Ornament in Contemporary Iranian Architecture (Case Study: Prominent Buildings in Tehran After the Islamic Revolution)

arts

Article Ornament in Contemporary Iranian Architecture (Case Study: Prominent Buildings in Tehran after the Islamic Revolution)

Fatemeh Ahani 1, Iraj Etessam 1,* and Seyed Gholamreza Islami 2

1 Department of Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran; [email protected] 2 Department of Architecture, University College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +98-912-125-6344

Received: 2 August 2017; Accepted: 12 December 2017; Published: 28 December 2017

Abstract: This paper addresses the status of ornamental practices in contemporary Iranian architecture, specifically after the Islamic revolution, using a descriptive–analytical method. In this regard, the external appearances of 92 prominent buildings constructed in Tehran between 1979–2013, were examined, and their means of visual expression were analyzed. The results indicate that half of the samples lack ornament; in the others, a noticeable increase in the ornamental element size and visual complexity, as well as a significant decrease in their semantic contents (as compared with traditional ornament) were observed. These are changes that mostly resulted from modernization and subsequent processes such as industrialization and rationalization, as well as the long-lasting influence of modernists’ arguments against such practices. The presence of ornament in architecture, however, is necessary due to its crucial role in increasing the visual coherence of the environment and fulfilling the human desire for order and beauty. Therefore, this paper suggests the replacement of the current dualistic model of thought, which is dominant in the profession and schools of architecture in Iran, with one that provides an opportunity for the coexistence of concepts such as ornament and structure, form and function, and the sensuous and the rational, hence providing a revitalization of ornament in contemporary architecture.

Keywords: ornament; design; decoration; detail; form; function; contemporary architecture of Iran; Tehran

1. Introduction Ornament has been present throughout recorded time, revealing human desires, activities, and beliefs (Abercrombie 1990; Brolin 1985; Focillon 1948; Gombrich 1979). It has emerged as a result of human existence and the urge to relate to the environment through adding qualitative features to objects, alongside their quantitative states (Sa˘glam 2014). Not surprisingly, a discussion of ornament and its role in architecture was addressed in the very first architectural treatise (i.e., the Ten Books on Architecture (15 BC)) (Vitruvius 1960), and has persisted into 21st century debates, regardless of ebbs and flows in its status. However, over recent decades, this subject has received unprecedented attention from Western scholars, since the technological advances in the field of design and construction have provided a brilliant opportunity to produce new generations of ornaments that challenge modernist arguments against such practices (Mitrache 2012). Parallel to such developments, several scholarly texts have been published in Western countries, in which the nature and function of ornament in contemporary architecture have been re-examined from a variety of perspectives.

Arts 2018, 7, 1; doi:10.3390/arts7010001 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2018, 7, 1 2 of 18

However, such investigations into the status of contemporary ornamentations are rarely found in Iranian architecture literature, as the focus of most existing studies has been on the formal description of traditional ornaments and their symbolic content. One could imagine a couple of reasons for this gap, including the absence of significant ornaments in contemporary architecture (which is true with regard to a considerable part of Iranian market-oriented constructions in recent decades), and practices in which ornament status is diminished to the status of mere decoration, employed unthoughtfully for showing off the power and wealth of the building owner or the designers’ personal aesthetic tastes. This is a process of degradation, during which ornament has “shifted from a pattern that was integrated with the structure to the role of revetment, from symbolic to commemorative, and from meaningfully designed to arbitrary” (Khorashahi 2013, p. 41). However, does this means that Iranian contemporary architects also failed to make significant achievements in the field of ornamentation? This is the question that this paper attempts to answer through an investigation of the visual expression of 92 prominent buildings constructed in Tehran after the Islamic revolution. For this, the nature and function of ornament in architecture and the necessity of its presence in contemporary practices will be discussed first. Then, the means of visual expression and ornamental characteristics of the research samples will be analyzed according to seven criteria, to reveal the quality and quantity of ornament application in Iranian contemporary architecture. Finally, the factors that influenced ornament status quo, and some suggestions for its revitalization, will be addressed.

2. The Function of Ornament in Architecture

2.1. Ornament, Beauty, and Delight While there is no consensus among scholars regarding the definition of ornament, all of their accounts share the idea that ornaments are mostly additive elements whose main task is the beautification of their carrier (building, furniture, human, etc.); the purpose of this function is to attracts the viewer’s attention to the ornamented object and to facilitate its conception process through the creation of pleasure and delight (Grabar 1992). Ornament, according to Austrian art historian Ernst Gombrich, is the product of a biological impulse to generate an underlying structure. In the struggle for existence, he claims, organisms developed a sense of order, which allows them to categorize their surroundings according to degrees of regularity, and the obverse. This is vital, as perception requires a framework against which to plot deviations from regularity. Under the influence of this sense, the human mind craves a “careful balance” between complexity and order and constantly edits environments to extract situations (such as ornaments and other fractal-like patterns) that meet this demand (Gombrich 1979). However, Alois Reigl associated human artistic practices such as ornamentation with an imminent creative drive called “Kunstwollen” (artistic will). By severing the stylistic development of ornament from external influences, such as technical procedures (suggested by Gottfried Semper) or a desire to imitate nature, he presented a continuous history of vegetal ornament from ancient Egypt through to Ottoman Turkey in his seminal book Stilfragen, in which individual motifs developed according to purely artistic criteria (Riegl 1992). Another scholar who addressed the reasons behind the longstanding presence of ornaments in architecture is the Australian mathematician and architectural theorist Nikos Salingaros. He argued that

In the design of buildings, there are several scales—corresponding to the human range of scales, 1 cm to 1 m—that are difﬁcult to justify purely on structural grounds. Yet, in order to deﬁne a connected hierarchy of scales, which is a prerequisite for the visual coherence of the objects, those scales have to be present in the structure (Salingaros 2000).

Therefore, either the design should allow for the emergence of structure and subdivisions on those scales, or the substructure has to be intentionally generated on those scales (Alexander et al. 1977; Arts 2018, 7, 1 3 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 3 of 18

1977, Salingaros 1999). Ornamentation—according to him—is one of the methods by which designers Salingaros 1999). Ornamentation—according to him—is one of the methods by which designers create create such small‐scale structures to reinforce the hierarchy of scales in architecture. such small-scale structures to reinforce the hierarchy of scales in architecture. This quality, i.e., visual integrity, can be best exemplified by the Islamic architecture of Iran, This quality, i.e., visual integrity, can be best exempliﬁed by the Islamic architecture of Iran, where the application of common patterns such as the “cross” across a wide range of scales, from city where the application of common patterns such as the “cross” across a wide range of scales, plan‐scales to small surface details, has led to a sense of unity. In traditional Iranian cities, even from city plan-scales to small surface details, has led to a sense of unity. In traditional Iranian cities, individual buildings contain ornaments of different sizes and levels of detail, which were designed even individual buildings contain ornaments of different sizes and levels of detail, which were designed in accordance with the speed and distance by which they are observed by beholders (Figure 1). in accordance with the speed and distance by which they are observed by beholders (Figure1).

Figure 1. Hierarchy of scales in the design of Sheikh Lotfollah mosque in Isfahan, Iran,Iran, 1716.1716.

IslamicIslamic ornament also has a “performative”“performative” value, according to renownedrenowned art historianhistorian andand archeologist Oleg Grabar.Grabar. HeHe claimsclaims thatthat ornaments do not represent, butbut mediate.mediate. They bring about a newnew statestate forfor thethe beholdersbeholders toto contemplatecontemplate themthem inin time,time, andand requirerequire imaginativeimaginative andand subjectivesubjective participationparticipation to bring their effects into being ((GrabarGrabar 19921992).). The lively interaction interaction between the the figure, figure, thethe ground, and thethe infiniteinfinite repetitionrepetition ofof patternspatterns inin thethe arabesquearabesque style,style, forfor example,example, draw thethe beholder outout of of himself himself and and invite invite him him to to try try to to feel feel the the ungraspable ungraspable infinity infinity of God, of God, which which is why is why they arethey lavishly are lavishly used used in Iranian in Iranian religious religious buildings. buildings.

2.2. Ornament and Communication The British architect architect Charles Charles Robert Robert Cockerell Cockerell defined defined architecture architecture as an as unfolding an unfolding narrative narrative and andan epic an epicperformed performed in the in language the language of ornament of ornament (Bordeleau (Bordeleau 2016) ,2016 and), the and French the French art historian art historian Henri Focillon( 1948(1948)) introduced introduced ornament ornament as theas the first first alphabet alphabet of our of human our human thought thought as it comes as it into comes contact into withcontact space. with From space. their From perspective, their perspective, ornament ornament is a type ofis visuala type communication of visual communication that transcends that spokentranscends language; spoken it language; is a poetic it form is a ofpoetic storytelling form of in storytelling metaphoric in images metaphoric that can images convey that the can history convey of athe building history site of a and building the expectations site and the for expectations its use. for its use. Generally speaking, ornament couldcould bebe loosely classifiedclassified intointo two groups: tectonic and semantic (symbolic),(symbolic), basedbased onon thethe type of concepts they communicate. Tectonic ornaments represent thethe visual attributes of physical activity circulating in the world at large in a place that is external or within the microcosm ofof the body being ornamented. In architecture, for example, such ornaments facilitate the human perceptionperception of of buildings buildings through through visualizing visualizing and and accentuating accentuating the the construction construction technology technology and theand dynamic the dynamic forces forces (such (such as motion as motion and and growth) growth) that that are are invisible invisible in in the the structure. structure. In In other words, theythey perform an ontologicalontological functionfunction ((SemperSemper 20102010).). However, symbolicsymbolic (or(or semantic)semantic) ornaments represent non-tectonicnon‐tectonic concepts that are concerned withwith thethe orderorder ofof society.society. They usually contain beliefs, values, and myths of nations as well as ideologicalideological and abstract concepts such as freedom, justice, and progress (Farrell (Farrell 2005).2005). In In this this way, way,

Arts 2018, 7, 1 4 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 4 of 18 theythey educate educate people people on on multiple multiple aspects aspects of of their their social social lives lives and and add add several several layers layers of meanings of meanings to the to buildings,the buildings, which which helps helps to sustain to sustain their their appeal appeal for the for viewers the viewers beyond beyond the initial the initial discovery. discovery. DuringDuring thethe IslamicIslamic period,period, thethe applicationapplication ofof symbolicsymbolic ornamentsornaments waswas veryvery prevalentprevalent inin thethe traditionaltraditional architecture architecture of of Iran. Iran. UnderUnder thethe influenceinfluence ofof Islamic Islamic philosophy,philosophy, Iranian Iranian traditional traditional artists artists consideredconsidered beautybeauty toto bebe aa hint hint for for reaching reaching spiritual spiritual truth. truth. Accordingly,Accordingly, theythey adoptedadopted variousvarious methodsmethods to to communicate communicate sublime sublime meanings meanings through through their design,their design, including including the application the application of symbols of (sacredsymbols shapes, (sacred numbers, shapes, andnumbers, colors), and geometry colors), (proportion, geometry (proportion, order, and centralism),order, and centralism), the addition the or subtractionaddition or of subtraction material in of buildings, material andin buildings, the mystic and presentation the mystic of presentation elements such of as elements water and such light as (Hejaziwater and and light Mehdizadeh (Hejazi and Seraj Mehdizadeh 2014). Seraj 2014). TheThe role role of of ornaments ornaments is extremelyis extremely influential influential insofar insofar that the that spiritual the spiritual entity ofentity traditional of traditional Iranian buildingsIranian buildings would be hardlywould imaginablebe hardly in imaginable their absence. in Conceptstheir absence. such as Concepts ‘unity in multiplicity’,such as ‘unity God’s in emanation,multiplicity’, a universe God’s emanation, in continuous a universe flux, etc., in continuous are some of flux, the key etc., constituents are some of of the the key Islamic constituents world viewof the that Islamic are referred world view to through that are ornament, referred to such through as in theornament, arabesque such style. as in the arabesque style. OneOne more more symbolic symbolic aspect aspect of of ornament ornament function function isis related related to to its its capability capability for for representing representing the the distinguisheddistinguished statusstatus ofof their their carriers, carriers, be be they they humans, humans, buildings, buildings, objects, objects, etc. etc. OrnamentOrnament isis a a lasting lasting signsign of of humanity’s humanity’s intellectual intellectual and and physicalphysical power,power, consumed consumed for for acknowledgingacknowledging somethingsomething lovable;lovable; aa form form of of sacrifice sacrifice ( Ruskin(Ruskin 18491849).). Accordingly,Accordingly, duedue toto thethe timetime andand resourcesresources usedused forfor production,production, ornamentornament adds adds a a value value that that distinguishes distinguishes its its owner owner from from others. others. A A richly richly ornamented ornamented opening opening in in the the plainplain passageways passageways of of a a building, building, for for example, example, is is an an effective effective means means of of directing directing the the users users to to the the main main entranceentrance and and increasing increasing the the legibility legibility of of the the building’s building’s spatial spatial organization. organization.

2.3.2.3. Ornament Ornament and and Utility Utility WhileWhile ornament ornament isis mostly mostly known known for for its its aesthetic aesthetic and and symbolic symbolic functions, functions, it it sometimes sometimes fulfills fulfills instrumentalinstrumental purposes purposes as as well. well. This This includes includes bearing bearing the the structural structural load, load, dividing dividing the the interior interior spaces spaces ofof the the buildings, buildings, modifying modifying the the light light intensity, intensity, and/or and/or insulatinginsulating the the walls walls against against moisture, moisture, etc. etc. It It is is notablenotable that that the the application application of ofazin azin(i.e., (i.e., objects objects whose whose sole sole task task is is the the beautification beautification of of its its carrier) carrier) was was severelyseverely despised despised by by Iranian Iranian traditional traditional artists, artists, since since it it conflicted conflicted with with one one of of the the major major principles principles of of IranianIranian traditional traditional architecture, architecture, i.e., i.e., purposefulness purposefulness ( Pirnia(Pirnia 2008 2008).). TakingTaking intointo consideration consideration thethe aforementionedaforementioned points,points, ornaments’ornamentsʹ rolerole inin architecturearchitecture cancan bebe classifiedclassified as as shown shown in in Figure Figure2 .2.

Figure 2. Cont.

Arts 2018, 7, 1 5 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 5 of 18

FigureFigure 2. 2.Function Function of of ornament ornament in in architecture. architecture.

3.3. Ornament Ornament in in Iranian Iranian Contemporary Contemporary Architecture Architecture FollowingFollowing the the intensification intensification of relationsof relations between between Iran andIran Europe and Europe during theduring Qajar the dynasty Qajar (1758–1925),dynasty (1758–1925), the tradition the of tradition Iranian architectureof Iranian architecture entered a new entered phase, a duringnew phase, which during the congruence which the ofcongruence its styles was of its eventually styles was replaced eventually with replaced the variety with ofthe new variety architectural of new architectural patterns and patterns methods, and whichmethods, were which mostly were adopted mostly from adopted Western from countries Western (Ghobadian countries 2013 (Ghobadian). However, 2013). this transformation However, this didtransformation not weaken did the not presence weaken of the ornamental presence of practices ornamental until practices the Pahlavi until the period, Pahlavi when period, modern when architecturemodern architecture (and the proliferation(and the proliferation of its dogmas of its regarding dogmas regarding ornamentation ornamentation as comprising as comprising useless, seductive,useless, seductive, and outdated and practices), outdated waspractices), promoted was in promoted Iran through in theIran works through of foreign the works designers of foreign and Iraniandesigners architects and Iranian who had architects been educated who had in Europe.been educated During in this Europe. period, During ornamental this period, practices ornamental that had beenpractices inseparable that had and been significant inseparable parts and of Iranian significant architecture parts of for Iranian a long architecture period of time for werea long dismissed period of intime many were constructions, dismissed and in experiencedmany constructions, a considerable and reductionexperienced and a simplificationconsiderable inreduction the sense and of theirsimplification form and quantity in the sense in others. of their form and quantity in others. ThisThis situation situation changed, changed, atat least at at the the discourse discourse level, level, after after the the Islamic Islamic revolution revolution of 1979 of 1979 in Iran. in Iran.When When Islamic Islamic norms norms and and criteria criteria prevailed, prevailed, society society and and concepts concepts such such as thethe revitalizationrevitalization of of traditionstraditions and and Islamic-Iranian Islamic‐Iranian identity identity and meaning and meaning received received much attention much inattention architectural in architectural discourses (Banidiscourses Masoud (Bani 2002 Masoud). Accordingly, 2002). theAccordingly, dominant politicalthe dominant system political promoted system approaches promoted that approaches value the aforementionedthat value the aforementioned concepts such as concepts traditionalism, such as neo-traditionalism, traditionalism, neo regionalism,‐traditionalism, and postmodernism,regionalism, and andpostmodernism, the laws of the and economic, the laws social, of the and economic, cultural social, development and cultural plans development of the Islamic plans Republic of the of Islamic Iran clearlyRepublic addressed of Iran theclearly necessity addressed of conforming the necessity to Iranian-Islamic of conforming architecture.to Iranian‐Islamic These architecture. measures paved These themeasures way for paved the return the ofway ornament for the return to architectural of ornament discourse to architectural as a distinct discourse aspect of as Iranian a distinct architecture aspect of andIranian a powerful architecture carrier ofand Islamic a powerful symbols carrier that should of Islamic be revitalized symbols in contemporarythat should be practices. revitalized It also in ledcontemporary to the application practices. of Islamic It also ornamental led to the patterns application in many of governmentalIslamic ornamental and religious patterns buildings in many duringgovernmental this period, and which religious in most buildings cases during are low-quality this period, copies which of the in most original cases ones. are low‐quality copies of theHowever, original in ones. market-oriented constructions in recent decades in Iran, the situation seems to be different,However, since the in popularitymarket‐oriented of Western constructions classical in ornament recent decades is significantly in Iran, increasing, the situation as aseems means to of be showingdifferent, off since the powerthe popularity and wealth of Western of building classical owners, ornament and resulting is significantly in an “honesty increasing, crisis”. as a means Several of scholarsshowing address off the thispower trend, and whichwealth isof very building popular owners, among and people resulting of averagein an “honesty and high crisis”. economic Several class,scholars as one address of the this major trend, challenges which is tovery contemporary popular among Iranian people architecture of average needingand high urgent economic attention. class, as Inone this of regard, the major the challenges present paper to contemporary will examine Iranian some architecture of the leading needing Iranian urgent architectural attention. In practices this regard, in orderthe present to find paper an appropriate will examine model some of of ornamentation the leading Iranian in accordance architectural with practices contemporary in order demands to find an andappropriate conditions. model of ornamentation in accordance with contemporary demands and conditions.

4.4. Research Research Methods Methods and and Materials Materials ThisThis study study employed employed two two major major research research methods: methods: a a literature literature review review and and survey survey for for evaluating evaluating thethe ornamental ornamental practices practices in in contemporary contemporary Iranian Iranian architecture. architecture. The The literature literature review review was was conducted conducted to collectto collect the theories the theories and accountsand accounts regarding regarding the nature the nature and functions and functions of ornaments, of ornaments, its distinctions its distinctions from from closely‐related concepts such as decoration and design, and the reasons behind the ups and

Arts 2018, 7, 1 6 of 18 closely-related concepts such as decoration and design, and the reasons behind the ups and downs of its status in the profession and teaching of Iranian architecture. The survey was adopted to identify the existing condition of ornament in samples, for which characteristics and methods of selection are presented.

4.1. Research Samples and Data Collection Methods In this research, 92 prominent buildings that were constructed in Tehran between 1979–2013 were examined. This was a period of time during which several major political and social changes took place in Iran. One of the most influential changes was the Islamic revolution of 1979, which replaced the Pahlavi dynasty with an Islamic Republic regime, and provided a brilliant opportunity for the institutionalization of Islamic ideologies in several aspects of Iranians’ lives, including architecture. Consequently, the revitalization of Iranian-Islamic identity through the application of concepts and components of Islamic traditional architecture turned to a common agenda during this period, particularly in governmental construction. However, this trend soon faced an opposite force called globalization, which seeks to unify the world. The consequences of this confrontation with respect to ornament practices will be examined in this study. It is also notable that due to time and budget limitations, the scope of the present study is restricted to those buildings which fulfill at least one of the three following conditions: (1) they are acknowledged by scholars as “prominent buildings” in key Iranian architecture books and journals; (2) they are the winners of national or/and international architectural awards; or (3) they have a considerable national or urban value due to their scale, influence, or use. As a result of evaluating Tehran’s contemporary buildings according to the aforementioned criteria, 122 cases were identified, among which 92 were selected based on Cochran’s formulas. In the next step, all 122 buildings were categorized according to their locations and occupation types. For this, the area of Tehran city was divided into five zones (north, south, east, west, and center), and seven types of building usages (including residential, commercial, cultural, official, healthcare, and utility) were assumed. Then, the frequency of occupations in each zone were calculated, and the samples were selected in a way to replicate those shares. It is also notable that all of the data regarding the physical and visual specifications of buildings were gathered though library studies, direct observations, and photographs.

4.2. Evaluation Criteria and Data Analysis Method Samples were examined in two stages: firstly, their means of visual expression were identified; then, an analysis of their ornament nature and function was conducted. It is notable that aside from the definition of ornament addressed earlier, three more types of agents for visual expression (including “design”, “detail”, and “decoration”) were assumed, whose definitions according to scholars’ accounts are presented.

4.2.1. Decoration Both decorative elements and ornament enhance the beauty of their carriers. However, ornament (Figure3a) performs the aforementioned task through depicting nature’s patterns and order, while decoration (Figure3b,c) enhances the objects propriety by representing non-tectonic subjects related to society (Bloomer and Jespersen 2002). In other words, decorations are not necessarily beautiful objects, but pleasing arrangements of real objects that gain their legitimacy due to their conformity to “decorum” (i.e., particular requirements of good taste and social propriety). Moreover, the bonding of decorations with buildings is mostly weak, and decorations can be removed with no major damage to the work of architecture. This means that there is no mutual dependence and compromise between decorative elements and their carrier, unlike ornament, which creates a physical and symbolic bonding with its carrier that is deeply impressed on the host entity through both function and meaning (Carlson-Redding 1996). Arts 2018, 7, 1 7 of 18

ArtsArts 2017 2017, 7, ,7 1, 1 7 of7 of18 18

(a)(a) (b) (c)(c)

FigureFigure 3.3. 3. Muqarnas Muqarnas inin thethe entranceentrance ofof Imam Mosque, Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran, Iran, 1629 1629 (a) ((a)a;); ;the thethe arabesques arabesquesarabesques on on the thethe wallwall andand and ceilingceiling ceiling ofof of SheikhSheikh Sheikh Lotfollah LotfollahLotfollah mosque,mosque, Isfahan,Isfahan, Iran,Iran, 1617 1617 (b,c) ((b,c)b,c).. .

4.2.2. Design 4.2.2. Design Objects remain structurally intact, recognizable, and capable of performing instrumental function Objects remain structurally intact, recognizable, and capable of performing instrumental function in the absence of ornament and decoration, but not design. Design (Figure 4) is neither structure nor in thethe absenceabsence of ornamentornament and decoration,decoration, but not design.design. Design (Figure 44)) is is neither neither structure structure nor nor skin, but rather both at the same (Trilling 2003). Unlike ornament and decoration, which are mostly skin, but ratherrather both atat thethe samesame ((TrillingTrilling 20032003).). UnlikeUnlike ornamentornament andand decoration,decoration, which are mostlymostly additive and small‐scale elements, design presents a situation in which beauty is derived from the additive and small-scalesmall‐scale elements, design presents a a situation in which beauty is derived from the inherentinherent qualities qualities of of the the whole whole objectobject body. It is also capablecapable ofof communicatingcommunicating both both tectonic tectonic and and non non‐ ‐ inherenttectonic qualitiesconcepts, ofwhich the perform whole object ontological body. and It is representational also capable of functions communicating at the same both time. tectonic and non-tectonictectonic concepts, concepts, which which perform perform ontological ontological and representational and representational functions functions at the atsame the time. same time. 4.2.3. Detail 4.2.3. Detail Trying to differentiate between two types of constructional elements, Kelly Carlson‐Redding, an Trying to differentiate differentiate between between two two types types of of constructional constructional elements, elements, Kelly Kelly Carlson Carlson-Redding,‐Redding, an architecture professor at University of North Carolina in Charlotte, used the words “detail” and architecture professor at University of North Carolina in Charlotte, used the words “detail” and an“Detail” architecture (Figures professor 3 and at4) Universityin his article. of NorthAccording Carolina to him, in Charlotte, both concepts used refer the words to constructional “detail” and “Detail” (Figures 3 and 4) in his article. According to him, both concepts refer to constructional “Detail”elements (Figures that fulfill3 and an4 instrumental) in his article. purpose According relative to to him,the life both of the concepts building. refer However, to constructional the former elements that fulfill an instrumental purpose relative to the life of the building. However, the former elementsmay encompass that fulﬁll the an poetic instrumental amplification purpose of the relative construction, to the life structure, of the building. materials, However, processes, the use, former or mayoperational encompass characteristics the the poetic poetic amplificationof ampliﬁcation the building, of of while the the construction, the construction, motives behindstructure, structure, details materials, materials, remain processes, at processes, a basic level,use, use, or oroperationaland operational are related characteristics characteristics practically of to thethe of the building,necessities building, while of whilegeneral the motives the construction, motives behind behind structure, details details remain or systems. remain at a basic atIn aother level, basic level,andwords, are and relateddetails are related arepractically unintentional practically to the withnecessities to the regard necessities ofto generalexpression, of generalconstruction, and construction,are purely structure, ontological structure, or systems. in ortheir systems.In non other‐ Inwords,referent other details words, being are(Carlson details unintentional are‐Redding unintentional with1996) regard. with regardto expression, to expression, and are and purely are purely ontological ontological in their in theirnon‐ non-referentreferent being being (Carlson (Carlson-Redding‐Redding 1996) 1996. ).

(a) (b) (c) (d) (a) (b) (c) (d) FigureFigure 4. 4.Detail Detail of of water water feature feature by Carloby Carlo Scarpa Scarpa (1949) (1949) in Querini in Querini Stampalia Stampalia foundation foundation (1869), (1869) Venice,, ItalyFigureVenice, (a );4. GuggenheimItaly Detail (a) ; ofGuggenheim water Museum feature Museum in New by Carlo York, in New Scarpa NY, York, USA (1949) NY, (1959) USA in by Querini (1959) Frank by Lloyd Stampalia Frank Wright Lloyd foundation ( bWright); the Guaranty (b) (1869); the , BuildingVenice,Guaranty Italy (1896) Building (a); inGuggenheim Buffalo,(1896) in NewBuffalo, Museum York New byin York New Louis by York, Louis Sullivan NY, Sullivan USA and Dankmarand(1959) Dankmar by Frank Adler Adler Lloyd (c); (c) Throne; WrightThrone room (b)room; the of NapoleonGuarantyof Napoleon Building in the in the Palace (1896) Palace of in Fontainebleau of Buffalo, Fontainebleau New (redecoratedYork (redecorated by Louis in Sullivan in 1808), 1808), Paris, and Paris, Dankmar France France (d Adler(d)). . (c); Throne room of Napoleon in the Palace of Fontainebleau (redecorated in 1808), Paris, France (d). Based on the above definitions, 5 criteria could be suggested which further clarifies the distiction Based on the above deﬁnitions, 5 criteria could be suggested which further clariﬁes the distiction of theBased aformentioned on the above concepts definitions, would 5 criteriabe possible could (Table be suggested 1). which further clarifies the distiction of the aformentioned concepts would be possible (Table1). of the aformentioned concepts would be possible (Table 1).

Arts 2018, 7, 1 8 of 18

Table 1. Criteria for Distinctions of Form, Detail, Ornament, and Decoration (Bloomer and Jespersen 2002; Carlson-Redding 1996; Trilling 2003).

Criteria Form Detail Ornament Decoration Tectonic and Tectonic and Non-Tectonic Subject Matter Tectonic Concepts Non-Tectonic Concepts Non-Tectonic Concepts Concepts Representational and Impurely ontological Impurely Reference Mode Representational Ontological Representational Representational Necessity Essential Essential Essential Inessential Constructional Constructional Rhythmic and Content Real Objects Elements Elements Transformed Motifs Permanence Bonded Bonded Bonded Portable

It is notable that a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was employed for ornament analysis in the second stage of examination. Coding is considered “one of the most important qualitative methods of data analysis in architecture” (Habib et al. 2012, pp. 517–38), and is used here to reach the criteria for the evaluation of ornament nature and function. The codes were derived from the theory, questions, and variables of this research, and determined through three stages, including open, axial, and selective coding. This process ultimately resulted in two major sets of criteria, which were employed during the process of direct observations and content analysis of the buildings’ photos. The ﬁrst group is related to the physical aspects of ornaments, including their form, scale, permanence, and production method, while the second group consists of criteria such as utility and communication (with two sub-criteria: reference mode and symbolic content), related to the functional aspect of ornament (Table2). In the end, SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA, version 19) was used for calculating statistical analysis.

Table 2. Criteria for Evaluation of Ornaments.

Functional Aspects of Ornament Physical Aspects of Ornament Mostly Utilitarian Function Geometric Pattern Vegetal Pattern Utility Form Calligraphy Mostly Non-Utilitarian Function Human/Animal Figure Constructional Forms Visible form Distance Mostly Representational Scale Detail Reference Both Types Mode Mostly Non- Abstract Integrated with Structure Representational Subjectless Additive Communication Iranian Symbol(s) Permanence Symbolic Non- Iranian Symbol(s) Both Types Symbolic Content Both Types Function Mostly Handmade Non- Symbolic Content Production Method Mostly Manufactured

5. Results According to the results, the following statements can be made: “Ornament” and “detail” (Figures5 and6) are respectively the least and the most prevalent means of architectural expression in the studied building. In fact, ornament is absent in more than half of the samples, while details are employed in all of them (Figure7 and Table3). Arts 2017, 7, 1 9 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 9 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 9 of 18 5. Results 5.5. ResultsResults According to the results, the following statements can be made: AccordingAccording toto thethe results,results, thethe followingfollowing statementsstatements cancan bebe made:made: “Ornament” and “detail” (Figures 5 and 6) are respectively the least and the most prevalent “Ornament” and “detail” (Figures 5 and 6) are respectively the least and the most prevalent Artsmeans“Ornament” of7 architectural and “detail”expression (Figures in the 5studied and 6) building.are respectively In fact, theornament least and is absent the most in moreprevalent than means2018 of, ,architectural 1 expression in the studied building. In fact, ornament is absent in more9 than of 18 meanshalf of theof architectural samples, while expression details are in employedthe studied in building. all of them In (Figurefact, ornament 7 and Table is absent 3). in more than half of the samples, while details are employed in all of them (Figure 7 and Table 3). half of the samples, while details are employed in all of them (Figure 7 and Table 3).

(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) Figure 5. Mahmoodieh ofﬁcialofficial building building by by Faramarz Faramarz Shariﬁ Sharifi (a (a)); residential; residential building building in in Tehranpars Tehranpars by Figure 5. Mahmoodieh official building by Faramarz Sharifi (a); residential building in Tehranpars FigureAlirezaby Alireza 5. Taghaboni Mahmoodieh Taghaboni (b); (b) Mellat official; Mellat Bank building Bank by Kamranby by Kamran Faramarz Afshar Afshar Sharifi Naderi Naderi (a) (c).; (c)residential. building in Tehranpars by Alireza Taghaboni (b); Mellat Bank by Kamran Afshar Naderi (c). by Alireza Taghaboni (b); Mellat Bank by Kamran Afshar Naderi (c).

(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) Figure 6. Amiri’s villa in Dezaship by Faramarz Sharifi (a); central office of Goldiran Company by Figure 6. Amiri’s villa in Dezaship by Faramarz Sharifi (a); central office of Goldiran Company by FigureMehdi Grami 6. Amiri’s (b); villaAjorbaft in Dezaship residential by building Faramarz by Sharifi ShariﬁAlireza (a) ( aMashadi);; central Mirza office ofﬁce (c).of Goldiran Company by Mehdi Grami (b); Ajorbaft residential building by Alireza Mashadi Mirza (c). Mehdi Grami (b) (b);; Ajorbaft residential building by Alireza Mashadi Mirza ((c).c).

100 92 100 92 100 92 80 72 67 72 80 67 72 80 67 Design 60 Design 60 41 Design 60 41 Detail 40 41 Detail 40 Detail 40 Ornament 20 Ornament Number of Buildings 20 OrnamentDecoration

Number of Buildings 20

Number of Buildings Decoration 0 Decoration 0 0 Means of Visual Means of Visual Means of VisualExpression Expression Expression

Figure 7. Means of aesthetic effect in the samples and their frequency. Figure 7. Means of aesthetic effect in the samples and their frequency. FigureFigure 7. 7. MeansMeans of of aesthetic aesthetic effect effect in in the the samples samples and their frequency. Table 3. Means of aesthetic effect in the samples and their frequency. Table 3. Means of aesthetic effect in the samples and their frequency. Table 3. Means of aesthetic effect in the samples and their frequency. TableMeans 3. Means of Aesthetic of aesthetic Effects effect in theFrequency samples and Percentage their frequency. Means of Aesthetic Effects Frequency Percentage Means of AestheticDesign Effects Frequency67 Percentage72 Means of AestheticDesign Effects Frequency67 Percentage72 DesignDetail 6792 10072 Detail 92 100 OrnamentDesignDetail 9241 67 10044 72 OrnamentDetail 9241 10044 DecorationOrnament 4172 4478 DecorationOrnament 4172 78 44 DecorationDecoration 72 78 78

“Design” (Figure8) and “decoration” (Figure9) are also employed extensively in 72% and 78% of the samples, respectively. Nevertheless, as building interiors are excluded in our investigation, Arts 2017, 7, 1 10 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 10 of 18 Arts 2018, 7, 1 10 of 18 “Design” (Figure 8) and “decoration” (Figure 9) are also employed extensively in 72% and 78% “Design” (Figure 8) and “decoration” (Figure 9) are also employed extensively in 72% and 78% of the samples, respectively. Nevertheless, as building interiors are excluded in our investigation, the of the samples, respectively. Nevertheless, as building interiors are excluded in our investigation, the observed decorations mainly include small‐scale objects (such as flags, flowerboxes, logos containing observedthe observed decorations decorations mainly mainly include include small‐scale small-scale objects (such objects as flags, (such flowerboxes, as ﬂags, ﬂowerboxes, logos containing logos the building name and number, lighting furniture), which naturally have less of an aesthetic thecontaining building the name building and name number, and number, lighting lighting furniture), furniture), which which naturally naturally have have less less of of an an aesthetic aesthetic impression on the viewers compared to design. In other words, despite the close frequency in the impressionimpression on the viewers compared to design. In In other other words, words, despite despite the the close frequency frequency in in the application of design and decoration in the samples, the former could be considered the second most application of design and decoration in the samples, the former could be considered considered the second most prevalent agent of visual expression in buildings (Figure 7 and Table 3). prevalent agent of visual expression in buildings (Figure7 7 and and Table Table3 ).3).

(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f) (d) (e) (f) Figure 8. Mellat Park cineplex by Reza Daneshmir (a); Iran Telecommunication Research Center by Figure 8. Mellat Park cineplexcineplex by by Reza Reza Daneshmir Daneshmir (a (a)); Iran; Iran Telecommunication Telecommunication Research Research Center Center by Aliby Ali Hamidi Moghadam (b); white Horse Sport Center by Ismaeil Talaei (c); Sharifiha residential AliHamidi Hamidi Moghadam Moghadam (b); white (b); white Horse Horse Sport Center Sport byCenter Ismaeil by Talaei Ismaeil (c); Talaei Shariﬁha (c); residential Sharifiha buildingresidential by building by Alireza Taghaboni (d); Azadi cinema by Babak Shokoufi (e); Barian ski hotel by Rira buildingAlireza Taghaboni by Alireza (d Taghaboni); Azadi cinema (d); Azadi by Babak cinema Shokouﬁ by Babak (e); Barian Shokoufi ski hotel (e); byBarian Rira ski design hotel studio by Rira (f). design studio (f). design studio (f).

(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) Figure 9. Golandook villa by Faramarz Sharifi (a); Azadi cinema by Babak Shokoufi (b); Mellat bank Figure 9. Golandook villa villa by by Faramarz Faramarz Sharifi Shariﬁ (a) (a);; Azadi cinema cinema by by Babak Babak Shokoufi Shokouﬁ (b) (b);; Mellat bank by Kamran Afshar Naderi (c). by Kamran Afshar Naderi (c) (c).. According to Figure 10, in 23 out of 41 buildings (56%), only large‐scale ornament (Figures 11 According to Figure 10,10, in in 23 out of 41 buildings (56%), only large large-scale‐scale ornament (Figures (Figures 1111 and 12) was used. This shows a considerable break with Iranian traditional architecture, as the visual and 12)12) was used. used. This This shows shows a a considerable considerable break break with with Iranian Iranian traditional traditional architecture, architecture, as the the visual visual richness of past practices is mostly a result of the lavish application of surface details and ornaments richness of past practices is mostly a result result of the lavish application of surface details and ornaments designed across a wide range of scales ranging from 1 cm to 1 m, in accordance with the position and designed across a wide range of scales ranging from 1 cm to 1 m, m, in in accordance accordance with the position position and walking speed of the observers (Figure 1). However, in our samples, such small‐scale ornaments were walking speed of the observers observers (Figure 11).). However, inin ourour samples,samples, suchsuch small-scalesmall‐scale ornamentsornaments werewere found to exist only in seven buildings. foundfound to exist only in seven buildings. Figure 13 indicates that additive and structure‐integrated ornaments (Figures 11 and 12) were Figure 13 indicates that additive and structure‐integrated ornaments (Figures 11 and 12) were respectively employed in 24 and 29 out of 41 samples (i.e., 59% and 70%), respectively, which is a respectively employed in 24 and 29 out of 41 samples (i.e., 59% and 70%), respectively, which is a noticeable finding as it connotes the increasing inclination of leading contemporary architects toward noticeable finding as it connotes the increasing inclination of leading contemporary architects toward

Arts 2017, 7, 1 11 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 11 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 11 of 18 the application of ornaments that fulfill instrumental purposes, in addition to symbolic and aesthetic the application of ornaments that fulfill instrumental purposes, in addition to symbolic and aesthetic ones. This claim, which is also supported by the result presented in Figure 14, denotes the prevalence ones.the applicationThis claim, whichof ornaments is also supported that fulfill byinstrumental the result presented purposes, in in Figure addition 14, todenotes symbolic the andprevalence aesthetic of utilitarian ornament in the samples. However, in traditional Iranian architecture, the application ofones. utilitarian This claim, ornament which in is the also samples. supported However, by the resultin traditional presented Iranian in Figure architecture, 14, denotes the the application prevalence of applied ornaments such as tile revetment were very prevalent, as they could be produced and ofof applied utilitarian ornaments ornament such in theas tile samples. revetment However, were veryin traditional prevalent, Iranian as they architecture, could be produced the application and Artsrepaired2018, 7,more 1 easily and faster than integrated ones, and accelerated the building process11 of by 18 repairedof applied more ornaments easily and such faster as tile than revetment integrated were ones, very and prevalent, accelerated as they the could building be produced process byand providing the opportunity for hiding construction faults (Pirnia 2008). providingrepaired themore opportunity easily and for faster hiding than construction integrated faults ones, (Pirnia and 2008).accelerated the building process by providing the opportunity for hiding construction faults (Pirnia 2008). 25 23 25 23 25 23 20 visible from 20 distancevisible from 20 visible from 15 distance 15 11 Detaildistance 15 11 Detail 10 7 11 Detail 10 7 10 Both Types 5 7 Both Types Number of Buildings 5 Both Types Number of Buildings 5 Number of Buildings 0 0 0

Figure 10. Scale of Ornaments. Figure 10. Scale of Ornaments. Figure 10. Scale of Ornaments.

(a) (b) (a) (b) Figure 11. Bagh Vanak residential(a) building by Reza HabibZadeh(b) and Arezoo Khalili (a); Danial FigureFigure 11.11. Bagh Vanak residential building by RezaReza HabibZadehHabibZadeh andand ArezooArezoo KhaliliKhalili ((a)a);; DanialDanial residentialFigure 11. building Bagh Vanak by Reza residential Sayyadian building and Sara by Kalantari Reza HabibZadeh (b). and Arezoo Khalili (a); Danial residentialresidential buildingbuilding byby RezaReza SayyadianSayyadian andand SaraSara KalantariKalantari ((b).b). residential building by Reza Sayyadian and Sara Kalantari (b).

(a) (b) (a) (b) Figure 12. The entrance of the (a)National Library by Yousef Shariat Zadeh (a);(b) Azadi tower by Figure 12. The entrance of the National Library by Yousef Shariat Zadeh (a); Azadi tower by Mohammadreza Hafezi (b). FigureMohammadrezaFigure 12. 12.The The entranceHafezi entrance (b) of . of the the National National Library Library by by Yousef Yousef Shariat Shariat Zadeh Zadeh (a );(a) Azadi; Azadi tower tower by by MohammadrezaMohammadreza Hafezi Hafezi (b ).(b).

Figure 13 indicates that additive and structure-integrated ornaments (Figures 11 and 12) were respectively employed in 24 and 29 out of 41 samples (i.e., 59% and 70%), respectively, which is a noticeable ﬁnding as it connotes the increasing inclination of leading contemporary architects toward the application of ornaments that fulﬁll instrumental purposes, in addition to symbolic and aesthetic ones. This claim, which is also supported by the result presented in Figure 14, denotes the prevalence of utilitarian ornament in the samples. However, in traditional Iranian architecture, the application of applied ornaments such as tile revetment were very prevalent, as they could be produced and repaired more easily and faster than integrated ones, and accelerated the building process by providing the opportunity for hiding construction faults (Pirnia 2008). Arts 2017, 7, 1 12 of 18

20 17

15 12 12 Additive 10 Integrated Both Types 5

Arts 2018, 7, 1 Number of Buildings 12 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 0 12 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 12 of 18 20 Figure20 13. Permanence17 of Ornaments. 17 15 1525 1223 12 Additive 12 12 Additive 1020 18 MostlyIntegrated 10 Integrated UtilitarianBoth Types 155 FunctionBoth Types

Number of Buildings 5

Number of Buildings 10 Mostly Non‐ 0 Utilitarian 05 Function Number of Buildings Figure0 13. Permanence of Ornaments. Figure 13. Permanence of Ornaments.

25 23 Figure25 14. Utilitarian23 Function of Ornaments. 20 18 Mostly 18 No sample contained representational20 ornaments. However,MostlyUtilitarian non‐representational ornaments were observed in 44% of the buildings,15 out of which 32% wereUtilitarianFunction abstract, and the rest were subjectless 15 Function (Figure 15). 10 Mostly Non‐ Geometric and vegetal ornament10 were the most prevalentMostly Non‐Utilitarian types of abstract ornament, employed 5 UtilitarianFunction in 32% and 11% of the examined buildingsNumber of Buildings 5 respectively, whileFunction calligraphic ornament was used only Number of Buildings in seven buildings, mainly for religious0 and governmental use (Figures 16 and 17). It is notable that the preference for0 abstract depictions in traditional architecture is a result of the

position of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, which cautions artists against competing with God, Figure 14. Utilitarian Function of Ornaments. who is the only creator. It is thusFigure an 14.indication Utilitarian of Functionan artist’s of submission Ornaments. and acceptance as well as his effort to emphasize the distinction of his creations from the original ones created by God (Marks No sample contained representational ornaments. However, non‐representational ornaments 2007).No However, sample containedin contemporary representational practices, theornaments. prevalence However, of subjectless non‐representational patterns and the ornamentsabsence of wereNo observed sample in contained 44% of the representational buildings, out of ornaments. which 32% However, were abstract, non-representational and the rest were ornamentssubjectless weresymbolic observed content in in44% the of majority the buildings, of the samples out of which signifies 32% a were different abstract, approach, and the according rest were to subjectless which the were(Figure observed 15). in 44% of the buildings, out of which 32% were abstract, and the rest were subjectless (Figureexistence 15). of non‐tectonic content (representational of the abstract) is disapproved. (FigureGeometric 15). and vegetal ornament were the most prevalent types of abstract ornament, employed Geometric and vegetal ornament were the most prevalent types of abstract ornament, employed in 32% and 11% of the examined buildings respectively, while calligraphic ornament was used only in 32% and 11% of the examined buildings respectively, while calligraphic ornament was used only in seven buildings, mainly for religious and governmental use (Figures 16 and 17). in seven buildings, mainly for 35religious and32 governmental use (Figures 16 and 17). It is notable that the preference for abstract depictions in traditional architecture is a result of the It is notable that the preference30 for abstract depictions in traditional architecture is a result of the position of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, which cautionsMostly artists against competing with God, position of the Islamic holy book,25 the Qur’an, which cautionsRepresentational artists against competing with God, who is the only creator. It is thus an indication of an artist’s submission and acceptance as well as his who is the only creator. It is thus an indication of an artist’s submission and acceptance as well as his effort to emphasize the distinction20 of his creations from theMostly Abstract original ones created by God (Marks effort to emphasize the distinction of his creations from the original ones created by God (Marks 2007). However, in contemporary15 practices, the prevalence of subjectless patterns and the absence of 2007). However, in contemporary practices, the9 prevalence of subjectless patterns and the absence of symbolic content in the majority10 of the samples signifies a differentMostly approach, according to which the symbolic content in the majority of the samples signifies a different approach, according to which the

Number of Buildings Subjectless existence of non‐tectonic content5 (representational of the abstract) is disapproved. existence of non‐tectonic content (representational0 of the abstract) is disapproved. 0

35 32 35 32 30Figure 15. Ornaments’ Mode of Reference. 30 Mostly 25 MostlyRepresentational 25 Geometric and vegetal ornament were the most prevalentRepresentational types of abstract ornament, employed 20 Mostly Abstract in 32% and 11% of the examined20 buildings respectively, whileMostly Abstract calligraphic ornament was used only in 15 seven buildings, mainly for religious15 and governmental9 use (Figures 16 and 17). 10 9 Mostly It is notable that the preference10 for abstract depictions inMostly traditional architecture is a result of the

Number of Buildings Subjectless 5 Number of Buildings Subjectless position of the Islamic holy book,5 the Qur’an,0 which cautions artists against competing with God, who is the only creator. It is thus0 an indication0 of an artist’s submission and acceptance as well as his 0 effort to emphasize the distinction of his creations from the original ones created by God (Marks 2007). However, in contemporary practices,Figure the 15. prevalence Ornaments’ of Mode subjectless of Reference. patterns and the absence of symbolic Figure 15. Ornaments’ Mode of Reference.

Arts 2018, 7, 1 13 of 18

Artscontent 2017, in7, 1 the majority of the samples signiﬁes a different approach, according to which the existence13 of 18 ofArts non-tectonic 2017, 7, 1 content (representational of the abstract) is disapproved. 13 of 18 Arts 2017, 7, 1 13 of 18 35 30 Human/Animal 3035 35 30 FigureHuman/Animal 30 Human/Animal 2530 Figure 30 VegetalFigure 2025 Vegetal 25 Vegetal 20 1520 11 Calligraphy 1015 11 7 7 Calligraphy 15 11 Calligraphy Number of Buildings 105 7 7 Geometric 10 0 7 7 Number of Buildings Geometric Number of Buildings 5 Geometric 05 0 0 0 0

Figure 16. Form of Ornament. Figure 16. Form of Ornament. Figure 16. Form of Ornament.

(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) Figure 17. Lawyers(a) Association Center by Seyyed Hadi(b) Mirmiran (a); Sanati Sharif mosque(c) by Mehdi Hojjat (b); Figure 17. Lawyers Association Center by Seyyed Hadi Mirmiran (a); Sanati Sharif mosque by Mehdi Hojjat (b); HajFigure organization 17. Lawyers building Association by Jahangir Center Mazloom by Seyyed (c) Hadi. Mirmiran (a); Sanati Sharif mosque by Mehdi Hojjat (b); Haj organizationFigure 17. Lawyers building Association by Jahangir Center Mazloom by Seyyed (c). Hadi Mirmiran (a); Sanati Sharif mosque by Mehdi Haj organization building by Jahangir Mazloom (c). AccordingHojjat (b); Haj to organization Figure 18 buildingand 19, by 78% Jahangir of the Mazloom ornamented (c). samples lacked symbolic patterns (FigureAccording 17), and tonon Figure‐Iranian 18 andsymbols 19, 78%existed of theonly ornamented in one building, samples the lacked Vanak symbolic sport complex.patterns Supporting(Figure 17), theand arguments non‐Iranian of Sectionsymbols 5.7, existed this finding only in shows one onebuilding, of the the main Vanak distinctions sport complex.between (FigureAccording 17), and tonon Figures‐Iranian 18 symbolsand 19, 78%existed of theonly ornamented in one building, samples the lacked Vanak symbolic sport complex. patterns contemporarySupporting the and arguments traditional of Sectionarchitecture, 5.7, this as wellfinding as showsthe leading one ofIranian the main designers’ distinctions disinclination between (FigureSupporting 17), andthe non-Iranianarguments symbolsof Section existed 5.7, this only finding in one building,shows one the of Vanak the main sport complex.distinctions Supporting between towardcontemporary the application and traditional of historic architecture, and symbolic as well references, as the leadingparticularly Iranian those designers’ that are disinclinationnot rooted in thecontemporary arguments ofand Section traditional5, this ﬁndingarchitecture, shows as one well of theas mainthe leading distinctions Iranian between designers’ contemporary disinclination and Iraniantoward culture.the application of historic and symbolic references, particularly those that are not rooted in traditionaltoward the architecture, application asof wellhistoric as the and leading symbolic Iranian references, designers’ particularly disinclination those towardthat are the not application rooted in IranianThe culture. results showed that only 19 out of 41 buildings contained handmade ornaments (Figure 20), ofIranian historic culture. and symbolic references, particularly those that are not rooted in Iranian culture. whileThe manufactured results showed ones that existed only in19 all out 41 of samples. 41 buildings contained handmade ornaments (Figure 20), The results showed that only 19 out of 41 buildings buildings contained contained handmade handmade ornaments ornaments (Figure (Figure 20),20), while manufactured ones existed in all 41 samples. while manufactured onesones existedexisted inin allall 4141 samples.samples.

35 32 Iranian Symbol 3035 32 35 32 Iranian Symbol 30 Iranian Symbol 2530 Non‐Iranian 2025 SymbolNon‐Iranian 25 Non‐Iranian 20 Symbol 1520 Both TypesSymbol 15 8 Both Types 1015 Both Types

Number of Buildings 8 105 8 Geometric 10 0 1 Number of Buildings Geometric Number of Buildings 5 Geometric 05 0 1 0 1 0 0 Figure 18. Symbolic Content of Ornaments. Figure 18. Symbolic Content of Ornaments. Figure 18. Symbolic Content of Ornaments.

Arts 2018, 7, 1 14 of 18 ArtsArts 20172017,, 77,, 11 1414 ofof 1818

5050 4141 4040

30 30 HandmadeHandmade 19 19 Manufactured 2020 Manufactured

Number of Buildings 10

Figure 19. Production Methods of Ornaments. FigureFigure 19.19. ProductionProduction MethodsMethods ofof Ornaments.Ornaments.

(a)(a) (b)(b) (c)(c) Figure 20. Shah Karam commercial and residential building by Hooman Balazadeh (a); Shah Karam FigureFigure 20.20. ShahShah KaramKaram commercialcommercial andand residentialresidential buildingbuilding byby HoomanHooman BalazadehBalazadeh ((a)a);; ShahShah KaramKaram commercial and residential building by Hooman Balazadeh (b); Sanati Sharif mosque by Mehdi Hojjat (c). commercialcommercial andand residentialresidential buildingbuilding byby HoomanHooman BalazadehBalazadeh ((b)b);; SanatiSanati SharifSharif mosquemosque byby MehdiMehdi HojjatHojjat ((c)c).. 6. Discussion and Conclusions 6.6. Discussion and Conclusions This paper examined the status of ornament in the contemporary architecture of Tehran after ThisThis paperpaper examined examined the the status status of of ornament ornament in in the the contemporary contemporary architecture architecture of Tehranof Tehran after after the the Islamic revolution. In this regard, 92 prominent buildings that were constructed between 1979– Islamicthe Islamic revolution. revolution. In this In this regard, regard, 92 prominent 92 prominent buildings buildings that werethat were constructed constructed between between 1979–2013 1979– 2013 were selected, and their agent(s) of visual expression were analyzed. Results indicated that were2013 selected,were selected, and their and agent(s) their agent(s) of visual of expression visual expression were analyzed. were analyzed. Results indicated Results thatindicated unlike that the unlike the traditional Iranian architecture in which ornament presence was immanent, almost half of traditionalunlike the traditional Iranian architecture Iranian architecture in which ornament in which presence ornament was presence immanent, was almostimmanent, half ofalmost the studied half of the studied buildings lacked such elements. In contrast, “Detail” and “design” were employed buildingsthe studied lacked buildings such elements. lacked such In contrast, elements. “Detail” In contrast, and “design” “Detail” were and employed “design” extensively were employed in the extensively in the samples, which implies the designers’ preferences for creating visual expression samples,extensively which in the implies samples, the designers’which implies preferences the designers’ for creating preferences visual expression for creating through visual expression the honest through the honest presentation of the inherent qualities of building materials and their presentationthrough the of honest the inherent presentation qualities of of buildingthe inherent materials qualities and their of constructionalbuilding materials elements, and rather their constructional elements, rather than employing non‐tectonic, symbolic, and additive patterns. thanconstructional employing elements, non-tectonic, rather symbolic, than employing and additive non‐tectonic, patterns. symbolic, and additive patterns. An examination of the ornamented buildings, as the next step, also revealed a noticeable increase AnAn examinationexamination ofof thethe ornamentedornamented buildings,buildings, asas thethe nextnext step,step, alsoalso revealedrevealed aa noticeablenoticeable increaseincrease in the ornamental elements’ size, and a significant decrease in their visual complexity and semantic inin thethe ornamentalornamental elements’elements’ size,size, andand aa signiﬁcantsignificant decreasedecrease inin theirtheir visualvisual complexitycomplexity andand semanticsemantic contents (compared to traditional ones). Moreover, there seems to be a strong inclination among leading contentscontents (compared(compared toto traditionaltraditional ones).ones). Moreover, therethere seemsseems toto bebe aa strongstrong inclinationinclination amongamong leadingleading Iranian architects towards the application of structure‐integrated and “performative” ornaments, rather IranianIranian architects architects towards towards the the application application of structure of structure-integrated‐integrated and “performative” and “performative” ornaments, ornaments, rather than the additive and applied ornaments that are prevalent in traditional Iranian architecture. ratherthan the than additive the additive and andapplied applied ornaments ornaments that that are are prevalent prevalent in in traditional traditional Iranian Iranian architecture. Handmade ornaments were also rarely found in the samples; this connotes a reduction in the buildings’ HandmadeHandmade ornamentsornaments werewere alsoalso rarelyrarely foundfound in the samples; this connotes a reduction in the buildings’ symbolic value, which was traditionally shown by the artisan’s creative effort in the process of symbolicsymbolic value, which was traditionallytraditionally shown by the artisan’s creative effort in thethe processprocess ofof ornament production. For such transformations of ornament, one can think of several reasons, which ornamentornament production. production. For For such such transformations transformations of ornament, of ornament, one can one think can think of several of several reasons, reasons, which can be loosely classified into the following three groups: whichcan be canloosely be loosely classified classiﬁed into the into following the following three groups: three groups:

Arts 2018, 7, 1 15 of 18

1. Context-related Factors. An examination of the samples indicates that there is a clear relationship between the speed and distance by which people can observe the building and the types of visual expression. For example, ornaments and other surface details are mostly employed on the ground level of facades in high-density urban contexts, where they are exposed to pedestrians. In contrast, design, as the largest scale of aesthetic effects, is used in free-standing buildings that are located near highways or over hills, whose form should be designed in a way to be visible to car drivers from long distances. Another context-related factor that influenced the buildings’ visual expression is the existing codes and regulatory requirements for new constructions in some areas of the city, especially the historic areas. The new Malik library and museum (Figure 21) in one of the historical districts of Tehran, for example, is one of the studied samples whose facade was designed in total accordance with the principles of a traditional architectural style called Isfahan. 2. Mediator Factors • Building program. Studies reveal that the diminishing number of skillful artisans after the advent of the industrialization process in Iran, and the limitation of available project funding and time, are among the main reasons behind the absence of handmade ornaments in a considerable number of contemporary constructions. • “Building use” is also found to be influential in architectural expression. Results indicate that traditional types of ornament (such as arabesque and muqarnas style, etc.) are mostly used in religious and governmental buildings, while in functional and industrial buildings such as healthcare and service centers and factories, “design” and “Detail” are the main agents of aesthetic affect. • Tastes and Desires. Clients have a considerable impact on the direction of the architectural design process and the quality of their final products. In fact, they may direct the creation of either significant or worthless buildings through the type of designer they hire, their level of intervention in the process of design, and the proper or arbitrary implementation of the project (in cases where they are the construction superintendent as well). Accordingly, some experts attributed the existent chaos in Iranian market-oriented constructions of recent decades to the unprecedented authorization given through postmodernism theories to clients who mostly lack good aesthetic and architectural taste. However, this is not the case in our study, as most of our samples were designed by leading architects that have a high level of architectural knowledge and sufficient authority to pursue their ideas. In this regard, the prevalence of detail and design as the major agents of visual expression, and the weak presence of symbolic and applied ornaments in their designs, could be interpreted as signs of the popularity of modernism among Iranian architects, and the influence of other context-related and mediator factors, as discussed earlier. 3. External Factors. External factors can be divided into the two following sub-groups: • National-level Factors. Taking into consideration that architecture schools and competitions play a significant role in the formation and transmission of architectural theory and practice through affecting architects’ tastes and thought, some of our findings regarding the architects’ preference for employing “design” and “detail” would be understandable. The prioritization of “form” over “ornament”, which was a part of the modernism agenda in the first decades of 20th century in Europe, became very popular in Iranian architecture schools during the 1940s and 1950s (Bani Masoud 2002), when a noticeable number of national architecture competitions referees and the majority of Iranian leading architects (including 80% of the studied buildings’ designers) were students. • Global-level Factors. The results revealed that the application of structure-integrated and performative ornaments has increased in contemporary Iranian architectural practices. One of the reasons behind the popularity of such ornaments is the unprecedented Arts 2017, 7, 1 15 of 18

1. Context-related Factors. An examination of the samples indicates that there is a clear relationship between the speed and distance by which people can observe the building and the types of visual

Arts 2018expression., 7, 1 For example, ornaments and other surface details are mostly employed on16 ofthe 18 ground level of facades in high-density urban contexts, where they are exposed to pedestrians. In contrast, design, as the largest scale of aesthetic effects, is used in free-standing buildings that are locatedadvancement near highways in design or andover construction hills, whose technologiesform should be in recentdesigned years, in a and way the to emergingbe visible to carinterest drivers in from structure long distances. as a generator Another of form. context-related This development factor that has influenced resulted in the the buildings’ formation visualof expression a new relationship is the existing between codes skin and (facade) regulatory and bones requirements (structure), for crossbreeding new constructions ideas in of somestructure areas of the and city, concepts especially of decoration. the historic In areas. these The new new typologies, Malik library the use and of museum overt patterning (Figure 21) inin one structural of the historical systems dist blursricts the of Tehran, line between for example, what is is structural one of the andstudied what samples is decorative, whose facadeand was results designed in a in third total type, accordance deep decoration—decoration with the principles of a that traditional is both belowarchitectural and on style the calledsurface, Isfahan. and creates new spatial effects (Rappaport 2006).

(a) (b)

Figure 21. TheThe new new Malik Malik library library and and museum museum building building by by the the design design office ofﬁce of Astan of Astan Ghods Ghods Razavi Razavi (a); (thea); new the new Malik Malik library library and andmuseum museum building building by the by design the design office ofﬁce of Astan of Astan Ghods Ghods Razavi Razavi (b). (b).

2. Mediator Factors However, modernization and its subsequent processes, such as rationalization and industrialization,  Building program. Studies reveal that the diminishing number of skillful artisans after could also be considered some of the main underlying causes that influenced ornament life in Iranian the advent of the industrialization process in Iran, and the limitation of available project contemporary architecture. Starting in Europe around the mid-18th century, modernization required funding and time, are among the main reasons behind the absence of handmade the transformation of the community to society through the individualization and suppression of ornaments in a considerable number of contemporary constructions. collective practices and beliefs: “in this process everything which falls outside the framework of formal rationality and“Building hinders use” the is rationalization also found to be project influential is eliminated: in architectural anything expression. sensuous, Results non-rational, indicate non-quantifiablethat andtraditional unpredictable” types of ( Engels-Schwartspaulornament (such as arabesque 2001, p. 198). and muqarnas style, etc.) are Modernizationmostly used also in weakened religious collectiveand governmental memories buildings, and their while byproducts, in functional such and as ornaments, industrial by interveningbuildings in the gradual such as processhealthcare of their and service development. centers Thisand factories, is because “design” the fast-paced and “Detail” growth are of the cities andthe their main infrastructure agents of aesthetic required affect. more accelerated methods of construction and production, which stood inTastes total and contrast Desires to. Clients traditional have ones. a considerable impact on the direction of the architectural In the processdesign of process ornament and marginalization, the quality of the their role fina of rationalizationl products. In was fact, also they crucial. may It direct promoted the a dualistic modelcreation of of thought either significant that prioritized or worthless rationality, buildings “scientific through knowledge” the type of and designer “discursive they reasoning” overhire, emotion, their level and of “common-sense intervention in knowledge”, the process “non-discursive of design, and reasoning” the proper and or disdainedarbitrary ornament asimplementation something, related of the to theproject latters. (in cases In this wher way,e they it paved are the the construction way for the moresuperintendent extensive suppression ofas ornamentalwell). Accordingly, practices thatsome were experts conducted attributed later bythe the existent modern chaos movement in Iranian in architecture market- (Engels-Schwartspauloriented 2001constructions). of recent decades to the unprecedented authorization given Modernismthrough pioneers postmodernism used several theories strategies to clients to eliminate who mostly ornaments lack good from contemporaryaesthetic and architecturalarchitectural discussions taste. and practices.However, this However, is not the that case which in our guaranteed study, as themost survival of our samples of their anti-ornamentwere beliefs designed is “naming”. by leading According architects to Featherstone, that have a high “naming” level of is anarchitectural important knowledge strategy on the part of groupsand sufficient engaged authority in struggles to withpursue other their groups. ideas. BasedIn this onregard, this method, the prevalence modernists of detail ascribed and several flawsdesign such as as deception,the major agents (moral of and visual cultural) expression, decadence, and the disutility, weak presence wastefulness, of symbolic recession, and and lack of spontaneityapplied ornaments to ornament in their (Ahani designs, and Etessamcould be 2016 interpreted). These areas signs arguments of the thatpopularity still make of designers staymodernism away from among ornamental Iranian practices architects, as a formand the of self-control. influence of other context-related and Followingmediator such a modelfactors, of as thought, discussed Iranian earlier. architecture schools whose education systems were influenced by Western doctrines for 50 years still rely on a gesture of certainty and objectivity that acknowledges only rational-based knowledge. Engels-Schwartspaul(2001) argued that this is “particularly problematic in fields that deal intrinsically with non-verbal, non-rational subject matter, such as design”. According to Alexander(1964, p. 99), “efforts to organize design knowledge in rationalized and systematic verbal concepts can lead to rigidity and abstraction, subsequently Arts 2018, 7, 1 17 of 18 impairing the ability of designers to see beyond them”. Unfortunately, no major measures were taken by the Iranian Ministry of Higher Education to rectify this approach. Only four credits out of the 154 required for a bachelor’s degree in architecture are devoted to courses that address ornament. However, ornaments, as discussed earlier, are essential parts of architecture that perform very important tasks. They increase the visual coherence of the environment, and strengthen the architectural bonding with society by fulfilling the human sense of order and desire for beauty. They educate people about the history, values, and dominant beliefs of their society, and add several layers of meaning to buildings, which helps them sustain their appeal for the viewers beyond the initial discovery. In this regard, the present paper suggests some reforms with regard to the architectural profession and education in Iran, which are expected to result in the revitalization of ornament status in contemporary practice. Firstly, the dualistic and arborescent model of thought, which are still dominant in Iranian architecture schools and popular among leading architects, should be replaced with a new rhizomatic model that provides an opportunity for the coexistence of concepts such as ornament and structure, form and function, and the sensuous and the rational. This new model of thought would value common-sense knowledge that takes into account people’s desires and architecture students’ interest in artistic practices, while also appreciating scientific knowledge, discursive reasoning, and professionalization. Moreover, some amendments in architecture syllabi at the undergraduate level are suggested. These include increasing the number of courses dedicated to the subject of ornament and attaching an addition to the existing syllabus to highlight the necessity of addressing the ignored aspects of ornamental practices, including their implementation methods and the reasons behind their decline in the recent practices of Iranian architects, etc. Lastly, we suggest a revision in some of the policies of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development of Iran, including those which necessitate the application of Islamic ornamental patterns to building facades, especially governmental ones, as a way to reinforce the Islamic identity of Iranian cities. We believe that such measures, while not problematic per se, have mostly led to the unthoughtful and superficial use of ornaments and decorations, due to the absence of appropriate supervision by responsible organizations such as municipalities.

Acknowledgments: we are extremely thankful to Azadeh Shahcheraghi for her inspiring guidance. Author Contributions: F.A. wrote the paper, performed experiments and data collection, and did data analysis and interpretations. I.E. was the principal investigator, provided assistance in data analysis and interpretation. F.A. and I.E. provided revisions to the scientific content of the manuscript. S.G.I. provided assistance in developing the preliminary ideas of the study, provided stylistic/grammatical revisions to the manuscript (second round), and monitored the progress of F.A.’s Ph.D. thesis, carried out at Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch in Tehran. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Abercrombie, Stanley. 1990. A Philosophy of Interior Design. New York: Harper & Row. Ahani, Fatemeh, and Iraj Etessam. 2016. Directions and Intellectual Bases of Ornament Criticism in Modern Architectural Literature. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities 8: 298. Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Joaquim Romaguera i Ramió, Max Jacobson, and Ingrid Fiksdahl-King. 1977. A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. Alexander, Christpher. 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bani Masoud, Amir. 2002. Contemporary Architecture of Iran. Tehran: Nashre Honare Memarie Gharn. Bloomer, Kent C., and John Krestem Jespersen. 2002. Ornament as Distinct from Decoration. Available online: http://ornament-scholar.blogspot.com/2014/02/ornament-as-distinct-from-decoration_5274.html (accessed on 6 March 2016). Bordeleau, Anne. 2016. Charles Robert Cockerell, Architect in Time: Reﬂections Around Anachronistic Drawings. London and New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis group). Arts 2018, 7, 1 18 of 18

Brolin, Brent C. 1985. Flight of Fancy: The Banishment and Return of Ornament. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Carlson-Redding, Kelly. 1996. detail, Detail, Ornament, and decoration: A Taxonomy. In 84th ACSA Annual Meeting: Theory and Criticism. Washington: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Engels-Schwartspaul, Anna Christina. 2001. Myth, Symbol, Ornament: The Loss of Meaning in Transition. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Farrell, Gavin R. 2005. Ornament: Semantics and Tectonics in Contemporary Urban Architecture. Master’s Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Focillon, Henri. 1948. The Life of Forms in Art. New York: Schults Wittenborn. Ghobadian, Vahid. 2013. Theories and Styles in Contemporary Architecture of Iran. Tehran: Elm e Memar. Gombrich, Ernst Hans. 1979. The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. London: Phaidon. Grabar, Oleg. 1992. The Mediation of Ornament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Habib, Farah, Iraj Etesam, S. Hadi Ghoddusifar, and Nahid Mohajeri. 2012. Correspondence Analysis: A New Method for Analyzing Qualitative Data in Architecture. In Digital Fabrication. Edited by Kim Williams. Basel: Springer. Hejazi, Mehrdad, and Fatemeh Mehdizadeh Seraj. 2014. the Relation of Meaning, Beauty, Shape and Structure in Islamic Architecture. Researches in Islamic Architecture 2: 7–22. Khorashahi, Fariba. 2013. A Revetment. Master of Architecture, Waterloo, ON, Canada. Marks, Laura. 2007. The Haptic Transfer and the Travels of the Abstract Line: Embodied perception from classical Islam to modern Europe. In Verkoerperungen/Embodiment. Edited by Christina Lammer, Catherin Pilcher and Kim Sawchuk. Vienna: Löcker Verlag. Mitrache, Anca. 2012. Ornamental Art and Architectural Decoration. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 51: 567–72. [CrossRef] Pirnia, Mohammad Karim. 2008. Study on Styles of Irnian Architecture. Edited by G. H. Memarian. Tehran: Soroush Publications. Rappaport, Nina. 2006. deep decoration. 30/60/90 Architectural Journal 10: 95–105. Riegl, Alois. 1992. Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of Ornament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Original Edition, 1893. Ruskin, John. 1849. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. New York: J. Wiley. Sa˘glam,Hakan. 2014. Re-thinking the Concept of “Ornament” in Architectural Design. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 122: 126–33. [CrossRef] Salingaros, Nikos A. 1999. Architecture, Patterns, and Mathematics. Nexus Network Journal 1: 75–86. [CrossRef] Salingaros, Nikos A. 2000. The Structure of Pattern Languages. Architectural Research Quarterly 4: 149–61. [CrossRef] Semper, Gottfri. 2010. On the formal principles of adornment and its meaning as a symbol in art (second section). RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics. Trilling, James. 2003. Ornament: A Modern Perspective. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Vitruvius. 1960. The Ten Books On Architecture. Translated by Morris Hicky Morgan. New York: Dover Publications.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).