Date

2015-12-8

Author

Özbudak Akca, Y. Berivan
Erdoğan, Ebru
Akalın, Aysu

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

195
views

97
downloads

Cite This

This study discusses connotative meaning, which is a design input, and how it is understood by architects and laypersons. The study also examines layperson's value judgments and the factors that influence them. Studies of architects and laypersons have mainly attempted to acquire information from laypeople so that architects can use it to estimate their opinions. If architects know how connotative meanings affect laypersons, they can make better design decisions. For all these reasons, the author examined the opinions about connotative meanings between freshmen and seniors in the department of architecture and architects. The author also analyzed whether the architects comprehend the desires and likes of lay people. The primary hypothesis of the study is that architects and laypersons will make the same interpretations if the image overlaps the meaning. This study aims to find clues regarding shared opinions between designers and laypersons about connotative meanings. The experimental study in this paper mainly aims to determine which cognitive concepts are overlapped with which physical components by participants from the groups. Accordingly, the study aims to determine whether the meaning implied by the designer is recognized by laypeople, whether they comprehend it or not if they recognize it, whether they make the same interpretation as the designer and finally, whether they like it. Another aim of the study is to describe the extent to which laypeople differ among themselves and with architects. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the author identified the differences and similarities between the groups. Then buildings that overlapped the image and the meaning and data related to those images were collected. In the second phase, the author tried to find shared interpretations about overlapping images and meanings for the overlapping images and their data. The survey was done with the participation of four different groups: 40 freshmen in the department of architecture who were regarded as layperson, 40 seniors in the department of architecture, 40 academic architects and 8 independent judges. The author used 40 images to conduct the experimental study. The styles and functions of these images differ, and they were selected based on whether they had the components in the architectural components list. The author used the Lens Model to access the physical components through cognitive features and also to demonstrate the differences and similarities between architects and non-architects. The author asked the three groups of participants about the cognitive features and asked the group of independent judges about the physical components. Each group's evaluations of general aesthetics regarding the images were correlated with five cognitive features (functional connotation, connotation of meaning, complexity, familiarity and getting impressed). Then, the Pearson Correlation, the two groups' degrees of participation, was calculated regarding 20 buildings based on their cognitive features. Finally, the author determined to what extent the two groups agreed with each other about the general aesthetics of the buildings. One of the study's findings indicates that there are common interpretations between the groups. This is very significant since it identifies a cognitive concept common to the two groups for the first time and identifies the physical components that generate this cognitive concept. In this respect, this study is a foundation for further national and international research in this area. Designers should be informed about users' perception and interpretation of the buildings they design. They also should do so in their professional education. It is important that students of architecture are given the chance to make designs in design studios and are trained to understand common people. This is an important issue since it will provide data regarding design inputs. If the curriculum of studio lessons is organized to focus on these points, future generations will be more conscious and sensitive to environmental issues, and they will also be able to do user-centered design.

Subject Keywords

Lens Modeli, Deneysel estetik, Çağrışımsal anlam, Karmaşıklık, Tanıdıklık, Etkilenme

URI

http://jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/archive/0258-5316/2015/cilt32/sayi_2/171-189.pdf
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/50737

Collections

Department of Architecture, Article