Concept and Scale Focus in Interior Design Education: An Adaptive Reuse Museum Project

Year 2022, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 652 - 673, 30.12.2022

Deniz Hasırcı , İdil Bakır Küçükkaya , Zeynep Edes , M. Haluk Tatari , Silvia Rolla , Müge Çalışkanelli , Gülçin Kabaçam

https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1170019

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This study concentrates on the value of the interior design profession and how a concept and scale approach can enable a holistic professional approach. The emphasis of the paper is on interior design education, particularly the second-year studio where the interior design process is learned. The adaptive reuse project building was in Çeşme, Turkey and designed as a museum for a chosen artist. The method involved understanding the design process as a whole, beginning from a larger scale that includes landscape, leading to the detailing scale. While the first semester emphasized abstract issues, the second semester focused on materialization of ideas into applicable decisions. The project process was divided into four stages within each semester. The resulting projects drawings and models represented advanced levels of knowledge regarding the stages and process of interior design, its components, as well as an understanding of larger and smaller scales inherently connected to the profession.

Keywords

Interior design education, adaptive reuse, design concept, scale, museum design

Supporting Institution

IZMIR UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS

Thanks

The authors would like to thank; Instructor Pamela McArthur Yalçuk from The School of Foreign Languages at Izmir University of Economics for final English certification, Mahir Kaplan and Burcu Kaplan from Umart Architecture and Restoration Office, historian Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şakir Çakmak, Lect. Thomas Keogh, Prof. Elvan Özkavruk Adanır, Asst. Prof. Dr. İpek Kaştaş Uzun, The Chamber of Interior Architects in Turkey, Ülkü İnceköse and Uğur Yıldırım from Artı 3 Mimarlık, Ecem Altınkılıç from Urla Arkas, the students mentioned in this paper (Cafer Denizhan Evşen, Osman Mert Tosun, Kuzey Türkel, Mert Şenol, Nazmiye Nazlı Tezel, Sude Aleyna Erem, Beyza Bektaş, Ruken Konyar), Studio student assistant Ezgi Yaren Atalar, and Izmir University of Economics for continuous support in the studio’s creative endeavors. The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Informed consent was given by the participant students and ethics committee approval was not required for the study.

İçmimarlık Eğitiminde Kavram ve Ölçek Odağı: Bir Yeniden İşlevlendirme Müze Projesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, içmimarlık mesleğinin değeri ve bir akademik yıl süresince kullanılan konsept ve ölçek yaklaşımının bütüncül bir profesyonel yaklaşımı sağlamasına odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmanın ana fikri, özellikle iç mekan tasarım sürecinin öğrenildiği ikinci yıl stüdyosu olmak üzere, içmimarlık eğitimi üzerinedir. Yeniden işlevlendirme proje binası Türkiye'de İzmir’in Çeşme ilçesinde bulunmaktadır ve seçilmiş bir sanatçı için müze olarak tasarlanmıştır. Yöntemde, peyzaj içeren en büyük ölçekten detay ölçeğine kadar tasarım sürecini bir bütün olarak anlamayı hedeflenmiştir. İlk dönem soyut konular vurgulanırken, ikinci dönem fikirlerin uygulanabilir kararlara dönüştürülmesine odaklanılmıştır. Proje süreci her dönem içinde dört aşamaya ayrılmıştır. Proje çizim ve maketleri, iç mekan tasarım aşamaları ve süreci, bileşenleri ve doğası gereği meslekle bağlantılı daha büyük ve küçük ölçeklerin anlaşılmasıyla ilgili ileri düzeyde bilgiyi yansıtmaktadır.

Keywords

İçmimarlık eğitimi, yeniden işlevlendirme, tasarım konsepti, ölçek, müze tasarımı

References

• Abercrombie, S. (1990). Philosophy of Interior Design. Oxford: Westview
• Ahmad, L., Sosa, M. & Musfy, K. (2020). "Interior design teaching methodology during the global COVID-19 pandemic" All Works. 2067.
• Afacan, Y. (2016). Exploring the effectiveness of blended learning in interior design education, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53:5, 508-518.
• Alawad, A. (2021). Evaluating online learning practice in the interior design studio. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 10.1111/jade.12365.
• Bhattacharjee, S. (2019). Using a hybrid pedagogical method in undergraduate interior design education. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, [S.l.], v. 24, n. 2, p. 93-109, july 2019.
• Broadfoot, O. & Bennett, R. (2003). Design studios: online? Comparing traditional face-to-face design studio education with modern internet-based design studios, Apple University Consortium Academic and Developers Conference Proceedings, s. 9-21.
• Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18–28.
• Deasy, C. M. & Laswell, T. E. (1985). Designing Places for People: A Handbook on Human Behavior for Architects, Designers and Facility Managers. Broadway, New York.
• Demirkan, H. & Hasirci, D. (2009). Hidden dimensions of creativity elements in design process. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2-3, 294-301.
• Demirkan, H. & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of the creativity factors in the first year design studio. Design Studies, 33, 262–278.
• Erdman, J. & Weddle, R. (2002). Designing/building/learning. Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), 174– 179.
• Finger, A. & Follett, D. (eds.) (2011). The Aesthetics of the Total Artwork: On Borders and Fragments, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Harwood, B. (2013). NCIDQ's Early history: important developments from 1970 to 1990, Journal of InteriorDesign,10.1111/joid.12006,38,2, (15-33).
• Harwood, B. (2008). An interior design experience program, Part II: Developing the Experiences, Journal of Interior Design, 10.1111/j.1939-1668.1996.tb00223.x, 22, 1, (15-31).
• Hasirci, D. & Demirkan, H. (2007). Understanding the effects of cognition in creative decision making: A creativity model for enhancing the design studio process. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 259–271.
• Hennessy, S. & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 9. 1-36. 10.1023/A:1008855526312.
• Iranmanesh, A. & Onur, Z. (2021). Mandatory virtual design studio for all: exploring the transformations of architectural education amidst the global pandemic. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 40. 10.1111/jade.12350.
• Kent, F. (2016). Placemaking: What if we built our cities around places? The Project for Public Places. www.pps.org.
• Konkel, M. T. (2014). Build-to-learn: An examination of pedagogical practices in interior design education. Journal of Interior DesignVolume 39, Issue 2 p. 1-16.
• Koppen, E. & Meinel, C. (2015). “Empathy via Design Thinking: Creation of Sense and Knowledge.” In Design Thinking Research: Building Innovators, edited by H. Plattner, C. Meinel, and L. Leifer, 15–28. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
• Levent, N. & Pascual-Leone, A. (Eds.) (2014). The Multisensory Museum Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory, and Space. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
• Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things. MIT Press.
• Okeil, A. (2010). Hybrid design environments: Immersive and non-immersive architectural design. ITcon, 15(2010), 202– 216.
• Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99– 120.
• Roberts, D. (2011) "The Total Work of Art in European Modernism", New York: Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
• Tuan, Yi-Fu. (2001). Space and Place: The Perspective. Mn: The University of Minnesota Press.
• WHO World Health Organization. (2020). Guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Geneva: World Health Organization.
• Zingoni, M. (2019). Beyond aesthetics, empathy first, The Design Journal, 22: 3, 351-370.
• Zuo, Q. & MaloneBeach, E. E. (2010). A comparison of learning experience, workload, and outcomes in interior design education using a hand or hybrid approach. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal Volume 39, Issue 1 p. 90-106.