نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بینالمللی امام خمینی (ره)، قزوین، ایران
2 استادیار گروه معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بینالمللی امام خمینی (ره)، قزوین، ایران
چکیده
چکیده تصویری
)
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Research Problem: The central problem this research addresses is that the concept of "progress" in architecture, despite its widespread application across professional, educational, and theoretical discourses, lacks clarity and a clear philosophical foundation. "Progress" is one of the concepts to which architects appeal for the purpose of legitimizing and validating their work. However, the profession's stance on this category appears to remain unresolved. Architects often pursue progress by incorporating novel technologies into building design, construction, and function, or through formal innovations. However, progress is inherently a normative and value-laden concept that can only be properly elucidated in light of intellectual and epistemological foundations. Consequently, the disregard for the philosophical underpinnings of this concept has led to the reduction of architectural progress to a purely techno-logical and market-driven indicator, thereby marginalizing its cultural, ethical, and humanistic dimensions. The objective of this study is to critically analyze the discursive foundations of the concept of "progress" in architecture, with a specific focus on its possibility and meaningfulness within the context of Modernist thought.
Research Question: How can the possibility or impossibility of architectural progress be articulated and explained through the analysis and critique of Modernity's intellectual foundations and their reflections in architecture?
Research Method: This research is exploratory in nature, and as such, it does not aim for hypothesis testing; rather, it is classified as fundamental research. Data were collected via documentary studies and analyzed and interpreted using logical argumentation. The research strategy employed is descriptive content analysis. Therefore, the study's validity is established not through empirical testing, but through the comprehensiveness of the source materials, the internal consistency of the arguments, and transparency in reconstructing the intellectual and discursive contexts.
The Most Important Results and Conclusion: The potential for progress in the light of modernity's foundations has various dimensions, explainable under categories such as Autonomous-Heteronomous, Teleological-Procedural, and Revolutionary-Evolutionary. The manifestations of these dimensions in architecture have emerged and appeared in the form of indicators such as Historicism, Novelty, Authenticity, Honesty, Fluidity, and Collectivism. A critique of these indicators reveals that many of the contradictions which modern architecture sought to resolve dialectically did not, in practice, lead to constructive and progressive synergy; instead, they brought about theoretical reductionisms and various practical contradictions for modern architecture. The autonomous progress of architecture was effectively reduced to a range of "Permissible forms" inspired by limited technology, and architectural history to a "Museum of obsolete tools". "Novelty" was diminished to "Interestingness" and a strategy for producing ephemeral consumer goods. "Honesty" was reduced to "Explicitness," and space was stripped of its poetic capacities. Under the pretext of manifesting "Freedom", the rich concept of "place" was reduced to a physical, quantitative concept of "space" as a fluid, boundary-less geometric continuum. The ideal of "collectivism", by neglecting private realms, led not to social solidarity, but to the domination of the individual. Finally, respect for the equal nature of humankind and the creation of a universal language effectively resulted in imposed homogenization and the dictation of a correct lifestyle; "Architecture for everyone" turned into "Architecture for no one", bringing about detachment and alienation. In this context, redefining true progress in contemporary architecture does not mean rejecting the achievements of modernism, but rather signifies a transition from one-dimensional models towards models that place the "lived experience" and the "self-actualization" of individuals and collectives at their core. It is a progress in which architecture responds to tangible human issues, draws upon its autonomous knowledge, interacts with its cultural and natural context, and ultimately provides a creative passage towards a future rooted in the aggregated wisdom of history.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)