SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

The expression of identity: Country pavilions for expo in architectural design studio

İLKER FATİH ÖZORHON
Pages
43–52
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, the study underlines the relationship between the method employed in studio and outcomes of the process and students' inclination to prefer concrete data with regard to conceptualisation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study discusses design in architecture education by generating notions and concepts and examines this issue through a design studio.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study, through the studio which handles "Expo pavilion design" that is considered to reflect the issue of identity in the most solid way possible, aims to present how notions representing identity turn into architectural products, by observing dynamics that constitute design process, how different choices and methods reflected on the final product and student tendencies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, the study underlines the relationship between the method employed in studio and outcomes of the process and students' inclination to prefer concrete data with regard to conceptualisation.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study discusses design in architecture education by generating notions and concepts and examines this issue through a design studio. The study, through the studio which handles "Expo pavilion design" that is considered to reflect the issue of identity in the most solid way possible, aims to present how notions representing identity turn into architectural products, by observing dynamics that constitute design process, how different choices and methods reflected on the final product and student tendencies. The methods employed in the study are presentation of theoretical framework in line with the literature review, qualitative methods including participant observation and interviews with students concerning studio process. In the study, the architectural design studio that aimed to create an interactive and participatory environment which enabled students to learn from each other was discussed. Finally, the study underlines the relationship between the method employed in studio and outcomes of the process and students' inclination to prefer concrete data with regard to conceptualisation.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZORHON, İ. F. (2016). The expression of identity: Country pavilions for expo in architectural design studio. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 43–52. https://ajindex.com/articles/148537

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Ayıran, N. (2012). The role of metaphors in the formation of architectural identity, A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 9(2),1-21.
  2. Bayazıt, N. (2008). Tasarımı Anlamak. Istanbul: İdeal Kültür & Yayıncılık. Bilir, S. (2013). Mekan Tasarımında Kavram Geliştirme Sürecine Analitik Bir Yaklaşım (unpublished master's thesis). Hacettepe University/ Institute of Fine Arts, Ankara.
  3. Delage, C., & Marda, N. (1995). Concept Formation in a Studio Project. In M. Pearce, & M. Toy (Eds), Educat-ing Architects. (pp. 65-67), New York: Academy Editions. Dorst, K. (2006). Design Problems and Design Paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4-17.
  4. Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., & Wood, K. L. (2008). Analogies and Metaphors in Creative Design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283-294.
  5. İnceoğlu, M., & İnceoğlu. (2004).
  6. Mimarlıkta Söylem, Kuram ve Uygulama. İstanbul:
  7. Tasarım. Gençosmanoğlu, A. (2001).
  8. Estetik ve Mimarlıkta Kavram, Kavramsal Analiz, Karşılaştırma / 1980 Sonrası Üzerine Örneklemeler (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University / Institute of Sciences,Trabzon. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 158-174.
  9. Gür, Ş. Ö. (2007). Mimarlıkta Taklit: Eski Türkü-Yeni Aranjman, Mimarlık, January-February, 333, 38. Gür, Ş. Ö., & Cordan, Ö. (1999). Kimlik ve Farklılık Arasındaki Paradoksal İlişkiler, Mimar- Anlam-Beğeni Kavramları, In G. Güvenç (Ed), Mimar-Anlam-Beğeni, (pp. 162-185). İstanbul:
  10. YEM Yayınları.
  11. Karatani, K. (2005). Metafor Olarak Mimari. İstanbul:
  12. Metis. Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D. (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS studio culture task force. Washington D.C: The American Institute of Architecture Students, Inc. Köknar, S. A., & Erdem, A. (2010). Tasarlama Eyleminin Tasarım Araçları Modeli Üzerinden Bir Okuması. ITU Dergisi/a, 9(2), 51-62.
  13. Kuhn, S. (2001). Learning from the Architecture Studio: Implications for Project-Based Pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4), 349-352.
  14. Lawson, B. (1994). Design in Mind. Oxford: Butterworth. Lawson, B. (2000). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press. (First published 1980).
  15. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  16. Mahgoub, Y. (2007). Architecture and the expression of cultural identity in Kuwait, The Journal of Architecture, 12(2), 165-18