BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION PARAMETERS IN TURKEY

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 4, 31 - 46, 24.03.2015

Çiğdem Çetinkaya

https://doi.org/10.20304/husbd.29904

Cited By: 1

Öz

ness must be reduced into as much concreteness as possible to allow it to be controlled and dealt with. Many disciplines, under which design education is received, put effort into managing the process properly and improving it. Among many design disciplines interior architecture has been taking its place in educational institutions recent year at an increasing pace-especially the foundation universities of Turkey are providing an education with their quotas fulfilled intensively. Interior architecture education program aims to train individuals with the ability of creating innovative, dynamic, and original designs capable of more functional, wiser and aesthetical solutions for interior spaces. Began to blossom in the 19th century, the education was adopted as a teaching program in the 20thcentury thanks to the Bauhaus philosophy. The goal of the interior architecture design is not only to provide students with information but also teach them how to get to knowledge and how they can develop themselves. Among the primary goals of the design education are to make students begin to embrace such an understanding in their first year of education and to take advantage of the educational process to the highest possible extent. What is expected at the end of this one year educational process is to have had a beneficial design process rather than a good quality of product. Although this design education in the first year is named differently under various faculties, it is generally called “basic design education”. Basic design course given in the basic design education intends to increase the readiness level of students up to a certain point, help them recognize their personal traits, and oversee their judgements and get rid of their prejudices (Seylan, 2005). 1. The Goals of Basic Design Education and the Relation with Bauhaus Philosophy The basic design education is something more than a primarily art education. Because of this, from the first day on it is a tool for students to develop a base for understanding art first and creating artistic products. Here the goal is to make connections on the surface or in the space, between the ingredients – the material - and the thoughts and feelings by means of theories based on general perception (rhythm, direction, ratio, balance, etc.) (Gökaydın, 2002). Basic design education ought to be evaluated as an experimental process. The goal of the process is to gain the ability to reflect the products of perception and thought. Thus the more experiments-studies, the more and better the perceptions and expressions will be. The success to be gained here is parallel to the theoretical aesthetics education the student receives. Basic design education is the first step of the design education for design disciplines. The philosophy of education here needs a system which will define the theoretical and practical phases of the education. This system must be simple and have a perception oriented formula. The first school on art has founded in France in 1671 with the name of French Kingdom Academy. After the closure of this school in 1793, Ecole Des Beaux Arts has opened. Mentor system is valuable for this education program. Two dimensional and symmetric design approach is dominant. Also, it is known that studio system is planned to enhance communication between instructor and student. As a response to Beaux Arts, Bauhaus is revealed in Germany in 1919. Different from Beaux Arts, students are far from all the conditionings; creativeness, imagination and individual expression opportunity are supported by instructors (Ketizmen, 2002). Since the first half of 20th century, Gestalt theory took a part in design education and changed especially basic design education. In this theory perception is fundamental issue. Therefore, pureness and easiness is a must for perception in one of the rules of Gestalt called Pragnanz rule. With the help of Gestaltian approach, basic design education had to transform into intelligable and inclusive form. Cognitive processes are valuable than behavioral processes. Especially after the second world war, a different view reveals stating that designers must take a part in social and economical issues much more than in past. And a new education program Ulm, has founded in 1947 in Germany. Beaux Arts is a role model for this new program (Özalp, 2006). As seen, different education programmes are come up till today. Among these programmes, in Bauhaus, basic design is firstly accepted as a course in design education program. Besides being the birth of interior architecture education, Bauhaus is the period when the basic design creed/teaching was discovered. According to this teaching, all design based disciplines (industrial design, architecture, interior architecture, sculpting, painting, etc.) need a thorough educational experience in “basic design concepts-their relations” both theoretically and practically. For Bauhaus, calling for an inter occupational study, these experiences should be accumulated in a common pool belonging the all of the disciplines. Aiming to receive education in design and stepping on to the basic design studio, the student faces a different kind of education system when compared with the previous terms. Previously, in a theoretical education system the students learned the information through memorising. This information whose truthiness was not questioned by the students could later involve in the process of design either positively or negatively. According to the teachings of Bauhaus, preconceived opinions feature a resistance against the new and different while according to the positivist approaches originated in later years conventions and knowledge over years shed light on design and constitute a creative design foresight (Ertek, 1999). Both of these approaches have some point. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that basic design education is, in a sense, the pre-school of the design education. In this school, students ought to be taught that they must realize themselves, they have ideas, and these ideas can be supported by others as well as they might be objected. The main purpose is provide them with an education system appropriate for their own skills, and in which they can stand out, as Denel states it all by saying “after we base our education system on a principle that gives credit to obedient persons whom can be developed in a multi-faceted way and destroys those resisting, not literally but their ideas, we try to reteach the troubled ones what we have been unteaching for years.” Another goal of this education is to maintain it as workshop training in studios. In this way, the student will think more creatively and productively, will be able to come up with alternatives, and will be provided with an infrastructure in order for him to develop a different system of thinking. By means of workshops that are organised for a defined time in studios, students can scan sources about the subject, can make observation, can make new collaborations in groups. These groups can be conducted with small or large groups depending on the context and process of the workshop. In small group workshops, each member take in charge more, and the group can be controlled easily. Conversely, workshop groups which are broad in subject, groups have more members and if it is possible to work effectively, can have result with much more alternative and improved projects. Besides short-time workshops, studio places must be designed in proper way for increasing students’ productivity and relaxing for whole of the semester. Therefore, any wall or boundry in non- pysical way should not be placed between students and teachers, they must have a strong communication for any moment in studio time

BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION PARAMETERS IN TURKEY

Öz

Tasarım, varolan problemin getirdiği sınırlılıklar içinde ve belirli hedefler doğrultusunda, zihinde oluşturulan birtakım resimlerin somut ve özgün birer ürüne dönüşme sürecindeki denemelerdir. Bu keşif ve deneylerin başarılı bir sonuca varabilmesi için tasarımcının önceki deneyimlerinden ve bilgisinden yararlanması gerekmektedir. Bunun ilk şartı ise, tasarımcının tasarım eğitimi veren kurumlarda- üniversitelerin ilgili bölümlerinde- görsel ve işlevsel estetik, teknik yeterlilik, ergonomi, üretim vb. konularda o günün gerekliliklerini karşılayabilecek ölçüde yetişmesidir. Eğitimini tamamlayan öğrenci, eğitimi sırasında edindiği bilgiler ile birlikte profesyonel hayatında tasarımlarını ahlaki ve etik kurallara uygun bir biçimde hayata geçirecektir. Kendi iç dünyasını, farklı bağlamlarda biçimlere dönüştürecektir. Ayrıca; tasarım eğitimi, bireylerin gelişmekte olan dünyada düşünmesi, tanımlaması, ilişkilendirmeler yapabilmesi, bilgi ve becerilerini kullanıp uygulayabilmesi, değişmekte olan bir ortamda çalışabilmesi açısından zorunludur. Tasarım eğitiminin ilk basamağı olan temel tasarım eğitimi, tasarım eğitiminin kalitesini belirleme noktasında önemli görülmektedir. Bu çalışma kapsamında öncelikle, tasarım kavramı ve süreci tanımlanacaktır. Ardından, tasarım eğitiminin ilk yılında öğrencilere verilen “temel tasarım eğitimi”; amacı, süreç içinde eğitimin veriliş biçimindeki değişimler ve iletişimin bu eğitimdeki rolü başlıklarıyla ayrıntılı olarak incelenecektir. Temel tasarım eğitiminin kalitesinin arttırılması için yapılabilecekler arasında kavramın rolü, kavramsal öğretide kullanılabilecek metotlar, varolan yöntemlerle birlikte değerlendirilerek tartışmaya sunulacaktır. Temel tasarım eğitimiyle entegre edilecek kavramsal öğretinin tasarım eğitimine katkı ve etkileri sorgulanacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tasarım, Eğitim, Temel Tasarım, Kavram, Öğrenme Yöntemleri, Bauhaus

Kaynakça

• Akşehirli, S. (2007). “Çağdaş Metafor Teorisi”. Ege Edebiyat. Date of Access: 30th of August 2014, www.ege-edebiyat.org/docs/257.doc.
• Alexander, M. (1972). Designing The Interior Environments. New York:
• Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Arıdağ, L. ve Uraz, T. (2006). Tasarım Diyaloğunda İmgeler ve Simgeler.
• İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(1), 57- 68. Balkan, E. (2005). Mimari Tasarımda Konsept. İstanbul: Bahçeşehir
• Üniversitesi Yayınları. Çetinkaya, Ç. (2010). Tasarım ve Kavram İlişkisinin İç Mimarlık Temel Tasarım
• Eğitimi Kapsamındaki Yeri: Farklı İki Üniversite Örneği Üzerinden Temel Tasarım Eğitimi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Denel, B. (1979). A Method for Basic Design. Ankara: METU Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınevi.
• Engelmann, S. (1969). Conceptual Learning. California: Dimensions Publishing Co.
• Gökaydın, N. (2002). Temel Sanat Eğitimi. İstanbul: MEB.
• Güngör, H. (1972). Temel Tasar. İstanbul: Çeltüt Yayınevi.
• Hacıhasanoğlu, O., Hacıhasanoğlu, I. ve Emer, Ö. (2003). Tasarım
• Stüdyosundaki Amaçlar. Ege Mimarlık, 3(47), 29-31. Kavaklı, M. and Gero, J.S. (n. d.). “Strategic Knowledge Differences between an Expert and a Novice Designer”. Pre-Proceedings of Human Behavior in Design. Date of Access: November 13th 2013, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.112.5705&rep=rep1& type=pdf.
• Ketizmen, G. (2002). Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosunun Biçimlenmesinde Yöntemsel ve Mekânsal Etkilerin İncelenmesi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Mimarlık Bölümü
• Mimarlık Stüdyosu Örneği. (Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Kurt, S. (2009). An Analytic Study on the Traditional Studio Environment and the Use of the Constructivist Studios in the Architectural Design
• Education. [Geleneksel Stüdyo Çevresi Üzerine Analitik Bir Çalışma ve Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde Konstrüktivist Stüdyonun Kullanımı]. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 401-408. Lackoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). The Metaphorical Structure of the Human
• Conceptual System.[İnsan Kavramsal Sisteminin Metaforik Cognitive Science, 4, 195-208. Liu, Y. T. (2006). New tectonics: a preliminary framework involving classis and digital thinking. R Oxman (Ed.). [A Special Issue on Digital Design]. Design Studies, 27 (3), 267-307.
• Oxman, R. (2003).Think-Maps: Teaching Design Thinking in Design Education
• [Düşünce Haritaları: Tasarım Eğitiminde Tasarımsal Düşünmeyi Öğretmek]. Design Studies, 25 (1), 63-91. Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models and medium. [Tasarım Eğitimbilimi İçin Bir
• Başkaldırış Dijital Mimari: Teori, Bilgi, Model Ve Ortam]. Design Studies, 29 (2), 99-120. Özalp, H. (2006). Uluslararası Entegresyon ve Akreditasyon Programları
• Kapsamında Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de İç Mimarlık Eğitimi. (Sanatta Yeterlik Tezi). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Potur Ayyıldız, A. (2007). Mimarlık Eğitimi Başlangıcında Bireyin İlgi
• Yetenek- Yaratıcılık Düzeyi İle Tasarım Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. (Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Saad, M. N. S. (2006). Digital Architecture Theoretical Study Of Digital Design
• Modelling. (Master Thesis). Egypt: Alexandria University Architecture Engineering. Sayın, T. (2007). Mimari Tasarım Anlayışına Bütüncül/ Metaforik Bir Yaklaşım.
• (Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul: Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Schön, D. and Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in
• Designing. [Görme Biçimleri ve Tasarımdaki Fonksiyonları]. Design Studies, 13(2), 135-156. Seylan, A. (2005). Temel Tasarım. Ankara: M-Kitap.
• Tepecik, A. Aypek Arslan A. ve Eyiol P. (2005). Sanayileşmede Sanatın Yeri ve Önemi [Bildiri]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sanatta Anadolu Aydınlanması Ulusal
• Sanat Sempozyumu Bildirileri, (02-05 June 2005). (pp.V41-47). Ankara: Kariyer Matbaacılık.
• Tunalı, İ. (2004). Tasarım Felsefesine Giriş. İstanbul: YEM Yayınevi.
• Ürük Birkan, F. (2008). Tasarım Yönetimi ve Tasarımdaki Yeri. (Yayınlanmış Sanatta Yeterlik Tezi). İstanbul: Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.