Mimari Estetik Değerlendirme ve Kapsayıcı Sanal Gerçeklik

Abstract

Doğası gereği yapılı çevre insanları kendi üç boyutlu boşluğuna sokar ve bu nedenle onlara özel ve üç boyutlu estetik deneyimler sağlar. Bu deneyimler, bilinen görsel sanat eserlerini deneyimlemekten farklıdır. İki boyutlu analog mimari sunumlar, mimari mekan hakkında bu tür deneyimler sağlayamaz. Bu deneyimler, üç boyutlu olmamasından ötürü, mimari boşluğu bilgisayar ekranı aracılığı ile sunan Sanal Gerçeklik (VR) ile de elde edilemez. Üç boyutlu sanal gerçeklik (IVR), izleyiciyi dış dünyadan ayıran ve onu sanal ekrana çeken CAVE ve Başa Takılan Ekran (HMD) gibi özel yazılım ve donanımlar, üç boyutlu ortam deneyimi sağlamanın bir yolu olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Özellikle mimari tasarımda yeni tasarlanacak projeleri araştırmak için kullanılmıştır. Mevcut binaları keşfetmek için IVR kullanımı çok yaygın değildir. İnşa edilmiş ve inşa edilmemiş mimari projelerin estetik niteliklerini değerlendirmede IVR'nin kullanımı ise nadiren yaygındır. Mimari eğitimde IVR kullanımı, hem öğrencilere bina ve tasarım çalışmaları için üç boyutlu deneyimler sunmak üzere yaygın değildir hem de öğrenciler tarafından çalışmalarını stüdyolarda sunmak için kullanılmaz. Bu araştırma, mimari estetiğin değerlendirilmesinde IVR'nin kullanımını inceleyen birkaç örnekten biridir. Bu çalışmada Bahreyn Üniversitesi Mimarlık ve İç Mekan Tasarımı Bölümü'nde gerçekleştirilen bir ders kapsamında bir grup kız öğrenciye, çevresel estetik üzerine IVR'yi tanıtan bir deney sunulmuştur. Öğrenciler, hem IVR hem de binanın fotoğraflarını kullanarak gerçek bir binanın mimari estetiğini karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Fotoğraflara kıyasla IVR'nin, öğrencilerin binanın mimari estetiği hakkındaki değerlendirmelerini önemli ölçüde geliştirdiği keşfedilmiştir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin IVR hakkında çok az bilgiye sahip oldukları ve IVR’yi etkin bir mimari eğitim aracı olarak kullanmaktan yana oldukları tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Mimari
• sanal gerçeklik
• sürükleyici
• estetik
• takdir
• katılım

Immersive Virtual Reality IVR, and The Appreciatıon of Architectural Aesthetics

Abstract

The built environment immerses people within its three-dimensional space and provides them with immersive aesthetic experiences. These experiences are different than experiencing normal artworks. Therefore, the two-dimensional paper architectural presentations cannot provide such experiences because they are non-immersive. Neither can these experiences be achieved by non-immersive Virtual Reality (VR) on computer screens. Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) has emerged as an experience of the three-dimensional environment using special software and hardware like CAVE and Headset Mounted Display (HMD). They cut the viewer from the outside world and immerse him in the virtual display. It has been used in architecture to explore newly designed projects. The use of IVR to explore the aesthetic qualities of architectural projects is less common. The use of IVR in architectural education is neither common for giving the students immersive experiences for the study of buildings and designs. This research is among the few examples to study the use of IVR in the evaluation of architectural aesthetics. It presents an experiment introduced IVR to architecture students as part of a course on environmental aesthetics. The students conducted a comparative appreciation for the architectural aesthetics of a real building using both its IVR and photograph prints. It was discovered that IVR significantly improved students’ appreciation of the architectural aesthetics of the building compared to the photographs. It was also discovered that students had little information about IVR and they were in favor of using it as an effective architectural education tool.

Keywords

• Architecture
• virtual reality
• immersive
• aesthetics
• appreciation
• engagement

References

1. Abdulhameed, W. (2013). Virtual Reality Use in Architectural Design Studios: A Case of Studying Structure and Construction. Procedia Computer Science (25), 220 – 230.
2. Achten, H. (2022). A concise history of vr/ar in architecture. İn Eloy, S., Kreutzberg, A., & Symeonidou, I. Eds. (2022). Virtual aesthetics in architecture. New York, Routledge, 3-9.
3. Aitamurt T., Boin, J., Chen, K., Cherif, A., & Shridhar, S. (2018). The Impact of Augmented Reality on Art Engagement: Liking, Impression of Learning, and Distraction. In J. Y. C. Chen & G. Fragomeni (Eds.): VAMR 2018, LNCS 10910, pp. 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91584-5_13.
4. Antomarini, B. & Berg, A. Eds. (2013). Aesthetics in Present Future: The Arts and the Technological Horizon. Maryland, Lexington Books.
5. Aydin, S. & Aktaş, B. (2020). Developing an Integrated VR Infrastructure in Architectural Design Education. Frontier Robotics and AI, 22 October 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.495468.
6. Bartlem, Edwina (2005). Reshaping Spectatorship: Immersive and Distributed Aesthetics. Fibreculture Journal: Distributed Aesthetics, 7.
7. Bates, J. (1992). Virtual Reality, art and entertainment. Presence: Tele operators & Virtual Environments, 1, 133-138.
8. Berleant, A. & Carlson, A. (2007). The Aesthetics of Human Environments. Toronto, Broadview Press.

9. Berleant, Arnold (2013). Aesthetic Engagement. Contemporary Aesthetics, (11), 2. www.contempaesthetics.org.
10. Bowman, D. A. & McMahan R. P. (2007). Virtual Reality: How Much Immersion Is Enough? Computer, vol. 40 (7) 36-43. Doi: 10.1109/MC.2007.257.
11. Bruder, G., Steinicke, F., & Hinrichs K. H. (2009). Arch-Explore: A Natural User Interface for Immersive Architectural Walkthroughs. Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), 75–82.
12. Chen J. & Fragomeni, G., Eds (2018). Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality Applications in Health, Cultural Heritage, and Industry. 10th International Conference, VAMR 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15–20, 2018.
13. Dieck, M., Jung, T., & Loureiro, S., eds. (2021). Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. Switzerland, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Progress in IS.
14. Eloy, S., Kreutzberg, A., & Symeonidou, I. Eds. (2022). Virtual aesthetics in architecture. New York, Routledge.
15. Grazuleviciute-Vileniske I., Viliunas G. & Daugelaite A. (2021). The role of aesthetics in building sustainability assessment. SPATIUM, 45, 79-89. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT2145079G.
16. Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflicting Interpretations of Architecture: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(02), 75-92.
17. Jennatha, A., & Nidhish, P. (2016). Aesthetic Judgement and Visual Impact of Architectural Forms: A Study of Library Buildings. Procedia Technology, (24) 1808 – 1818.
18. Kim, B. (2016). Virtual Reality as an Artistic Medium: A Study on Creative Projects Using Contemporary Head-Mounted Displays. MA Dissertation, Aalto University, Media.
19. Kim, J. & Kim, S. (2019). Finding the Optimal D/H Ratio for an Enclosed Urban Square: Testing an Urban Design Principle Using Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation Techniques. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,16(865), Doi:10.3390/ijerph16050865.
20. Kinzler, H., Zolotareva D., & Tadauchi R. (2022). Cybernetic aesthetics. İn Eloy, S., Kreutzberg, A., & Symeonidou, I. Eds. (2022). Virtual aesthetics in architecture. New York, Routledge, 21-33.
21. Krinizki, K., Gisbergen, M., Rashnoodi, S., & Grinten, T. (2021). A Matter of Perception: Investigating the Effect of Virtual Reality on Spatial Understanding. In Dieck, M., Jung, T., & Loureiro, S., eds. (2021). Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. Switzerland, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Progress in IS. 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68086-2_21.
22. Kulczak-Dawkins, Richard. (2001). The Aesthetic Experience of Architecture - Debating the essentialist account of Roger Scruton. MA Thesis. University of London.
23. Machado S., Souza, A., & Moraes, R. (2004). A concept of low-cost virtual wall for virtual reality systems to educational purposes. World Congress on Engineering and Technology Education WCETE March 14 - 17, São Paulo, BRAZIL, 161-165.
24. Mohemed, A (2020). Sonic effects on the appreciation of architectural aesthetics of architectural design projects. The International Journal of Architectonic Spatial and Environmental Design, 14 (4), 21-29. DOI: 10.18848/2325-1662/cgp/v14i04/21-29.
25. Paes, D., Arantes, E., & Irizarry, J. (2017). Immersive environment for improving the understanding of architectural 3D models: Comparing user spatial perception between immersive and traditional virtual reality systems. Automation in Construction. 84. 292-303. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.016.
26. Popkonstantinovic, B.; Nikolic, I.; Perisic, A. & Kekeljevic, I. (2011). Fly-through Animation at the Faculty of Technical Sciences in Novi Sad. Facta Universitatis, series Architecture and Civil Engineering, 9,2, 277-287.
27. Schipper, D. & Holmes B. (2022). How architects are using immersive technology today, and projections for the future. İn Eloy, S., Kreutzberg, A., & Symeonidou, I. Eds. (2022). Virtual aesthetics in architecture. New York, Routledge, 34-50.
28. Seo, J. (2011). Aesthetics of Immersion in Interactive Immersive Installation: Phenomenological Case Study of Light Strings. MA Thesis. Seoul Women’s University.
29. Slater, Mel, Lotto, B., Arnold, M., & Sánchez-Vives, M. (2009). “How we experience immersive virtual environments: the concept of presence and its measurement”. Anuario de Psicología, 40, 2, 193-210.
30. Spence, C. (2020). Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind. Cogn. Research 5, 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00243-4.
31. Vinchu, G., Jirge, N. & Deshpande, A. (2017). Application of Aesthetics in Architecture and Design. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. 10 (1).
32. Whyte, Jennifer (2002). Virtual Reality and the Built Environment. Architectural Press. Oxford.