مقایسه‌ ادراک زیبایی منظر شهری از نظر متخصصان و کاربران مطالعه‌ موردی: میدان عدل خمینی، مشهد

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده‌ی شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران

2 شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

زیبایی از مقولاتی است که حصول  آن به موفقیت و کارکرد یک فضای شهری کمک زیادی می‌کند. اما مسئله‌ با اهمیت در این میان، نحوه‌ درک زیبایی از سوی مردم و کاربران فضاست. در شرایط کنونی فضاهای شهری به‌ وسیله‌ متخصصان و بدون مشارکت شهروندان به ‌ویژه در مقیاس طراحی شهری و زیباسازی محیط انجام می‌شود که پیامد آن، فضاهای شهری است که سلیقه‌ اقلیت طراحان را در مقابل اکثریت استفاده‌کنندگان در اولویت قرار می‌دهد. هدف از انجام این پژوهش، درک تفاوت‌های ارزیابی زیبایی از نظر مردم و ارزیابی متخصصان و فهم چگونگی ارزیابی زیبایی مناظر شهری به وسیله‌ مردم است. مکانی که برای انجام مطالعه‌ موردی در این پژوهش انتخاب شده،‌ میدان عدل خمینی شهر مشهد است که با وجود اتومبیل‌مدار بودن، مورد استفاده‌ زیاد عابران قرار دارد. روش تحقیق در مقیاس کلان، کمی و کیفی و در مقیاس خرد،  ارزیابی و روش قیاسی _ تحلیلی می‌باشد که برای انجام آنها از اسناد و مدارک کتابخانه‌ای، عکس و پرسشنامه استفاده شده است. بر اساس یافته‌های این تحقیق مشخص شد که معیارهای ادراک زیبایی‌شناسی که از سوی صاحب‌نظران ارائه شده، کارایی چندانی در نظرخواهی و ارزیابی مردم از زیبایی فضا ندارند. علاوه بر این، پژوهش پیشِ رو روشن ساخت که مردم در ارزیابی زیبایی‌شناسی خود از یک فضا، کلیت منظر را در نظر می‌گیرند و بیش از توجه به معیارهای تخصصی، به اجزا و عناصر فضا توجه می‌کنند و عواملی چون وجود فضای سبز و پوشش گیاهی یا اِلمان‌های زیبا را به عنوان دلایل انتخاب خود بر می‌شمارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Perception of Urban Landscape Aesthetics: Comparison between experts and users Case Study: Adl-e Khomeini Sq., Mashhad, Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • b a 1
  • m sh 2
  • m f 2
چکیده [English]

Beauty is an issue that has always engaged urban designers, architects and authorities. However, in practice we face a notable difference between buildings and spaces which are constructed as beautiful and the aesthetic perception of them. Thus, various studies have been conducted on the aesthetic evaluation of urban landscape in recent decades. Different conclusions of these studies show that there is no consensus on aesthetic perception. Various or even conflicting interpretations have been proposed by these researches, and this has led to the different definitions of beauty. Several studies have been undertaken on the aesthetic evaluation of urban spaces, in which experts express their own standards of beauty. Regardless of minor differences between experts’ opinions, the same set of criteria has been taught to architecture and urban design students. In addition, some research have been undertaken to evaluate beauty of spaces from people’s perception and also to discover their criteria for such an evaluation. The important question here is which set of criteria to use in the design of public spaces. This paper attempts to discuss the difference between these two types of evaluations in order to obtain a more accurate understanding of what ordinary people perceive as beautiful. Thus, this paper attempts to answer the following questions: is there any difference between aesthetic evaluation by experts and ordinary people? Are their criteria for aesthetic evaluation the same? And finally, are physical criteria adequate for aesthetic evaluation? This paper is based on quantitative methods. Although there were some qualitative data involved in the selection of beautiful landscapes, the mentioned data was transformed into quantitative scores. Evaluations of this paper were based on post-construction evaluation method and the data was analyzed by comparative method. Based on evaluations and results, we can conclude that firstly, the most important point is the difference between user and expert evaluation results which could negate urban aesthetic design by expert without user` participation. In other words, what architecture and urban design students learn at universities as beautiful landscape is different from how ordinary people perceive as beautiful. This difference is more noticeable when the results of aesthetic evaluation of the same criteria are completely different between experts and ordinary people. Secondly, different results were obtained for aesthetic evaluations carried out by people at two different stages. This shows that expert criteria cannot be used by people for aesthetic evaluation because they have their own criteria in mind. Thirdly, the difference between the two performed evaluations is affected by the way these groups perceive urban landscape. While experts focus on academic criteria, ordinary people see the urban space as a whole and include their own memories in evaluation. They evaluate a landscape with all their senses and not just with their eyes. In conclusion, it is recommended that experts should change their viewpoints and focus more on whole environments and their atmosphere. Furthermore, academic teachings should change based on Gestalt theory and more attention should be paid to the environment as a whole for aesthetic evaluations. Finally, urban design projects should be carried out with people’s participation so that they are involved in the design of the aesthetic criteria. Through this, experts can learn from people's perceptions and their designs would better reflect people’s ideas of beauty. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Aesthetics
  • urban landscape
  • Users’ Preferences
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • اسکراتن، راجر و جان هاسپرس (1389)، فلسفه‌ هنر و زیبایی‌شناسی، ترجمه‌ یعقوب آژند، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
  • گروتر، یورگن (1987)، زیبایی‌شناسی در معماری، ترجمه‌ جهانشاه پاکزاد و عبدالرضا همایون، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  • Aminzadeh, Behnaz (2010) “Developing urban aesthetic criteria based on user preferences”, Hamburg: 17th International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF).
  • Appleton, Jay (1975). “Landscape Evaluation: The Theoretical Vacuum”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, no. 66, pp. 120-123.
  • _____ (1980). Landscape in the Arts and the Sciences, Hull: University of Hull.
  • Arriaza M., J.F. Cañas-Ortega, J.A. Cañas-Madueño, P. Ruiz-Aviles (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol 69. Pp. 115 – 125.
  • Appleyard, Donald (1965). “Motion, sequence and the city”, in: Kepes, Gyorgy (1965). The Nature and Art of Motion, New York: Braziller.
  • Beardsley, Monroe (1958). Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt.
  • Bishop I.D. B. Rohrmann (2003) Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 65. Pp. 261-277.
  • Bostanci, Seda and Mehmet Ocakci (2011). “Innovative approach to aesthetic evaluation based on entropy”, European Planning Studies, vol. 19, pp. 705-723.
  • Chen, Bo. Ochieng A. Adimo, Zhiyi Bao (2009) Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 93. Pp. 76-82.
  • Chon, Jinhyung. C. Scott Shafer (2009) Aesthetic Responses to Urban Greenway Trail Environments. Landscape Research 34:1, 83-104.
  • Galindo, Ma Paz and Ma Carmen Hidalgo (2005). “Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes”, International Journal of Psychology, vol. 40, issue 1, pp. 19-27.
  • Gifford, Robert, Donald Hine, Werner Muller-Clemm, D’Arcy Reynolds, Kelly Shaw (2000). “Decoding modern architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons”, Environment and Behavior, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 163-187.
  • Greene, Sherwin (1992) “Cityshape Communicating and Evaluating Community Design.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 58:2, 177-189.
  • Gombrich, Ernst (1984). The Sense of Order, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Greenberg, Clement (1965). “Modernist painting”, Art and Literature, vol. 4. pp. 193-201.
  • Holm, Ivar (2006). Ideas and beliefs in architecture and industrial design, Oslo: Oslo School of architecture and design.
  • Kaplan, Stephen (1987). “Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective”, Environment and Behavior, vol. 19, pp. 3-32.
  • Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan (1989). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nasar, Jack (1994). “Urban Design Aesthetics the Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors”, Environment and Behavior, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 377-401.
  • O`connor, Zena (2006) Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy. Journal of Urban Design. 11:3, 335-345.
  • _____ (2011) Façade Colour and Judgements about Building Size and Congruity. Journal of Urban Design. 16:03, 397-404.
  • Rorty, Richard (1990). Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophy Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schmidhuber, Juergen (1997). “Low complexity art”, Leonardo, vol. 30. pp. 77-103.
  • _____ (2007). “Simple algorithmic principles of discovery, subjective beauty, selective attention, curiosity and creativity”, Discovery Science, vol. 4755, pp. 26-38.
  • Shuttleworth, Steve (1979). “The evaluation of landscape quality”, Landscape Research, vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 14-15.
  • Smardon, Richard (1988). “Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation”, Landscape and Urban Planning, no. 15, pp. 85-106.
  • Solomon, Robert (2005). “Subjectivity”, in: Honderich, Ted (2005). Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Vahdani, Behnam, H. Iranmanesh, M. Mousavi and M. Abdollahzade (2012). “A locally linear neuro-fuzzy model for supplier selection in cosmetics industry”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 36, Issue 10, pp. 4714-4727.
  • Van Den Berg, Agnes E. Charles A. J. Vlek, J. Frederick Coeterier (1998) Group Differences in the Aesthetic Evaluation of Nature Development Plans: A Multilevel Approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 18, Pp. 141–157.
  • Whitfield, Allan and John Wiltshire (1982). “Design training and aesthetic evaluation: An intergroup comparison”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, no. 2, pp. 109-117.