The Threshold of Singularity or Hybridity of Works in Contemporary Architecture; on the boundary between creation and forging

Document Type : Research Article


1 Ph. D. Candidate in Architecture, , Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.


In the text, In the text with the help of the footnote and the reference, we can show another presence in the narrative, but the architecture history contains documented and undocumented works which others presence in them been obviously and hidden. The controversy over the fake or adaptation of the works has been the theme raised in the last decades of the twentieth century and contemporary art. On the other hand, the struggle on the creation, influenced by the autonomy or heteronomy of works and the work adaptation against the forgery, is another concern. By its nature, the research is based on the recognition of the Allographic1 (affinity) / Autographic2 (single signature) and depends on the identification of the adaptation/forging. The research questions are: A. In the architectural discourse, how can interpret arousal caused by other internal forces? B. Where is the boundary between adaptation and forgery?The study is an applied research in nature, The research strategy is an analytical-interpretive, which relies on rational reasoning, explains how the hybridity3 and kinship the works and relates to the "intertextual" process by giving examples of Iranian contemporary art and architecture history (1940-1960) clarify the answers of research questions.
The present study shows that the process of intertextuality can be applied as a theoretical approach to architectural studies and emphasizes that architectural texts (works) are not autonomy. each work is in the dialogism between works before and after itself, but it does not mean that fake works also apply to the inter textual circuit because of the fake works, unlike the creation of the work in the inter textual process, do not insist on cognitive questions and are empty of dialogism between the works and the companion of the audience.


• Allen, G. (2013). Intertextuality. Translated by P. Yazdanjoo. Tehran: Markaz.
•Barthes, R. (1977).The Death of the Author. Translated by S. Heath. New York: Hill and Wang.
• Barthes, R. (2000). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography.Translated by R. Howard. London: Vintage books.
•Benjamin, W. (1969). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. H. Arendt (Ed). Translated by H. Zohn. New York: Schocken Books.
•Bhabha, H. (1994). The Commitment to Theory, The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
• Calvino, I. (2002). If on a winter’s night a traveler. Translated by Golestan, L. Tehran: Agah.
• Clark, J. M. (2004). The Perfect Fake: Creativity, Forgery, Art and the Law. DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law,15 (1). Available from: (Accessed 12 December 2017).
• Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist Poetics. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Culler, J. (2001). The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, literature, deconstruction. London and New York: Routledge.
• Derrida, J. & Lacan, J. (2016). On the names-of-the fathe. Translated by M. Jafarisabet. Tehran: Chatrang.
Eliot, T. S. (1921). The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Farahmandfar, M. & Nojoumian, A. (2013). Hybridization of Identity in Postcolonial Theory: The Case Study of Roman Polanski’s The Pianist. Honar-Ha-Ye-Zibas,Vol. 3(6): 63-73.
• Foucault, M. )2004). The Archeology of Knowledge, London: Routledge. Reprinted. Available from: (Accessed 19 April 2018).
• Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Groys, B. (2008). Art Power, The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England. Available from: (Accessed 23 March 2018).
• Harper, P. (2017). Call us dull, call us sellouts, call us gentrifiers – just don’t call us copycats. Available from:
• Habib, M. A. R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Hick, D. H. (2010). Forgery and Appropriation in Art, Philosophy Compass 5-12,1047-1056). Available from: (Accessed 12 May 2018).
• Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Routledge.
• Irvin, Sh. (2005). Appropriation and authorship in contemporary art. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2):123-137. Available from: (Accessed 7 March 2018).
Jacob, S. (2016).The copy in contemporary culture is both despised and feared. Available from: contemporary-culture-queen-other-nefertiti/. (Accessed 12 February 2017).
• Kant, I. (1998). ‎Kritik der urteilskraft [Critique of Judgment]. Translated by Rashidian, A. Tehran: Nashr-e Ney.
• Kipnis, J .(2013). A Question of Qualities, Essays in Architectur. London: MIT Press.
• Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Translated by L. Roudiez, Th. Gora & A. Jardine. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in Poetic Language (European Perspectives Series). Translated by M. Waller. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Lenain, T. (2011). Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession. London: Reaktion Books.
• Lessing, A. (1965). What is Wrong With a Forgery?. In Arguing About Art, Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2008), In Neill.A and Ridley. A (Ed). Third Edition. New York: Routledge.
• Lessing, A. Dutton, D. (2010). What is wrong with a forgery; Artistic crimes. In Arguing about art : contemporary philosophical debates. Translated by Malek Mohammadi, N. Tehran: Art Academy Publishing.
• Levinson, J. (1980). Autographic and Allographic Art Revisited, Philosophical Studies. An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 38(4): 367-383. Available from: (Accessed 23 February 2017).
•Maas, W. & Madrazo, F. (eds.). (2018). Copy Paste: BadAss Copy Guide. Rotterdam: nai010 Publishers.
• Meskoob, Sh. (2005). Dastan- e adabiat va sargozasht- e ejtema [The story of literature and the history of the community].Tehran: Farzanroz Publishers.
• Norouzitalab, A., Moghbeli, A. & Jodat, Sh. (2014). The Evolutionary Psychoanalysis of Painting and Architecture in the Historical Context of World War I to World War II. Bagh- e Nazar, 11 (31): 17-32.
•Radnoti, S. (1999). The Fake: Forgery and Its Place in Art. Translated by E. Dunai. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Sanders, J. (2006). Adaptation and Appropriation. London & New York: Routledge.
• Samoyault, T. (2005). L’intertextualité. Paris: Armand Colin.
• Shore, R. (2017). Beg, Steal & Borrow Artists against Originality. Laurence King Publishing.
• Soltani, M., Mansouri, A. & Farzin, A.(2012). A comparative study on the role of pattern and experience-based concepts in architectural space. Bagh- e Nazar, 9 (21): 3-12.
• Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving science invention and the arts. Hoboken, NJq: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
• Ziapour, J. (1987). Vijegiha- ye honar- e dore- ye Eslami va naqsh- e Iran dar olgusazi- ye tamadon- e eslam [The Features of the Art of the Islamic Period and the Role of Iran in the Modeling of Islamic Civilization, speech at the Academic Complex of Islamic Art]. Available from: (Accessed 7 March 2018).
• Zeimaran, M. (2013). Mabani- ye falsafi- ye naghd van azar dar honar [Philosophical Foundations Criticism in Art]. Tehran: Naghshe Jahan Publications.