مورخ معماری و شیوه های تنانیِ دانستن | ||
| صفه | ||
| دوره 33، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 101، 1402، صفحه 99-113 اصل مقاله (323.09 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/sofeh.33.2.99 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| امید شمس1؛ مهرداد قیومی بیدهندی* 2 | ||
| 1دکتری معماری، دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی | ||
| 2دانشیار دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی | ||
| چکیده | ||
| عمل معماری بر معرفتهایی مبتنی است و مورخ معماری برای تفسیر بهتر عمل لازم است دربارۀ معرفتهای مبنای آن عملْ معرفت تاریخی داشته باشد. با مراجعه به تقسیمبندی معرفتی که هری کالینز، جامعهشناس علم، عرضه کرده است، میتوان به «معرفت ضمنی» در معماری قایل شد و آن را یکی از معرفتهای مبنای عمل معماری شمرد. «معرفت تنانی» یکی از گونههای آن است. در مطالعۀ تاریخ معرفت تنانی معماری، مهمترین معضل روششناختی بهدست آوردن شواهدی از این معرفت است؛ زیرا معرفت تنانی به قالب کلمات درنیامده است و شواهد آن آشکار نیست. شواهد آنگاه به چشم مورخ میآید که خود، بنابر پیشفهمهایش، پرسشی مربوط به آن داشته باشد. بنابراین، میتوان احتمال داد که اگر مورخ معماری از طریق عمل معماری معرفتی تنانی کسب کرده باشد، این معرفت در کشف و تفسیر شواهد معرفت تنانی معماری گذشته اثر بگذارد. آنگاه این پرسش پیش میآید که این تأثیر چگونه است. در مقالۀ حاضر اندیشۀ «شبکۀ باور» مبنای پاسخ به این پرسش است. باورهای تازۀ مورخ معماری دربارۀ معرفت تنانی معماری یا از طریق فراخوان «خاطرۀ تنانی» بهدست میآید، یا از طریق تکرار تجربیات تنانی گذشته و «بازآزمودن» آنها، یا فرضیهای استقرایی است که «توقع تنانی» مورخ را به امور گذشته نسبت میدهد. هریک از اینها که به شبکۀ باور مورخ معماری درمیآید، یا مورد تأیید باورهای تنانی پیشین مورخ معماری است، یا رد میشود، یا به همراه رشتهای از باورهای پیشین به «ناباور» تبدیل میشود. اگر باور نو در شبکۀ باور او پذیرفته شد و به آن انسجامی تازه بخشید، آن باور در فهم مورخ معماری از موضوع تحقیق او مداخله میکند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| نظریۀ معماری؛ معرفت معماری؛ معرفت ضمنی؛ معرفت تنانی؛ شبکۀ باور | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Architectural Historian and the Somatic Ways of Knowing | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Omid Shams1؛ Mehrdad Qayyoomi Bidhendi2 | ||
| 1Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Architectural historiography deals with understanding and explaining architectural practices (and their results and products) as they have been realized through history. To do this, the architectural historian should acquire a historical understanding of the knowledge on which the architectural practices had been based. According to a knowledge classification model proposed by Harry Collins, the sociologist of science, the concept of ‘somatic knowledge’, is a kind of tacit knowledge. This concept can be applied to architecture and regarded as a kind of knowledge upon which the architectural practice is based. In the historiography of somatic knowledge in architecture, obtaining historical evidence is the most crucial methodological obstacle; because this knowledge is inexplicable, and its evidence is not clear. Each piece of evidence can only be seen when the historian asks questions about it based on his/her preconceptions. Thus, the prior somatic knowledge acquired through practical architectural experience is highly likely to affect the discovery and interpretation of the evidence of historical somatic knowledge. The question is, therefore, about the ways in which this prior knowledge makes its marks. In this paper, an epistemological idea of the ‘Web of Belief’ is considered for answering this question. According to this idea, the architectural historian acquires new beliefs about the past agents’ somatic knowledge through three ways: recalling personal somatic memory, replicating the past somatic experiences, re-enacting them, and making inductive hypotheses based on his/her somatic expectation. When each of these newcomer beliefs enters the architectural historian’s web of belief, they may be confirmed by his/her prior somatic beliefs, may be rejected, or may turn into non-beliefs. The new belief intervenes in the historian’s understanding of historical practices if accepted in the architectural historian’s web of belief and given it a new coherence. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Architectural historiography, Architectural theory, Tacit knowledge, Somatic knowledge, Web of belief | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abel, Chris. “Function of Tacit Knowing in Learning to Design”. In Design Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1981), pp. 209-214. Agnew, Vanessa. “History’s Affective Turn: Historical Reenactment and Its Work in the Present”. In Rethinking History, Vol. 11, No. 3 (2007), pp. 299-312. Agnew, Vanessa & Jonathan Lamb & Juliane Tomann. The Routledge Handbook of Reenactment Studies: Key Terms in the Field. Taylor & Francis, 2019. Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Taylor & Francis, 2010. Bilak, Donna & Jenny Boulboullé & Joel Klein & Pamela H. Smith. “The Making and Knowing Project: Reflections, Methods, and New Directions”, In West 86th: A Journal of Decorative Arts, Design History, and Material Culture, Vol. 23, No. 1 (2016), pp. 35-55. Bol, Maria Adriana Henrica. “Oil and the Translucent. Varnishing and Glazing in Practice, Recipes and Historiography, 1100-1600”. University Utrecht, 2012. Bol, Marjolijn. “Coloring Topaz, Crystal and Moonstone: Gems and the Imitation of Art and Nature, 300-1500”. In Fakes!?: Hoaxes, Counterfeits, and Deception in Early Modern Science, Science History Publications, 2014, pp. 108-129. Bourgarit, David & Nicolas Thomas. “From Laboratory to Field Experiments: Shared Experience in Brass Cementation”. In Historical Metallurgy, Vol. 45, No. 1 (2011), pp. 8-16. Burke, Peter. What Is the History of Knowledge?, Wiley, 2015. Chemla, Karine. “How Tacit Is Tacit Knowledge? Or: Looking for Sources to Approach Tacit Knowledge”, In Presented at the Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge in Mathematics, Oberwolfach, Germany, January 2012. Collins, Harry. “Building an Antenna for Tacit Knowledge”, In Philosophia Scientiæ. Travaux d’histoire et de Philosophie Des Sciences, No. 17-3 (2013), pp. 25-39. ________ . Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, 2010. ________ . “Tacit Knowledge: You Don’t Know How Much You Know” In New Scientist, Vol. 206, No. 2762 (2010), pp. 30-31. “Communities of Tacit Knowledge: Architecture and Its Ways of Knowing (TACK)”. Accessed August 1, 2020. https://tacit-knowledge-architecture.com/. Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing”. In Design Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4 (1982), pp. 221-227. Cuomo, Serafina. “Tacit Knowledge in Vitruvius”. In Arethusa, Vol. 49, No. 2 (May 12, 2016), pp. 125-143. Davidson, Hilary. “The Embodied Turn: Making and Remaking Dress as an Academic Practice”. In Fashion Theory, Vol. 23, No. 3 (May 4, 2019), pp. 329-362. Fors, Hjalmar & Lawrence M. Principe & H. Otto Sibum. “From the Library to the Laboratory and Back Again: Experiment as a Tool for Historians of Science”. In Ambix, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 2, 2016), pp. 85-97. Hagendijk, Thijs. “Learning a Craft from Books: Historical Re-Enactment of Functional Reading in Gold-and Silversmithing”. In Nuncius, Vol. 33, No. 2 (2018), pp. 198-235. Hopkins, Heather. “Using Experimental Archaeology to Answer the ‘Unanswerable’: A Case Study Using Roman Dyeing”. In Reconstructions: Recreating Science and Technology of the Past, NMS Enterprises, 2011, pp. 21-49. Johnson, Katherine M. “Rethinking (Re) Doing: Historical Re-Enactment and/as Historiography”. In Rethinking History, Vol. 19, No. 2 (2015), pp. 193-206. Kirkeby, Inge Mette. “Knowledge in the Making”. In Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3-4 (2009), pp. 307-313. Mareis, Claudia. “The Epistemology of the Unspoken: On the Concept of Tacit Knowledge in Contemporary Design Research”. In Design Issues, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2012), pp. 61-71. Martin, Robert M. Epistemology: A Beginner’s Guide. Oneworld Publications, 2010. Niedderer, Kristina. “Mapping the Meaning of Knowledge in Design Research”. In Design Research Quarterly, No. 2 (2007), pp. 4-13. Outram, Alan K. “Introduction to Experimental Archaeology”. In World Archaeology, Vol. 40, No. 1 (March 1, 2008), pp. 1-6. Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Thinking Hand: Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. Wiley, 2009. Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday and Company Incorporated, 1966. Protzen, Jean-Pierre. “Inca Quarrying and Stonecutting”. In Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 44, No. 2 (1985), pp. 161-182. Quine, W.V. & J.S. Ullian. The Web of Belief. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Education, 1978. Robinson, Emily. “Touching the Void: Affective History and the Impossible”. In Rethinking History, Vol. 14, No. 4 (2010), pp. 503-520. Robinson, Julia Williams. “The Form and Structure of Architectural Knowledge: From Practice to Discipline”. In The Discipline of Architecture, Minneapolis: MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2001, pp. 61-82. Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, 1983. Smith, Pamela H. & A.R.W. Meyers & H.J. Cook. Ways of Making and Knowing: The Material Culture of Empirical Knowledge. Bard Graduate Center, 2017. Smith, Pamela H. & Tonny Beentjes. “Nature and Art, Making and Knowing: Reconstructing Sixteenth-Century Life-Casting Techniques”. In Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 1 (2010), pp. 128-179. Smith, Pamela H. “Historians in the Laboratory: Reconstruction of Renaissance Art and Technology in the Making and Knowing Project”. In Art History, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2016). ________ . “In the Workshop of History: Making, Writing, and Meaning”. In West 86th: A Journal of Decorative Arts, Design History, and Material Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2012), pp. 4-31. ________ . The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press, 2004. Stanford, Michael. A Companion to the Study of History. Blackwell, 1994. ________ . An Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Wiley, 1998. Staubermann, Klaus B. Reconstructions: Recreating Science and Technology of the Past. NMS Enterprises, 2011. Tavernor, Mr Robert. Body and Building: Essays on the Changing Relation of Body and Architecture. MIT Press, 2002. Thompson, Daniel Varney. The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting. Dover Publications, 1956. Turner, Stephen P. Understanding the Tacit. Routledge, 2014. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 682 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 675 |
||