Anıt bahçesinin tasarlanması için öznelcilik paradigmasına dayalı görsel peyzaj kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi

Year 2017, Volume: 18 Issue: 3, 171 - 177, 30.11.2017

Sahar Pouya , Homa Irani Behbahani

https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.294916

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Görsel peyzaj kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi, peyzaj ve
kentsel projelerde yapılan çalışmaların temel bir parçasıdır. Peyzaj görsel
değerlendirmesi iki paradigma temelinde yürütülmüştür; nesnelci ve öznelcil
paradigmalar. Bu araştırma, öznelci veya psikolojik paradigmaya dayalı bir
peyzaj değerlendirmesi örneğidir. Araştırmanın amacı, seyirci açısından manzara
görsel kalite algısını açıklamak ve onu anıt bahçe tasarımında
kullanmaktır.  Bu yazıda, savaş sırasında
(İran ve Irak savaşı) oluşan üç temel bütünsel kavram belirlenmiş ve daha sonra
peyzaj öğeleri için bu kavramları tanımlamaları, son sınıf öğrencileri, peyzaj
mimarlığı bölümünden istenmiştir. Daha sonra öğrencilerin algılamalarına göre
sitenin üç hakım görünümü derecelendirildi ve nihayet alanın imar edilmesi
önerilmiştir. Bu makale, peyzaj çalışmalarında algı tabanlı yaklaşımlara ve
sitenin mevcut manzarasının spesifik kavramların kullanılması açısından sahip
olabileceği fırsatlara vurgulamıştır. Bir sembolik veya anıtsal mekanın
tasarlanması için, arazi kullanımları hakkında ve karar vermede manzara görsel
öğelerinin aktardığı algılamalar, etkileyici bir role sahiptir ve daha
sürdürülebilir ve dinamik bir anıt alanına neden olacaktır.

Keywords

Öznelcil paradigma, Anıt bahçesi, Görsel peyzaj kalitesi

Assessment of the visual landscape quality based on the subjectivist paradigm to design the memorial garden

Abstract

Assessment of the visual landscape quality is a core part of
studies in landscape and urban projects. The landscape visual assessment has
been carried out on the basis of two paradigms; objectivist and subjectivist
paradigms. This research is a case of landscape evaluation based on the
subjectivist or psychological paradigm. The purpose of the research is to
understand the beholder’s perception of the visual quality of landscape and to
use it in the design of a war memorial garden. In this article, three main holistic
concepts formed during the war (war between Iran and Iraq) are determined, and
then seniors majoring landscape architecture were asked to define these
concepts for each the landscape elements. Then three dominant views of the site
were scored according to the students’ perceptions and finally zoning of the
site was proposed. This article emphasizes on the perception- based approaches
in landscape studies and the opportunities that the current landscape of the
site may have in order to imply the specific concepts. To design a symbolic or
memorial place, the perceptions conveyed by the visual elements of the
landscape have impressive role in making decision about the land uses and will
lead to a more sustainable and dynamic memorial spaces.

Keywords

Subjectivist paradigm, Memorial garden, Visual landscape quality

References

• Ahmadi, B., 1992. Visual Cues to the Text of the Semiotics of Visual Communication. Third ed. Tehran, Iran.
• Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, A., Velarde, M. D., 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological indicators, 9(5): 933-947.
• Ghazizadeh, Kh., 2010. Art of the Islamic revolution in transition. Honarhaye Tajasomi magazine, 7: 16 – 20.
• Gough, P., 2000. From Heroes' Groves to parks of peace: Landscapes of remembrance, protest and peace. Landscape Research, 25(2): 213–228.
• Gobster, P.H., 1999. An ecological aesthetics for forest landscape management. Landscape, J. 18(1): 54-64.
• Halali, F., Tahooni, R., 2006. Technical; social and cultural feasibility studies of the Cultural Center of Sacred Defense construction, Tabriz: Department of Preservation and Publication of Sacred Defense Works and Values (department of engineering), Iran.
• Jessel, B., 2006. Elements, Characteristics and Character- Information Functions of Landscapes in term of Indicators. Ecological Indicators, 6:153-167.
• Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44:177-198.
• Nohl, W., 1980. Freiraumarchitektur and Emanzipation. Frankfurt, Bern, Cirencester.
• Nohl, W., 2001. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception – preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54: 223-237.
• Palangi, N., 2008. Memories of Khoramshahr. Tavoos magazine, 2: 40.
• Pouya, S., 2011. The sacred defense Memorial garden-museum Design. Dissertation, University of Tehran, Iran.
• Pouya, S., Behbahani, I., H., Pouya, S., 2014. The war memorial garden design. Arts and Design Studies, 26: 66-76. Rosley F. S. M., Lamit H., Long A., Yusryza W., Ibrahim, W., 2013. Review on methodology of visual aesthetic: Quality assessment in landscape planning, http://epublication.fab.utm.my/116/. (Accessed: 01/10/2017)
• Taghi Zadeh, A., A., Sangari, M., Abdolahi, M., 2008. Spiritual and Cultural Factors in the Sacred Defense (Islamic Research Institute). Zamzam H.publication, Qom, Iran.
• Tveit, M., Ode, A., Fry, G., 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res., 31(3): 229-255.
• Terry, C.D., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54:267-281.
• Wu, Y., Bishop, I., Hossain, H., Sposito, V., 2006. Using GIS in Landscape Visual Quality Assessment. Applied GIS, Monash University Epress.
• Yung, C. G., 1980. Man and His Symbols. Paya publishing, Tehran.
• Zube, E. H., 1982. An exploration of southwestern landscape images. Landscape Journal, 1: 31-40.