جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « analogy » در نشریات گروه « هنر و معماری »

In the second half of the 20th century, one of the important currents that introduced exogenous criticism to the modern theoretical foundations was the school of spiritual traditionalists. Even though his writings were considered one of the first and most important steps of non-western researchers in explaining the position of the artist and identifying the esoteric roots and principles governing traditional works of art and architecture; due to the philosophers and comprehensiveness of the dominant approach of these thinkers, we witnessed a general view of the nature of traditional art and architecture patterns, which less in the field of methodology, focused on how to achieve the principles of tradition within the framework of a work in its specific time and place. The existence of this ambiguity; More than ever, it's fueling the chaotic atmosphere that dominates contemporary theoretical studies of architectural history from the traditional point of view and the orderly framework of the ruling part. On the other hand, at the same time, we have witnessed the emergence of specialized researchers such as Christopher Alexander who, in criticizing the modern approach, tried to explain more methodically, objectively, and process-oriented patterns in the field of quality architectural design. The upcoming research is trying to use the research method of comparative studies and the George Beredy’s model method, while comparing The two model systems mentioned and expressing the points of commonality and difference of these two views in the three main axes of nature, structure, and mechanism. Then, taking into account the special and relevant features of each one, by examining the research and setting up the three analytical frameworks (the series of structuring verbs, actions and interpretation), it is trying to adapt the readable and process-like expression of Alexander with the semantic structure governing the traditional architectural model, the possibility Empowerment and greater clarity of the pattern system of spiritual traditionalists in the form of a network of triple human patterns (inherent virtues of the architect), actions (current qualities) and physical (spiritual, mystical and aesthetic traits) enables.

Researchers in the field of Design-Process have focused on effective techniques to enhance creativity in the design of many studies. This leads to a focus on the effects of two techniques: metaphor and analogy. This research has challenged us to take consideration about: "Is the effectiveness of these techniques in all the activities of the design process to the same extent? Whichever metaphor and analogy techniques play a more meaningful role in which part of the design process?Nowadays, skills in innovation and methods that improve the knowledge of the design-problem have emerged as main features for designers. Metaphor is frequently expressed as a key role for enhancing creative design. Few empirical researches have been performed on how junior designers can use it within their performances.A metaphor is a figure of speech for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. It may provide clarity or identify ambiguous similarities between two ideas. A metaphor also is containing an implied comparison and allows us to understand one concept in terms of another, enriching our mental imagery and imbuing concepts with meaningful attributes. Reasoning embraces the retrieval of a known concept and its application to an unfamiliar situation.The analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. This means that the analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, in which at least one of the premises, or the conclusion is general rather than particular nature. It can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy. As a result, two kinds of knowledge would be attained deep knowledge of the design problem, and deep knowledge of many other kinds of natural and artificial objects from/to which one may analogize.The purpose of this article is to study the research related to analogy and metaphor. Moreover, research related to the design process or its parts, in order to positioning each of these two techniques in teaching the design path. The methodology of this research is based on library studies and logical reasoning. In the first step, studies related to the design process, banner design training in Iran, and metaphor and analogy are collected and classified. This is followed by reviewing the content of these studies, the focus of each one on the different parts of the design process is identified and their final result reached with the same sensitivity. The most important result of this study is that metaphor and analogy are considered as effective techniques in creative design education. Metaphors in the stages of analysis and synthesis (understanding the design and concept production) and analogy in the stages of synthesis and evaluation (solving and promoting the problem or Concept Development) is more effective.

Focusing on producing urban and architectural form and space، this article explores the design process. It reviews several methods of design and narrows them all down to a major method known as “Analogy”. In fact، the article concludes that “Analogy” has been one of the main methods of design for designers. They have mostly tried to find an “Analogy” between the outcome and elements of design including the “site”، “program”، “case studies” and “themes” of the project. This way of design، based on “Analogy”، may vary from direct and objective to indirect and subjective techniques and almost covers all other methods discussed by theoreticians. Researches around design process are mainly emphasized not later than 1945. Encouraged from new scientific methods on one hand، movements emerged through a series of seminars in England during 1960s and 1970s and expansion of creativity techniques on the other hand; the design procedures underwent serious studies. Since creativity is a genuine and better way (Faruque 1984) and a power to find an unconventional and perfect solution for an issue as well as a new look at the realities and a process for breaking pre-assumptions (Guilford، 1967)، the subjects expressed in the design method have either faced criticism and/or، the writings in this area are usually presented in a generalize form in order to escape from the cliché making and conventionalism criticism. Even though in the view of some، death knocked the door of design process in 1970s; however، in 1980s، it was revived especially in engineering and industrial design fields. Thus، in order to study the process of producing forms and spaces، first the design procedure and its general dual stages; that is analysis and compositions have been studied and reviewed through the above mentioned backgrounds. In continuation، those methods have been compared in the views of some theorists and successful works of some contemporary architects as well as their design methods have been criticized with the above-mentioned methods and subsequently، the design and architecture form production is revised. The main findings of this research show that “Analogy” as evaluation and assessment of final form (composition) with the analytical categories (analysis stage) is one of the main stages and factors in architecture form production، and based on imagination and image of the designer، it could be used in the design procedures directly and objectively or indirectly and subjectively. As an “Analogy” has internal and external degrees، the analysis categories could be distinguished from inner degree (plan and site) to external degrees (case studies and phenomena). In another word، the “Analogy”، in this study، is demonstrated to be Meta-method or one of the main methods of design and other techniques can be easily classified into different levels of “Analogy”، from direct/objective to indirect/subjective ways of “Analogy”. For instance، discussed methods of design in this article such as pragmatic، programmatic، and essence techniques can also be known as direct and objective methods of “Analogy” while canonic، ideal، metaphor methods might be considered as indirect and objective “Analogies”.