Investigation of the Ability to Redefine the Components of Popular Architecture Facades in Contemporary Architecture from Semiotics Point of View (Case study: Poonak Zone of Qazvin)

Subject Areas : Space Ontology International Journal

Mandana Yousefi ¹ , Simon Ayvazian ² , Iman Raeisi ³ , Jamaleddin Soheili ⁴ , Kamal Rahbarimanesh ⁵

1 - Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban planning, Qazvin Branch,Islamic Azad University,Qazvin,Iran
2 - College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 - Department of Architecture and Urbanism, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran
4 - Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran
5 - Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

Received: 2019-03-12 Accepted : 2019-09-26 Published : 2019-09-01

Keywords: Semiotics, popular architecture, facades, contemporary architecture,

Abstract :

The purpose of this research is to investigate the ability to redefine the components and indicators of popular architecture facades in contemporary architecture. The research method is content analysis and descriptive-analytic and survey with semiotic and Delphi technique. At first, popular architecture is analyzed using the descriptive and analytical method. Next, 14 components of the popular architecture façades assessment are identified and prioritized in three rounds through survey and Delphi technique. In the third stage, case studies are selected by experts on the basis of the components of the popular architecture facades assessment that are identified in the previous step. In the fourth stage, selected samples are investigated in terms of semiotics and 28 signs are extracted as indicators. In the last step, the ability to redefine these signs as indicators of popular architecture facades in contemporary architecture is examined with Delphi technique in two rounds. Indicators and components that are not redefinable or are weakly redefined are excluded. Finally, redefinable components and indicators in contemporary architecture facades are prioritized. The results of the research show that some of the components cannot be redefined in the contemporary architecture facades due to their imitative and eclectic indexes. Some components can be redefined through one index, and others have the ability to be redefined through both indicators. From experts' point of view, the components of understandable for the general public, variety, new techniques, and old patterns are the most important redefinable component in contemporary architecture facades. Eventually it turned out that popular architecture has common points with experts, and according to the views of experts and people, there can be some kind of architecture with complex aesthetics that spreads both to the elite and to the general public.

References:

1. Abdolahi, M., Ghasemzadeh, B; Rahbarpour. K. (2013). The Impact of Historical Monuments on the Subjective Impression of Tabriz Citizens. Journal of studies on Iranian Islamic city. 3(11). 65-71. (In Persian)


2. Arnheim, R. (2003). The Dynamics of Architectural Form. (M. Qayyoomi Bidhendi, Trans). Tehran: the organization for researching and composing university textbooks in the humanities. (In Persian)


3. Bani Masoud, A. (2005). Semiotics position in the formation of the post-modern populist architecture. Architecture and culture (23).165-155. (In Persian)


4. Bani Masoud, A. (2012). Postmodernity and Architecture (Intellectual trends of western contemporary architecture1960-2000. Esfahan: Khak Publications. (In Persian)


5. Canavan, Brendan, McCamley, Claire, 2018, The passing of the postmodern in pop?Journal of business research.


6. Chandler. D. (2015). The Basic Semiotics. (M, Parsa. Trans). Sore Mehr Publication, Tehran. (In Persian)


7. Chebaiki- Adli, Leila. Chabbi- Chemrouk Naima, 2015, Understanding architectural design: expressive and figurative paradigms, Social and Behavioral Sciences   216  ( 2016 )  744 – 753


8. Dehkhoda.A.A. (1998). Dehkhoda dictionary. Tehran: Tehran University. (In Persian)


9. Devlin, K; Nasar, Jack L, (1989).” The beauty and the beast:  Some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same, journal of environmental psychology, 333-3444.1


10. Ghafari.A. Falamaki, M (2017) Semiotic theories of architecture and city reflected in readings, urban Management Journal, 339-350. (In Persian)


11. Ghobadian, V. (2004). Theories and Concepts in Contemporary Western Architecture.Iran culture studies, Tehran. (In Persian)


12. Greenberg, C. (2004). Avant-garde and kitsch. (F. Azarang. Trans). The profession: Artist Journal. (7).194-201(In Persian)


13. Grutter, J.k. (2007). A sthetik der Architektur. (J. Pakzad. Trans). ). Tehran: University of Shahid Beheshti. (In Persian)


14. Jencks, Ch. (1997). What is Post-Modernism? (F. Mortezaei). Marandis Publication. Gonabad. (In Persian)


15. Kheime Dooz, M. (2013).Popular valid or invalid. Ensha –VA- Nevisandegi. (36).8-9. (In Persian)


16. Lang.j. (2004). Creating architectural theory. (A. Einifar, Trans). Tehran: University of Tehran, Adyban Publications. (In Persian)


17. Lawson. B. (2015).The language of space. (A. Einifar; F, Karimian, Trans).Tehran: University of Tehran. (In Persian)


18. Lawson.B. (2013). How designers think (the design process demystified). (H. Nadimi, Trans). Tehran: University of Shahid Beheshti. (In Persian)


19. Meiss.p.v. (2007). Elements of architecture from form to place. (F. Fardanesh, Trans) .Tehran: University of Shahid Beheshti. (In Persian)


20. Nari Qomi, M. (2015). Problem Paradigms in Architecture: An Approach to the Cultural and User-Oriented Issues in Architecture. Tehran: Architect Science Publications. (In Persian)


21. Nasr, J. L. (2014). The evaluative Image of the City. (M, Asadi Mahal Chalayi, Trans) Tehran: Armandashahr Publications. (In Persian)


22. Navits, D. (2011). Aesthetics of Popular Art, (M, Saatchi. Trans). Journal of zibashenakht. (22). 223-340. (In Persian)


23. Nesbitt, K. (2017). Postmodern Architecture Theory. (P. Rohi, Trans).Tehran: Kasra Publications. (In Persian)


24. Pakzad, j. (2003). Phenomenology of Residential Building Façade and the Evolution Process of its Expectations. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba (14).51-62. (In Persian)


25. Pashaeizadeh, H. (2007). An overview to the Delphi method. Peik-E-Noor.6 (2).63-79. (In Persian)


26. Rappoport, A. (1990). The Meaning of the Built Environment.  Arizona: The University of Arizona Press


27. Ras.l.C; winters.E; cooper.C. (2005). philosophical and psychological foundations of space perception. Esfahan: Khak Publications. (In Persian)


28. Venturi, R; Scott Brown, D; Izenour, s. (2012) Learning from Lasvegas. (panahi,s. Trans) Oromieh: Adiban Publications. (In Persian)


29. Ward, G. (2008). Postmodernism. (Gh. Fakhr ranjbar, A,Karami trans). Tehran: Mahi Publication. (In Persian)