نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای معماری، دانشکده‌ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی (ره)، قزوین، ایران.

2 دانشیار، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی (ره)، قزوین، ایران.

چکیده

معماری و رسانه، به عنوان ابزارهای اجتماعی در بستر فرهنگی و تاریخی، نقش مهمی را در زندگی روزمره‌ی انسان‌ها ایفا می‌کنند. با توجه به تعدد روزافزون رسانه‌ها و وجود ارتباط با مخاطبین در هر دوی این پدیده‌ها، هدف پژوهش حاضر آن است که دریابد آیا می‌توان معماری را نیز به‌مثابه یک رسانه دانست یا خیر. به همین منظور ابتدا تعاریف رسانه و معماری از دیدگاه واژه‌شناسی و ادبیات، و سپس نظریه‌پردازان و معماران بررسی شده است و با تطبیق نظریات آنها، اصول نشانه‌شناسی و عناصر تشکیل‌دهنده‌ی رسانه، مدلی مبنی بر فرایند ارتباطی در شناخت یک اثر معماری توسط مخاطب به دست آمده است. مدل حاصل، تعریف رسانه به عنوان وسیله‌ی ارتباط جمعی را در دل خود جای داده و نشان می‌دهد که هردوی آنها در طول تاریخ بر هویت، شناخت واقعیات، الگوی مصرف و درک انسان‌ها از حقایق و ارزش‌ها مؤثر بوده‌اند. این مقاله، پژوهشی کیفی است که با رویکرد سیستمی و کل‌نگر، به تحلیل، ترکیب و تطبیق دو سیستم معماری و رسانه می‌پردازد و از رویکرد نشانه‌شناسی نیز برای تحلیل رابطه‌ی میان کالبد، محتوا و معنای معماری با ادراک و شناخت انسان استفاده شده است. اطلاعات مورد نیاز با استفاده از منابع اسنادی به دست آمده‌اند. نتایج این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که می‌توان معماری را نیز به‌مثابه یک رسانه، شامل عناصر فرستنده‌ی پیام و مخاطب، پیام، رمز نگاری و رمزگشایی، کانال ارتباطی، عامل رسانه‌ای، زمینه و عوامل اختلالگر دانست که در رسیدن پیام معماری با استفاده از ویژگی‌های کالبدی، معنایی و محتوایی به وسیله‌ی حواس پنجگانه و قدرت ذهن و ادراک به انسان یاری می‌رسانند.  

چکیده تصویری

مطالعه‌ی تطبیقی تعاریف ، کارکردها و عناصر «رسانه»، به منظور بررسی نقش «معماری» به عنوان یک «رسانه»

تازه های تحقیق

- استفاده از رویکردهای سیستمی و کل‌نگر، و همچنین نشانه‌نشاسی به منظور تحلیل، ترکیب و تطبیق دو سیستم معماری و رسانه
- ارائه‌ی مدل تطبیقی عناصر و مفاهیم معماری و رسانه با استفاده از واژه‌شناسی، دیدگاه نظریه‌پردازان، معماران و اصول نشانه‌شناسی
- تطبیق کارکردها و نقوش معماری و رسانه در طول ادوار تاریخی

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative study of definitions, functions, and elements of “media” to examine the role of “architecture” as a “media”

نویسندگان [English]

  • Pegah Payedar Ardakani 1
  • Hassan Zolfagharzadeh 2

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran .

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Objective and Background: As social means in the cultural and historical context, architecture and media are heavily involved in the daily lives of human beings. Humans can achieve a good understanding of their relationship with the architecture of their immediate surroundings. By observing the environment, human beings can receive clues and signs to organize and formulate the whole environment with their information and memories. Thus, they can communicate with the environment in which they live and exchange information with their surroundings as an interface. Although architecture seems to be a practical field of study, it also acts similar to a means of mass communication. The intermediating role of architecture raises the fundamental question of whether architecture can be considered a media based on its different attitudes and functions. The significance of studying this issue is that both architecture and media are among the factors that encompass various aspects of human life. If architecture is considered a type of media, its effects on human life, as well as its various policies in dealing with cultural, moral, and other aspects must be considered.
Methods: The present study is qualitative research that, using a systematic and holistic approach, analyzes, combines, and adapts the two architectural and media systems. Semiotic approaches have also been employed to analyze the relationship between body, content, and meaning of architecture and human perception and cognition. Also, in order to study the epistemology and ontology of the two systems, i.e., architecture and media, both were comparatively matched with one another. Lastly, the model of similarity between architecture and media and their common points have been obtained by a comparative analysis. For data collection, documentary sources have been employed.
Findings: The first step in this paper is to examine the definitions of architecture and media from the lexicography perspective and the views of theorists and architects. The results of this step and the study of the role and function of media suggest that the features and definitions of the media can be examined from two perspectives. In the original function, the media is considered as a text and a means of communicating with the audience and a system of symbols studied under semiotics. As for the second function, the media is considered a means of mass communication for human beings. It involves features that, if considered for architecture as well, can change architecture to a media with similar characteristics and functions. Therefore, in the second step, architecture was considered a text that can be read and understood better through semiotics and emphasized the signification process. Hence, by summarizing the views of theorists and semioticians, the architectural works are cognized and understood in three stages of sensory, intellectual, and semantic aspects, in which the sensory layer depends on recognizing body and form, its description, and the examining of its functional and syntactic aspects. This, in turn, leads to the identification of artistic themes through sensory aesthetics, and the rational factors form the connections between artistic themes with ideas and concepts in a logical and conventional way via the method of structuralist semiotics. Through their symbolic, schematic, iconic, or compositional implications, semantic factor lead to the understanding and interpretation of the notion of architecture based on the basic tendencies of the human mind, including psychology or individual, social or universal worldview, as well as intellectual, cultural, religious, ideological, and philosophical foundations. In the next step, in order to examine the role of architecture and media as means of mass communication, three Toffler media courses were adapted to three periods of pre-modern, modern, and postmodern in architectural courses. According to the results of this section, architecture and media have had common features in each historical stage, and it is safe to say that architecture can influence various aspects of human life such as identity, values, culture, and recognition of reality through its unique features. In the final step, the components of media and architecture were comparatively matched. According to the findings of this section, a communication process can be thought including three main factors: the message sender, the message receiver, and the message; while other components are introduced as media elements, communication channels, encryption and decryption, disruptor or noise, feedback, texture, and context. Accordingly, the physical, formal, content, and semantic features of architectural work, themselves constituting the architectural structure, act as a medium that conveys the architectural message to the user through communication channels including the five senses and human perception. In this definition, the factors interfering with the delivery of the architectural message may be either physical (such as annoying noise, insufficient or blinding light) or inferential (such as the complexity or anonymity of the message content and meaning) that includes both physical and semantic aspects of the architecture. Moreover, important factors for comprehending the symbol and deciphering the architectural message and its formation include spatial and textural position, social, cultural, religious and philosophical context, and time-dependent conditions. Audience and user feedback towards the decoded message of architecture is also a behavioral clue and an emotional response that results from the perception and spatial experience of architectural space within the audience. Finally, a comparative model of the elements creating media relations and the relationship between the audience and the architectural work is proposed.
Conclusion: This study suggests that architecture can be considered a media by meeting the elements of the message sender and the audience, the message, encryption and decryption, communication channel, media factor, context, and disruptive factors. These elements assist humans in conveying the architectural message using physical, semantic, and content features through the five senses and the power of the mind and perception.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Media
  • Architecture
  • mass media
  • Systemic Approach
  • Semiotics
  1. Ahmadi, Babak. (2014). Moamaye Modernite [The Riddle of Modernity]. Tehran: Markaz Publications.
  2. Amid, Hassan. (1986). Farhange Amid [Amid Lexicon]. Tehran: Amirkabir Publications.
  3. Amiri, Somaye. (2016). Study the concept of cognitive signs and codes in architecture and urbanism with an emphasis on Architecture and Islamic city. Urban Management, 43, 423-444.
  4. Anvari, Hasan. (2002). Farhange Bozorge Sokhan [Sokhan Lexicon]. Tehran: Sokhan Publications.
  5. Athique, Adrian. (2019). Media, civilization and the international order. International Journal of Cultural Studies. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877919888923.
  6. Babaei, Mahmud. (2013). Digital Media; Participatory Approach and Technology-Driven. ISAIM Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, 98-107.
  7. Baudrillard, jean. (1983). Simulations. Trans by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip Beitchman, NewYork: Semiotext.
  8. Baudrillard, Jean. (2007). Sepide-daman-e amr-e Vaghe’i. (Translated from French to Persian by A. Ghorbani). Etela’ate Hekmat va Ma’arefat, No. 3, 50-53.
  9. Bakhshande, Baran. (2017). Influence of the Media on the National and Cultural Identity. Jame’e, Farhang, Resane, No. 25, 87-114.
  10. Chandler, Daniel. (2018). Semiotics: The Basics. (Translated from English to Persian by Mahdi Parsa). Tehran: Sureye Mehr Publications.
  11. Dehkhoda, AliAkbar. (2011). Dehkhoda Dictionary. Tehran: Roshd Pulications.
  12. Dibaji, Seyed MohammadAli & Mirzayi, Zahra. (2011). Prdakhtan be Falsafeye Resane [Studying media philosophy]. Media and Culture Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, 49-65.
  13. Eco, Umberto. (1997). Function and sign; the semiotics of architecture. Rethinking architecture: A reader on Cultural Theory. Ed. Neil Lech. London: Routledge.
  14. Eshrafi, Nasim. (2018). Explaining The Epistemological Foundations of Architecture and Urban Planning with System Approach. Hoviyat-e-Shahr, Vol. 12, No. 33, 89-98.
  15. Falahat, MS. (2005). Human, Environment and Architecture. Zanjan: ZNU Publications.
  16. Falahat, MS & Nouhi, Samira. (2012). Mahiyat-e Neshaneha va Naghshe an dar erteghaye fazaye me’mari [The nature of the signs and their role in promoting the sense of place in the architectural space]. Honarhaye Ziba, Vol. 17, No. 1, 17-25.
  17. Fahim, Habibollah; Khanyeki, Hadi & Entezari, Ardeshir. (2011). Relationship between cyberspace and generalization of Internet users among employees of the National Archives and Library of Iran. Motaleate melliye ketabdari va sazmandehiye etela’at, No. 90, 141-159.
  18. Frascari, Marco. (1989). The Particolareggiamento in the Narration of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 43, No. 1.
  19. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1997). The ontological foundation of the occasional and the decorative. Rethinking architecture: A reader on Cultural Theory. Ed. Neil Lech. London: Routledge.
  20. Ghafari, Alireza & Falamaki, Mohammad-Mansour. (2015). Semiotic theories of architecture and city reflected in readings. Urban Management, No. 45, 321-333.
  21. Ghobadiyan, Vahid. (2005). Theories and Concepts in Contemporary Western Architecture. Tehran: Cultural Research Bureau.
  22. Grifin, Ricky & Moorhead, Gregory. (2016). Raftar-e Sazmani [organizational behavior]. (Translated by Mahdi Alvani & Gholamreza Me’marzade). Tehran: Morvarid Publication.
  23. Giyurian, Hassan & Zakeri, Ma’sume. (2006). Naghsh-e Resaneha bar farhangsazi [The role of the media in creating culture]. Media Studies, No. 20, 179-208.
  24. Goneos-Malka, A. (2011). Marketing to young adults in the context of a postmodern society. Ph.D. Thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
  25. Guiraud, Pierre. (2008). Semiologie (Translated by Mohammad Nabavi). Tehran: Agah Publications.
  26. Hauser, Nathan. (2017). Pierce, phenomenology and semiotics. Semiotics (Translated by Rahele Ghasemi). Edited by Paul Kubli. Tehran: Siahroud Publications.
  27. Habibi, Mahdi. (2013). Media Studies. Curriculum for the field of cultural management. Birjand: University of Applied Sciences, 1-41.
  28. Hjarvard, Stig. (2008). The mediatization of religion. Northern Lights, Volume 6.
  29. Hersij, Hossein & Izadi, Hejrat. (2013). Hoviyat-ha-ye plural-e alam-e postmodern, Samare-ye siyasat-e ghodratmadar-e modern [The plural identities of the postmodern world, conclusion of modern legislative policy]. Gharb shenasi-ye Bonyadi, 4 (1), 135-161.
  30. Hojjat, Isa. (2005). Hovivat-e Ensan saz, Ensan-e Hoviyat Pardaz [Human-maker Identity, Identity-Producer Human]. Honarhaye Ziba, No. 24, 55-62.
  31. Innis, Harold. (1999). The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  32. Iran-nejad Parizi, Mahdi & Sasan-Gohar, Parviz. (2007). Sazman va modiriyat; Az teory ta amal [Organization and management from theory to practice]. Tehran: Iran Banking Institue.
  33. Jameson, Fredric. (2015). [Preface] Postmodern situation. (Translated by Hossein-Ali Nozari). Edited by Jean-François Lyotard. Tehran: Nashr-e no Publications.
  34. Jencks, Charles et al. (1980). The Presence of the Past: Venice Biennale 1980: First International Exhibition of Architecture. Academy Editions.
  35. Jencks, Charles. (1987). Postmodern and Late Modern: The Essential Definitions. Chicago Review, Vol. 35, No. 4.
  36. Johnson, Mark L. (2018). Body, mind and imagination: The mental nature of man. Mind in Architecture; Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design. (Translated from English to Persian by V. Majdi & N. Majdi). Edited by Sarah Robinson and Juhani Pallasmaa. Tehran: Aval va Akhar publications.
  37. Kietzmann, J., & Angell, I. (2010). Panopticon revisited. Communications of the ACM, 53(6).
  38. Lyon, David. (2014). Postmodernity. (Translated by Mohsen Hakimi). Tehran: Ashiyan Publication.
  39. Mahdavinejad, Mohammadjavad; Bemaniyan, Mohammadreza & Neda, Khaksar. (2010). Hoviyat-e Me’mari; Tabyin-e mabnaye hoviyat dar dorehaye pishamodern, moden va pasamodern [Architectural identity; Explain the meaning of identity in pre-modern, modern and postmodern periods]. Hoviyat-e Shahr, 5 (7), 113-122.
  40. Mahdavinejad, Mohammadjavad; Dideban, Mohammad & Bazaz'zade, Hassan. (2015). Miras-e Me’mariye Moaser va Hoviyat-e Sanaati dar mahdudehaye tarikhi; shahr-e Dezful [The legacy of contemporary architecture and industrial identity in historical areas; Dezful city]. Shahr-e Irani Eslami, No. 22, 41-50.
  41. Mansourian, Soheila (2013). Art and the Truth of Media at Post- Modern Era. Kimiya-ye Honar, 2(8), 59-72.
  42. Manovich, L. (2006). The poetics of urban media surfaces. First Monday, doi: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v0i0.1545.
  43. Mathew, Anijo. (2008). Editorial: Architecture as a Communicative Medium. ARCC Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1.
  44. Mathiyazhagan. T. et al. (2015). Traditional Media of Communication. International Journal of Social Science, Volume 4, No. 1.
  45. Moein, Mohammad. (1992). Farhang-e Loghat-e Farsi [Persian Dictionary]. Tehran: Amirkabir Publication.
  46. Morris, Charles. (1946). Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Braziller.
  47. Nazari, Ali Ashraf. (2006). Postmodernism va hoviyat-ha-ye Siyasi [Postmodernism and Political Identities]. Motale’at-e Meli, 7 (3), 115-136.
  48. Newme, K. (2011). Traditional Media:  Meaning and practices (chapter 3). Available on: https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/.
  49. Noruzi, Ya’ghub & Keshavarz, Hamid. (2019). Dimensions of Web Information Credibility: Viewpoints and Priorities of Students at Top Universities in Iran. Motaleate melliye ketabdari va sazmandehiye etela’at, 30 (1), 27-53.
  50. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. (1993). Heidegger and Postmodern Architecture. (Translated by Kave Mirabbasi). Keyhan Farhangi, No. 312, 16-18.
  51. Olson, D. R. (Ed.) (1998). Media and symbols: The forms of expression, communication and education. (Translated from English to Persian by M. Mohajer). Tehran: publishing center of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
  52. Panofsky, Erwin. (1983). Meaning in the Visual Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  53. Patteeuw, Véronique & Szacka, Léa-Catherine. (2018). Mediated Messages; Periodicals, Exhibitions and the Shaping of Postmodern Architecture. UK: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
  54. Peirce, C.S.. (1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol 2. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  55. Sandboth, Mike. (2005). Pragmatic Media. Online publication: www. sandbothe.net.
  56. Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1983). Course in General Linguistics, (trans. Roy Harris), London, Duckworth.
  57. Sekhavat-doost, Nooshin; Alborzi, Fariba. (2017). Reflections on the semiotics of the entrance spaces of Qajar houses in Qazvin from the perspective of Ferdinando Saussure, Charles Sanders Pierce and Umberto Eco. Hoviyat-e Shahr, No. 34, 79-96.
  58. Sharifzade, Mohammadreza & Farazmand, Farnaz. (2016). A Study of the Cultural Semiotics of Goethe's Arrangements from the Perspective of Jean Baudrillard. Third international conference on research in science and technology. Germany, Berlin, 16 July 2016.
  59. Spuybroek, Lars. (1997). Motor Geometry. Arch+, No. 138, available on https://www.archplus.net/home/archiv/artikel/46,503,1,0.html;%20last%20visit:%20July%2010th,%20201.
  60. Sarabi, Amir & Molanayi, Salahodin. (2016). A comparative study of architecture and cinema with the approach of teaching architecture by film. Me’mari va Shahrsaziye Iran, No. 14, 157-172.
  61. The Oxford English dictionary (1998). 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
  62. Toffler, Alvin. (1991). Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century. (Translated from English to Persian by Hassan Nourayi & Shahrokh Bahar). Tehran: Book Translation and Publishing Center.
  63. Toffler, Alvin. (2014). the Third Wave. (Translated from English to Persian by Shahindokht Kharazmi). Tehran: Nashr-e no Publications.
  64. Tomitsch, M, Moere, A, Grechenig, T. (2008). A Framework for Architecture as a Medium for Expression. Workshop on Pervasive Visual, Auditory and Alternative Modality Information Display, Pervasive ’08.
  65. Turer, Jare. (1996). The Dictionary of Art. New York: Grov’s Dictionary Inc.
  66. Van Raaij, W. Fred. (1993). Postmodern Consumption: Architecture, Art, and Consumer Behavior, in E - European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 1, eds. W. Fred Van Raaij and Gary J. Bamossy, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 550-558.
  67. Venturi, Robert. (1996). Iconography and Electronics upon a Generic Architecture: A View from the Drafting Room. MIT Press.
  68. Virlio, Paul. (1997). The Overexposed Cities. Rethinking architecture: A reader on Cultural Theory. Ed. Neil Lech. London: Routledge.
  69. Yang, Hyeseung. (2005). Do Media Portrayals of Affluence Foster Feeling of Relative Deprivation? Exploring a Path Model of Social Comparison and Materialism on Television Viewers' Life Dissatisfaction. a Thesis in Mass Communications, Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, the Pennsylvania State University.
  70. Zebardastan, Najme; Movahed, Khosro & Keshmiri, Hadi. (2017). Defining effective strategies for using sensory Perception in architectural design process with phenomenological approach. Urban Management, No. 48, 245-264.
  71. Zeymaran, Mohammad. (2006). Umberto Eco and Semiotics. Bokhara, No. 52, 79-83.
  72. Zolfagharzade, Hassan. (2012). Negahi be Manzumeye me’mariye manzar [Studying landscape architecture system; Relying on Islamic texts]. Pajuheshnameye Elm va Din, Vol. 3, No. 1, 31-55.