پديد آورندگان :
پيروي، مهناز دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي واحد تبريز - گروه معماري , كبيرصابر، محمدباقر دانشگاه تهران - دانشكدۀ معماري - پرديس هنرهاي زيبا , پاكدل فرد، محمدرضا دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي واحد تبريز - گروه معماري , فردوسي، عادل دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي واحد تبريز - گروه عمران
كليدواژه :
فناوري معماري , حفاظت معماري , فرهنگ‌گرايي , كاربرمحوري , تخصصي شدن حرفه‌ها
چكيده فارسي :
در طي چند دهۀ اخير، جوامع غربي با بهره‌گيري خلاقانه از فناوري معماري در امر حفاظت معماري، پروژه‌هاي موفقي را به ثمر رسانده‌اند؛ كه از جمله مي‌توان به موزۀ هنر كلومبا، موزۀ جديد آكروپليس و ده‌ها پروژۀ ديگر در اين راستا اشاره نمود. اين در حالي است كه در ايران تا كنون از آنچه كه از پيشرفت‌هاي فناورانه در دست است در اقدامات حفاظت معماري به نحو خلاقانه بهره برده نشده است. بر اين اساس، هدف از پژوهش حاضر، بررسي علت و ريشۀ توسعه‌نيافتگي ايران در اين زمينه بوده و پرسشي كه بر اساس اين هدف مطرح مي‌شود آن است كه چرا امروزه جوامع غربي در بهره‌گيري از فناوري معماري رايج در حفاظت معماري داراي عملكرد بسيار موفق‌تري نسبت به ايران است؟ جهت پاسخگويي به اين پرسش، با رويكردي كيفي و روش پژوهش تاريخي و تحليل مقايسه‌اي از زير مجموعه‌هاي اين رويكرد، چگونگي ارتباط دو حوزۀ فناوري معماري و حفاظت معماري در دوره‌هاي سنت، گذر از سنت به صنعت، پس از گذر از سنت به صنعت و مقطع كنوني، در جوامع غربي و ايران بررسي تطبيقي شده است. يافته‌هاي پژوهش حاكي از آن است كه در جوامع غربي به تبع تحول فناوري معماري از سنتي به صنعتي و همچنين تحول حفاظت معماري از سنتي به علمي كه حدود شش قرن به طول انجاميد، ارتباطي نامطلوب بين اين دو حوزه شكل گرفت. اما اين ارتباط به عنوان محصول تكامل‌نيافتۀ دورۀ گذر از سنت به صنعت، با تكامل و تقرب به الگوي فرهنگ‌گرا نهايتاً به ارتباطي مطلوب تبديل شد. اما در ايران ابتدائاً در اوايل قرن حاضر با مطرح شدن فناوري معماري صنعتي و حفاظت علمي به عنوان محصول دورۀ گذر جوامع غربي، به علت فاصلۀ علمي به طول چندين قرن با جوامع مذكور، مشكلاتي فراتر از دورۀ پس از گذر در غرب گريبانگير كشور در اين زمينه شد. متعاقباً عدم اهتمام در جبران اين فاصله، با غفلت از الگوي فرهنگ‌گرا در هر دو حوزۀ فناوري معماري و حفاظت معماري منجر بدان شد كه تخصص‌هاي مهندسي و معماري ـ تخصص هاي تفكيك شدۀ حوزۀ فناوري معماري ـ و حفاظت معماري با يكديگر و با جامعه منسجم نشوند. لذا كماكان ايران در بهره‌گيري از فناوري معماري صنعتي در حفاظت علمي، به مرحلۀ توسعه‌يافتگي نرسيده است.
چكيده لاتين :
During the last few decades the western societies has accomplished successful projects by creative utilization of architectural technology in architectural conservation such as the Columbia Museum of Art, New Acropolis Museum, and dozens of other projects. This is while in Iran we have not been able to benefit from architectural technology in architectural conservation measures in a creative way yet. It is obvious that architectural technology in Iran has not been progressed step by step with western societies, and there is a ponderable gap in this field between Iran and the mentioned societies; but, the research problem is that we cannot even benefit from what we have from technological developments in architecture field in architectural conservation measures. This issue is important because nowadays the architectural conservation measures in Iran do not meet the current expectations from architectural heritage, and in this respect and considering the richness of this heritage in the country, we have lost and are losing many material and spiritual opportunities that we could have achieved from this potential. Accordingly, the purpose of the present research is to investigate the cause and root for Iranchr(chr('39')39chr('39'))s backwardness in this field, and the question that is proposed based on this purpose is that Why do the western countries have a more successful performance in comparison to Iran in utilizing architectural technology common in architectural conservation? If the focus is on a wider timeframe, it is found that since the Renaissance period that is from the emergence period of modern technology and thought backgrounds in western societies, the relationship of the specialized fields with each other and with the society began to break down and consequently some challenges in the field of architecture and architectural conservation were also created for these societies. Accordingly, in the present research, firstly, the evolutions history of each of the architectural technology fields – including engineering and architecture form – and architectural conservation and evolution of the relationship of these two fields in western countries and Iran were investigated, and secondly, the type of the relationship of the specialties with the society and with each other have been focused in investigating these evolutions. The present research has a qualitative approach that has used comparative analysis research method in terms of studying the relationship between the two fields of architectural technology and architectural conservation in two different societies, and historical research method in terms of studying the relationship between these two fields in different historical sections. So, in order to answer this question, the relationship between the two fields of architectural technology and architectural conservation during the periods of tradition, passing from tradition to industry after passing from tradition to industry and the present time have been studied comparatively with a qualitative approach, historical research method, and comparative analysis from the subsets of this approach. The studies indicated that in the western societies from the early fourteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century subsequent to the evolution of architectural technology from traditional nature to industrial one as well as the evolution of architectural conservation from traditional to scientific, an undesirable relationship was gradually formed based on the compliance of scientific conservation only from the architectural aspect, and subsequently, from the technology engineering aspect. As an undeveloped product of the transition period from tradition to industry in the mentioned societies, this undesirable relationship eventually became a desirable one through the evolution of industrial architectural technology and scientific conservation by paying attention to the user and approaching the culture-oriented paradigm. This is while in Iran since the beginning of the present century and following the offhand introduction of industrial architectural technology and scientific conservation, as the transition period’s product in the West, the relationship between these two fields faced problems beyond the post-transition period in the West and resulted in breaking down of the relationship between industrial architectural technology and scientific conservation. Even after paying attention to the user and culture, no relationship was established between these two fields in the country. This problem originated from a scientific gap of several centuries between Iran and the western societies in this field and failure to fill this gap by ignoring the culture-oriented paradigm in both fields of architectural conservation and architectural technology. Failure to approach this paradigm in architectural conservation has led to the control of archeological mentality over the country’s scientific conservation and continuation of its problematic relationship with architectural technology–whether from engineering or architectural aspect – and society until now. In the field of architectural technology, failure to adopt the culture-oriented paradigm also resulted in the lack of balance and coordination between engineering and architectural aspects and between them and society. Therefore, unlike western societies, a desirable triple relationship has not yet been established among engineering, architecture and architectural conservation and between this triple and the society which, in turn, has resulted in backwardness of the country in utilizing architectural technology in architectural conservation.
