year 5, Issue 1 (Spring & Summer 2020)                   CIAUJ 2020, 5(1): 87-104 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Nari Ghomi M, Momtahen M. The Relation between Variants and Invariants of the Humans’ Nature and Flexibility of Architectural Technology: Case Study of Kulas of Lorestan Framers). CIAUJ. 2020; 5 (1) :87-104
URL: http://ciauj-tabriziau.ir/article-1-247-en.html
1- Assistant Professor of Architecture, University of Technical and Professional Training, Faculty of Qom , msnarighomi@ut.ac.ir
2- Lecturer of Architecture, Department of Architecture and art, University of Kashan
Abstract:   (304 Views)
This study tries to establish a relationship between variants and invariants of the humans’ nature and flexibility of architectural technology through con­ceptual model making and rational reasoning. Therefore, at first a four-part model is constructed to describe extremes of flexibility concept in architec­ture. This model is based on two axes: the first axis shows the place of human constants due to its rela­tion to subjective space or objective one. The second covers the changes of human environment from its durability point of view.  Then a basic model of hu­mane invariants and variants of different schools of philosophy and anthropology is proposed. Another basic theoretical problem is an architectural one that is how an architectural product responses to varia­tions of its surrounding, whether human or environ­ment. Here three fundamental views are deter­mined. In the first one, a building is condemned to destroying through time to time. This view is well known from John Ruskin. Such a demolishing process could only be delayed not diminished. There is an opposite view that considers the technology of con­struction as an ever-proceeding being that makes humane and the natural environment to follow it. Such a view was a norm through high-modernists such as Le Corbusier. Smart architecture approach of recent decade is a new version of this old approach. The third alternative is the one that puts human at the center of the problem of technological change of architecture. Here the building technology is consid­ered as a tool for the human to make a harmony with nature (his nature or the absolute nature). The main criterion of development of the technology of build­ing is its co-operating with human changes not vice-versa. In light of the findings of this study, flexibility of architectural technology could be achieved in three ways: the first approach builds on those views that put their emphasize on metaphysical invariants. The opposite approach derives from those that have no believe in metaphysical invariants and instead claim of existing objectified basics in the material world. This puts emphasize on changing technology. The third approach is a somehow moderate one. Here pattern-based flexibility is accepted to fit hu­mane pace of change. A case study is conducted in Lorestan on the dwellings of the local nomads, namely Kula. It shows that in vernacular setting the all three mentioned approaches are active. In fact, in indigenous architecture the absence of explicit theo­ries and rules makes it possible to all aspects of hu­man existence (from deep mentality to deep materi­ality) to be revealed in constructed thing as life-tools or technology of life. So, in architectures that have explicit foundations (such as traditional or modernis­tic ones) there is only one aspect of human invariant that finds its response in architectural com­ponents (that is, specified only to one of three men­tioned aspects of flexibility), while in vernacular architecture this response is a holistic but weak one. This weak­ness goes back to the inexplicitness of metaphysical horizon of the decisions. Whilst in man-made meta­physical systems (i.e. philosophical ones) non-social base of the vision leads to one-sided relationship.
Full-Text [PDF 1573 kb]   (76 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research |

References
1. Addington, D.M., & D. L. Schodek. 2005. Smart Materials and New Technologies For the architecture and design professions. UK: Architectural Press.
2. Ahmadi, A. & A. Zaer Darabi & Y. Karimi. 1986. The training psychology for using in instructors' preparatory courses. Tehran: Sherkat-e Chap va Nashr-e Iran. [In Persian].
3. Alexander,C. 2005. The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of Universe, V.3, A Vision of a Living World. USA: Center for Environmental Structure.
4. Apia, A. 2009. An introduction to contemporary philosophy of the West. Tehran. Translated by H. Valeh. Tehran: Gam-e No. [In Persian].
5. Azimi, S. 1999. Basic issues in psychology (studying behavior). Tehran: Saffar. [In Persian].
6. Baird, G. 1998. 'La Dimension Amoureuse' in Architecture. In Architectural Theory Since 1968, ed. K.M. Hays, 36-55. New York: Columbia Book of Architecture.
7. Ballantyne A. 2002. Introduction. in What is Architecture, ed. A. Ballantyne, 1-6. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.1093/actrade/9780192801791.003.0001]
8. Brand, Stewart. 1995. How buildings learn: What Happens After They're Built. Penguin Books.
9. Bullivant, L. 2005. Introduction. Architectural Design.75(1): 5-7. [DOI:10.1002/ad.5]
10. Cooper Markus, C. 2003. Home as a mirror of self. Translated by A. Aligholian. Khyal quarterly (5): 88-119. [In Persian].
11. Curtis, W. 1982. Modern Architecture since 1900. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
12. Dabaieh, M. & Eybye, B.T. 2016. A comparative study of human aspects in acclimatization of adobe vernacular architecture: A case from Denmark and Egypt. ITU A|Z 13 (1): 29-41. [DOI:10.5505/itujfa.2016.09709]
13. Ebrahimi, M. 2014. The origin of the history and culture of Laks. Farhang-e Mardom-e Iran 37: 61-82. [In Persian].
14. Einifar, A. 2003. A model for analyzing the flexibility of the traditional houses of Iran. Honar-ha-ye Ziba 13(13): 64-77. [In Persian].
15. Eliade, M. 2009. Sacred and Profane. Translated by B. Saleki. Tehran: Entesharat-e Elmi va Farhangi. [In Persian].
16. Estaji, H. 2017. A Review of Flexibility and Adaptability in Housing Design. International Journal of Contemporary Architecture "The New ARCH" 4(2): 37-49.
17. Fakhoori, H., & Kh. Al-Jerr. 1994. History of the philosophy in the Islamic world. Translated by A. Ayati. Tehran: entesharat-e Elmi va Farhangi. [In Persian].
18. Ghobadian, V. 2010. Theories and concepts in contemporary western architecture. Tehran: Daftar-e Pazhoohesh-ha-ye Farhangi. [In Persian].
19. Gonzalez, R. A. 2015. Community-led Urbanism. AoU Journal Here & Now, http: the Academy of Urbanism @www.academyofurbanism.org.uk/journal-community-led-urbanism, visited May 2017.
20. Gruber, P. 2011. Biomimetics in Architecture: Architecture of Life and Buildings. Wien: Springer-Verlag. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-7091-0332-6]
21. Haeri, M. 2009. House, Culture, Nature. Tehran: Markaz-e Motaleati va Tahghighati Me'mari va Shahrsazi. [In Persian].
22. Hatch, R. (ed.).1984. The Scope of Social Architecture. USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.
23. Heidegger, M. 1998. Building, being and thinking. In Modern Hermeneutic/ a selection of issues, ed. B. Ahmadi, translated by: B. Ahmadi,& M. Mohajer, & M. Nabavi, 55-84. Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian].
24. Hertzberger, H. 2009. Lessons for architectural students. Translated by B. Khabbaz Beheshti, & B. Mirhashemi. Tehran: Ketab Arad. [In Persian].
25. Isais, G.F. & L. L. Harjo. 2016. Social Equity and Ethics in Design of Sustainable Built Environments. in The Routledge companion for architecture design and practice :established and emerging trends, ed. M. Kanaani & D. Kopec, 203-210. New York: Routledge.
26. Kanaani, M. 2016. Performativity: The Fourth Dimension in Architectural Design. in The Routledge companion for architecture design and practice :established and emerging trends, ed. M. Kanaani & D. Kopec, 93-116. New York: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315775869]
27. Kelly, K. 1995. Out of Control: the New Biology of Machine, Social System & the Economic World. New York: Addison-Wesley.
28. Kendall S. and J. Teicher. 2000. Residential Open Building. London and New York: E & FN Spon.
29. Kerr, R.. 2007. The Gentleman's House. in Housing and dwelling: perspectives on modern domestic architecture, ed. Barbara Miller Lane. London: Routledge.
30. Khan, S. M. 2010. Sethi Haveli, an indigenous model for 21st century 'Green Architecture. Archnet-IJAR4 (1): 85-98.
31. Knowles, R. 2006. Ritual House: Drawing on Nature's Rhythms for Architecture and Urban Design. Washington: Island Press.
32. Kolarevic, B., & A. Malkawi, (eds.). 2005. Performative architecture: beyond instrumentality. New York: Spon Press.
33. Kolarevic, B., & V. Parlac. 2016. Architecture of Change: Adaptive Building Skins. in The Routledge companion for architecture design and practice :established and emerging trends, ed. M. Kanaani & D. Kopec, 223-238. New York: Routledge.
34. Lang, J. Creating architectural history: the role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. Translated by A. Einifar. Tehran: Entesharat Daneshgah-e Tehran. [In Persian].
35. Lawson, Brayan. 2001. The Language Of Space. UK: Architectural Press.
36. Le Corbusier. 1931. Towards a New Architecture. Translated by Fredrick Etchells. London: J. Rodker.
37. Mahdinejad, J. & S. F. Ehsani Oskouei. 2016. The Necessity of Flexibility with Regard To User's Satisfaction in Multifunctional Buildings of Traditional Architecture of Iran (Case Study: The Home-Hussainia of Aminiha). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences17(4): 133-142. [DOI:10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4S1p133]
38. Mallgrave, H. F. 2005. Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511497728]
39. Merriam- Webster Dictionary of Synonyms. 1984. Merriam- Webster incorporated.
40. Miller Lane, Barbara (ed.). 2007. Housing and dwelling: perspectives on modern domestic architecture, London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203799673]
41. Mitcham, K. 2013. What is philosophy of technology?. Translated by M. Taghavi, & Y. Khoshnevis, & P. Mousavi. Tehran: Soroush. [In Persian].
42. Noghrekar, A. 2009. An introduction to Islamic identity in architecture. Tehran: Payamsima. [In Persian].
43. Olia, J., & A. Taghdiri, & S. Ghanbarzade Ghomi. 2010. Compatibility of industrial building construction systems. Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism (1): 5-14. [In Persian].
44. Oxford Dictionary of English. 2010. third Edition. Oxford university Press.
45. Pakzad, J. 2007. The history of thoughts in Urbanism, Vol2: from the quantity to the quality. Tehran: Sherkat-e Omran-e Shahr-haye Jadid. [In Persian].
46. Parayil, G. 2003. Change and development. in encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics, ed. C. Mitcham, vol1, 297-301. USA: Thomson Gale.
47. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. 2006. Built upon love : architectural longing after ethics and aesthetics, Massachusetts: MIT Press. [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/1697.001.0001]
48. Piaget, J. 2005. Structuralism. Translated by R. Ali Akbar pour. Tehran: Ketabkhaneh, Mouseh and Markaz-e Asnad-e Majles-e Shora-ye Eslami. [In Persian].
49. Piano, R. 1999. Renzo Piano: Architecture Monograph/Monografico Arquitectura. California: Gingko Press.
50. Rapoport, A. 2003. The cultural origins of the architecture. Translated by S. Al-e Rasool & A. Bank. Khyal quarterly(8): 56-97. [In Persian].
51. Richard, Jach, and C. Schmidt. 2010. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and applied linguistics. Fourth edition. UK: Routledge.
52. Ruskin, J. 1885. Lamp of Memory, NewYork: Penguin Books Ltd.
53. Salman, M., & S. Sabie, & S. Easterbrook, & J. Abate. 2016. Sustainable and Smart: Rethinking What a Smart Home Is.in 4th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S 2016), 184-193. Atlantis Press. [DOI:10.2991/ict4s-16.2016.22]
54. Sazman-e Basij-e Jame'e-ye Ashayeri-e Lorestan. 2014. Introduction to nomads' dwellings of Lorestan province. http: lorestan.ashayer.org (accessed April 2014). [In Persian].
55. Schneider, T. & J. Till. 2005. Flexible housing: opportunities and limits. Architectural Research Quarterly 9 (2): 157-166. [DOI:10.1017/S1359135505000199]
56. Schumacher, P. 2011. The Autopoiesis of Architecture: A New Framework for Architecture. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
57. Serageldin, I. 2007. Hassan Fathy. Egypt: Bibliotheca Alexandria,.
58. Shahrzoori, Sh. 1986. The happiness of the spirits and the garden of pleasance (the history of philosophers). Translated by M.A. Tabrizi. Eds. M.T. Daneshpazhooh and Mohammad Soodar-e Molayi. Tehran: Entesharat Elmi va Farhangi. [In Persian].
59. Shakouri R, Seyyed-Khamoushi S. Spatial Affordance in Domestic Persian Architecture; Case Study: Shekam Darideh Room, Lariha's Residence, Yazd . JHRE 2017; 36 (159) :119-132. [In Persian].
60. Shrifian, M. 2014. A review of the history of Metabolism and the role of Fomihiko Maki in it; the birth of Metabolism movement. Hamshahri Me'mari (25): 44-47. [In Persian].
61. Till, J. & T. Schneider. 2005. Flexible housing: the means to the end. Arq( 9) 3/4: 287-296. [DOI:10.1017/S1359135505000345]
62. Watkins, Calvert. 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of indo-european roots. Second Edition. Houghton: Mifflin
63. Wodarski, J.S., & S.F. Dziegielewski. 2002. Human behavior and the social environment: Integrating theory and evidence-based practice. New York: Springer.
64. http://en.geourdu.com

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2020 All Rights Reserved | Culture of Islamic Architecture and Urbanism Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb