الفراغ المعمارى

7
ل م ع م ا غ ل ف ر ل س طي ر ة س طي ي ح ت ى ب ه س ت و ة د م ه ف أ ن ل م ع م ا ل ط لا ى ! %$# " ة ل ع م ا &$ غ ل ف ر ( ن' ب ي ع ي ا( و ن) ا" ا* م+ & د, ا- ل م ى ر ى. ل ت ا ف ه ت/ ل م 0 ا (% ا م1 ح&$ ة* ل م ت ى ا ي ه2 دل ي ه3 ا/ ل 4 ا5 ل ف ر; 6 " رغ- 0 ر27 ا8 ر ت* ام, دحا8 ب م ت ر2 ل ت غ ر& 6 " لا ه9 ت: # ا.* أس ن: 7 ا+ & ط اط"/ اغ";* و ن) ا" ا "* اى< و- += م ي3 = م < ر2?8 @ و9 ا" د* د ة ى3 ي ط ر ة ي ه +++ AB ط: 7 C لا م ر8 0 D لاE ل# ام ت: 7 ل ف ه7 ا8 Abstract The research dilemma of this paper lies in the arguable dierences on the directions of deconstruction theory in architecture. The primary inquiry of this study focuses on these dierences in addition to identifying the contributions of deconstruction on architectural spaces. However di cult, the paper provides an attempt through a comparison between the architectural theories of modernism and deconstruction )represented by ies !an "er #ohe and $ran% &wen 'ehry respectively , in terms of thoughts and wor%s in relation to architectural spaces + The research methodology adopts a critical view by conducting a comparative analysis study for architectural spaces in modernism and deconstruction. (ome of the important results of this study include asserting that architectural spaces are principally dierent in deconstruction compared to modernism in their boundaries, status, and the architectural character of buildings enclosing these spaces. The substantial change of the architectural spaces in deconstruction has come out through the variances of space boundaries, their architectural status internally and e*ternally, and e*amining new shapes that are not bounded to familiar rules. This is in addition to stimulating the observer+s view and attracting the attention while navigating the space wherein e*quisite and natural views are utili ed +

description

8وووووووووو

Transcript of الفراغ المعمارى

. . ... .

AbstractThe research dilemma of this paper lies in the arguable differences on the directions of deconstruction theory in architecture. The primary inquiry of this study focuses on these differences in addition to identifying the contributions of deconstruction on architectural spaces. However difficult, the paper provides an attempt through a comparison between the architectural theories of modernism and deconstruction (represented by Mies Van Der Rohe and Frank Owen Gehry respectively), in terms of thoughts and works in relation to architectural spaces.The research methodology adopts a critical view by conducting a comparative analysis study for architectural spaces in modernism and deconstruction. Some of the important results of this study include asserting that architectural spaces are principally different in deconstruction compared to modernism in their boundaries, status, and the architectural character of buildings enclosing these spaces. The substantial change of the architectural spaces in deconstruction has come out through the variances of space boundaries, their architectural status internally and externally, and examining new shapes that are not bounded to familiar rules. This is in addition to stimulating the observers view and attracting the attention while navigating the space wherein exquisite and natural views are utilized.

" " " " . . . .

. .

" " Sigfrid Giedion " " Space, Time and Architecture . . ( ). " " Greenough " " Constant Defoux " " 1874 "" Choisy "" Donaldson . . Raum () "" Hegel 1820 " " Heinrich Wolflin ( ). ( ). . " " Frank Lloyd Wright : " "( ). " " ( ). .

"" Ching Architecture: Form, Space & Order ( ). . . .

. - " " Einstein . " " Peter Collins Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture ( ). . .

:

" " Mies Van Der Rohe " " Frank Owen Gehry .

. . . . . . ( ). " " Jacques Derrida ( ) . ( ). .

" " (1886-1969) Mies Van Der Rohe( ) " " (1929 ) Frank Owen Gehry( ). "" "" .

"" "" " Less is more"( ) : " "( ). "" "" " " " Robert Venturi " " " " Less is bore( ).

" " " " Charles Jencks "" ( ). "" "" "" .

2-1 1- . 2- . 3-1 "" Universal Space ( ) . 1- 1-1 1-2 2- 2-2 3- . 2-3 3- : 3-2 : 3-2-1