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