Prior to the many students who entered the field of architecture, architectural studies were defined and limited in scope. These studies, by their nature, were essentially theoretical pursues of the subject of architecture. But today, their significance is of a different order. The vast majority of these activities, given the immense volume of construction and the shortcomings therein, should focus on society and people's concerns, and address these issues with the power and leverage that knowledge of architecture provides. Of all the things that architects' organizations have dealt with, what has been most tangible and noteworthy has been the various award events.
The entire story of Memar magazine (Issue 15) was centered on this, on establishing a great award. And this event, from various angles, can serve as the beginning of a new chapter. Creating a meaningful structure on this scale would have been extremely difficult, but the formation of this award has brought together the essence and representation of architecture in Iran. Our magazine (Issue 17) will be devoted to a more thorough examination of the award from a different perspective.
Announcing the results, the way of informing and introducing the works, the capital investment for the ceremony and its establishment, along with the name and reputation of the architects and firms involved, all together should make this occasion the beginning of a new chapter in architecture. However, as we look at the activities carried out, it seems the award remains at the same level of other professional events, and the architectural community has reached a consensus that the problems are known, solutions have been found, and the matter has concluded.
In the teaching and research domain, in the realm of universities, activities are natural and ongoing. In training and education, an improvement and reform of perspectives seems unlikely. Competitions held so far have not fundamentally changed the state of architecture and urban design in the country. In the second half of the 1370s decade, one sees a repetition of experiences from the early decades after the revolution, a kind of return to square one.
In assessing the achievements and capabilities of those active in the field of contemporary Iranian architecture, most of their works and achievements stem from individual endeavors. A closer look will also reveal difficulties in the relationship between architecture, society, and its cultural context. There are deep-rooted barriers in the way of architectural knowledge, and our professional societies have not been particularly successful in strengthening their own position or expanding the role of architecture and the architect's standing. The training of architects has not changed substantially in essence, and architecture as a profession, the definition of which has been laid out in the curriculum of selected workshops in the country, remains abstract and removed from the realities of society, communicated in a language incomprehensible to the society at large. This is a product of a governing situation in which the patterns of behavior have been shaped in a specific way.
The work of architects must, with all the diversity of academic understanding and professional experience that they possess, take the realities of Iran into account. If this reality is not visible to the architect, the architect must be brought to the real world. At a time when the governing forces have changed, the dominant atmosphere of construction sites has changed, and the economic values of society have changed, it becomes clear that more than praise and admiration of architecture, a description of the role and function of the building and its physical capabilities needs to be taken into account. The fourth and fifth items of the award judgment criteria (civic function and urban presence), along with respect for context and environmental considerations, should be given greater weight.
For the organization of this great event and for finding the capacity and capability to continue the award process, the level of changes must begin from within. Alongside this, programs should also evolve: finding value in evaluation and advancing to higher levels of quality should happen at the same pace. The award jury, from the very beginning and after the award, accomplished a great deal. Their discernment in selecting architectural projects deserves high praise and respect.
However, beyond this, this great event needs a methodology whose direction and result are clear. The methodology should be presented publicly, discussed, critiqued, and if the award competition with all its vastness and complexity should be guided toward a specific direction and historical context — as indeed the realm and field of this competition and the basis on which their specifics were determined, each was a kind of selection in itself. If the competition, however vast, follows only one direction, its format and framework will become predictable. Architecture cannot grow through a single pathway, and architecture must be told that all kinds of styles are acceptable.
The effort that serves as the basis of this great award has the capacity to shape the future direction of Iranian architecture. Every truth and untruth in the knowledge of architecture will be reflected in the choices of the award jury. Architecture has meaning in the context of the power and capabilities of its creator, and opposition and competition within it is a profound movement.
Thinking of other independent articles, the analysis of the recent major event aims to identify what was found in the judgments of the great award and what was sought. A careful and deep look at this subject — which is discussed later in this issue — deserves to have the required authority and presence.