نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 هیأت علمی دانشکده هنر و معماری/ دانشگاه یزد

2 دانشجوی دکتری معماری‌ دانشگاه یزد

3 مستندنگاری و مطالعات معماری ایران، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

10.22047/ijee.2022.306700.1857

چکیده

رشته معماری همواره با مسئله انسجام مواجه بوده است. با تعمق در این مسئله می‌توان آن را در معنای انسجام معرفت‌های متکثر در رشته معماری و همچنین انسجام معرفت‌های نظری در موقعیت عمل شرح داد. این معضل کهن، خود را در برنامه‌ریزی درسی رشته معماری و همچنین در کارگاه‌های طراحی نشان می‌دهد. از طرفی دانش رتوریک در طول تاریخ به‌مثابه هنر تألیف شناخته شده است. در این پژوهش، با رجوع به رتوریک و اتخاذ چهارچوب نظری موقعیت رتوریکال، سعی شده است به روش استدلال منطقی_ روایی طرح موقعیت رتوریکال برای خوانش موقعیت‌های آموزش و طراحی معماری، نشان داده شود. با اتکا به مدل موقعیت رتوریکال، مسئله انسجام در معماری را می‌توان بازاندیشی کرد. بر مبنای این بازاندیشی، می‌توان گفت حل مسئله انسجام، در واقع از طریق فهم درست معنای عمل و در پی آن فهم دقیق رابطه میان نظر و عمل ممکن می‌شود. همچنین تعمق در موقعیت رتوریکال نشان می‌دهد که تألیف، در دیالکتیک نظر و عمل (در موقعیت عمل) و در وجود انسان تحقق می‌یابد. با فهم این مطلب، مفروضات حاکم بر نظام آموزش معماری اصلاح شده است و راهکارهایی عملی نظیر محوریت یافتن کارگاه‌های طراحی و اهمیت تربیت جامع معمار ارائه می‌گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

INTEGRATION IN ARCHITECTURE EDUCATION, RETHINKING THE ISSUE BY “RHETORICAL SITUATION” MODEL

نویسندگان [English]

  • kazem mondegari 1
  • Zoha Nadimi 2
  • zohre fafazzoli 3

1 Faculty of Art and Architecture / Yazd University

2 PhD student in yazd university

3 Documentary and Architectural Studies of Iran, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University

چکیده [English]

Architecture discipline has always faced the integration issue by contemplating on that, which can be explained in the sense of the integration of multiple knowledge in the field of architecture, as well as the integration of theoretical knowledge in the situation of practice. This old dilemma manifests itself in architectural curriculum planning as well as in design studios. On the other hand, “rhetoric” has been known throughout history as an architectonic art. Relying on the theory of rhetorical situation, which is an explanation of the position of the rotor in practice, the problem of integration in architecture can be reconsidered. Based on this reconsideration, it can be declared that the mechanism of integration in rhetorical situation is achieved in the dialectic of theory and practice (in practice situation) and in human self being. By understanding this, the assumptions governing the architectural education system are modified and practical solutions are suggested.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Architectural education
  • rhetoric
  • architectonic
  • integration
  • knowledge and practice
Ahmadi, M. & Poornamdarian, T. (2017). “An introduction to multiple meanings of rhetoric”. Journal of language and Translation Studies. 50(1). 27-52. [in Persian].
Alexander, C. (2004), The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe, book 4: The Luminous Ground. Routledge
Ballard, G. & Lauri K. (2013). Rhetoric and design. International Conference on Engineering design. ICED13/ sungkyunkwan university. Seoul, Korea.
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1) 1-14. 
Ashouri, D. (1996). Persian dictionary for human sciences. Tehran. Markaz. [in Persian]
Brinton, A. (1981). Situation in the theory of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric.14 (4), 234-248. 
Brooks, L. W., & Dansereau, D. F. (1987). Transfer of information: An instructional perspective. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications (pp. 121-150). Academic Press.
Buchanan, R. (1985). Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice. design issues, Vol. 2, No. 1. pp. 4-22. 
Buchanan, R. (1995). Rhetoric, humanism and design. discovering design: Explorations in Design Studies  23, 23-66
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the - philosophy of culture. Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 34, No. 3.  p. 183-206. 
Consigny, Scott. (1974). Rhetoric and Its situations. in philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 7, No. 3, Pp. 175- 186. 
Craig, R. T. (2006). Communication as a Practice. In Communication as… : perspectives on theory / Editors gregory J. Shepherd, Jeffrey St. John, and Ted Striphas. by Sage Publications,
Craig, R. T. (2008). Communication in the conversation of disciplines. Russian Journal of Communication, 1(1), 7-23. doi: 10.1080/19409419.2008.10756693
Craig, Robert T. (2009). “Dewey and gadamer on practical reflection: toward a methodology for the practical disciplines” in American Pragmatism and Communication Research. David K.Perry, ed. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Cunningham. A. (1980). Educating around architecture. Studies in Higher Education. 5(2). 131-142.
Dittmar. G. (1984).  Architectural education and the 21st century: Business as Unusal Reflections. 2(1). 4-13
Dixon, P. (1971). Rhetoric. Translated by Afshar, H. Markaz pub.  [in Persian].
Dorst, K. (2006). “Design problems and design paradoxes”, Design Issues, 22, pp. 4-17.
Engbers, S.K. (2018). “Rhetorical theory in design education practice.” Dialectic, 2.1: pgs. 81-95. doi: 10.3998/dialectic.14932326.0002.105
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (2004). Truth and method. revised edition. New York: Continuum.
Gelernter. M. (1988). Reconcilling lectures and studios. JAE.41(2). 46-52.
Gero, J. S. & Kannengiess, Udo. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework Design Studies 25(4): 373-391. 
Gorrell, D. (1997). “The Rhetorical situation again: Linked components in a venn diagram.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 395-412.
Haskell. R. E. (2004), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology.
Hein, C. & Dooren E.V. (2020). Teaching history for design at TU Delft: exploring types of student learning and perceived relevance of history for the architecture profession. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 30(4). Pp. 849-865. DOI:10.1007/s10798-019-09533-5
Last, S. (2019). Technical writing essentials. Introduction to professional communications in the technical Fields. University of Victoria.
Leatherbarrow, D. (2001). “Architecture is its own discipline”. The discipline of architecture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ledewitz. S. (1985). Models of design in studio Teaching. JAE.38(2). 2-8. 
Marmot.A. & Symens. M. (1983). The architectural case problem. Bartlett School of Architecture & Planning. University college London. 
Marmot.A. & Symens. M. (1985). The social context of design. A case problem Approach. JAE.38(4). 27-31
McKeon, R. (2005). The use of rhetoric in a technological age: Architectonic productive arts. Zahava K.McKeon and William G Swenson(ed.). Selected writings of Richard McKeon.  Volume 2: Culture, Education, and the Arts. Pp.197-205. The University of Chicago Press. 
Miller,  ALISTAIR. (2007). Rhetoric, paideia and the old idea of a liberal education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 41, No. 2.
Nadimi, H. (1998).  “An Introduction to integration in architecture education”. Honarname 1. 76-89. [in Persian].
Nadimi. H. (1997) Aiin javanmardan va tarighate memaran- A look at the photo letters of architects and builders . in Soffeh. 21 [in Persian].
Olmsted, W. (2006). Rhetoric, An historical introduction. Blackwell Publishing.
Perelman, c. (1979). The new rhetoric: A theory of practical reasoning. In: The new rhetoric and the humanities. Synthese Library (Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science), vol 140. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi-org.ezp3.semantak.com/10.1007/978-94-009-9482-9_1
Rendell, J.(2013). Working between and across: Some psychic dimensions of architecture’s inter- and transdisciplinarity. Architecture and Culture, (2), 128-141. DOI:10.2752/175145213X13756908698685
Robinson, J.W. & Andrzej P, (2001). The Discipline of Architecture, Minneapolis, MN: University Minnesota Press. 
Rutten, K. & Ronald S. (2012). Revisiting the rhetorical curriculum, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44:6, pp. 727-743, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2012.730280
Schon.D.A. (1982). Reflection in Action. Royal Institute of British Architects Trans. 2. 65-75.
Schon, D.A. “Problems, Frames and Perspectives on Designing”, Design Studies, 5 (1984), pp. 132-136.
Simon. H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence. Volume 4, Issues 3-4. Pp. 181-201 
Snodgrass, A. & Coyne, R. 2006. Interpretation in architecture: Design as a way of thinking.
Teymur. N. (1983). Architectural education in a divided world. Architectural education 2: 84-93.
Toulmin. S. (1988). The Recovery of Practical Philosophy. The American Scholar. 57(3) , 337-352.
Troiani, I., Suzanne E. & Diana P. (2014).  Architecture and Culture: Architecture’s Disciplinarity. Architecture and culture. 2, 6-19. 
Turnbull, N. (2017) . Political rhetoric and its relationship to context: a new theory of the rhetorical situation, the rhetorical and the political. Critical Discourse Studies 14 (2). Pp.115-131. 
Wilson. T. (1553). The arte of rhetorique (1553). Tudor and Stuart Library. Edited by G.H. Mair. At the Clarendon press.Mc mix. 
Zeinali.F. & Farahza.N.(2020). Integrated design taught with technical knowledge in architectural education Comparison architectural curriculum in undergraduate in the top world universities & Iran. Honar ha ye ziba. Memari va shahrsazi.25(2). Pp. 95-106.