A Conceptual Model of Semantic Interaction between Art and Urban Space

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Architecture School, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

2 Ph. D. in Architecture, Assistant Professor, Department of Art and Architecture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.

Abstract

The interaction between art and urban space has been historically useful to both phenomena. However, the accelerated developments of the past century have led to formation of some challenges in the interaction between art and urban space in Iran. So that the art used in cities has an inspired and space-attached nature, rather than being popular, meaningful and consistent with space features.
Regarding the qualitative development of urban spaces, there are two major attitudes towards the art: ‘art as a means to beautify spaces’ and ‘art as a means to enhance the addressees’ mindset on urban space.’ The second attitude emphasizes on improving the meaning of urban space through art. The main concern of this research is that the interaction between art and urban space in deeper subjective and semantic layers requires the discovery of the mechanism of addressee /actor interaction with urban space and art.
This research seeks to provide a conceptual framework for explaining the optimal interaction between art and space. Therefore, having examined the semantic aspect of urban space through experts’ views and also having studied the mechanism of the transfer of meanings via art, a model is proposed to explain how the involvement of art in formation, enhancement, and regeneration of urban space meaning.
This research uses qualitative content analysis. In the first step, the initial research model is presented through a comparative analysis of the mechanism of transfer in which the  meanings are transferred through art to the urban space.Interaction contents are obtained from the model in the form of ‘artist and authorities/ body’, ‘collective addressee/ community’, ‘individual addressee/ person’. Thereafter, these contents are studied by analyzing the research conducted in the field, and the main norms, and norms concerning urban space and art are deduced.
The main norms are crystalized in three main concepts, including: ‘cultural contextualism’, ‘democracy’ and ‘everyday experience’ that are derived from the norms concerning the use of art in space as well as the adaption of space to art. Eventually, the effects of these norms on the quality of urban space are mentioned by meaningfulness.

Keywords

References

Ahmadi, B. (2017). Truth & beauty. 33rd Edition. Tehran: Markaz.
Amin, A. (2008). Collective Culture and Urban Public Space, City: Analysis of Urban Trends. Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 12(1): 5-24.
Carr, S, Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Cochrane, A. (2006). Making Up Meanings in a Capital City: Power, Memory, and Monuments in Berlin. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13 (5):5-24.
Coolen, H. & Ozaki, R. (2004). Culture, Lifestyle and the Meaning of a Dwelling. International Conference of Adequate & Affordable Housing for All, University of Toronto.
Currid-Halkett, E. (2012). A Review of Art and the city; Civic imagination and cultural authority in Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association, (78): 2, 214-215.
Cyrus Sabri, R. (2012). Honar-e mohiti, taamoli dar anasor-e mani dahande be manzar [Environmental Art, A Reflection on Meaningful Elements of Landscape]. First edition. Tehran: Peykareh.
Deutsche, R. (1996). Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics.Cambridge. MA: Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gombrich, E. H. (2016). The History of Art. Translated by Ramin rad, A. 8th edition. Tehran: Ney Publications.
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meaning of Place: Everyday Experience and Theoretical Conceptualization. Journal of environmental psychology, (21): 5-16.
Hall, T. & Robertson, I. (2001). Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, Claims and Critical Debates. Landscape Research, 26 (1):5–26.
Hall, T. (2007). Artful Cities. Geography Compass, 1(6):1376–1392.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Ethnic Groups and the Meaning of Urban Place: The German Colony and Palestinians and Jews in Haifa. Cities, (26):93-102.
Januchta-Szostak, A. (2010). The Role of Public Visual Art in Urban Space Recognition. Cognitive Maps Karl Perusich. IntechOpen. DOI: 10.5772/7120. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/cognitive-maps/the-role-of-public-visual-art-in-urban-space-recognition (accessed January 1st 2010)
Kong, L. & Yeoh, B.S.A. (1995). The meanings and making of place: Exploring history, community and identity. In Portraits of places: History, community and identity in Singapore. Edited by: Yeoh, B.S.A. and Kong, L. 12–23. Singapore: Times Editions.
Kudryavtsev, A. (2011). Sense of Place in Environmental Education. Environmental Education Research, 18(2): 229-250.
Kwon, M. (2002). Sittings of Public Art: Integration versus Intervention. From Miwon Kwon. One Place after Another: Site Specificity and Locational Identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lacy, S. (1995). Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Seattle: Bay Press.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement. Journal of environmental psychology, (12): 285-303.
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place Attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, (31): 207-230.
Manzo, C. L. (2005). For Better or Worse: Exploring Multiple Dimensions of Place Meaning. Journal of environmental psychology, (25):67–86.
Marter, J. (1989). Collaboration: Artist and Architects on Public Sites. Art Journal, 48(4): 315-320.
Miles, M. (1997). Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. NewYork: Routledge.
Mokhles, F. (2014). Urban Art Typology in the Urban View of India. Bagh- e Nazar, 11(30):27-36.
 Mozafarikhah, Z. & Asghar Kafshchian, A. (2012). The usage of minimal art in city environmental graphic emphasizing on urban graffiti samples in the cities of Iran. Negareh Journal, (22): 84-102.
Nasar, J. L., Stamps, A.E. & Hanyu, K. (2005). Form and Function in Public Buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (25):159–165.
Papastergiadis, N. (2010). Spatial Aesthetics, Art, Place, and the Everyday. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
Peters, K.B.M. & Haan, H. J. (2011). Everyday Spaces of Inter-ethnic Interaction: the Meaning of Urban Public Spaces in the Netherlands. Leisure/Loisir, 35(2): 169–190.
Ramin rad, A. (2015). Mabani-ye jameshenasi-ye honar [Principles of Sociology of Art]. 6th Edition. Tehran: Ney Publication.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man-Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Oxford; NewYork: Pergamon Press.
Rapoport, A. (1990). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Interaction Approach.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Rapoport, A. (2005). ‎The meaning of the built environment. Translated by Habib, F. Tehran: Processing and Urban Planning Publications.
Schrank, S. (2011). Art and the city; Civic imagination and cultural authority in Los Angeles. PA: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sharp, J. Pollock, V. & Paddison, R. (2005). Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social Inclusion in Urban Regeneration. Urban Studies, 42 (5,6): 1001–1023.
Sitte, C. (2006). ‎Der stadtebau nach seinen kunstlerischen grundsatzen. Translated by Gharib, F. Tehran: University of Tehran. 
Stedman, R. (2008). What do we ‘mean’ by place meanings? implications of place meanings for managers and practitioners, in Understanding Concepts of Place in Recreation Research and Management. eds Kruger L. E., Hall T. E., Stiefel M. C., editors. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Steinitz, C. (2007). Meaning and the Congruence of Urban Form and Activity. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34(4): 233-248.
Willett, J. (1967). Art in a City. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. 
The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar
Volume 15, Issue 66
December 2018
Pages 5-16

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics