E. Zarghami; S. M. Behrooz
Abstract
“Space” was architecture’s main keyword between the 1890s and 1960s, but it lost its significance in architecture gradually; this was mainly due to the prevalence of postmodern semiotics and theories of “place” in architecture. Social science however went through an inverse ...
Read More
“Space” was architecture’s main keyword between the 1890s and 1960s, but it lost its significance in architecture gradually; this was mainly due to the prevalence of postmodern semiotics and theories of “place” in architecture. Social science however went through an inverse path. In the nineteenth century, in modern consciousness and through historicism, space became subordinate to time, time became linear, space became marginalized, and the temporal “stages” of development gained importance. Space in this period was a Cartesian/Newtonian abstract notion which was neutral in relation to society, history and context; and thus it was not in the domain of social sciences studies. In twentieth century, however, the social analyses adopted spatiality gradually, to the extent that the late twentieth century transformations in this field were called “the spatial turn”. Through investigating these two lines of evolution, it will be discussed in this article that with the adoption of a relational ontology concerning space and its enrichment through inter- and trans-disciplinary studies, “space”, as a keyword, can continue to be of importance in architectural theory and play a mediating role in its relation with social science.
