"Interarchitecturality"; Explanation of the Relation between an Architectural Work and Other Works Using "Intertextuality" Approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Islamic Azad University of Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

The relation between an architectural work and other works is a major topic in the architectural community that challenges the concepts of compilation, originality and self-existence of the work. Lack of an approach for the methodical critique of the relationship between works necessitates a more detailed study of the topic. By asking the question of what relation exists between an architectural work and other works, the present study sought to explain the intertextual relations in architecture (interarchitecturality). To this purpose, the intertextuality approach was used which deals with how texts have an impact in forming each other or reading and perceiving texts, and explains textual reproduction. To examine and analyze relations among architectural works, it is essential to assess a work in its textual relations network in addition to the interpretation of the first layer, which is confined to direct references of a work. We need to touch upon the second layer and examine the indirect references of a work in relation to other works. In this layer, intertextual relations are interpreted in terms of relations among the components of works; in other words, such an interpretation is made using previous texts, and it is not a unidimensional, monosemic interpretation based on signification, but an interpretation where signification proceeds in different layers of the intratextual network according to intertextual rules and ties. This is a qualitative study which was conducted using descriptive-analytic and historical-interpretive methods. Data were analyzed using a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach. A new configuration was proposed as an 'interarchitectural critique' by explaining intertextuality as a tool for architectural critique. To understand the concept of 'interarchitecturality' and to explain the theoretical framework of the study, first, the location and coordinates of an architectural work were determined as a text in relation to other texts (other works). The current study shows that the intertextual relations between a work of architecture and other works are based on connections established among the components of a work including Form, Program/Spatial diagram, and Construction. An analysis and review of the components of a work in three layers within the textual relations network determine the intertextual ties in architecture, or in other words, yield an “interarchitectural” criticism. The critique structure proposed here in the two layers of the type and the degree of intertextual relation, studies the internal components of an architectural work in relation to other works. In the first layer, the type of an intertextual relation is determined that, itself, includes three sublayers: intracultural and cross-cultural sublayers; Horizontal/Syntagmatic or Vertical/Paradigmatic and the third sublayer shows that this relation is a representation of the previous work and refers to it directly, or it is an implicit, indirect relation referring to shared themes and concepts. By revealing the implicit implications of the work in a network of interarchitectural relations, results of this study in layer three show the extent to which this communication leads to the reproducibility and polysemic nature of the work, turning it into a multifaceted hybrid 'architectural texture' or an 'architectural object' with a dominant ideology. This method of critique was used in two case studies of Mellat Cineplex and Birjand Engineering Organization Building projects.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

آلن، گراهام (1392). بینامتنیت (مترجم: پیام یزدانجو). تهران: مرکز.
احمدی، بابک (1370). ساختار و تأویل متن. تهران: مرکز.
بانی مسعود، امیر (1386). پست مدرنیته و معماری: بررسی جریان‌‌های فکری معماری معاصر غرب 2000–1960. تهران: خاک.
بانی‌‌مسعود، امیر (1390). معماری معاصر ایران: در تکاپوی بین سنت و مدرنیته. تهران: هنر معماری قرن.
پیرنیا، محمد‌کریم (1384). سبک‌شناسی معماری ایرانی (تدوین: غلامحسین معماریان). تهران: سروش دانش.
چومی، برنارد (1376). فضای رویداد (مترجم: فوزیه خردمند). فصل‌نامه‌ معماری و شهرسازی، 38-39، ۵۴-۵۲.
حکیم، اعظم و نامورمطلق، بهمن (1397). خوانش بیش‌متنی نقاشی ژکوند اثر رنه مگریت بر اساس گونه‌شناسی ژرار ژنت. نامه هنرهای تجسمی و کاربردی، 11 (22)، ۵-۲۱.
رئیسی، ایمان (1394). نظربازی، جستارهای نظریه‌‌ معماری. مشهد: کتابکده کسری.
ضیمران، محمد (1379). ژاک دریدا و متافیزیک حضور. تهران: هرمس.
فرهادپور، مراد (1392). پاره‌های فکر (هنر و ادبیات). تهران: طرح نو.
نامورمطلق، بهمن (1395). بینامتنیت: از ساختارگرایی تا پسامدرنیسم. تهران: سخن.
نامورمطلق، بهمن (1390). درآمدی بر بینامتنیت: نظریه و کاربردها. تهران: سخن.
 
Allen, S. (1997). From object to field. AD Magazine architectural Design, 67, 24-31. 
Boesiger, W. (1946). Le Corbusier: Oeuvre Complete 1938-1946. Zurich: Les Editions d'Architecture.
Capon, D. S. (1999). Le Corbusiers Legacy: Principles of Twentieth century Architectural Theory Arranged by Category (Architectural Theory, Vol. 02). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Eisenman, P. (2006). The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture: Dissertation 1963. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers.
Eisenman, P. (1992). THE MAX REINHARDT HAUS. Retrieved from https://eisenmanarchitects.com/The-Max-Reinhardt-Haus-1992.
Eisenman, P., & Koolhaas, R. (2010). Super-Critical (Ed. Brett Steele). London: AA publications.
Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsestes: Literature au second degree (Trans., Channa Newman & Claude Doubinsky). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Ghaseminia, M., & Soltanzadeh, H. (2016). Intertextual Relationships in the Contemporary Architecture of Iran during 1961-1977. Space Ontology International Journal (SOIJ), 5, 39-50.
Hadid, Z. (1983). THE Peack Leisure Club. Retrieved from https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/the-peak-leisure-club.
Jodidio, P. (2016). ZAHA HADID 1950-2016: The Explosion Reforming Space. Cologne, Germany: TASCHEN.
Kipnis, J. (2013). I am for tendencies. Log, 28, 133-142.
Kipnis, J. (1993). Towards a New Architecture. AD Folding in Architecture, 102, 40-49.
Koolhaas, R. (2008). CCTV Headquarters. Retrieved from https://oma.eu/news/cctv-headquarters-facade-completed.
Koolhaas, R. (2003). Netherlands Embassy. Retrieved from https://oma.eu/projects/netherlands-embassy.
Matta-Clark, G. (1975). Conical Intersect. Retrieved from https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/92.426.
Merisi, M. (1602). Doubting Thomas. Retrieved from https://www.artble.com/imgs/b/1/6/121078/doubting_thomas.jpg.
Ruy, D. (2012). Returning to (Strange) Objects. Tarp Architecture Manual (38-42). New York: Pratt Institute.
Tansey, M. (1986). Doubting Thomas. Retrieved from https://tanseypictures.tumblr.com/post/69325637022/doubting-thomas-1986-oil-on-canvas-65-x-54-in-a.
Teresa, L., & Pardo, S. (2006). OMA/Rem Koolhaas 1987-1998. Spain: El Croquis.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 14, Issue 34
March 2022
Pages 25-44

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics