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

The Iranian garden is a product of Iranian culture and has artificial and natural elements. At the same time that it has fixed and clear principles, it has a lot of variety. Following this diversity, different designs for Iranian garden elements are observed. This research has been focused on the architectural elements of Iranian gardens. Then what are the reasons for the architectural elements’ diversity? This is the question that this research is looking for. Finding the answer to this question can help designers with the idea of an Iranian garden. For example, what is the basis for designing a Kushk (kiosk or pavilion), and what is the basis for the variations in their designs? There can be various reasons for these architectural elements’ designs, and these reasons originate from their philosophy and theoretical foundations. So far, many studies have been done on different architectural elements of the Iranian garden, and they have been looked at from different angles. But what are the roles of these elements in the overall plan of the Iranian gardens? Are these elements based on functional, climatic, or shape reasons or other reasons? And which reason is stronger? For this purpose, ten gardens in different climates and of different ages were selected to examine their architectural elements. Qualitative evaluation and analytical-descriptive methods have been used in examining the various reasons for the formation of each of the architectural elements in the selected gardens. The abundance of roles in the examination of each element determines the dominant role each of them plays in the garden. In the end, the conclusions show that “wall” has a mainly functional-climatic role, “entrance” has a mainly symbolic role, and “kiosk” has a mainly spatial role. In this way, the architectural elements are not very prominent, and they draw most of the audience’s attention to the garden and nature.

Researching and recognizing the beliefs, convictions, environmental knowledge, techniques and traditional methods of each community allows us to know their interests. The purpose of this study is to document the native architecture of the inhabitants of Bahar city in order to record some parts of its unwritten history in addition to introducing it. This research has been done through observation, interview and participation. Shahr-e Bahar is located in the northwest of Hamadan and its inhabitants are from Baharloo tribe and they speak Turkish. The Baharlus came to this place from Central Anatolia in the 12th century and built the Bahar Fortress in the 13th century. Bahar Castle was destroyed by the Mongols in 1257. Therefore, some of the Baharlus came to the Bahar plain at least eight hundred years ago, and some of the tribes have remained in the Anatolian region. Bahar passed away and at the beginning of its formation, it was a village-castle. Gradually, with the development of the city, the first houses were built on the south side of the castle and near the qanats (aqueducts). There is now a castle neighborhood in the north of the city. The location of Bahar city in the northern part of Alvand Mountains has caused them to enjoy lush and productive ranges as well as temperate climate that tend to be cold and dry. By looking at the type of materials, the method of construction and the type of exploitation of spaces, we can understand the connection between man and nature. Also, the impact of livelihood and economy on the structure of the building and the function of the interior spaces of the houses is quite obvious. In compiling this article, it was necessary to translate local words and transliterate each word for careful reading. According to the results of this study, the indigenous residential spaces of Bahar have been used only for humans and animals and less attention has been paid to the aesthetic aspects inside and outside the building. In this study, although most of the author's attention is on the anthropological perspective along with observations, interviews and participatory field studies, historical points have been made to clarify the issue.

Researching and recognizing the beliefs, convictions, environmental knowledge, techniques and traditional methods of each community allows us to know their interests. The purpose of this study is to document the native architecture of the inhabitants of Bahar city in order to record some parts of its unwritten history in addition to introducing it and its dwellings. This research was done through observation, interview and participation. Shahr-e Bahar is located in the northwest of Hamadan and its inhabitants are from Baharloo tribe and they speak Turkish. There is now a castle neighborhood in the north of the city. By looking at the type of materials, the method of construction and the type of exploitation of spaces, we can understand the connection between man and nature. Also, the impact of livelihood and economy on the structure of the building and the function of different parts of houses (Outer courtyard, Inner courtyard, Backyard, Kiosk (Kūshk), Room, Kitchen) is quite obvious. In compiling this article, it was necessary to translate local words and transliterate each word for careful reading. According to the results of this study, the indigenous residential spaces of Bahar have been used only for humans and animals and less attention has been paid to the aesthetic aspects inside and outside the building. For the past 50 years, due different factors, the construction of traditional houses are not common anymore. Therefore, accurate recording of all the details of this type of housing is being forgotten.

The Pavilion can be outlined among the most important architectural identity elements in Persian gardens. Usually these structures were built in the middle of the garden and at the confluence of two longitudinal and transverse axes in such a way that it could be seen from four sides to maximize the geometrical composition of the Persian four-garden. Although relatively different reasons for the formation and structural categorization of these architectural spaces can be seen in Persian gardens. Nine-part divisions in Iranian pavilion are of an extensive use. This type of architecture is the result of the fusion of three basic requests in architecture: Attention to beauty, function and stability. Thus, the right mix of volumes, adds to their beauty. The existence of hierarchy to achieve empowerment for the palace’s performance and also the inhibition of central thrust loads, have made significant contributions to the sustainability of these Persian environments. On the other hand, this plan has strengthened the permanent request of centralization in four-part buildings, adorned Persian gardens from the Achaemenids period so far in two major forms of introvert and extravert. In this article firstly the need for such spaces in the existence of hierarchies and response to promotional aspects of palaces is demanded. Another question is that, in the same condition and in the heart of the Persian garden, why is this map implemented sometimes completely closed (Châhâr-Sofe), at times a combination of closed and semi-open spaces (Hasht-Behesht) and in rare cases like the central building of Qajar palace in Tehran, completely semi-open (Canopies)? The results of this study show that the existence of four homogeneous facades that open to the axis of the charbâgh, empowered the architectural mass over the mass of landscape and helped their coalescence and spatial fusion and in general, the hierarchical architecture in the heart of a four-garden structure would not have a better answer than a nine part space. Also it seems that, on one hand, a climatic-seasonal usage and on the other, paying attention to the bio-ritual and occasionally ceremonial functions, in order to meet the demands of the governments, are among the main reasons for these changes.

In the Iranian culture and art, Persian gardens are the expression of people’s identity and the way they interact with nature as well as a sign of harmony between human needs and nature. In the eyes of the Iranians, garden is a symbol of the promised paradise. The reason for this statement may have been the extreme heat and water shortage followed by difficulties in raising green plants and trees in Iran’s dry plateau. Despite these long climatic problems, the verdurous gardens, often accompanying the architectural structure, were built to provide welfare and comfort in life. Many of these gardens are located in the heart of the desert; for example, Tabas gardens are in this category. According to written sources, historical events and the location of Golshan Garden in the fabric of Tabas city, this garden is the most important garden of this city. This garden is located at the eastern end of the Golshan Street. Regarding the position of Golshan’s government garden, the historic and biological value of this garden in Tabas barren is noticeable. This research has been carried out using descriptive-analytical method. In this research, first, the city of Tabas and Golshan Garden are introduced and the physical and spatial features of this Garden are described as well. Then, via analytical look at these features, it tries to offer a good answer for the lack of pavilion in this garden. Finally, harmonization with the archetype of Persian Garden, suitable habitation and security in the government’s citadel and its accordance with local lifestyle are stated to justify the lack of pavilion’s architecture in the Golshan Garden.

Iranian traditional gardens are well-known among different gardens of the world. The importance of axial geometry which organizes plants، water and pavilion can be observed in many Persian gardens. The arrangements of elements are varied in different gardens so the spatial and visual qualities of each garden may differ from others. All of these gardens are part of the Iranian heritage. They have been spread over the plateau of Iran and many of them are disused or have been vanished. Kerman gardens are an important part of Iranian gardens and unfortunatelymany of themhave already suffered a lot as the result of what may be the greediness of certain individuals as well as the lack of knowledge of owners or authorities. Biram Ābād garden which was built during the Safavid Dynasty and Fath Ābād garden which was built during the Qajar dynasty are two main gardens in Kerman which are placed in two different areas of the city. Fath Ābād garden is in Ekhtiār Ābād village within a distance of six kilometers from Kerman، and Biram Ābād garden is on a mountainside in the east of Kerman. There are a lot of similarities between them. These gardens are among the few and perhaps the only existing gardens in Iran، with two pavilions and this characterizes them from other gardens. In this paper first the structure and elements of each garden is studied، then the gardens are compared and differences and similarities are investigated. There are four topics for comparison of the two gardens: garden structure and its effective factors، the location of each pavilion and its function and spatial relation with other parts of the garden، the space arrangement according to emersion and quality of each space، and finally the study about the integration of the garden and nature. The first topic analyzes the role of axis (number، function، proportion، etc) and the order in each garden. The second is the study of pavilions، their plans، visual perception and the circulation between them in each garden. The third is about space quality and the observer perception in each garden. The forth is about the comparison between the integration of each garden with nature. During the research some hypotheses are proposed in order to explain the reasons and results of the differences between the two gardens with the Persian garden pattern، and the effect of the two pavilions and the multi axial geometry of each garden. The studies of the two gardens which were built several hundred years apart demonstrate some new points. Two effective axes with two pavilions in each garden are the distinctive characteristics which define new qualities and specify the two gardens from Persian garden pattern (Table 1). Although the two gardens have been formed through Persian garden pattern، the number of axis and pavilions causes different methods to reply to the functional، formal and spatial demands، and this difference effects the combination of parts and the whole of each garden. The organization of each garden axis is more complex than Persian garden pattern. Therefore، a new geometry is created which concentrates on two focuses (pavilions). The effect of this organization changes the role and the quality of the axes، so different spaces with different qualities are created. Unlike many Persian gardens، the two garden spaces don’t have definite boundaries but a continuous connection and integration with each other. Therefore، everyone can perceive new experiences of space which is related to time. The location of the two pavilions in each garden and their place to each other is different. Therefore in Fath Ābād garden the functional and visual interaction between two pavilions are more than Biram Ābād garden. Although one of the two pavilions of each garden is the main one and similar to what is expected from Persian garden pavilion، the “U” shaped plan of the main pavilion of the Fath Ābād garden and the protrusion of the main pavilion from the garden wall in the Biram Ābād garden are the exclusive characters of the two pavilions and confirm the ability of the Iranian architect in using creative methods for interacting architecture and nature. Studies of these two extraordinary gardens demonstrate the dominance of the pavilion and the axis in the organization of the garden. The form of the axis is not changed. The axis is characterized by the plants and especially by the form of the waterfront in all Persian gardens; the only difference is the number of the axis. On the other hand the pavilion، its form and location has an effective role in garden structure. It is important to mention that the differences and the similarities between the two gardens with Persian garden pattern and the sense of presence in each of them for the observer demonstrate the richness of the pattern and its capacity to adapt to contextual variants and also the skill of Persian architect who responds to the demands of the users of the space.