KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Art-Sanat Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 9

RETHINKING BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION: DECONSTRUCTION OF ANATOLIAN CARPETS

Serap DURMUŞ ÖZTÜRK
Sayfa
463–478
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In conclusion, hhis articleusing the Anatolian art as a tool and the deconstruction as a method brought the quartet ofRepetition/Symmetry/Harmony/Contrast into question and showed that the students mayproduce the examples which may yield more unique results by means of binary oppositionsgiven.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The main objective this article is to evaluate the elements/concepts/arts belonging toAnatolia as a deconstruction problem in re-thinking the basic design education and in thedevelopment of the basic design teaching methodology.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The fictions discussing the phenomenon of BasicDesign with different intellectual and meaning dimensions and with changing example andexpression ways have aimed to form a representation language using the authentic valuesof Anatolian art by taking a position with cultural target within the frame of “Basic DesignAnatolia” upper theme in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Fall terms.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In conclusion, hhis articleusing the Anatolian art as a tool and the deconstruction as a method brought the quartet ofRepetition/Symmetry/Harmony/Contrast into question and showed that the students mayproduce the examples which may yield more unique results by means of binary oppositionsgiven.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2015-2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

The main objective this article is to evaluate the elements/concepts/arts belonging toAnatolia as a deconstruction problem in re-thinking the basic design education and in thedevelopment of the basic design teaching methodology. Within this scope; Basic DesignCourse handled in a wide frame has been re-fictionalized with the theme of “Basic DesignAnatolia” in different years during the period. Karadeniz Technical University (KTU)Department of Architecture Studio of Basic Design shows existence with the period themesand fictions renewing and changing itself every year in the light of the search continuing inthe areas of philosophy, art and science. The fictions discussing the phenomenon of BasicDesign with different intellectual and meaning dimensions and with changing example andexpression ways have aimed to form a representation language using the authentic valuesof Anatolian art by taking a position with cultural target within the frame of “Basic DesignAnatolia” upper theme in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Fall terms. In conclusion, hhis articleusing the Anatolian art as a tool and the deconstruction as a method brought the quartet ofRepetition/Symmetry/Harmony/Contrast into question and showed that the students mayproduce the examples which may yield more unique results by means of binary oppositionsgiven.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÖZTÜRK, S. D. (2022). RETHINKING BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION: DECONSTRUCTION OF ANATOLIAN CARPETS. Art-Sanat Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 9, 463–478. https://ajindex.com/articles/450271

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (17)

  1. Asasoglu, Ali, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglu and Nilgun Kuloglu. 2009. DESIGNtrain Book: Training Tools for Developing Design Education, Trabzon, Turkey: Vizyon Printing Center. Benjamin, Andrew. 1988. “Deconstruction and Art / The Art of Deconstruction,” in What is Deconstruction?, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 33-56.
  2. Besgen Gencosmanoglu, Asu and Seda Nezor. 2010. “Criticizing Architectural Education Through Abstraction,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9: 1335-1341.
  3. Besgen, Asu, Nilgun Kuloglu and Sara Fathalizadehalemdari. 2015. “Teaching/Learning Strategies Through Art: Art and Basic Design Education,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182: 428-432.
  4. Bonollo, E. and W. P. Lewis, 1996. “The Industrial Design Profession and Models of The Design Process,” Design and Education Journal, 6 (2): 4-19. Boucharenc Christian G. and T. Saiki. 2002. “International Comparative Research on Basic Design,” Japan: Design Research Association, 29 (2): 20-27.
  5. Boucharenc, Christian G. 2006. “Research on Basic Design Education: An International Survey,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16: 1-30.
  6. Brunette, Peter and David Wills. 1994. Deconstruction and the Visual Arts: Art, Media, Architecture, Cambridge University Press.
  7. Bunch, Michael A. 1993. Core Curriculum in Architectural Education, San Francisco: Melen Research University Press.
  8. Casakin, Hernan P. 2007. “Factors of Metaphors in Design Problem-Solving: Implications for Design Creativity,” International Journal of Design, 1: 21-33.
  9. Çıkış, Şeniz and Ela Çil. 2009. “Problematization of Assessment in The Architectural Design Education: First Year as a Case Study,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1: 2103- 2110. Collins, Jeff. 2005.
  10. Introducing Derrida, Third Edition, United Kingdom: Icon Books. Cross, Nigel. 1997. “Descriptive Models of Creative Design: Application To An Example,” Design Studies, 18: 427-455.
  11. Çubukcu, Ebru and Şebnem G. Dündar. 2007. “Can Creativity Be Taught? An Empirical Study on Benefits of Visual Analogy in Basic Design Education,” ITU A|Z, 4 (2): 67-80.
  12. Cuff, Dana. 1998. Architecture: The Story of Practice, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  13. Denel, Bilgi. 1981.
  14. Temel Tasarım ve Yaratıcılık, Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Basım İşliği. Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology, (trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak), Johns Hopkins University Press.
  15. Derrida, Jacques. 1982.
  16. Margins of Philosophy, USA: The Harvester Press.
  17. Durmuş, Serap. 2009. “A Deconstructionist Reading in R