بررسی جایگاه تئوری‌های معماری منظر جهان در پروژه‌های حرفه‌ای معماری منظر ایران
محورهای موضوعی : آمایش محیط
مهدی خاک زند
1
(
دکتری معماری منظر، دانشیار دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، تهران، ایران
)
کوروش اقابزرگی
2
(
(کارشناسی ارشد معماری، واحد قزوین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قزوین، قزوین)
)
کلید واژه: ایران, تئوری زمینه‌ای, معماری منظر, تئوری منظر, پروژه‌های حرفه‌ای منظر,
چکیده مقاله :
پژوهش حاضر با مطالعه عمیق نظریات و رویکردها پیرامون حوزه‌های منظر، سعی در تحلیل، اولویت‌بندی و ارزیابی و نیز بررسی جایگاه آن در پروژه‌های حرفه‌ای معماری منظر معاصر ایران دارد. در همین راستا با دسته‌بندی نظریه‌های موجود در شش رویکرد (مفهوم و معنا؛ زیبایی شناسی؛ اجتماعی- فرهنگی؛ طبیعت و اکولوژی؛ طراحی، فرم، عملکرد و برنامه‌ریزی و فرآیند طراحی)، به تحلیل و ارزیابی آنها پرداخته خواهد شد. لازم به توضیح است که این مطالعه در دو بخش انجام می‌شود، بخش اول به روش کیفی نظریه زمینه‌ای[1]، که با استفاده از کدگذاری مفاهیم به تحلیل نظریات می‌پردازد، صورت می‌گیرد. در بخش دوم با رویکردی تطبیقی، معیارهای استخراج شده از بخش اول، در معماری منظر معاصر ایران مورد تحلیل و ارزیابی قرار می‌گیرد. نتایج حاکی از آن است که در پروژه‌های حرفه‌ای معماری منظر کشور، کاستی‌هایی در رابطه با شش مقوله فوق وجود دارد، به طوری که در مسائلی همچون اتصال منظر به معماری، ادراک منظر، انعطاف پذیری و برنامه‌دهی منظر، تلاش چندانی صورت نگرفته است، اما به مواردی از جمله الگوها، نمادها، سنت، نظم و هندسه به نحو مطلوبی پرداخته می‌شود. بنابراین با گام برداشتن در راستای جبران این کمبودها می‌توان موجبات رشد و پیشرفت این رشته را در همه ابعاد، فراهم کرد. [1] Grounded Theory
By studying theories and approaches regarding landscape, this study analyzes, prioritizes, and evaluates landscapes and investigates their positions in the professional architecture projects of contemporary landscapes in Iran. In this regard, the current theories will be classified into six approaches: concept and meaning, aesthetic, social-cultural, nature and ecology, designing, form, function, planning and the process of designing and they will be analyzed accordingly. It should be noted that this study will be carried out at two levels; at the qualitative method level which is based on the grounded theory that analyzes theories by encoding concepts. At the second level, a comparative approach is used in which the extracted criteria from level one will be evaluated in the contemporary landscape architecture of Iran. The results suggest that there are some drawbacks regarding the aforementioned categories in the professional architecture projects of landscape in the country, in a way that in issues such as connecting landscape with architecture, perceiving landscape, flexibility and planning landscape no attempt has been ever made, but the cases of patterns, symbols, tradition, order and geometry are going to be investigated favorably. Therefore, by making effort to compensate for the mentioned shortcomings we can have a considerable development in all of the cited dimensions.
10. Candon,P.1988.Cubist Space,Valumetric Space.In Swaffield 2002.
11. Colvin,B.1972.Trees for town and country.London:Lund Humphries.
12. Corner,J.1992.Representation and landscape:Drawing and making in the landscape medium,A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry,Volume 8,1992–Issue3,p243-275.
13. Corner,J.1999.Recovering Landscape as a Critical Cultural Practice.In Corner,J.(ed.) Recovering Landscape:Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture.New York:Princeton Architectural Press,pp.1-26.
14. Corner,J.2006.Terra Fluxus.In Waldheim,C. (ed.) Landscape Urbanism Reader.New York: Princeton Architectural Press,22-33.
15. Corry,R.C.,NassauerJ.I.2005.Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs.Landscape and Urban Planning,72(2005)265-280.
16. Cosgrove,D.1984.Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape(first published London:Croom Helm),Reprinted from the 1998 edition by permission of the University of Wisconsin Press.
17. Cranz,G.,&Boland,M.2004.Defining the sustainable park:A fifth model forurban parks.Landscape Journal,23(2),102-120.
18. Dixon Hunt,J.1992,Introduction:Reading and Writing the Site,in Gardens and the Picturesque:Studies in the History of Landscape Architecture (Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press, 1992),3-16.©Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
19. Dixon hunt,J.2000.Greater perfection:the practice of garden theory.University of Pennsylvania.Thames & Hudson press.
20. Downing,A.J.1842.A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening,Adapted to North America.
21. Eckbo,G.1950.Landscape for Living.(New York: Dodge),57-60.Reprinted-with the kind agreement of Mrs.A.Eckbo.
22. Entwistle,T.2008.The art of placemaking.Landscape,October edition, p.40-44.
23. Feimer, N.R., Smardon, R.C.& Craik ,K.H. 1981.Evaluating the Effectiveness of Observer-based visual resource and impact assessment methods.Landscape Research journal,vol 6:12-16.
24. Gergel,S.E.,Turner,M.G.2001.Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice.Springer-Verlag.ISBN0387952543,pp.336.
25. Giedion,S.1941.Space,Time and Architecture:The Growth of a New Tradition,Harvard University Press.
26. Glaser,B.&Strauss,A.1967.Discovery of Grounded Theory,Transaction Publishers,U.S. Publisher.
27. Halprin,L.1969.The RSVP Cycles.Excerpted from Lawrence Halprin,The RSVP Cycles(New York: George Braziller),1-5.Used with permission.
28. Hester,Jr..2012.Scoring Collective Creativity and Legitimizing Participatory Design.Landscape Journal 31(1–2):135–143.
29. Holm,I.2006.Ideas and beliefs in architecture and industrial design,Oslo:Oslo School of architecture and design.
30. Howard,E.1898.Garden Cities of To-Morrow,London: S.Sonnenschein & Co.,Ltd.1902.(at Google Books).
31. Hsu,C.h.,Sandford,B.A.2008.The Delphi technique:making sense of consensus.[cite 2008 Oct 19]. Available from: http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf
32. Hubbard,H.& Kimball,T.1929.An Introduction to the study of landscape design.New York:THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. IFLA.(2003).definition of the profession of landscape architect for the international standard classifof occupations.Banff،Canada:international federation of landscape architecture.
33. Jacobs,P.1991.De/Re/In [form] ing Landscape.Landscape Journal,no.1 (1991):48-56. Reprinted by permission of the University of Wisconsin Press and the author.
34. Jellicoe,G.1989.Antique Collectors Club Dist.
35. Jellicoe,G.and Jellicoe,S.1975.The Landscape of Man:Shaping the environment from prehistory to the present day,London:Thames and Hudson.
36. Jensen,J.1992.Maker of Natural Parks and Gardens.The Johns Hopkins University Press.
37. Kaplan,R.&Kaplan,S.1989.The Experience of Nature:A psychological perspective.New York:Cambridge University Press.
38. Koh,J.1988.An Ecological Aesthetic,Landscape Journal7,pp177-191.
39. Laurie,M.1986.An introduction to landscape architecture.New York: Elsevier.
40. Leopold,A.1989.A Sand County Almanac:And Sketches Here and There,Oxford:Oxford University Press.
41. Lyle,J.1985.Design for human ecosystems:Landscape,land use,and natural resources. Island:Island Press.
42. Lyle,J.T.1991.Can Floating Seeds Make Deep Forms?In Landscape Journal,Vol.10,No.1,Spring,37-47.
43. Lynch,K.,Hack,G.1984.The Art of Site Planning.Site Planning,3rd ed.(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press),11-12.©1984Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
44. Marshall,L.1981.Landscape architecture:Guidelines to professional practice.Washington,DC:American Society of Landscape Architects.
45. McHarg,L.1967.An Ecological Method for Landscape Architecture,Landscape Architecture57,no.2:105-107.Reprinted with permission from Landscape Architecture magazine.
46. McHarg,L.1969.Design with Nature(New York: Doubleday, 1969),Garden City,N.Y., Published for the American Museum of Natural History[by]the Natural History Press.
47. Morse,J.2001.Situating Grounded Theory within Qualitative Inquiry,In:Rita Shereiber & Phyllis Noerager Stern (eds.),Using Grounded Theory in Nursing,New York,Springer Publishing Co.
48. Motloch,J.L.2000.Introduction to landscape design.New York:Chichester,John Wiley.
49. Mozingo,L.A.1997.The Aesthetics of Ecological Design:Seeing Science as Culture.InLandscape Journal,Vol.16,No.1Spring,46-59.
50. Murphy,M.D.2005.Landscape Architecture Theory.Waveland Press.Illinois.
51. Nassauer,J.I.1995.Messy Ecosystems,Orderly Frames,Landscape JournaI.14,no.2:161-170. Reprinted by permission of the University of Wisconsin Press and the author.
52. Nassauer,J.I.2002.Messy Ecosystems,Orderly Frames.In Theory in Landscape Architecture:A Reader,S Swaffield (ed) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,pp196–206.
53. Neckar,L.1995.Review of Nature and Ideology:Natural Garden Design in the Twentieth Century, Landscape Journal,108–110.
54. Neuman,L.2006.Social Research Methods:Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches,Fourth Edition,London, Allyn and Bacon.
55. Newton,N.T.1973.Design on the Land:The Development of Landscape Architecture.USA:Editorial UPR.
56. Olin,L.1998.Form,Meaning, and Expression in Landscape Architecture,Landscape Journal 7,no.2.149-168.Reprinted by permission of the University of Wisconsin Press and the author.
57. Potteiger,M.,Purinton,J.1998.Landscape Narratives:Crossing Realms, Landscape Review 4,no.1:16-26.Portions of this essay were adapted from M.Potteiger and J.Purinton, Landscape Narratives.
58. Prominski,M.2005.Designing Landscapes as Evolutionary Systems.The Design Journal,vol.8,no.3,pp.25-34.
59. Richards,R.2001.A New Aesthetic for Environmental Awareness:Chaos Theory,the Beauty of Nature,and our Broader Humanistic Identity,Journal of Humanistic Psychology41,pp59-95.
60. Ruff,A.1982.An Ecological Approach to Urban Landscape Design,Occasional Paper,no.8, Department of Town and Country Planning,University of Manchester,UK,8-11.Reprinted by permission of the author.
61. Schwartz,M.1985.Planting Plastic,by Paula Dietz,Home Design Section of the New York Times,September 22.
62. Schwartz,M.1992.Our Culture and the Art for Public Places. International IFLA Conference,Artivisual Landscapes.
63. Solomon,R.2005.Subjectivity,in: Honderich,Ted.Oxford Companion to Philosophy,Oxford University Press.
64. Spirn,A.W.1984.The Granite Graden:Urban Nature and Human Design,Basic Books.
65. Spirn,A.W.1988.The Poetics of City and Nature:Towards a New Aesthetic for Urban Design,Landscape Journal7,pp108–126.
66. Steinitz,C.1990.A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals).Landscape Journal(9):136-143.
67. Strauss,A.,Corbin,J.1998.Basics of Qualitative Research,London,Sage Publications.
68. Thompson,I.H.2002.Ecology,community and delight:a trivalent approach to landscape education,Landscape and Urban Planning, (60):81-93.
69. Thompson,I.H.2014.Landscape architecture:a very short introduction, Oxford,University Press.
70. Treib,M.1995.Must Landscapes Mean?Approaches to Significance in Recent Landscape Architecture,Landscape Journal 14,no1:46-62. Reprinted by permission of the University of Wisconsin Press and the author.
71. Treib,M.2007.Design.In Colafranceschi,D.(ed.) Landscape +100 Words to Inhabit It.Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili,SL,pp.45-48.
72. Turner,T.1996.City As Landscape.A Post-Modern View of Design and Planning.Spon Press.
73. Turner,T.2001.Hyper Landscapes.Landscape Design,(304):28-32.
74. Walker,P.1997.Minimalist Landscape.Modernism and Minimalism in the Landscape(Washington,ne.:Space maker Press,1997),19-20.Used by permission of Space maker Press.
75. Wall,A.1999.Programming the Urban Surface.In Corner,J.(ed.) Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. New York:Princeton Architectural Press,pp.233-249.
76. Winters,E.2007.Architecture and Aesthetic (London: Continuum).
77. Zube,E.H.1973.Scenery As a Natural Recource:Implications of Public Policy and Problems of Definition,Description and Evaluation. Landscape Architecture Quaterly.January.
78. Zube,E.H.1998.The evolution of a profession.Landscape and Urban Planning,42,75-80.
79. Zube,E.H.1986.Landscape values: history and theory.In foundation for visual project analysis.pp:319.New York:john Wiley & sons.
_||_