بازخوانی انتقادی آرای متفکران ‌دربارهٔ‌ «زمان و معماری» از آغاز دورهٔ روشنگری

مفهوم زمان از دورۀ روشنگری وارد گفتمان معماری مغرب‌زمین شده و کاربرد آن از قرن بیستم تا به ‌اکنون به ‌اوج خود رسیده ‌است. تاریخ معماری، نشان می‌دهد که لایه‌های مختلفی از مفهوم زمان در معماری وجود دارد و هر تصوری از زمان نیز به ‌فهمی از معماری می‌انجامد. به‌رغم این‌ نقش مهم، آرای مختلف ‌دربارۀ‌ «زمان و معماری» تا اندازه‌ای مبهم و متناقض می‌نمایند. هدف این‌ پژوهش به ‌دید آوردن آرای موجود است، به‌گونه‌ای که ساحت‌های مختلف «زمان و معماری» به‌نحوی به ‌سامان آشکار شود. بدین منظور آرای موجود به روش «تحلیل مضمون» خوانش و تحلیل شده ‌است. براساس این آراء که با مراجعه به منابع مکتوب جمع‌آوری شده‌اند، آنچه نتیجه می‌شود سه نحو تلقی از زمان در معماری، در قالب زمان به‌مثابه‌ «حال مستمر»، «روزمرگی» و «نسبت حضور و غیاب» است. این سه، همراه با تصورات مختلفی از معماری‌اند: 1- معماری «برآمده از روح دوران» و «برآمده از امری الوهی»؛ 2- معماری «هماهنگ با امر رایج» و «قابل انطباق با متغیرهای روزمره»؛ و 3- معماری به‌مثابه «آشکارگی پیوند پوشیدگی‌‌ناپوشیدگی»، «بهبود امر حاضر» و «ساختن و نمایش «تفاوت» حضور و غیاب». پس‌از پرداختن به‌ خاستگاه فکریِ رویکردها و مسائل موجود در آن‌ها و تبیین وجوه افتراق و اشتراک میانشان روشن می‌شود که آنچه باعث بروز مسائلی در آن‌ها شده ‌است برآمده از نگاه سلطه‌گرانۀ انسان در مقام معمار و یا  صاحب‌نظر معماری به ‌زمان است.

a critical reinterpretation of thinkers’ views on time and architecture since the enlightenment period

the history of architecture indicates that multiple layers of the concept of time exist within this field, with each conception of time leading to a distinct understanding of architecture. despite its significant role, existing opinions regarding time and architecture often appear ambiguous and contradictory. the aim of this research is to clarify these viewpoints and present the diverse dimensions of time and architecture in an orderly and comprehensible manner. to achieve this, the study employs thematic analysis through an interpretive approach. this research focuses on published theoretical texts in architecture, with an emphasis on western sources and their translations. the selection of sources has been purposeful, meaning that efforts were made to cover a diversity of opinions while also drawing from the works of prominent theorists. the findings reveal three approaches to understanding time in architecture, conceptualized as time as a continuous present, everyday matters, and the relationship of presence and absence. these three approaches correspond to distinct understandings of architecture: 1. architecture as the acceptance of the spirit of the age and divine.’; 2. architecture as the acceptance of the current and adaptability to the everyday; 3. architecture as the revelation of the relationship between concealment and unconcealment, the improvement of the present, and the making and display of the differentiation of presence and absence. in the first approach, time is seen as absolute, infinite, and external to the realm of architecture. although there is a sense of continuity in this approach that links past, present, and future, what often occurs is a predominant emphasis on the present. the second approach critically addresses the homogeneity and totalitarianism of the first by focusing on the everyday and the natural flow of human life. in its extreme form, the historicist aspect of this approach views human life solely in terms of change while neglecting continuity. despite their differences, both the first and second approaches share the limitation of being unable to explain untimely moments. in both perspectives, architecture is perceived as submissive to time as an entity that exists in the present. contrary to these views, the third approach emphasizes that time is not merely defined by presence and critiques this relationship. in this view, architecture is no longer seen as submissive to time; rather, it has the potential to make, improve, or reveal it. in this third inclination, which advocates for making and improving, architecture is perceived as an active endeavor. thus, while these two inclinations emphasize diverse aspects of human life, they tend to focus on these aspects only in terms of how they can be improved or how they display the differences between past and present in their extreme forms. meanwhile, the perspective that considers architecture as the revelation of time seeks to explore various dimensions of temporality in both finite and absolute terms. ultimately, it becomes clear that the problems arising from the extreme tendencies of these various approaches are rooted in a domineering viewpoint held by humanity, as architects and theorists, regarding time.