ممكن مساعده فى اعداد بحث عن اتجاهات العماره الحديثه (معاومات اونماذج) ولكم جزيل الشكر

INTRODUCTION
 Modern Design begins in real sense after the First World War (1914-1918). The forces of the Industrial Revolution, the theories and practice of the engineers, Arts & Crafts, Art Nouveau, the Rationalism of the Classical Tradition, the endless mass production of the factories and, unfortunately, the catastrophe of the First World War brought about an emergence of a new, non-historical design approach - Modern design or its essence, Functionalism.
The arguments about design philosophy raged on but it was clear that the Past - in the form of historical styles - could no longer offer a model upon which an industrial society could base its products.
 Modern Design in this sense can be seen as a merger of all these traditions - STRIPPED OF THEIR HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS.


TERMINOLOGY
الحداثة: جذرها (حَدَث)، ومن اشتقاقاته:
1. حَدَث حداثةً : عكس قًدُم.
2. أ- أحدث الشيء: أوجده وابتدعه.
ب- الحدوث: كون الشيء بعد أن لم يكن موجوداً.
3. الحداثة من الأمر: أولّه وابتدائه.


Modernism: a movement in the protestant Christianity originating in the latter half of the 19th century and continuing to the present that seeks to establish the meaning and validity of the Christian faith in relation to present human experience and to reconcile and unify traditional theological concepts with the requirements of modern knowledge.




A GLIMPSE ON HISTORY
As a result of WW1 and the continuous conflict between Germany and Britain and the existence of the art nouveau in France prompted Germany to confirm its position on the international affairs after war to achieve its aims by means of industrialization and mechanization.
Their aim was to turn out well-designed, high quality products, as well as to achieve a new style in architecture.
Although Germany had lost the war (unable to break the combined military forces of Britain, France and the United States), it had established a lead in the development of Modern design concepts (Weimar School of Art & Werkbund), while Britain remained trapped in the Arts and Crafts myth. Although suffering considerable economic and social hardships after the war, it was in Germany that the new style finally emerged in the 1920s in the form of the BAUHAUS. It was there and in the other defeated country - the new Soviet Union - that the most recognizably Modern design was produced.
In 1914 a monumental building “glass pavilion” was a good example of using new forms and new materials.
FOGUS FACTORY: is regarded as the founding building of 20th century for Modernist architects. Scarcely anyone in Europe had until then designed so clear and functional an industrial building where every constructional element was on display without ornament.
In Europe, on the other hand, architecture was not yet as clear. Modern and historicists elements were still often mixed together.



The combined economic and artistic strivings of industrialists, artists and crafts people came together in 1907 in the “Deutch Werkbund” German artwork union. The aim of this union is to achieve a better quality of design in objects for everyday use, and in ordinary life in general.
One of the pioneers in this union is Hermann this union had a great influence on modern architecture in Germany till 1933.
American architects did not initially develop any new visions but continued to base their work in the European style it was just carbon copies of the European buildings. With time and increasingly their own style began to take its own personality.



Remember that the ideas and theories of Modern Design already existed before the war began in 1914. While the war certainly disrupted the steady development of the Modern Movement for four years or so, it also 'forced' its various elements together afterwards. The essential Modern concepts were:
1. Truth to materials and to the idea of Functionalism (`form follows function`).
2. Rejection of historical styles and decoration ( ie. `truth' to the 20th century)
3. The idea of a DYNAMIC new and `modern' age: The Machine Age
4. The search for a unified style for all designed items (Total design)
5. Design driven by rational analysis of problems and by mass production techniques. The link with industry. In an industrial society the artist becomes designer.
IDEOLOGY
The beauty entangled with its delight and surprise and wonder at man’s ingenuity and invention and with the release, which a fragment of perfection bring into imperfect world.
Given the functional changes and technologic advances, which have provided new materials and constructional techniques, architectural expression changes as a matter of course. But there are principles at work in the architect’s mind, verbalizing or not which determine the conformation of plan, the relationship between elements- in sum, the total building, encompassing change and meeting the physical needs of the occupants.
Adherence to a set of fundamentals does not necessarily produce great architecture, but their absence produces buildings, which appear to have designed themselves. The world is full of such buildings, and there existence derogates man.
“FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT”

· Form follows function.
· Using new technology and materials.
· The internal spaces were the subject of concern.
· Anti-historical.

·
· Anti-ornament.
· Anti-urban.
· Anti-human.
· Boring architecture.
· Simplicity.
· Low cost architecture.
· Dispassionate.
· Anti- metaphor.
· Anti- symbolic





MODERN ARCHITECTURE IN DARWIN THEORY
This seeks to identify the analogies between architectural and biological systems. The intention here is to establish a theory of evolutionary change in architecture, which can explain the formation, development, eventual extinction of architectural styles throughout history. These large-scale changes in architecture can only be understood by recourse to a general theory of adaptive change similar to that currently employed in the biological sciences.

Initial Definitions:
Architecture:
A cultural system, which adapts its forms to represent relationships between the elements of its environment. Architecture is information, which characterizes the forms of buildings, which themselves are simply material objects.
Evolution:
Continuous adaptive change by a system in response to conditions imposed by its environment.
Style:
A group of buildings, which use the same set of typical elements leading to a similarity of architectural characteristics within the group.
Natural Selection:
The mechanism by which the particular characteristics of organisms are tested against the prevailing environmental conditions and some are eliminated. The success or failure of the individual organisms of a species to cope with the conditions of their environment determines their relative reproductive success.
Self-Organization:
The characteristics and organization of a system are a function of the interlocking activities of its agents. The key activity being the communication and exchange of information between them.

A Brief Outline of the Theory of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution as it currently stands is a based on the work of two men:
Darwin and Mendel.
While Darwin’s achievement was to define the mechanism of evolution, namely natural selection, he could not at that time specify the means by which the successful characteristics of one generation could be passed to the next. It took the work of Gregor Mendel, to identify the gene as the unit of inheritance.
Any evolutionary system should display:
Variety:
Where a system can generate a range of different behaviors in response to different environmental conditions.
Heredity:
A mechanism that allows the system to ‘remember’ which options are appropriate to given environmental conditions and can pass them on to new generations. In biological systems the DNA molecule performs this function.
Reproduction:
Where the genetic characteristics of two organisms are combined to produce a new organism. More generally, the production of new forms of behavior by the communication and exchange of information between the agents of a system.
Evolution as a General Theory of Change
The idea of evolution is now no longer particular to the biological sciences or to any other field for that matter, even though since Darwin its most advanced development has taken place there. The reason is that evolutionary theory has become a much more broad-based set of disciplines that deal essentially with the mechanisms that produce change or, more precisely, transformation in the characteristics of dynamic or adaptive systems in general. In other words we are no longer simply talking about biological species but rather about organizations or systems, which can be said to adapt to their environments. That obviously includes all social and biological systems. It is the cumulative effects of this dynamic system-environment relationship, which have become the object of study and simulation within the general field of evolutionary theory. Effects, which over long periods of time alter the characteristics of the systems involved and in an evolutionary process, transform them into new kinds of systems.
Adaptive systems
As a primary definition of adaptive systems one can say that they are organized groups of agents or organisms, which modify their behavior to match conditions prevalent in their environment.
When viewed as adaptive systems there are major similarities of process between biological and cultural systems. Architecture is a cultural system. The only difference is that of the specific medium of exchange used within each system. In biological systems that medium is the genetic material, which is exchanged between the individual organisms of a species-system usually through sexual reproduction. In cultural systems it is experience or forms of behaviour, which are exchanged between the agents of the system. However even this difference between biological and cultural systems can be subsumed under the general category of ‘information’ created by agents or organisms interacting with their environment.
Translation of Concepts from Biology to Architecture
In translating this theory from the biological sciences into architectural terms, one must ensure that the comparisons made are consistent both in terms of the mechanisms involved and the organizational levels being discussed. Equivalence of processes and terms can only be established by comparing like with like. For

instance, clearly there is no similarity between a building and a living organism. However, if we view them both as the product of communication and exchange processes within their respective systems, as specific attempts by those systems to adapt to local environments and as the basic units of selection within their systems, their equivalence to each another becomes less strange. In other words, while they are not similar to one another, they are ANALOGOUS in terms of their origin, function and hierarchical position in their respective systems. It is on this basis that the concepts and terms of evolutionary theory can be applied to architecture in an appropriate and useful manner.
Equivalence of Terms and Concepts between Architecture and Biological Systems.
a) ‘Representation’ as a Concept in Architecture is Equivalent to the Biological Concept of ‘adaptation’.
Mapping the form of a referent institution into a set of architectural elements produces buildings. These elements are adapted to match the functional and organizational state of the institution, which is the ‘environment’ of the building. They are attempts to model those environments and give them a physical presence in space and time. In both architecture and biology a given set of elements (of form, behavior or genetic information) are combined to match the organizational state of an environment. In one case the result is buildings, in the other the result is organisms.
b) The Architectural Concept ‘style’ is Equivalent to the Biological Concept ‘species’
An architectural style is not a homogenous entity but a statistical one defining a range of formal characteristics shared to some extent by a large number of buildings. The similarity between these buildings is a product of communication and exchange of experience between many architects. This is quite consistent with the biological communication of genetic information during reproduction. In biology for instance, the definition of species is that of a ‘reproductive community’. That is, a group of organisms who are able to interbreed with one another and thus share genetic and physiological characteristics.
c) The Typical Elements of a Style are Equivalent to the Genetic Complement of a Species both Providing the Heredity Mechanism Necessary for a Evolutionary System
In architecture, the generic set of typical elements filtered out of past experience can be described as the language of architecture, which provides a set of options for modeling future environments. In this it acts very much like the genetic pool of a species, which, as a repertoire of possible biological characteristics encoded in the DNA molecule may be combined for potential organisms. In both cases these sets of instructions provide the memory of the successes and failures of the system’s many previous interactions with its environment. These are filtered by natural selection and exchanged and combined within each system into a set of fundamental elements applicable to future encounters.
d) Buildings in Architecture are Equivalent to Organisms in Biological Systems.
The individual organism is the unit of selection for the biological species. The individual building is the unit of selection for architecture. In both cases it is these units that are adapted more or less successfully to their local environments. They are both products of exchange processes taking place within their systems. They are both unique combinations of a generic set of elements to be found in their respective systems. In one case a set of typical architectural elements, in another a set of genetic elements (the genes). Both the building as a particular combination of elements and the organism are both subject to natural selection. That is, they are tested in terms of their success at adapting to their environment
Variety in Biological Systems Corresponds to the Production of Differences in Architecture.
The random process of biological reproduction produces unique individual organisms. The exact genetic combination of the organism cannot be predicted since the particular combination of parents, the genetic shuffling of genes during reproduction and the effect of chance mutations is quite random. The only predictable thing about this process is that it will take place within the gene pool of a particular species. The result is that a variety of genetic traits is continually produced within the species leading to new and potentially viable characteristics. In a similar way each building is unique formed as it is from combining typical forms in many different kinds of buildings whose exact context (size, location, finance, technology, cultural significance) cannot be known beforehand. Equally, the character of the typical set of a style cannot be predicted since it keeps changing as new buildings are built and their experience is incorporated into it. The result in both cases is the continual production of variety in the system whether biological or architectural
Conclusion
Given the complex interaction between the social, cultural, geographical, technological, economic factors which together provide the frame for architectural activity at any point in time, Here we have a phenomenon which in the midst of all the competing forces mentioned above, unifies the characteristics of the buildings produced during each historical period from the scale of their overall form to their decorative detail. The form of thousands of individual buildings built in many different places and constrained by different technological, economic and institutional demands are coordinated by a single stylistic template into a unified physical environment. Here in the phenomenon of the style we have a seemingly ‘spontaneous’ convergence of characteristics – the emergence of a clear-cut order - on a grand scale. Devoid of conscious human intention, one can only take the evolutionary view that the emergence and evolution of architectural styles is a product of the interaction of many thousands of agents taking place over long periods of time.
The development of evolutionary theory from its origins in biology to its current state as means of studying the behavior of all adaptive systems makes it one of our most powerful tools in the search for the laws which underlie the processes of change in the material and social worlds. Yet the key concepts of biological evolution and of evolutionary theory, in particular those of reproduction, heredity, variety, the mechanism of natural selection, the role of the environment and so on are all potentially translatable into equivalent processes in the terminology of social or cultural systems including architecture.



Final CONCLUSION
· History repeats itself, as do ideas. The beginning of the modern era was an episode when collective thoughts culminated to form new movements which would embody the life of industrial society. New materials and methods of construction gave architect and engineer the ability to explore the realities for new ways of building as never before possible. This new way of life also had its affect on artists and poets.
· Modern architecture, as we understand it today, is a series of complex components which when experienced together reward us with a sense of completion.
Thus, the late modern with its decomposing concept has been giving a chance to get practiced after the death of Modern architecture.
This was through a series of changes affected Modern architecture

نقل الفكرة إلى المحسوس: عمارة الحداثة تبحث عن مادة أو عن جوهر، وليس عن طراز، تبحث عن البساطة المطلقة، تبحث عن الخلق والتجديد وليس الخداع والتقليد Creation not Imitation.




كان مقياس الجمال في العمارة سابقاً إحدى قوّتين؛ إمّا الضخامة كمظهر من مظاهر المناعة والقوة في التركيب في الإنشاء، وإما تعداد الزخارف وكثرة التفاصيل ووفرة تعقيدها كمظهر من مظاهر الجاه والغنى والثروة أو كمظهر من مظاهر الفن والجمال. أما في عمارة الحداثة فقد انقلبت القوة من المظهر إلى الجوهر، ولم يعد جمال فن العمارة يستمد إلا من البساطة المطلقة في التركيب، ورشاقة النسب، وصراحة التعبير، والمنفعة التامة الكاملة، والجرأة في التصميم والإنشاء، وأخيراً إخراج المبنى في صورة حقيقية للغرض الصحيح الذي أنشأ من أجله دون خداع أو تحايل، وإظهار كل جزء من أجزاء المبنى على حقيقته خالٍ من الزخارف التي لا معنى لها مهما بلغت من الإتقان.
كما ترفض عمارة الحداثة أن تعترف بوجود فكرة أو طريقة المحاور الرئيسية للمبنى كما كان متبعاً في العمارة الطرازية (الكلاسيكية) التي لم تعرف معنىً للحياة. نزعت عمارة الحداثة عنها كساء الزخارف والكرانيش، كساء الحليات المصطنعة




















ولأن المفروض في العمارة أن تتنوع أعمالها وتختلف من مكان لآخر ومن معماريّ لآخر تبعاً لاحتياجات المبنى الداخلية والظروف التي يتواجد فيها والعوامل التي تؤثر علي، فقد رأى كل من معماريي حركة الحداثة العمارة على طريقته الخاصة؛
لوكوربوزييه مثلاً يعرّف العمارة بأنها اللعب المتقن والصحيح والرائع بالكتل.
ونجد فرانك لويد رايت يطبقها من خلال مفهومه للعمارة العضوية.
ميس فاندروه يطبقها بجدران متعامدة تشكل فراغات فيما بينها ومع ذلك فهي لا تلتقي.
كما جاء الجيل الثاني من معماريي الحداثة، فرأينا كيف يحبّ ماريو بوتا أن يتلاعب بالكتل وبالـ solids & voids.
أيّ أن كل معماري طوّر لنفسه طرازاً لا تخطئه العين، ومع ذلك فهو مازال واحداً من معماريي الحداثة.







يمكن استخلاص المبادئ التالية لتكون المبادئ الرئيسية لحركة الحداثة:
1. الشكل يتبع الوظيفة:
عندما فقد الفراغ دولته المعمارية وحل محلّها دولة الفن والصراحة والتعبير والمنفعة العامة، خرج المبنى في إنشائه من تمثيل فكرة هندسية فراغية أوضخامة الحجم ومن إخراج لوحة مسطحة ذات بعدين يحيط بها إطار من الزخارف المكدسة المستعارة إلى خلق وبناء مكان صالح ومبنى ملائم لحياة الإنسان حياة صحية في طريق المثالية تتفق مع العصر وتطوراته ونهضته.
فليس الغرض من إنشاء المبنى هو المظهر الخارجي فقط، بل يجب أن يكون الشكل الخارجي مطابقاً للروح والمعنى الذي وضع من أجلهما.
2. اهتمام بالفراغ الداخلي أكثر من اللون والزخارف:
جاءت الحداثة لمواكبة التطور السريع في الصناعة ولإنشاء مباني بأرخص الأسعار وبأسرع وقت. وقد اتجهت إلى المعيرة بشكل واضح standardization لتحقيق الحد الأعلى من المنفعة.
3. إظهار المواد الحديثة (الجمال):
فالجمال في عمارة الحداثة ليس بزخارف وكرانيش، بل نتيجة استعمال المواد الحديثة لتكوين أبسط الأشكال. كما أن الجمال ينبع من الجمال الوظيفي الذي تتبناه حركة الحداثة.
4. عدم استعمال المراجع التاريخية:
وذلك لأن الحداثة كما في نظريات مفكريها قد أُحدثت وأُوجدت من العدم، فهي لم تلجأ إلى تقليد أيّ من الحركات الأخرى، بل كانت نقطة الانطلاف لكثير من الحركات اللاحقة.
5. الاقتصاد:
وهو شرط أساسي في الحداثة، ولكنه للأسف يحدّ من حريّة المعماري، فأحد جوانب الاقتصاد هو الاختزال والاقتصاد على الضروريات، ومع ذلك فله أثره الجيّد على المعماريين فهو يعلّمهم الاعتماد على فن نقيّ مكون من عناصر المبنى نفسه لا من إضافات فنية. فالبساطة في العمارة هي فضيلة فضيلة كما هي في الحياة. وصحيح أن الاقتصاد القصد منه هو الحد من الإسراف والبذخ، لكن بشرط أن لا يؤدي هذا إلى إخلال في وظيفة البناء وجماله ومتانته.
تأثير المواد الحديثة على العمارة:
- أصبح بالإمكان زيادة الارتفاعات كما في ناطحات السحاب.
- إمكانية استعمال المساحات الكبيرة دون عوائق (ون وجود أعمدة داخلية).
- استعمال الهياكل والجمالونات والقشور وأشكال جديدة مبتكرة.
- أثرت المواد الجديدة على نسب المباني وزادت من رشاقتها.
- فرضت المواد الجديدة البساطة والتخلص مما ليس ضروري وزائد.




ارجو ان يكون في هذا الافادة التي ترجوها

شكرا كتير لك وان شا الله اقدر اردلك الجميل ده قريب

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاتة
أريد بسرعة لو سمحتم بلوكات على الأتوكاد والفوتوشوب
وشكرا لكم