Learning By Improvising in Digital Design Era

Abstract

Charrette is an education method that originates in the 1800s at the École des Beaux-Arts and is still common in art and architecture schools. Charrettes involve short sketching sessions that are based on improvisation and bricolage. In the last few decades, charrettes have changed their meanings. They've been used as a brainstorming approach in the early phases of collaborative design to create agreement, determine the project vision, and get the design process started. This study presents the idea of a new type of Charrettes that blends computational design with early brainstorming features of newer Charrettes and the improvisational aspects of the older. Thus, it may foster spontaneity, creativity, experimentation, and production while serving as a tool for collaborative computational thinking, which is usually difficult to perform. The improvisations during Computational Charrettes state the priorities and intentions of collaborators in a short amount of time; therefore, they make the design process less time-consuming and allow for joint authorship. Improvisation is about attentiveness, real-time, and being in the moment, which is phenomenological notions. The pragmatic and experimental sense of improvisations combined with techné and technological context makes a post – phenomenological framework more viable. Our theory is that recreating the improvisational scene is only possible through understanding the post- phenomenological framework of spontaneous acts. This paper conceptualizes a theoretical framework for Computational Charrettes by examining improvisations' interpretive, pragmatic, and democratic aspects. Following this methodology, we linked the sub-concepts of the post-phenomenological framework to the brainstorming methods, which can help to hold a Computational Charrette. Improvisations merge with Dewey's teaching of “learning by doing.” We suggest Computational Charrettes can be part of basic design education studios by learning computational design through collaborative improvisations. Since interpretative, pragmatic, and democratic characteristics are closely related to education, we also included the educational components of Computational Charrettes during the post-phenomenological decomposition of improvisations.

Keywords

• Charrette
• Computation
• Collaborative Design
• Improvisation
• Design Education

Dijital Tasarım Çağında Doğaçlama Yaparak Öğrenmek

Abstract

Charrette, 1800'lü yıllara dayanan, halen sanat ve mimarlık okullarında yaygın olan bir eğitim yöntemidir. Doğaçlama ve brikolaj üzerine kurulu hızlı tempolu bir eskiz oturumudur. Charretteler son yıllarda farklı formlar alıp, daha farklı anlamlar ifade etmeye başladı. Yeni Charrette, çeşitli katılımcılar tarafından gerçekleştirilen, proje vizyonunu tanımlamak ve tasarım sürecini yüksek bir ivmeyle başlatmak için işbirlikli tasarımın ilk aşamalarında uygulanan bir Beyin Fırtınası metodudur. Bu çalışma, hesaplamalı tasarımı, yeni Charrettelerin tasarımın erken evresinde Beyin Fırtınası ve eski Charrettelerin doğaçlama yönleriyle harmanlayan Hesaplamalı Charretteleri sunmaktadır. Hesaplamalı Charretteler genellikle gerçekleştirilmesi zor olan işbirlikli hesaplamalı us yürütme için bir araç olarak hizmet ederken, spontaneliğe, yaratıcılığa, deneyselliğe ve üretkenliğe teşvik edebilir. Doğaçlamalar, düşünme ve yapma eyleminin bir arada yapılmasıyla gerçekleştiği için Dewey' in “yaparak öğrenme” öğretisiyle bağlantılıdır. Bu çalışmada “yaparak öğrenme” ve hesaplamalı tasarımın bir araya gelebileceği Hesaplamalı Charrettelerin temel tasarım eğitimi stüdyolarının bir parçası olabileceğini öneriyoruz. Doğaçlamalar, anda ve performans içinde gerçekleştiği için fenomenolojik kuram ile yakından ilişkilidir. Hesaplamalı Charretteler, pragmatik ve deneysel yapısıyla beraber techné ve teknoloji ile ilişkilendiğinden dolayı post-fenomenolojik bir kuram üzerinden Hesaplamalı Charretteleri tartışmak daha doğrudur. Teorimize göre, Hesaplamalı Charrette ortamını dijital ortamda etkin bir şekilde tasarlayabilmek ve gerçekleştirebilmek için doğaçlamaların post-fenomenolojik yapısını incelemek gerekir. Bu araştırma, doğaçlamaların post-fenomenolojik çerçevesi üzerinden, doğaçlama ve Beyin Fırtınası temelli Charretteleri hesaplamalı tasarımla bir araya getirebilecek ortam için kuramsal bir çerçeve çizmeyi ve bu kuramsal çerçevede Hesaplamalı Charrettelerin temel tasarım eğitimine katkılarını incelemeyi hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• Charrette
• Hesaplama
• İşbirlikli Tasarım
• Tasarım Eğitimi
• Doğaçlama

References

1. Barrett, F. J. (1998). Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organizations: Implications for Organizational Learning. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.605
2. Barrett, F. J., Huffaker, J., Fisher, C. M., & Burgaud, D. (2018). Improvisation and transformation: Yes to the mess. In Handbook of Personal and Organizational Transformation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66893-2_6
3. Benson, B. E. (2003). The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue: A Phenomenology of Music. Cambridge University Press.
4. Biuso, J. (1997), Italian Cooking, Newport Beach: C.J. Publishing.
5. Börekci, N. A. G. Z. (2016). Visual Thinking Styles and Idea Generation Strategies Employed in Visual Brainstorming Sessions. DRS2016: Future-Focused Thinking. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.147
6. Cleland, C. E. (2001). Recipes, algorithms, and programs. Minds and Machines. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011251504223
7. Colburn, T. R. (1999). Software, Abstraction, and Ontology. Monist. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19998215
8. Corsini, L., & Moultrie, J. (2018). A review of making in the context of digital fabrication tools. Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0242

9. Cross, N. (1997). Descriptive models of creative design: Application to an example. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00010-0
10. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and Repetition. In Columbia Univ Press. Dennis, A. R., & Williams, M. L. (2010). Electronic Brainstorming: Theory, Research, and Future Directions. In Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.003.0008
11. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. La Salle: Open Court.
12. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and Education, Free Press, New York.
13. DILLON, J. T. (1982). Problem Finding and Solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00326.x
14. El-Zanfaly, D. (2015). [I3] Imitation, Iteration and Improvisation: Embodied interaction in making and learning. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.09.002
15. Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/256377
16. Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(96)01054-4
17. Goldscmidt, G. (1988). Interpretation: its role in architectural designing. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(88)90009-9
18. Gürer, E., & Küçükersen, F. (2020). Performing a New Agenda for a First-Year Interior Architecture Studio. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7254-2.ch011
19. Gürer, E., Özkar, M., & Çağdaş, G. (2015). A hermeneutical sketch of design computation. Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2015.1.9
20. Gürer, E., Özkar, M., & Çaǧdaş, G. (2014). The role of interpretation in basic design. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture.
21. Kelly, N., & Gero, J. S. (2021). Design thinking and computational thinking: A dual process model for addressing design problems. Design Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2021.7
22. Korde, R., & Paulus, P. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.002
23. Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Bianchi, G., & De Paiva, V. T. (2010). Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9102-z
24. Larson, S. (2005). Composition versus improvisation? In Journal of Music Theory. https://doi.org/10.1215/00222909-008
25. Lennertz, B., & Lutzenhiser, A. (2017). The charrette handbook. In The Charrette Handbook. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351179263
26. Negroponte, N. (2021). Soft Architecture Machines. In Soft Architecture Machines. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6317.001.0001
27. Öksüz, E. B., & Çağdaş, G. (2020). An assessment method for a designerly way of computational thinking. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2020.86729
28. Özkar, M. (2007). Learning by doing in the age of design computation. Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures, CAADFutures 2007 - Proceedings of the 12th International CAADFutures Conference. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6528-6_8
29. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Osman, A., & Cuellar, E., & Chiem, A. T., & Bethel, C., & Lutz, B. D. (2021), Investigating Student Perceptions of Team-based Brainstorming During Conceptual Design: Challenges and Recommendations Paper presented at 2021 ASEE Pacific Southwest Conference - "Pushing Past Pandemic Pedagogy: Learning from Disruption", Virtual. https://peer.asee.org/38238
30. Peters , G. (2018). Improvising Improvisation: From Out of Philosophy, Music, Dance, and Literature.Transposition.
31. Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00023-3
32. Roggema, R. (2014). The Design Charrette. In The Design Charrette. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7031-7_2
33. Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the Creative Process: Dewey, Collingwood, and the Aesthetics of Spontaneity. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. https://doi.org/10.2307/432094
34. Stiny, G. (2006). Shape: talking about seeing and doing. The MIT Press.
35. Temple, S. (2020). The Threshold of Abstraction in Beginning Design Pedagogy. Journal of Design Studio. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.820784
36. Willis, D. (2010). Are charrettes old school? In Harvard Design Magazine.
37. Zenk, L., Hynek, N., Schreder, G., & Bottaro, G. (2022). Toward a system model of improvisation. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100993