چکیده:
One of the most important issues of our age is to find a way to keep up with the uncontrollable pace of the time. The works of avant-garde architecture which are in turn the product of rapid development of contexts, needs and spatial-temporal circumstances of each era can be considered as a turning point in the historical evolution of architecture and style transfer. The progress of contemporary art and architecture history is greatly indebted to the avant-gardism. Thus, it is of utmost importance to criticize and evaluate these works compared to the ones following society’s conventional mainstream. One can say that in many cases, the criticism and evaluation of these works has been faced with a lot of disputes and challenges. So, we begin the study with the following questions: “what are the requirements for a correct criticism of avant-garde architecture works?” and “how do the two elements of time and place affect the criticism of avant-garde
works?” The present study is an applied research in nature performed using interpretive-analytical methods which tries to analyze and explore how to criticize and evaluate the avant-garde architecture works based on theories of “language games”, “cultural semiotics”, “post-structuralist semiotics” and “critique as a behavior” which make up our theoretical framework. Then, as an historical evidence, examples of avantgarde works critiques throughout the history of architecture will be addressed which could confirm that the answers given to the questions raised are correct.
The findings suggest that criticism and evaluation of avant-garde works is characterized by qualities
including “relativity”, being “time-bound” or even “place-bound”, that is, the outcomes of reviewing such works are highly dependent on time and place. In order to offer an impartial criticism, the proportionality between avant-garde architecture work and how to read it seem desirable which should be taken into account by architecture critics. In the end, we came to the conclusion that if the purpose of architectural criticism is to make changes and pave the way for a move forward in the history of architecture, predetermined criteria won’t be an efficient and fair choice to assess the avant-garde works. When building avant-garde works, therefore, outcomes obtained from criticism of the project based on approaches with definite rules and standards such as positivistic and strcturalist critique cannot be accepted.
خلاصه ماشینی:
So, we begin the study with the following questions: "what are the requirements for a correct criticism of avant-garde architecture works?" and "how do the two elements of time and place affect the criticism of avant-garde works?"The present study is an applied research in nature performed using interpretive-analytical methods which tries to analyze and explore how to criticize and evaluate the avant-garde architecture works based on theories of "language games", "cultural semiotics", "post-structuralist semiotics" and "critique as a behavior" which make up our theoretical framework.
In this study, the term "avant- garde" refers to progressive architectural works with innovative or experimental nature which are created differently than conventional patterns of the time and pave the way to develop the new designs.
To analyze how to criticize and assess avant-garde works in this article, four theories related including language games, cultural semiotics, post-structuralist semiotics and critique as a behavior are employed.
Analysis of how to criticize and evaluate the avant-garde works based on theory of cultural semiotics It is absolutely futile to analyze the architecture regardless of the cultural context in the society.
As explained above, four pervasive factors affecting the formation of readings of discourse semantics (post-structuralism approach) with regards to the avant-garde architecture all suggest that criticism ad evaluation of these works can be very relative and even unpredictable and that the results of such reviews are not only dependent on architectural text but spatio- temporal context, architect and the audience are all involved.