، سید غلام رضا اسلامی، و حامد کامل نیا. 1395. الگوی آموزش معماری بر اساس نظریۀ قابلیت های محیطی گیبسون. هویت شهر 10(26): 84-75. هایدگر، مارتین. (1394). سرآغاز کار هنری. ترجمه پرویز ضیاء شهابی. تهران: انتشارات هرمس. Arbib, M. (2020). The Architecture-Neuroscience Conversation and the Action-Perception Cycle. In B. Condia (Ed.), Meaning in Architecture: Affordances, Atmosphere and Mood (pp. 6-31). New Prairie Press. Bardenhagen, E., & Rodiek, S. (2016). Affordance-based evaluations that focus on supporting the needs of users. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(2), 147-155. Basden, A. (2014). a dooyeweerdian undrestanding of affordance in information sustems and ecological psychology. In F. v. S. Mark Rathbone, Sytse Strijbos (Ed.), Social Change in Our Technology-Based World: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Working Conference of the IIDE (pp. 137-154). Rozenberg Publishers. Bastien, C. (1998). Does context modulate or underlie human knowledge. Cognition and Context, ISPA, Lisboa, 13-25. Biskjaer, M. M., Christensen, B. T., Friis-Olivarius, M., Abildgaard, S. J., Lundqvist, C., & Halskov, K. (2020). How task constraints affect inspiration search strategies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 101-125. Biskjaer, M., & Michael Halskov, K. (2014). Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design. Digital Creativity, 25(1), 27-61. . Blumer, H. (1931). Science without concepts. American Journal of Sociology, 36(4), 515-533. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American sociological review, 19(1), 3-10. Bonnardel, N. (1999). Creativity in design activities: The role of analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Creativity & cognition. Brézillon, P., Pomerol, J.-C., & Saker, I. (1998). Contextual and contextualized knowledge: An application in subway control. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48(3), 357-373. Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. St Martin'S Press. Chemero, A. (2003). An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5. Chemero, A. (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT press. Chen, L.-H., & LIU, Y.-C. (2019). Affordance design requirements to promote intuitive user-product interaction for elderly users with dementia (II). Journal of the Science of Design, 3(1), 1_27-21_36. Chevalier, A., & Martinez, L. (2001). The Role of the Context in the Acquisition and in the Organisation of Knowledge: Studies from Adults and from Children. Modeling and Using Context: Third International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2001 Dundee, UK, July 27–30, 2001 Proceedings 3, Dotov, D. G., Nie, L., & Wit, M. M. d. (2012). Understanding affordances : history and contemporarydevelopment of Gibson ’ s central concept. The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard, 3(2), 28-39. Dreyfus, H. L. (2014). Skillful coping: Essays on the phenomenology of everyday perception and action (M. A. Wrathall, Ed.). OUP Oxford. Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Fischer, T., & Richards, L. D. (2017). From goal-oriented to constraint-oriented design: The cybernetic intersection of design theory and systems theory. Leonardo, 50(1), 36-41. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://books.google.com/books?id=DrhCCWmJpWUC . Gross, M. D. (1985). Design as exploring constraints Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001592587 Hillier, B., John, M., & Pat, O. S. (1972). Knowledge and Design. Environmental design: Research and Practice, edra3/ar8 conference, UCLA. Joyce, C. K. (2009). The blank page: Effects of constraint on creativity. University of California, Berkeley. Jul, S. (2004). From brains to branch points: Cognitive constraints in navigational design. University of Michigan. Kadar, A., & Effken, J. (1994). Heideggerian Meditations on an Alternative Ontology for Ecological Psychology: A Response to Turvey's (1992) Proposal. Ecological Psychology, 6(4), 297-341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco06044 . Kannengiesser, U., & Gero, J. S. (2012). A process framework of affordances in design. Design Issues, 28(1), 50-62. Kaptelinin, V. (2014). Affordances and Design. The Interaction Design Foundation. https://books.google.com/books?id=xN44rgEACAAJ Kaup, M. L., Poey, J. L., Corneilson, L., & Doll, G. (2020). Environmental Attributes of Person-Centered Care. Journal of Aging and Environment, 34(1), 48-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2019.1627266. Kim, M.-K. (2020). Affordance-based interior design with occupants' behavioural data. Indoor and Built Environment, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X20948015. Kim, Y. S. (2015). A methodology of design for affordances using affordance feature repositories. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM, 29(3), 307-323. Kim, Y., Kim, M., Lee, S., Lee, C., Lee, C., & Lim, J. (2007). Affordances in interior design: a case study of affordances in interior design of conference room using enhanced function and task interaction. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Koutamanis, A. (2006). Buildings and Affordances. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition ’06 (pp. 345-364). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Krippendorff, K. (1989a). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that" design is making sense (of things)". Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39. Krippendorff, K. (1989b). Product semantics: A triangulation and four design theories. Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1984). Product Semantics-Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form. innovation, 3(2), 4-9. Lanamäki, A., Thapa, D., & Stendal, K. (2016, 2016//). When Is an Affordance? Outlining Four Stances.Beyond Interpretivism? New Encounters with Technology and Organization: IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations, IS&O 2016, Dublin, Ireland, December 9-10, 2016, Proceedings Beyond Interpretivism? New Encounters with Technology and Organization Cham. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think. Routledge. Maier, J. R. A., & Fadel, G. M. (2009a). Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering. Research in Engineering Design, 20(4), 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-009-0064-7. Maier, J. R. A., & Fadel, G. M. (2009b). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design [journal article]. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3. Maier, J. R. A., Fadel, G. M., & Battisto, D. G. (2009). An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies, 30(4), 393-414. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.01.002. Mallgrave, H. F. (2020). Just What Can Architects Afford? In B. Condia (Ed.), affordances and the potential for architecture (pp. 38-59). New Prairie Press. Nesbitt, K. (1996). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture:: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965 - 1995. Princeton Architectural Press. https://books.google.ae/books?id=kXa5xjnHB5QC. Noguchi, (1999). How do material constraints affect design creativity? Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books. Norman, D. A. (1995). The Psychopathology of Everyday Things. In R. M. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. A. S. Buxton, & S. Greenberg (Eds.), Readings in Human–Computer Interaction (pp. 5-21). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051574-8.50006-6. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. interactions, 6(3), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168 . Onarheim, B. (2012). Creativity from constraints in engineering design: Lessons learned at Coloplast. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 323-336. Onarheim, B., & Biskjaer, M. M. (2013). An Introduction to ‘Creativity Constraints’. Proceedings of the XXIV ISPIM Conference—Innovating in Global Markets: Challenges for Sustainable Growth. Lappeenranta, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology Press. Onarheim, B., & Biskjaer, M. M. (2015). Balancing constraints and the sweet spot as coming topics for creativity research. Creativity in design: Understanding, capturing, supporting, 1, 1-18. Pols, A. J. K. (2012). Characterising affordances: The descriptions-of-affordances-model. Design Studies, 33(2), 113-125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.007. Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. Human judgments and optimality, 282. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Robinson, S. (2020). Articulating Affordances: Towards a New Theory of Design. In B. Condia (Ed.), Affordances and the Potential for Architecture. New Prairie Press. Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays, 1972-1980. University of Minnesota Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=6L2Wkls7UnwC. Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams. Organization Studies, 35(4), 551-585. Sando, O. J., & Sandseter, E. B. H. (2020). Affordances for physical activity and well-being in the ECEC outdoor environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101430. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101430. Savage, J. C., Moore, C. J., Miles, J. C., & Miles, C. (1998). The interaction of time and cost constraints on the design process. Design Studies, 19(2), 217-233. Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2010). Reshaping the box: creative designing as constraint management. International Journal of Product Development, 11(3-4), 241-255. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, third edition. MIT Press. Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. Springer Publishing Company. Turner, P. (2005). Affordance as context. Interacting with Computers, 17(6), 787–800. Ward-Harvey, K. (2009). Fundamental building materials. Universal Publishers. You, H.-c., & Chen, K. (2007). Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Design Studies, 28(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.002.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 636 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 547 |
||
