Araştırma Makalesi

Abstraction as a Tool of Creative Thinking in Architectural Education: Basic Design Studio Outcomes

Cilt: 16 Sayı: 4 16 Aralık 2023
PDF İndir
EN TR

Abstraction as a Tool of Creative Thinking in Architectural Education: Basic Design Studio Outcomes

Abstract

The basic design courses, which are usually in the first year of architectural education, also provide an environment where the student can think freely and design independently of some of the limitations. For this reason, basic design studios usually have content built upon the way architecture students try different thinking patterns and see different perspectives through interfaces established with different disciplines. This study presents the results of a basic design course in which abstraction is constructed as a creative thinking tool. Based on the fact that the design process is actually a new knowledge production, it uses students' design journeys and creative products as data. The design problem that forms the framework of the article is the abstraction of an art object and its transformation into an architectural space. This process consists of three stages: conversion of a selected classical painting into a two-dimensional graphic design by abstracting it, turning two-dimensional graphic into a three-dimensional space with various design actions and its graphic expression. Focusing on the design experience of ten students, the study discusses a design experiment in which abstraction is structured as a creative thinking tool for the production of space.

Keywords

Architectural Education , Architectural Design , Basic Design , Abstraction , Creative thinking

Kaynakça

  1. Altanlar, A. (2018). The Basic Design Education in the Context of the Human-Space Relationship: The City of Sofular Neighbourhood an Example of Urban Abstraction Workshop. Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 1(1), 1-25.
  2. Ayyildiz Potur, A. and Barkul, Ö. (2006). Creative Thinking in Architectural Design education. Paper presented at the Built Environment and Information Technologies: International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference, METU, Ankara.
  3. Bayazıt, N. (2008). Tasarımı Anlamak. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık.
  4. Biçer Özkun, Ü. (2017). Mimarlık Eğitiminde Deneysel ve Özgürleştirici Bir Tasarım Deneyimi Olarak Çalıştaylar. In Ş.Ö. Gür (Ed.), Mimari Tasarım Eğitimine Çağdaş Önermeler (pp.129-142). İstanbul:Yem Yayınları.
  5. Canbakal Ataoglu, N. (2015). Basic Design, Theory and Practice. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2051 – 2057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.572
  6. Caner Yüksel, Ç. and Uyaroğlu, İ. D. (2021). Experiential Learning in Basic Design Studio: Body, Space and the Design Process. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 40(3), 508-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12364
  7. Casakin, H., Davidovitch, N. and Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative Thinking as a Predictor of Creative Problem Solving in Architectural Design Students, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(1), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016965
  8. Ching, F. D. and Binggeli, C. (2017). Interior Design Illustrated. John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Ching, F.D. (2007). Architecture: Form, Space & Order. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The Domain of Creativity. In M. Runco and R. Albert (Eds.), Theories of Creativity (pp. 190-212). CA: Sage Publications.

Kaynak Göster

APA
Öktem Erkartal, P. (2023). Abstraction as a Tool of Creative Thinking in Architectural Education: Basic Design Studio Outcomes. Kent Akademisi, 16(4), 2275-2289. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1315039