Öz

Özet

İçinde buluduğumuz dönemde, sayısal ve mimari düşüncenin, akademik ve pratik alanlarda, farklı kavramlar

olarak ele alınmadığı; hatta bu kavramların, söz konusu alanlarda, birbirlerinin yerini alabilecek şekilde kullanıldığı

ve düşünüldüğünü görüyoruz. Pratik ve teorik alandaki bu kavramsal kaosun uzuntasının tasarım stüdyo

eğitimini etkileyerek bir değişime neden olduğunu söyleyebiliriz. Tartışma, mimarlık bilgisinin kağıt üzerindeki

temsiliyetinden çok, bu bilginin sayısal temsiliyeti üzerine yoğunlaşmaktadır. Burada, zorlayıcı nokta, mimarlık

bilgisini, sayısal ortamdaki temsiliyetinden kaynaklandığı düşünülmektedir. Bu nedenle, yanıtlanması gereken

önemli sorulardan biri ‘sayısal ortam yoluyla’ üretilen bilginin ne tür bir bilgi olduğu ve bu bilginin nasıl

üretildiği üzerinedir. Bunu anlayabilmek üzere, bu araştırma kapsamında, bu bilginin üretildiği ve karşılıklı

paylaşıldığı stüdyo ortamında, ‘teknik çizim stüdyo’, mimarlık 3. sınıf öğrencileri ile dönem boyunca yapılan

çalışmalar ele alınmıştır. Bu şekilde, sayısal ortam yolu ile ortaya konan (elde edilen) ‘mimarlık bilgisi’ni anlamaya

ışık tutacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tasarım,Temsil,Stüdyo,Sayısal ortam,Örtük bilgi,Açık bilgi

Learning Through Graphic Communication on The Verge Of Digital Era/Dijital Çağın Eşiğinde Grafik İletişim Yoluyla Öğrenme

Öz

Abstract

Today, architectural and computational knowledge are not performed as different medias in both academic environments

and practice. The evolution of design knowledge and praxis compels studio education and representation

to change.

Not completing the argument of paper representation of architecture/architectural knowledge we are discussing

digital/computational representation of it. Certainly, the most challenging point is derived from the representation

of architectural knowledge in artificial media. The root of the problem lies in the nature of architectural

knowledge and its representation. Still the representation argumentations are in progress on the other hand

we are struggling to go one level forward from using computers just as a design partners. Since, the adaptation

of digital thinking and design has already started. As a result of these changes, design studio practice has been

evolving towards this digital medium.

In this route we have many questions waiting to be answered. One of the most interesting issues is the knowledge

that is produced throughout the digital media. The question of how design learning system has been evolving

worth searching on it. The context of the question is broad however the works about the subject can be examined

within the course framework. The main aim is not to answer the question but to be aware of the implementations

and their possible results that might lead us different perspectives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Design,Representation,Studio,Digital media,Tacit knowledge,Explicit knowledge

Kaynakça

1. Badocarro, J. L. 1991. The knowledge link. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
2. Blackburn, S. 1994. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.
3. Brereton, M. 2004. Distributed Cognition in Engineering Design: Negotiating between Abstract and Material Representations. Springer, London, 84-87.
4. Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. 1996. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation, In Cohen, M. D. and Sproull, L. S. (eds), Organizational learning. Sage Publications, London, UK, 58–82.
5. Dewey, J. 1957. Experience and Education. MacMillan New York NY.
6. Dewey, J. 1960. The quest for certainty a study of the relation of knowledge and action. Putnam, New York.
7. Grene, M. 1969. Knowing and being Essays by Michael Polanyi. Routledge and Kegan, London UK.
8. Heylighen, A., Neuckermans, H., and Bouwen, J. E. 1999. Walking on a Thin Line-Between Passive Knowledge and Active Knowing of Components and Concepts in Architectural Design. Design Studies, Elsevier, 212.

9. James, W. 1971. The meaning of truth: a sequel to pragmatism. Greenwood Press, Westpoint CT. Kant, I. 1966. Critique of the Pure Reason. The Doubleday Garden City, NY.
10. Kierkegaard, S., Sartre, J. P., Wilde, J. T., and Kimmel, W. 1962. The search for being: essays from Kierkegaard to Sartre on the problem of existence. Noonday Press, New York.
11. Lawson, B. 1980. How Designers Think. The Architectural Press, London.
12. Marx, K. 1961. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. Ungar, New York NY.
13. Orr, J. E. 1996. Talking about machines. An ethnography of a modern job. Cornell University Press, London, UK.
14. Oxman, R. 1997. Design by Re-representation: a model of visual reasoning in design. Design Studies (18), 329-332.
15. Oxman, R. 2001. The mind in design: a conceptual framework for cognitionin design education. Elsevier, London.
16. Polanyi, M. 1964. Personal knowledge. Harper and Row, New York, NY.
17. Polanyi, M. 1967. The tacit dimension. Doubleday Books, Garden City, NY.
18. Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action Basic. Books, New York.
19. Schön, D. A. 1993. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York, NY.
20. Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B., Ketron, J., and Bernstein, M. 1981. People’s conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (41), 37–55.
21. Thagard, P. 1996. Mind: Introduction to cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 295.
22. Kolarevic, B. 2009. Integrated Design: From Digital to Material. Arab Society for Computer Aided Architectural Design (ASCAAD Conference University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain.