year 5, Issue 2 (Semi-Annual 2020)                   CIAUJ 2020, 5(2): 107-123 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

1- Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran
2- Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran ,
3- Civil Engineering Faculty, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract:   (4874 Views)
Creativity has been a constant concern for artists and architects throughout history. Many definitions of creativity have been proposed, and many buildings throughout history have been known to be creative or uncreative. In this regard, the main point is to judge and evaluate creativity. Because creativity and architecture are never evaluated in isolation from their context and society. Architecture as a cultural product, is generated by thought, it is the carrier of thought and the manifestation of thought in the form of a bedrock for human life. Knowing that the goal of any type of architecture is ultimately human life, any innovation in architecture, succeeds in a society only by considering the audience and the culture of the people. Thus the meanings, patterns, lifestyles and the culture of the people are essential in this sense, because without such things it would be impossible to understand any new and innovative solutions. In this article, while reviewing the various definitions and concepts that have been presented about culture and creativity of architecture, the analysis of how culture influences the understanding of creativity in architecture is discussed. Architectural creativity involves the presentation of a form, space, or environment that is both innovative and appropriate. Usefulness of the architectural space depends on its response to human requirements. The response to human requirements in the architectural space, which is a cultural issue, is made through environmental affordances. The affordances of something, are part of its properties which make it usable for a particular cerature or human. Environmental affordances can not meet human needs and be useful, unless they are understandable to humen. In other words, of the countless affordances available in the environment, human uses the "perceived affordances" by himself to meet his needs from the environment. These abilities correspond to the mental meanings of human. Therefore, the more meanings of the environmental affordances and the mental meanings of the users are compatible, that environment can meet more needs of the user and be more useful. On the other hand, the less similar the architectural form is to the previous architectural works, the more innovative the architectural work will be. In fact, architectural creativity can be considered to meet human needs from the architectural environment in a new way. According to the research findings, culture provides the E'tebariat for architectural action and creates the ground for producing architectural work. If an architectural work has affordances that match the meanings of users and meet their needs from architecture in a new way, that architecture creates new E'tebariat and is perceived as a creative work. On the other hand, architecture that is creatively perceived by people also affects their culture. This process continues in a rotating manner and forms the mechanism of the effect of culture on architecture. In this way, E'tebariat both affect the architectural action and, in the next stage, the creative work of architecture, and are influenced by them and hereby make themselves new and updated. E'tebariat also change the culture according to the conditions and characteristics of each era and social actions. In fact, culture, action and E'tebariat interact and exchange with each other in a rotating process. In this sense, culture is not a fixed and stagnant concept and is constantly changing and evolving.
Full-Text [PDF 1661 kb]   (1529 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Conceptualization of theorizing in Islamic architecture and urban ism
Received: 2020/07/8 | Accepted: 2021/01/11 | ePublished: 2021/02/16

1. Afshari, Mohsen, Shahram Pourdeyhimi and Bahram Saleh Sedgh poor. 2016. The Environmental Adaptation of Human Lifestyle. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment 34 (152):3-16.
2. Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to The social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
3. Amir Hosseini, Khosrow. 2005. Creativity and Innovation (Basics, Principles, Techniques). Tehran: Aref Kamel Publications.
4. Bagheri, Ebrahim. 2014. Applied Concepts of Affordance Theory, from Psychology to Design Process. Honar-ha-ye-ziba, honar-ha-ye-tajassomi 19(3):55-64.
5. Bhaskar, R. 2005. The possibility of naturalism: A Philosophical critique of the contemporary human science. London: Routledge.
6. Bhaskar, R. 2008. A Realistic theory of science. London: Routledge.
7. Billington, Rosamond. 2001. Culture and society. Translated by Fariba Azbadftari. Tehran: Qatre.
8. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
9. Buckak, Robert. 2007. Cultural Formations of Modern Society. Translated by Mehran Mohajer. Tehran: Ney Publishing.
10. Chemero, A. 2003. An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Journal of Ecological Psychology 15(2), 181-195. [DOI:10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5]
11. Chiu, C. y., and L. Y. Y. Kwan. 2010 .Culture and creativity: A process model. Management and Organization 6(3). [DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00194.x]
12. De Dreu, C. K. W. 2010. Human creativity: Reflections on the role of culture. Management and Organization Review, 6(3).437-446. [DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00195.x]
13. Durkheim, Emile. 2007. Elementary forms of religious life. Translated by Mohammad Baqir Parham. Tehran: Central Publications.
14. Edgar, Andrew, and Peter Sedgwick. 2002. Cultural Theory, the Key Thinkers. London and New York. Sage.
15. Ejtahednejad Kashani, Seyyed Salar and Hossein Parviz Ejlali. 2014. Theoretical-conceptual exploration of cultural development from a sociological perspective. Social Scineces 21(64):35-72.
16. Feist, G. J. 1998. A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4): 290-309. [DOI:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5]
17. Gaver, W.W. 1991. Technology Affordances, in S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through Technology, New York: ACM Press. [DOI:10.1145/108844.108856]
18. Ghiselin, Brewster. 1985. The Creative Process. University of California Press.
19. Gibson J.J. 1977. The Theory of Affordance. Perceiving, Acting and Knowing. New York: Halsted.
20. Grote, Linda and David Wang. 2013. Architectural Research Methods. Translated by alireza einifar. Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
21. Hasani, Seyed Hamidreza and Hadi Moosavi. 2012. Structure and agency in a comparative study of Allama Tabatabai's theory of Etebariat and Giddens' theory of structuration. Social Theories of Muslim Thinkers 2(2): 129-159.
22. Ibrahimipoor, Ghasem. 2014. Social Interaction in Allamah Tabatabaii's View. Journal of Socio-Cultural Knowledge 5(19):1940.
23. Iwarsson, S., and Ståhl, A., 2003. Accessibility, Usability and Universal Design - Positioning and Definition of Concepts Describing Person-Environment Relationsships. Disability and Rehabilitation 25(2):57-66. [DOI:10.1080/dre.]
24. Jafari, Mohammad Taqi. 2000. Old culture, progressive culture. Tehran: Allameh Jafari Publishing House.
25. Lang, Jon. 2009. Creating architectural theory. Translated by Alireza Einifar. Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
26. Mahmoodi, Seyed Amir Saeid and Seyed Mohammad Hossein Zakeri. 2011. Influence of Design Precedents on Creativity. Honar-ha-ye-ziba 3(47):39-50.
27. Malinowski, B. 2000. A Scientific Theory of Culture.Translated by Abdolhamid Zarringhalam. Tehran: Game No Publications.
28. Mirjani, Hamid, 2010. Logical Argumentation as a Research Method. Soffeh 20(50):35-50.
29. Mohammadi, Mohsen, Hamid Nadimi and Mahmoud Reza Saghafi. 2017. Investigating the Application of the Concept of 'Affordance' in the Design and Evaluation of the Built Environment. Soffeh 27(2): 21-34.
30. Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. 2010. Asian-Americans creative styles in Asian and American situations: Assimilative and contrastive responses as a function of bicultural identity integration. Management and Organization Review 6(3): 371-390. [DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00190.x]
31. Moosavi, Hadi and Hamidreza Hasani. 2016. The Role of Credit Theory in the Anthropology of Anthropology". Religious Anthropology 35: 159-181. [In Persian]
32. Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. 2010. Creativity East and West: Perspectives and parallels. Management and Organization Review 6(3): 313-327. [DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00193.x]
33. Mosleh, Aliasghar. 2013. Edrakat-e E'tebari of Allameh Tabatabaei and the Philosophy of Culture. Tehran: Roozegar no Press. [In Persian]
34. Mousavi, Hadi and Hamidreza Hassani. 2016. The Role of the Theory of E'tebariat in Human knowledge on the Importance of Anthropology. Religious Anthropology 13(35):159-181.
35. Nari Qomi, Massoud. 2015. Problem paradigms in architecture. Tehran: Elm-e Memar Publishing.
36. Norman, D.A. 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
37. Parsi, Hamidreza and Behrad Farmahini Farahani. 2016. Mental Schema, Urban Space, Creativity. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Development 9(17):303-315.
38. Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. New York: Free press.
39. Qarabaghi, Ali Asghar. 2006. Difficulty of definition. Journal of Binab (10): 48-53.
40. Ranjan, B.S.C., L. Siddharth and Amaresh Chakrabarti, 2018. A systematic approach to assessing novelty, Requirement satisfaction, and creativity. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (32): 390-414. [DOI:10.1017/S0890060418000148]
41. Rapaport, Amos. 2005. The Meaning of the built environment. Translated by Farah Habib. Tehran: Urban Planning and Processing Company Publications.
42. Rocher, G. 2012. Sociology of Talcott Parsons. Translated by Abdolhossein Nik Gohar. Tehran: Ney Publications.
43. Samad Aghaei, Jalil 2006. Creativity, the essence of entrepreneurship. Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
44. Sayer, Andrew. 2014. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. Translated by Emad Afrough. Tehran: Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies.
45. Simonton, D. K., & Ting, S.-S. 2010. Creativity in Eastern and Western civilizations: The lessons of historiometry. Management and Organization Review 6(3): 329-350. [DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00188.x]
46. Smith, P. D. 2012. Cultural Theory: an Introduction. Translated by H. Pouyan. Tehran: Daftar-e Pajouhesh-haye Farhangi Publication.
47. Story, M. F., J. L. Mueller & R. L. Mace. 2011. The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Design Research and Methods Journal 1(1).
48. Swingewood, Alan. 1998. Cultural Theory and the problem of modernity. New York: MacMilan. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-349-26830-6]
49. Tabatabaei, Seyed Mohammad Hussein 1985. Principles of Philosophy and Method of Realism. Tehran: Sadra.
50. Tabatabaei, Seyed Mohammad Hussein 1995. Tafsir Al-Mizan. Translated by Mohammad Baqir Mousavi Hamedani. Qom: Islamic Publications Office.
51. Tabatabaei, Seyed Mohammad Hussein. 1992. Collection of articles and questions and answers. Introduction by Seyed Hadi Khosroshahi. Tehran: Islamic Culture Publishing Office.
52. Tylor, Edward B. 1871. Primitive Culture. 1. London: John Murray
53. Wang, A. Y. 2011 .Contexts of creative thinking: A comparison on creative performance of student teachers in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of International and Cross-Cultural Studies 2 (1): 1-14.
54. Weisberg, Robert. W. 2006. Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention and the arts. USA: John Wiley & Sonc Inc.

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.