PUBLIC'S JUDGMENT ON CONTEMPORARY MOSQUE DESIGN APPROACHES

Abstract

his study focuses on the judgments of high-school students (N=100) who follow a religion-based program in Aydın, Turkey. Participants judged 4 contemporary mosque design approaches.  Scores were collected via questionnaire.  General like-dislike responses was the dependent variable of the study whereas differentness, exterior, interior, suitability for praying, invitingness and style characteristics of mosques were the independents.  According to results, the mosques imitating historical figures were the least liked whereas the ones interpreting these figures received the highest appreciation from young Turkish participants.  Furthermore, different characteristics were effective in participants’ judgments for different mosque design approaches.  The study is considered to be important as it proposes a methodology for diagnosing public opinion on mosques and underlines the potentials of interpretational, prism-shaped and free-shaped approaches in mosque design in Turkey rather than the ongoing imitational practice. 

Keywords

• Mosque design
• contemporary architecture
• user response
• aesthetic appraisal

References

1. Erzen, J., 2011, “Reading Mosques: Meaning and Architecture in Islam”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 69, 125-131
2. Serageldin I., 1990, “Contemporary Expressions of Islam In Buildings: The Religious and The Secular”, Expressions of Islam in Buildings, Aga Khan Publication, 11-47
3. Verkaaik O., 2012, “Designing the ‘Anti-mosque’: Identity, religion and Affect in Contemporary European Mosque Design”, Social Anthropology, 20(2), 161-176
4. Taib, MZM, Rasdi, MT., 2012, “Islamic Architecture Evolution: Perception and Behavior”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 293-303
5. Kuban D., 1967, “20.yy’ın İkinci Yarısında 16.yy. Stilinde Cami Yaptırmayı Düşünenlere”, Mimarlık, 47, p.7
6. Gürsoy, E., 2013, “Unprincipled Approach” in the Contemporary Mosque Architecture”, SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Journal of Social Sciences, 28, 239- 253
7. Eyüpgiller K.K., 2006, “Türkiye’de 20.yy. Cami Mimarisi”, Mimarlık, 331, pp.20-27
8. Al-Araby, KMG., 1998, Architecture of the Contemporary Mosque, Ismail Serageldin and James Steel, Editors, Digest of Middle East Studies, 7(4), 38-42 [9] e-architect, 2014, Mosque Architecture: Islamic Buildings. Major Religious Architectural Projects from Around the World, http://www.e-architect.co.uk/mosque- buildings, Accessed: 02.07.2014

9. Serageldin I., Steele, J., 1998, “The Architecture of the Contemporary Mosque: New Architecture”, Academy Editions, London, 16-19
10. Jahic, E., 2008, “Stylistic Expressions in the 20th Century Mosque Architecture”, Prostor, 16, 1-21
11. Gifford R., Hine DW., Muller-Clemm W., Reynolds D. and Shaw K., 2000, “Decoding Modern Architecture, A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Differences of Architects and Laypersons”, Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163-187
12. Brown G. and Gifford R., 2001, “Architects Predict Lay Evaluations of Large Contemporary Buildings: Whose Conceptual Properties”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 93-99
13. Fawcett W., Ellingham I. and Platt S., 2008, “Reconciling the Architectural Preferences of Architects and the Public”, Environment and Behavior, 40(5), 599- 618
14. Purcell AT., Peron E. and Sanchez C., 1998, “Subcultural and Cross-cultural Effects on the Experience of Detached Houses, An Examination of Two Models of Affective Experience of the Environment”, Environment and Behavior, 30(3), 348-377
15. Hershberger, RG., 1969, “A Study of Meaning and Architecture”, In H.Sanoff & S.Cohen Eds., EDRA 1 Radleigh, North Caroline State University, 86-100
16. Wilson MA, Canter D., 1990, “The Development of Professional
17. International Review, 39, 431-455 Applied Psychology:
18. An Wilson, MA, 1996, “The Socialization of Architectural Preference”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 33-44
19. Nasar, JL., 1989, “Symbolic Meaning of House Styles”, Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 235-257
20. Sadalla, EK, Verschure B, Burroughs J., 1987, “Identity Symbolism in Housing”, Environment and Behavior, 19, 569-587
21. Nasar JL, Kang, J., 1989, “Symbolic Meanings of Building Style in Small Suburban Offices”, G.Hardy (Ed), Changing Paradigms: Proceedings of EDRA 20, 165-172
22. Nasar JL, 2002, “What Design for a Presidential Library? Complexity, Typicality, Order and Historical Significance”, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20(1), 83-99 [23] Nasar JL., 2001, “Planning the Appearance of the New York Times New Corporate Headquarters Building”, Association of the Collegiate Schools of Architecture Conference, Cleveland, OH
23. Nasar, JL, Stamps AE, Hanyu K., 2005, “Form and Function in Public Buildings”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 159-165