A Comparative Study of the Relationship among Architecture, Consumption, and Culture in the Houses of Old and New Fabric of the City of Hamedan

Subject Areas : architecture

Sima Khazaiyan ¹ (M. A. in Cultural S tudies, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran.)
Mohsen Niazi ² (Professor, Faculty of Humanities, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran.)
Ali Omrani Pour ³ (Assosiate Professor, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran)

Received: 2018-11-10 Accepted : 2020-04-26 Published : 2021-03-21

Keywords: Hammedan, consumption, Culture, old fabric, architecture, new fabric,

Abstract :

Culture, as an abstract object, is appeared by things and human behavior. Cultural values and cultural patterns are reflected in behavior, style of internal and external spaces of the houses. Houses as cultural objects are the tools for representation of culture; So, they are not only spaces, but places introduce our cultural feeling, opinion and values. The way of using, the feeling and the consumption of the spaces of houses, gives cultural meaning to the spaces. In relationship among architecture, culture and consumption, culture rehabilitate itself by buildings as a corporeal tools and consumption of residents as a behavioral and cultural action because architecture and consumption are the tools of culture representation. The research has two main questions: A) How does culture cause consumption diversity and different perception from the spaces of the houses in 2 different urban fabric in Hammedan? B) How does culture represent itself by the form of buildings and consumption behavior of the residents of these houses? In otherwise, how the building elements act in different cultures. Qualitative and field effective methods are used for investigating these questions. The samples for this survey are from the local residents of Haji (old fabric) and the local residents of Ostadan (new fabric) in the city of Hammedan. So, 14 houses were selected from the Haji and 13 houses were selected from Ostadan district as the cases of this study. This study has two main parameters:1. Architecture, as a physical and objective matter, 2. Cultural consumption which is the usual behavior and habit of people, as a human matter. The data collection methods are interview, observation and photography: Physical-spatial elements are studied by observation and usual behavior and habits such as eating, sleeping are studied by interview. The observation is developed by studying the photos taken through the inspections of internal spaces of both group of houses. The interview in this research is a deep interview with open questions from the residents of the random selected houses. Data analysis methods are used to describe concepts. Data achieved through the interviews are categorized according to abundance of the answers and conceptualized. The categories are the main and common meaning of the residents in each urban district. These data is compared with data achieved through the observation. The comparison reflects the relation among architectural spaces of the houses and the cultural consumption of the residents of these houses. The results of this study show that how different cultural structure in both new and old fabric has made differences to the way of attitude and valuation of residents such as difference in style of interior design and arrangement, guest room and the quality of reception, WC, kitchen style, having private space and different styles of house. A house is the base point and involves primary data to be seen and sensed to make meaning for human. So, a house as a sign can betoken different meanings. Many potential meanings are involved in a sign and people interpret it according to each cultural context. Culture, as an abs tract object, is appeared by things and human behavior. Cultural values and patterns are reflectedin behavior, s tyle of internal and external spaces of the houses. Houses as cultural objects are the tools forrepresentation of culture. Therefore, they are not only spaces, but places introduce our cultural feeling, opinion, andvalues. Ways to use, opportunities to the consumption of the spaces of houses, gives cultural meaning to the areas.In relationship among architecture, culture, and consumption, culture rehabilitates itself by buildings as a physicaltools and consumption of residents as a behavioral and cultural manner because architecture and consumption arethe tools of cultural representation. The research has two main ques tions: the firs t one is to know how) do culturecauses consumption diversity and different perceptions from the spaces of the houses in two different urban fabricsin Hamedan? Secondly, how does culture represent itself by the form of buildings and consumption behaviorof the residents of these houses? Otherwise, the building elements act in different cultures. Qualitative and fieldeffective methods are used for inves tigating these ques tions. The samples for this survey obtain from the residentsof Haji (old fabric) and the residents of Os tadan (new fabric) in the city of Hamedan. Consequently, as a case s tudy,14 houses were selected from the Haji and 13 houses were selected from the Os tadan. This s tudy has two mainparameters: 1. Architecture, as a physical and objective matter, 2. Cultural consumption, which is the usual behaviorand people's habit, as a human matter. The data collection methods are interviews, observation and photography.Physical-spatial elements are s tudied by observation usual behavior, and habits such as eating and sleeping s tudiedby interview. The observation is developed by s tudying the photos taken through the inspections of the internalspaces of both groups of houses. The interview in this research is a serious interview with open ques tions from theresidents of the randomly selected houses. Data analysis methods are usable description concepts. Data achievedthrough the interviews categorized according to the abundance of the answers and conceptualized. The categoriesare the main and primary meaning of the residents in each urban dis trict. This data is compared with data gainedthrough the observation. The comparison reflects the relationship among architectural spaces of the houses and thecultural consumption of the residents of these houses. As a result, this s tudy shows how different cultural s tructurein both new and old fabric has made diversities to the way of attitude and valuation of residents such as differencein s tyle of interior design and arrangement, gues t room and the quality of reception, WC, kitchen s tyle, havingprivate space and different s tyles of house. A house is the significant point and involves primary data to be seen andsensed to make meaning for humans. Thus, a house can betoken different meanings. Many potential meanings areinvolved in a sign and people interpret it to each cultural context.

References:

استراوس، انسلم؛و کربین، جولیت. (1390).مبانی پژوهش کیفی: فنون و مراحل تولید نظریه­ زمینه­ای.(ابراهیم افشار، مترجم).تهران: نی.

استوری، جان. (1386).مطالعات فرهنگی درباره­ فرهنگ عامه.(حسین پاینده، مترجم). تهران: آگه.

اکو، امبرتو. (1389).نشانه­شناسی.(پیروز ایزدی، مترجم).تهران: ثالث.

بارکر، کریس. (1391).مطالعات فرهنگی (نظریه و عملکرد). (مهدی فرجی و نفیسه حمیدی، مترجمان). تهران: پژوهشکده­ مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.

بالانتین، آندرو. (1389).دلوز و گاتاری برای معماران/ مبانی نظری معماری فولدینگ. (روزبه احمدی‌نژاد، مترجم). تهران: طحان/ هله.

بمانیان، محمدرضا؛ امیرخانی، آرین؛ و لیلیان، محمدرضا. (1389).نظم و بی­نظمی در معماری.تهران: طحان، هله.

دواس، دی. ای. (1387).پیمایش در پژوهشات اجتماعی.(هوشنگ نایبی، مترجم). تهران: نی.

سجودی، فرزان. (1388).نشانه­شناسی: نظریه و عمل.تهران: علم.

کارل سالزمن، فیلیپ. (1388).فهم فرهنگ/ مقدمه­ای بر نظریه­ انسان­شناختی.(محمدامین کنعانی، مترجم). تهران: نقد افکار.

کاظمی، عباس. (1388).پرسه­زنی و زندگی روزمره­ ایرانی.تهران: آشیان.

کرکوف، فیلیپ. (1392).جامعه­شناسی­های نوین (بین امر جمعی و امر فردی).(علیرضا خدامی، مترجم). تهران: کتاب آمه.

گلرخ، شمین. (1391). قرارگاه رفتاری (واحدی برای تحلیل محیط).تهران: آرمان‌شهر.

لش، اسکات. (1383).جامعه­شناسی پست‌مدرنیسم.(شاپور بهیان، مترجم).تهران: ققنوس.

لوکوربوزیه. (1382).به­سوی معماری نوین، در متن­هاییبرگزیدهازمدرنیسمتا پست‌مدرنیسم.لارنس کهون.(عبدالکریم رشیدیان، مترجم).تهران: نی.

ماناگن، جان؛ و جاست، پیتر. (1389).انسان­شناسی اجتماعی و فرهنگی.(احمدرضا تقاء، مترجم). تهران: ماهی.

نسبیت، کیت. (1391).نظریه­های پسامدرن در معماری.(محمدرضا شیرازی، مترجم). تهران: نی.

هال، استیوئرت. (1391).معنا، فرهنگ و زندگی اجتماعی.(احمد گل محمدی، مترجم). تهران: نی.

هاروی، دیوید. (1392).تجربه شهری. (عارف اقوامی مقدم، مترجم). تهران: پژواک.

Altman, I.,&Chemers, M. M. (1980). Cultural Aspects of Environmental-Behavior Relationships. In H. C. Triandis& R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology(Vol. 5, pp. 335-394). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Aragonees,J. I.,Francescato,G., &Garling,T. (2002). Residential Environment: Choice,Satisfaction, and Behavior. Westport, CT: Bergin &Garvey.

Ng, C. F. (1998). Canada as a New Place: The Immigrant’s Experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(1), 55-67.

Baydar, G. (2004). The Cultural Burden of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 57: 19-27. doi:10.1162/104648804323085446

Erpi, Feyyaz. (1991). Community Culture and its Reflection on Vernacular Architecture - Three Case Studies: Turkish, Greek and Levantine Housing in Anatolia. Arch. & Comport.Arch. Behav.7(3),205-222.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

Holland, D.,& Quinn, N. (Eds.). (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence, R. J. (1987). Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Linton, R. (1945). The Cultural Background of Personality. NewYork: Appleton-Century-Crofts

Malkawi, F; &Al-Qudah, I. (2003). The House as an Expression of SocialWorlds: Irbid’s elite and their architecture. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18, 25-48.

Ozaki, R. (2002). Housing as a Reflection of Culture: Privatized Living and Privacy in England and Japan. Housing Studies, 17 (2), 209-227.

Ozdemir, I. M.,& Gencosmanoglu, A. B. (2007). Metamorphism in culture and housing desing: Turkey as an example. Building and environment, 42(3), 1445-1452.

Rapoport, A. (1998). Using Culture in Housing Design. Housing and Society, 25 (1-2), 1-20.

 

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Culture, as an abs tract object, is appeared by things and human behavior. Cultural values and patterns are reflectedin behavior, s tyle of internal and external spaces of the houses. Houses as cultural objects are the tools forrepresentation of culture. Therefore, they are not only spaces, but places introduce our cultural feeling, opinion, andvalues. Ways to use, opportunities to the consumption of the spaces of houses, gives cultural meaning to the areas.In relationship among architecture, culture, and consumption, culture rehabilitates itself by buildings as a physicaltools and consumption of residents as a behavioral and cultural manner because architecture and consumption arethe tools of cultural representation. The research has two main ques tions: the firs t one is to know how) do culturecauses consumption diversity and different perceptions from the spaces of the houses in two different urban fabricsin Hamedan? Secondly, how does culture represent itself by the form of buildings and consumption behaviorof the residents of these houses? Otherwise, the building elements act in different cultures. Qualitative and fieldeffective methods are used for inves tigating these ques tions. The samples for this survey obtain from the residentsof Haji (old fabric) and the residents of Os tadan (new fabric) in the city of Hamedan. Consequently, as a case s tudy,14 houses were selected from the Haji and 13 houses were selected from the Os tadan. This s tudy has two mainparameters: 1. Architecture, as a physical and objective matter, 2. Cultural consumption, which is the usual behaviorand people's habit, as a human matter. The data collection methods are interviews, observation and photography.Physical-spatial elements are s tudied by observation usual behavior, and habits such as eating and sleeping s tudiedby interview. The observation is developed by s tudying the photos taken through the inspections of the internalspaces of both groups of houses. The interview in this research is a serious interview with open ques tions from theresidents of the randomly selected houses. Data analysis methods are usable description concepts. Data achievedthrough the interviews categorized according to the abundance of the answers and conceptualized. The categoriesare the main and primary meaning of the residents in each urban dis trict. This data is compared with data gainedthrough the observation. The comparison reflects the relationship among architectural spaces of the houses and thecultural consumption of the residents of these houses. As a result, this s tudy shows how different cultural s tructurein both new and old fabric has made diversities to the way of attitude and valuation of residents such as differencein s tyle of interior design and arrangement, gues t room and the quality of reception, WC, kitchen s tyle, havingprivate space and different s tyles of house. A house is the significant point and involves primary data to be seen andsensed to make meaning for humans. Thus, a house can betoken different meanings. Many potential meanings areinvolved in a sign and people interpret it to each cultural context.