فرم به مثابۀ قابلیت؛ زیربنای نظری و چارچوب مفهومی معنای معماری

عادلی, سمیرا; ندیمی, هادی

doi:10.52547/sofeh.32.1.21

فرم به مثابۀ قابلیت؛ زیربنای نظری و چارچوب مفهومی معنای معماری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ مربی دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری صبا، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان

² استاد دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى دانشگاه شهید بهشتى

10.52547/sofeh.32.1.21

چکیده

بناهای
فرم مفهومی پویا و لغزان است که از هریک از گفتمان‌های مختلف معماری تلقی متفاوتی از آن به‌دست آمده است. در این مقاله با هدف بازاندیشی مفهومِ فرم در گفتمان معاصر، به تبیین زیربنای نظری و اقتضائات مفهومی تلقی فرم به قابلیت پرداخته شده است. بدین منظور نخست برخی نیروهای بنیادین مؤثر بر تحول مفهوم فرم در دوران معاصر شناسایی شده‌اند؛ سپس مفهوم قابلیت به‌مثابة تلقی‌ای از فرم که پاسخ‌گویی به نیروهای ذکرشده را ممکن می‌کند، معرفی گردیده است؛ در ادامه برخی اقتضائات مفهومی حضور قابلیت در گفتمان معماری از طریق بسط این مفهوم تبیین شده است. در این نوشتار در مسیر بازاندیشی فرم به مفهوم معنا تکیه و ادعا می‌شود که ورود قابلیت به نظام مفاهیم معماری ماهیت معنای اثر معماری را آشکار می‌کند و با تحقق تعامل‌گرایی سوژه و آبژه و جامع‌نگری، به دو مسئلة بنیادین معنا در معماری پاسخ داده می‌شود. این روند به فهم جدیدی از دو مفهوم کالبد و عملکرد معماری می‌انجامد و فرارفتن از دوگانه‌انگاری آن‌ها را ممکن می‌کند. ظهور این تحولات مدیون ترسیم ساختار مفهومی جدید برای قابلیت و برانگیخته شدن دغدغه‌ها و ملاحظاتی نو در فضای اندیشة معماری است. به همین منظور تلاش شده از طریق طرح و تبیین مفاهیم میدان کنش، عمق و دامنة قابلیت، و همچنین توجه به کیفیت تحقق و قطبیت آن چارچوبی مفهومی ترسیم گردد، به‌طوری‌که بیانگر تحولات اندیشة معماری در مواجهه با مفهوم قابلیت باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

20.1001.1.1683870.1401.32.1.2.7

عنوان مقاله [English]

Form as Affordance: The Theoretical Basis and Conceptual Framework for the Meaning of Architecture

نویسندگان [English]

samira adeli ¹
Hadi nadimi ²

¹ PhD Candidate, University Lecturer, Saba Faculty of Art and Architecture, Kerman Shahid Bahonar University

² Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University

چکیده [English]

Widely interpreted through different architectural discourses, form has emerged as a dynamic and slippery concept. Aiming at a rethinking of the concept in contemporary architectural discourse, the present paper explains theoretical bases and conceptual framework of considering form as an affordance. In order to do so, the paper starts with exploring some transforming influences on the contemporary concept of form, and moves on to introduce affordance as an interpretation of form corresponding the above influences. It then expands on the concept of affordance in order to explain some conceptual evolutions of its presence in the architectural discourse.
The paper ascertains a key role for the concept of meaning in rethinking form, and that with the introduction of affordance in architecture’s conceptual constellation comes a clarification of the meaning, providing responses to two key problems of meaning, namely, interactions between the subject and the object, and having a holistic view. This will result in a new understanding of the physical and the functional, aspect of architecture making way to go beyond their perceived schism. It is owing to drawing up new concepts of affordance, and the arousal of new concerns and considerations in architectural thought. Attempts are made here, therefore, to introduce concepts of action field, affordance layers, affordance domain, affordance quality, and affordance polarity, each reflecting the recent developments in architectural thought encountering the concept of affordance.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Form
affordance
meaning
physic
function
action

مراجع

راپاپورت، آموس. معنی محیط ساخته‌شده؛ رویکردی در ارتباط غیرکلامی، تهران: سازمان فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات شهرداری تهران، 1392.

عادلی، سمیرا و ‌هادی ندیمی. «مرزهای مفهومی فرم در معماری»، در نشریة علمی باغ‌نظر، ش 89 (آبان 1399)، ص 55-70.

هایدگر، مارتین. سرآغاز کار هنری، ترجمة پرویز ضیا شهابی، تهران: هرمس، 1394.

Anscombe, G.E.M. Intention, (2^nd ed.), Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Barentsen, K.B. & J. Trettvik. “An Activity Theory Approach to Affordance”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction, Aarhus, Denmark. 2002.

Basden, A. “A Dooyeweerdian Undrestanding of Affordance in Information Systems and Ecological Psychology”, in F.V.S. Mark Rathbone & Sytse Strijbos (Eds.), Social Change in Our Technology-Based World: Proceedings of the 19^th Annual Working Conference of the IIDE. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers, 2014, pp. 137-154.

________ . “Dooyeweerd’s Understanding of Meaning (1)”, in Philosophia Reformata, 84(1), (2019), pp.102-129.

Blumer, H. “Science without Concepts”, in American Journal of Sociology, 36(4) (1931), pp. 515-533.

Bratman, M. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason, Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press. 1987.

Chemero, A. “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances”, in Ecological Psychology, 15(2) (2003), pp. 181-195.

________ . Radical Embodied Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.

Collins, P. Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture, 1750-1950, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1998.

Costall, A. “Canonical Affordances in Context”, in AVANT. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej, 2 (2012), pp. 85-93.

Cutting, J.E. Perception with an Eye for Motion (Vol. 1), Cambridge: the Mit Press, 1986.

Davidson, D. Essays on Actions and Events: Philosophical Essays (Vol. 1), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.

Dotov, D. G. & L. Nie & M.M.D. Wit. “Understanding Affordances: History and Contemporary Development of Gibson’s Central Concept”, in Avant. The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard, 3(2) (2012), pp. 28-39.

Dreyfus, H.L. Skillful Coping: Essays on the Phenomenology of Everyday Perception and Aaction, ed. M. A. Wrathall, Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2014.

Edwards, P. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York: The Macmillan Company & the free Press, 1972.

Forty, A. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture, London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2000.

Gaver, William W. “Technology Affordances”, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 1991.

Gelernter, M. Sources of Architectural Form: A Critical History of Western Design Theory, Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press, 1995.

Gero, J.S. & U. Kannengiesser. “The Situated Function–behaviour–structure Framework”, in Design Studies, 25(4) (2004), pp. 373-391.

Gibson, E.J. “Where Is the Information for Affordances?”, in Ecological Psychology, 12(1), 2000, pp. 53-56.

Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979.

________ . The Theory of Affordances and the Design of the Environment, Paper presented at the Symposium on Perception in Architecture, American Society for Esthetics, Toronto, October 1976. Republished as Chapter 4.9, Part VIII in E Reed and R Jones (eds) Reasons for realism: selected essays of James J. Gibson (1982), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, Toronto.

Heft, H. “Affordances and the Body: An Intentional Analysis of Gibson’s Ecological Approach to Visual Perception”, in Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(1) (1989), pp. 1-30.

Ingarden, R. “The General Question of the Essence of Form and Content”, in The Journal of Philosophy, 57(7) (1960), pp. 222-233.

Kadar, A. & J. Effken. “Heideggerian Meditations on an Alternative Ontology for Ecological Psychology: A Response to Turvey’s (1992) Proposal”, in Ecological Psychology, 6(4), 1994, pp. 297-341.

Lanamäki, A. & D. Thapa & K. Stendal. When Is an Affordance? Outlining Four Stances, Paper presented at the Beyond Interpretivism? New Encounters with Technology and Organization: IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations, IS&O 2016, Dublin, Ireland, December 9-10, 2016, Proceedings, pp. 125-139.

Maier, J.R.A. & G.M. Fadel. “Affordance-based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering”, in Research in Engineering Design, 20(4) (November 2009), pp. 225-239.

Maier, J.R.A. & G.M. Fadel. “Affordance Based Design: a Relational Theory for Design”, in Research in Engineering Design, 20(1) (March 2009), pp. 13-27.

Maier, J.R.A. & G.M. Fadel & D.G. Battisto. “An Affordance-based Approach to Architectural Theory, Design, and Practice”, in Design Studies, 30(4) (2009), pp. 393-414.

Michaels, C.F. “Affordances: Four Points of Debate”, in Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 2003, pp. 135-148.

Nesbitt, K. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965 – 1995, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

Nulty, T.J. Primitive Disclosive Alethism: Davidson, Heidegger, and the Nature of Truth, New York: Peter Lang, 2006.

Pols, A.J.K. “Characterising Affordances: The Descriptions-of-affordances-model”, in Design Studies, 33(2) (2012), pp. 113-125.

Reynolds, P.D. A Primer in Theory Construction, Indianapolis And New York: Bobbs-Merrill COMPANY, INC, 1971.

Robinson, S. “Articulating Affordances: Towards a New Theory of Design”, in B. Condia (Ed.), Affordances and the Potential for Architecture, Kansas: New Prairie Press, 2020.

Scarantino, A. “Affordances Explained”, in Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 2003, pp. 949-961.

Schatzki, T.R. “A Primer on Practices”, in Practice-Based Education: Perspectives and Strategies, Rotterdam: SensePublishers, 2012, pp. 13-26.

Schmidt, R.C. “Scaffolds for Social Meaning”, in Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 2007, pp. 137-151.

Stoffregen, T.A. “Affordances and Events”, in Ecological Psychology, 12(1), 2000, pp. 1-28.

Susi, T. & T. Ziemke. “On the Subject of Objects: Four Views on Object Perception and Tool Use”, in Triple: Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 3(2) (2005), pp. 6-19.

Tatarkiewicz, W. “A History of Six Iideas: an Essay in Aesthetics”, in Melbourne International Philosophy Series (Vol. 5), ed J.T.J. Srazednicki, Warszawa: PWN/Polish Scientific Publishers, 1980.

Turner, B.S. Max Weber: From History to Modernity, London: Routledge, 1992.

Turner, P. “Affordance as Context”, in Interacting with Computers, 17(6) (2005), pp. 787-800.

Withagen, R. & A. Chemero. “Affordances and Classification: On the Significance of a Sidebar in James Gibson’s Last Book”, in Philosophical Psychology, 25(4) (2012), pp. 521-537.