چكيده فارسي :
در فرانسه سابقه پژوهش در حوزه منظر ?? سال پيش با برگزاري همايشي در باب «مرگ منظر؟» آغاز شد2. بعد از انتشار كتاب «نظريه منظر3» اَلن روژه امروز تنها 15 سال است كه منظر موضوع مباحث نظري و عملي شده است. بديهي است كه در اين ميان، سوالات جديدي نيز مطرح شد.
طي دوره‌هاي طولاني منظر مفهومي طبيعي داشت : ديد وسيع طبيعي (پانوراما) مشهود از نقطه‌اي مرتفع، خالق نوعي لذت زيباشناسان و هيجاني محسوس. اين ادراك مصور يا تزييني امروزه چه در حوزه نظريات و چه در پروژه‌ها دچار بحران شده و رابطه انسان و منظر بيش از آنكه «طبيعي» باشد، پيچيده است. منظر، ديگر تنها در حوزه زيباشناسي مطرح نيست بلكه در علوم اقتصادي، سياسي، اجتماعي و حقوق نيز كاربرد دارد؛ از صنعت تا مسيله مصرف انرژي. سوال اين است كه گستره بي‌مرز اين مفهوم چه تاثيري بر خوانايي كانسپت آن و عملكردهاي منظرين دارد؟
به عنوان مثال در مبحث روش‌هاي دسترسي به منظر اين مسيله مطرح مي‌شود كه آيا بينايي همچنان تنها روش است؟ حال آنكه از منظر بويايي، شنيداري و حتي چشايي نيز مطالبي مي‌شنويم. همچنين پيشرفت رسانه‌ها (عكاسي، فن سينما و دنياي ديجيتال) و اين دنياي مجازي جديد غيرمادي، همگي از روش‌هاي سنتي مصورسازي4 بسيار دورند. در مجموع امروز، منظر كمتر در وهله اول قابل خوانش است. براي بررسي اين وضعيت هستي‌شناسانه بايد ابتدا به دوره‌شناسي تحولات منظرين بپردازيم. در اين پژوهش به پنج جهت‌گيري اصلي مي‌رسيم كه مبدا يا مركز مباحث منظرين در تفكر معاصر بوده‌اند.
چكيده لاتين :
Landscape had a natural concept for a long period of time: a panoramic view from a high spot which offered perceived aesthetics and emotional pleasure. Today, this visual or decorative perception is in a crisis either in theory or in project and the relation between landscape and human has become complex rather than ‘natural’. Landscape is not merely allocated to aesthetics and it is used in economics, political, law social sciences as well; from industry to saving energy. The question is what impact does this borderless concept have on legibility of concept and landscape performance?
For instance, is vision still the only way of accessing landscape while we hear about smell, hearing or even tasting landscape? Furthermore, media developments (photography, cinema and digital world) and the non-material virtual world are distances away from traditional methods of visualization. Generally, nowadays landscape is less readable in the first place. To examine the ontological status, we have to study landscape transitional periods at first. In this study, we reach a basic decision which is the origin or the center of contemporary thoughts in landscape: every landscape can have a material aspect which is portrayed as a cultural oriented issue, a place to live and to be seen as a manifestation of sensible experience and enthusiastic of development. We might come up to a holistic approach in facing landscape which means simultaneousness of landscape rationalisms separated by modernism. This rationalism includes instrumental rationalism which can be observed in science and techniques; common rationalism which defines common ethical and political beliefs; aesthetic rationalism which encompasses various human encounters with the world; conversational or communicational rationalism which build symbolic framework where principles of common life forms within.
The landscape architect has many problems to concern about including matching techniques to space disorders and residents’ requests, the meaning and value of place, enhancing life quality in the site and coordination with social context (beliefs, rational thoughts, conflicts and multiplicity of traditions). These are the issues involved landscape in making thinking methods rather than looking for solutions. Obviously, collecting all these things may not be possible in a form of general landscape consideration, but its necessity is also undeniable.
A sensible space seems far-fetched at first; however, in fact it carries a profound result in defining landscape and defining the relation between landscape and human beings. This aspect focuses on sensible approach of landscape and deals with landscape as a sensible space. Considering landscape as a part of human identity, it is not fair to think of it only in the issues of distance and vision. We must be "committed to landscape" and "have a sense" in landscape. We are “landscaping” and we are living with it more than we are able to see it. Therefore, we must be more accurate in the sense that we are committed to landscape; since we can intervene in landscape, landscape is close to us, surrounding us and we are able to connect to it, even physically.
The question in making a public space as a sensible space is: How does the metaphoric meaning of public space in analyzing political actions create and visualize spaces, especially urban spaces?
The public space is quite rational and agreeable rather than being “abstract”: there exists something else outside. The condition of public space which means “existing outside” has a spatial organization: not being so close for entering personal realm and not so far where the sound of others cannot be heard. Public space in architecture, urbanism and generally in spatial organization requires the art of creating various spaces.
Generally the public space is concerned with three basic issues:
1. Function, multiplicity and mixing them which are all summarized in the experience of inhabiting in the place;
2. The condition of sensible experience and inhabitancy which includes qualities such as form, light, texture, scale and equipment;
3. The uncontrollable and unpredicted parts of the place: the boundaries between spaces. Margins and edges are evident in other areas of space and identity in these spaces is proposed.
It is concluded from these three issues that the multiplicity of approaches to the question of public space is essential. This multiplicity leads to landscape. The primary responsibility of landscape is producing space for interventionists’ encounters in the land.
Landscape is a «process» of space, not only due to the presence of human but because landscape is a consequent of a common thing.
