Papers by Zohreh Tafazzoli
Journal of Islamic Architecture/Journal of islamic Architecture, Jun 20, 2024
There is a historic monument called the "Sanjīda Mosque" in the old Rah-Rey district in the city ... more There is a historic monument called the "Sanjīda Mosque" in the old Rah-Rey district in the city of Qazvin. However, the patron and date of its construction are unknown. Regarding the physical evidence in the building, as well as written evidence provided in the restoration reports and the works of some previous researchers on the resemblance of the building form to that of mausoleums, it is plausible that the original building served another purpose before it was modified to function as a mosque. There are various views regarding its original function. Some believe that the building was originally a fire temple later converted into a "mosque." There is also a famous hearsay that the dome chamber of the Sanjīda building is the burial place of Hasan-i Sabbāh, the leader of the Nizārī Ismāʿīlī sect in Iran. Yet, some others believe that it contains the tomb of one of Imam Mūsā Kāẓim's (the seventh Shi'i Imam) descendants. Consequently, the building presents a certain degree of complexity and ambiguity. The areas of ambiguity include the original form and function of the building, the existence of associated urban features, and the cause and date of modifying its function. In this research, we attempted to examine various types of physical and historical evidence to propose and discuss several suppositions regarding the original function of the Sanjīda building. According to the explicit physical evidence, as well as written and contextual evidence, the detailed result suggests that the hypothesis proposing a mausoleum as the original function of the building is more plausible compared to others.
Hikma
The Greek Phronesis is among the key concepts in Aristotle’s ethics and politics. It appears espe... more The Greek Phronesis is among the key concepts in Aristotle’s ethics and politics. It appears especially in the Book VI of his Nicomachean Ethics. The translators of Aristotle’s work could only render those aspects of its meaning that they were able to comprehend. The present study examines how phronesis is transmitted into Arabic in the revised version of the first known translation of the Nicomachean Ethics by Isḥāq Ibn Ḥunain (9th century) where he renders it to ta‘aqqul, ‘aql or fahm, and the translation made by ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān Badawī (20th century), who translates it as fiṭna. The findings are occasionally compared with the English and German translations of the same text by two significant commentators of Aristotle. The paper concludes that while Ibn Ḥunain’s renderings are historically justified, all in all, Badawī has translated the Greek terms with relative faithfulness, although he occasionally fails to establish a correlation between the concepts.
با اینکه در بحران کنونی نقد معماری پرداختن به مبانی و تئوری نقد معماری بیش از پیش ضرورت دارد، اما... more با اینکه در بحران کنونی نقد معماری پرداختن به مبانی و تئوری نقد معماری بیش از پیش ضرورت دارد، اما به مباحث نظری و تاریخی نقد معماری کمتر توجه شده است و مبانی نظری نقد معماری در غفلت و افول به سر می‌برد. در تاریخ ظهور نقد معماری آراء، نظر و نظریه‌های گوناگونی دربارۀ نقد معماری طرح شده که با تحولات آنها جریان نقد معماری پرورده شده است. هدف این مقاله پیگیری و تدقیق این جریان نظری و یافتن سیر تاریخی نظریه‌های اصلی در حوزۀ نقد معماری است. این سیر تاریخی را که به روش تاریخ مفهومی و بررسی اسنادی محقق شده است می‌توان در پنج دورۀ زمانی تقطیع کرد: اواخر سدۀ نوزدهم تا نیمۀ سدۀ بیستم که در این دوره پرسش از نقد مطبوعاتی و نقد آن آغاز شد و به‌موازات تحولات معماری در جنبش مدرن نگرش‌ها نسبت به نقد معماری نیز تغییر کرد؛ دهۀ ۱۹۶۰ که از یک سو نظریۀ نقد هنجاری و اختصاصی نقد معماری مبتنی بر نظریۀ جنبش مدرن طرح شد و از سوی دیگر مبانی نقد معماری از مطالعات زبان‌شناختی و مطالعات طراحی اثر پذیرفت؛ دهۀ ۱۹۷۰ که تحلیل‌های مارکسیستی پرسش‌ها و دیدگاه‌هایی تازه دربارۀ نقد پیش کشید؛ دهه‌های ۱۹۸۰ و ۱۹۹۰ که نقد ارزیابانه رد و به جای آن نظریۀ نقد به‌مثابۀ نگاشت مطرح شد؛ سدۀ بیست‌ویکم که موضوع معماری ناقدانه و پیوند نقد و طراحی و نیز دیدگاه مقابل آن مطرح شده است.
There is difference between criticizing architecture and speaking about architectural criticism, its terms, principles, and methodology. One is architectural criticism and the other is its theory, which refers to foundations, approaches, philosophy, and criticism of architectural criticism. Regarding the world crisis of architectural criticism, more study and research on its theory is needed; and that's while theories of criticism aren't yet studied enough.
On one hand, Architectural criticism has no unique and persistent theory, and on the other hand, when we review its history we see that different theories have been developed and refuted constantly. Changes of these theories is explicable by studying the history of architectural criticism; and in order to find its main theories and their changes, we investigate the theories of architectural criticism from its emergence in 19th century up to now. To show this history, this research is based on secondary sources of architectural criticism, and documentary research methods and conceptual history approach is applied.
In this article, theory of architectural criticism in the west will be examined in five principal eras: first, from the end of the 19th century to the mid of 20th century, during which the critique of the journalist criticism commenced and the controversial nature of architectural criticism and intermediary criticisms between the professionals and a non-specialized audience were constantly debated in architectural journals. At the same time the modern movement changed the concept of architecture and caused discussions about psychology and aesthetics criteria in architectural criticism; second, the 1960s, in which architectural theories were mainly affected by research in the methodologies of design studies and linguistics theories of the sign, both attempting toward a scientific theory for architectural criticism. in the meanwhile, theory of normative criticism supported by theory of modern architecture was developed; third is 1970’s era, when Marxian analyses of urban and architectural space, linguistic, anthropological and sociological matters of architecture were transposed into theory of criticism; 4th, the 1980s and 1990s, that was influenced by ever more individualized architectural tendencies, the absence of dominant doctrines, and the disintegration of ideologies, caused debates the paradigm shift of architectural criticism and change of its role from judging to mapping; the last is 21century, when the concept of critical architecture referring to the critical potentiality of architecture gave rise to harsh debate in the USA. Finally, the most recent research, 2016, titled "Mapping Architectural criticism, 20th and 21st Centuries: A Cartography" does not establish a theory or definition, rather, it aims at comparing several concepts of architectural criticism by historiography.
In this article, it is shown how the transformations of theories in the history of architectural criticism are influenced by the way theorists and critics consider the concept of architecture itself. It means whether considering architecture as an autonomous intellectual production, or an interdisciplinary production, directly affects the way of developing a theory of architectural criticism.
This paper provides answers to one of the most commonly asked questions in architecture Education... more This paper provides answers to one of the most commonly asked questions in architecture Education, which focuses on a lack of coherence resulting in a fracture between theory and practice in architecture, and highlights philosophical ponders of its concepts and assumptions. A look into Aristotle’s views about practice and theory reveals a new meaning of “practice," dimensions of which have been beautifully demonstrated in “Phronesis” or practical knowledge. Gadamer’s analysis of Phronesis shows the importance of this view in understanding the relation between the universal and the particular,ergo the relation between theory and practice. Understanding practice as a concept that relies on delibration and decision corrects understanding of practice as rather the application of theory in our assumptions and makes the particular situation which us, architects, deal with, and require evaluation deliberation and decision, the focal point where one should seek to find the relation between theory and practice.
Deep understanding of dynamic incidents of decision and practice in architecture suggests that we should alternate our understanding of theory, practice and their relationship. If we insist on the common meaning of practice and theory and the application of theory model in practice, one can never overcome the distance between theory and practice. However, if we deeply understand the dialectics between theory and practice and between the universal and the particular that happens in the incidents of deliberation and decision, we can finally say that we have overcome the fracture between theory and practice.
Keywords: Coherence in Architecture, Theory and Practice in Archiecture, Phronesis, Practical Knowledge, decision in Architecture.
To clarify the role of memory in design thinking, this paper first reviews the evolution of memor... more To clarify the role of memory in design thinking, this paper first reviews the evolution of memory metaphors. Memory was initially thought to be a mnemic capacity attributed to the ancient Greek Goddess, Mnemosyne. The meaning of memory was further developed in Platonic and Aristotelian models. In Islamic psychology, memory was defined as one of the five cognitive abilities which stores the cognizable. Modern cognitive psychology theories employ dynamic models based on schemata as syllogistic figures.
These metaphors consider the memory not to be solely a storage capability, but rather as a constructive capacity, that both stores and creates. Thus they explain the role of memory in generating design alternatives, tacit knowing of designers, and their unconscious reasoning. It encloses the role of History and language in design thinking.
Interviews by Zohreh Tafazzoli
Uploads
Papers by Zohreh Tafazzoli
There is difference between criticizing architecture and speaking about architectural criticism, its terms, principles, and methodology. One is architectural criticism and the other is its theory, which refers to foundations, approaches, philosophy, and criticism of architectural criticism. Regarding the world crisis of architectural criticism, more study and research on its theory is needed; and that's while theories of criticism aren't yet studied enough.
On one hand, Architectural criticism has no unique and persistent theory, and on the other hand, when we review its history we see that different theories have been developed and refuted constantly. Changes of these theories is explicable by studying the history of architectural criticism; and in order to find its main theories and their changes, we investigate the theories of architectural criticism from its emergence in 19th century up to now. To show this history, this research is based on secondary sources of architectural criticism, and documentary research methods and conceptual history approach is applied.
In this article, theory of architectural criticism in the west will be examined in five principal eras: first, from the end of the 19th century to the mid of 20th century, during which the critique of the journalist criticism commenced and the controversial nature of architectural criticism and intermediary criticisms between the professionals and a non-specialized audience were constantly debated in architectural journals. At the same time the modern movement changed the concept of architecture and caused discussions about psychology and aesthetics criteria in architectural criticism; second, the 1960s, in which architectural theories were mainly affected by research in the methodologies of design studies and linguistics theories of the sign, both attempting toward a scientific theory for architectural criticism. in the meanwhile, theory of normative criticism supported by theory of modern architecture was developed; third is 1970’s era, when Marxian analyses of urban and architectural space, linguistic, anthropological and sociological matters of architecture were transposed into theory of criticism; 4th, the 1980s and 1990s, that was influenced by ever more individualized architectural tendencies, the absence of dominant doctrines, and the disintegration of ideologies, caused debates the paradigm shift of architectural criticism and change of its role from judging to mapping; the last is 21century, when the concept of critical architecture referring to the critical potentiality of architecture gave rise to harsh debate in the USA. Finally, the most recent research, 2016, titled "Mapping Architectural criticism, 20th and 21st Centuries: A Cartography" does not establish a theory or definition, rather, it aims at comparing several concepts of architectural criticism by historiography.
In this article, it is shown how the transformations of theories in the history of architectural criticism are influenced by the way theorists and critics consider the concept of architecture itself. It means whether considering architecture as an autonomous intellectual production, or an interdisciplinary production, directly affects the way of developing a theory of architectural criticism.
Deep understanding of dynamic incidents of decision and practice in architecture suggests that we should alternate our understanding of theory, practice and their relationship. If we insist on the common meaning of practice and theory and the application of theory model in practice, one can never overcome the distance between theory and practice. However, if we deeply understand the dialectics between theory and practice and between the universal and the particular that happens in the incidents of deliberation and decision, we can finally say that we have overcome the fracture between theory and practice.
Keywords: Coherence in Architecture, Theory and Practice in Archiecture, Phronesis, Practical Knowledge, decision in Architecture.
These metaphors consider the memory not to be solely a storage capability, but rather as a constructive capacity, that both stores and creates. Thus they explain the role of memory in generating design alternatives, tacit knowing of designers, and their unconscious reasoning. It encloses the role of History and language in design thinking.
Interviews by Zohreh Tafazzoli
There is difference between criticizing architecture and speaking about architectural criticism, its terms, principles, and methodology. One is architectural criticism and the other is its theory, which refers to foundations, approaches, philosophy, and criticism of architectural criticism. Regarding the world crisis of architectural criticism, more study and research on its theory is needed; and that's while theories of criticism aren't yet studied enough.
On one hand, Architectural criticism has no unique and persistent theory, and on the other hand, when we review its history we see that different theories have been developed and refuted constantly. Changes of these theories is explicable by studying the history of architectural criticism; and in order to find its main theories and their changes, we investigate the theories of architectural criticism from its emergence in 19th century up to now. To show this history, this research is based on secondary sources of architectural criticism, and documentary research methods and conceptual history approach is applied.
In this article, theory of architectural criticism in the west will be examined in five principal eras: first, from the end of the 19th century to the mid of 20th century, during which the critique of the journalist criticism commenced and the controversial nature of architectural criticism and intermediary criticisms between the professionals and a non-specialized audience were constantly debated in architectural journals. At the same time the modern movement changed the concept of architecture and caused discussions about psychology and aesthetics criteria in architectural criticism; second, the 1960s, in which architectural theories were mainly affected by research in the methodologies of design studies and linguistics theories of the sign, both attempting toward a scientific theory for architectural criticism. in the meanwhile, theory of normative criticism supported by theory of modern architecture was developed; third is 1970’s era, when Marxian analyses of urban and architectural space, linguistic, anthropological and sociological matters of architecture were transposed into theory of criticism; 4th, the 1980s and 1990s, that was influenced by ever more individualized architectural tendencies, the absence of dominant doctrines, and the disintegration of ideologies, caused debates the paradigm shift of architectural criticism and change of its role from judging to mapping; the last is 21century, when the concept of critical architecture referring to the critical potentiality of architecture gave rise to harsh debate in the USA. Finally, the most recent research, 2016, titled "Mapping Architectural criticism, 20th and 21st Centuries: A Cartography" does not establish a theory or definition, rather, it aims at comparing several concepts of architectural criticism by historiography.
In this article, it is shown how the transformations of theories in the history of architectural criticism are influenced by the way theorists and critics consider the concept of architecture itself. It means whether considering architecture as an autonomous intellectual production, or an interdisciplinary production, directly affects the way of developing a theory of architectural criticism.
Deep understanding of dynamic incidents of decision and practice in architecture suggests that we should alternate our understanding of theory, practice and their relationship. If we insist on the common meaning of practice and theory and the application of theory model in practice, one can never overcome the distance between theory and practice. However, if we deeply understand the dialectics between theory and practice and between the universal and the particular that happens in the incidents of deliberation and decision, we can finally say that we have overcome the fracture between theory and practice.
Keywords: Coherence in Architecture, Theory and Practice in Archiecture, Phronesis, Practical Knowledge, decision in Architecture.
These metaphors consider the memory not to be solely a storage capability, but rather as a constructive capacity, that both stores and creates. Thus they explain the role of memory in generating design alternatives, tacit knowing of designers, and their unconscious reasoning. It encloses the role of History and language in design thinking.