Journals / ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning / 2018 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 0

Disability and Otherization: Readings on Cinema in The Light of UD Principles

Pages
105–129
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

In this way, this study aims to question the location of UD parameters in physical and social environment throughcinema.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cinema and architecture are universal with their inclusiveness in themental process.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The mental process is often generated by the sense ofsight in modern times.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this way, this study aims to question the location of UD parameters in physical and social environment throughcinema.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Cinema and architecture are universal with their inclusiveness in themental process. The mental process is often generated by the sense ofsight in modern times. In this sense, cinema, as a visual art, has startedto take an active role in the intellectual, conceptual and creative actionsof modern man. With the cinema, the realities of the virtual world havebecome more convincing than the dreams of the real world. It involvesperson-environment relationships which might not be ours but “looklike ours”. Universal Design (UD) also puts forward a proactiveinteraction in-between man and environment. UD is based on equitable,flexible, intuitive, perceptible, tolerant-to-error access with appropriatesize and space. While its conceptual basis with its guidelines arecommonly constructed on the spatial needs of people with disabilities, ithighlights disability does not focus on only permanent, visible, bodily orintellectual (dis)abilities. Every kind of "otherization" creates disabilityin society. This study aims to investigate how the relationship betweenarchitecture and disability in cinema is portrayed by reading throughfilms that are masterpieces covering experiences of different disabilitygroups. Using Visual Analysis method in the study, the codes andcategories generated based on the UD Principles are associated withselected visual images and dialogues according to the frames of meaningof the scenes in the films. In this way, this study aims to question the location of UD parameters in physical and social environment throughcinema.

🔖

Cite This Article

BALA, H. A., UYAROĞLU, İ. D. (2022). Disability and Otherization: Readings on Cinema in The Light of UD Principles. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 0, 105–129. https://ajindex.com/articles/538316

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Alkan Bala, H. (2015) "Reading of the Architectural Identity via Cinema." CINEJ Cinema Journal, 4(1): 79-109.
  2. Alkan Bala, H. (2016). “Kifayetli Engelliler Ve Engelli Yetkinler”, II. Ulusal Engellileştirilenler Sempozyumu, 7-8-9 April 2016,
  3. Konya, Turkey. Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction. Cambridge: Polity. Collier, J. and Collier, M. (1986). Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  4. Çakmak Yılmaz, B. (2006). “Engellilerin Sosyal Hayata Katılmasında Fiziksel Çevre Düzenlemelerinin Rolü”, ÖZVERİ Dergisi (T.C. Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi Başkanlığı Hakemli-Süreli yayın) ISSN: 1304-8082 pp: 863-879,
  5. Ankara.
  6. Demerath, N. J. III. (1981). “Through a Double- Crossed Eye: Sociology and the Movies”, Teaching Sociology, 9 (1): 69- 82. Dinç Uyaroğlu, İ. (2010). “Design Preferences of People with Visual Disabilities in an Urban District of Ankara, Turkey”, pp. 257-262 in 1st international Graduate Symposium on the Built Environment, edited by S. T. Elias-Ozkan; B. Z. Çakmaklı; F. Summers. Ankara: METU Faculty of Architecture. Dinç Uyaroğlu, İ. (2017). “Accessibility and Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in University Campus Spaces”, Arts and Design Studies, 50: 14-22.
  7. Dowd, J. J. (1999). “Waiting for Louis Prima: On the Possibility of a Sociology of Film”, Teaching Sociology, 27 (4): 324-342.Dwoskin, S. (1997). “Whose Film?”, pp. 214-217 in Framed Interrogating Disability in the Media, edited by A. Pointon and C. Davies. London: BFE Publishing. Göregenli, M. (2018). Çevre Psikolojisi: İnsan Mekan İlişkileri. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  8. Hargis, C. H., Gickling, E. E., and Mahmoud C. C. (1975). “The Effectiveness of TV in Teaching Sight Words to Students with Learning Disabilities”, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8 (1): 37-39.
  9. Imrie R. (2004). “Disability, embodiment and the meaning of the home”, Housing Studies, 19(5): 745-763.
  10. Imrie, R. (2012). “Universalism, universal design, equitable access to the built environment”, Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(10): 873-882.
  11. Imrie, R. and Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments. London: Spon Press.
  12. Iwarsson, S. and Ståhl, A. (2003). “Accessibility, usability and universal design--positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships”, Disability Rehabilitation, 25(2): 57-66.
  13. Karpf, A. (1997). “Crippling Images”, pp. 79