DESIGNTRAIN CONGRESS TRAILER II PROCEEDINGS

PROCEEDINGS PART I
DESIGNingDESIGNEDUCATION d es i g n t r a i nC O N G R E S S Amsterdam, The Netherlands 05-07 June 2008
2T R A I L E R
w w w . d e s i g n t r a i n - l d v . c o m
DESIGNingDESIGNEDUCATION d es i g n t r a i nC O N G R E S S Amsterdam, The Netherlands 05-07 June 2008
D ES
IG N
in g
D ES
IG N
ED U
C A
TI O
N PR
O C
EE D
IN G
S PA
R T
DESIGNTRAIN CONGRESS TRAILER II PROCEEDINGS DESIGNing DESIGN EDUCATION PART I
2
DESIGNTRAIN ORGANIZERS
KTU KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE TRABZON, TURKEY FB HOCHSCHULE BOCHUM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED ARTS DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE BOCHUM, GERMANY PDM POLITECNICO DI MILANO DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING MILAN, ITALY GU GAZI UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE ANKARA, TURKEY ELIA EUROPEAN LEAGUE OF INSTITUTES OF THE ARTS AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS
Designtrain project is supported by the European Commission – Leonardo da Vinci Programme, Second Phase: 2000-2006
© Designtrain 2008
Aktan ACAR Gazi University, Department of Architecture, TURKEY Ali ASASOGLU Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Asu BESGEN GENCOSMANOGLU Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Anette HARDS Kent Architecture Centre, UK Ozgur HASANCEBI Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Nazan KIRCI Gazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY Betul KOC Gazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY Heiner KRUMLINDE Hochschule Bochum, University of Appleid Arts, Dept. of Architecture, GERMANY Nilgun KULOGLU Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Joost LANSHAGE European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA), NETHERLANDS Manfredo MANFREDINI Politecnico Milano, Dept. of Architecture and Planning, ITALY Pihla MESKANEN ARKKISchool of Architecture for Children and Youth, FINLAND Fulya OZMEN Gazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY
4
005 THE DESIGN PROCESS - BETWEEN IMAGINATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION 43
006 FROM SOCIAL STUDIES CHAPTER III *TO NEVERLAND**... 57
007 RESEARCH AND TRAINING IN THE FIELD: AN EXAMPLE OF CAD-SUPPORTED DRAWING DOCUMENTATION ON THE MAUSOLEUM OF BELEVI / TURKEY 72
008 INTRODUCING DESIGN STUDIO LEARNING IN ARCHITECTURE TO NEW STUDENTS 87
009 ANALYSIS OF FORMS 99
010 STARTING DESIGN EDUCATION "BASIC DESIGN COURSE" 113
011 A PEDAGOGY 125
012 ARCHITECTURE & PHILOSOPHY: THOUGHTS ON BUILDING 138 013 AN EMBODIED APPROACH TO LEARNING AT THE BEGINNING DESIGN LEVEL 148
014 MANFREDO TARUFI AND JEAN PAUL SARTRE WALK INTO A BAR AND ORDER HALF A GLASS OF BEER 160
015 THINKING CONSTRUCTION AS DESIGN AND FUNCTION OF ARCHITECTURE 172
016 THE FIRST PROJECT (STUDIO) EXPERIENCE IN THE URBAN PLANNING EDUCATION: THE TESTING OF A METHOD 183
017 FIRST CLASS / FIRST PROJECT: TO RAISE INQUIRY ABOUT DESIGN THROUGH MAKING 199
018 FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR SMALL SPACES IN SPATIAL DESIGN TEACHING 209
019 THE COTTBUS EXPERIMENT THREE FIELDS OF COMPETENCE 224
020 EXPERIMENTATION VERSUS READY-KNOWLEDGE 240
021 BASIC DESIGN STUDIO IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN EDUCATION 251
022 FROM TRADITIONAL TO MODERN; METHODOLOGY OF NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT DESIGN 262
023 THE DANCE OF DESIGN AND SCIENCE IN FIRST YEAR STUDIO: CONTRIBUTIONS OF BILGI DENEL TO BASIC DESIGN IN TURKEY 277
024 THE EFFECT OF THREE DIMENSIONAL VISUALIZATION ABILITY ON BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN A TURKISH PLANNING SCHOOL 289
5
INTRODUCTION
Dear participants,
I would like to welcome you all to our second DESIGNTRAIN congress in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The DESIGNTRAIN Congresses are organised by DESIGNTRAIN, a project named as; “Training Tools for Developing Design Education” and is supported by European Commission, Leonardo da Vinci Programme.
The DESIGNTRAIN Project started in October 2006 and will end in the end of 2008.
The core of the DESIGNTRAIN Project idea is based on the adaptation problems experienced by the students/design students who have studied in their present education system, when they focus on the process of design. The DESIGNTRTAIN Project has double goals and is composed of two stages thereof. The goal of the first stage is to test and develop skills for the pro-professions and the goal of the second stage is to orient design students to design thinking and improve their problem solving capacities by way of conducive exercises. The far-reaching goal of the project is to render the process of design education feasible and economic in terms of using human resources.
In the aim of these two main bases, the first DESIGNTRAIN Congress; Trailer I: “Guidance in/for Design Training” was organized in May 2007, which targeted self-evaluation and design orientation tools for future design students, and now we are here for the second DESIGNTRAIN Congress; Trailer II: “DESIGNing DESIGN EDUCATION”.
The aim of this second congress: DESIGNTRAIN Congress; Trailer-II; “DESIGNing DESIGN EDUCATION” is to search alternative ways to discuss whether there can be some supporting modules in teaching and understanding the rapidly changing design language and/or design education, in the process of first year design education. Our aim as the DESIGNTRAIN Team is to get retrieval of information related to design and to analyse the design concepts again to make them more accessible, fast, easy and user-friendly for the first year design students.
As we all know that, the public view on the role of architecture is more and more affecting the approach and the design education of students of environmental, architectural and interior design. Motivation, engagement and knowledge of younger students seem to experience a deep reconfiguration
6
phase. The first year education process can be considered as the start of a training process and consequentially a confrontation of the students in design studios.
The matter finds a strategic evaluation and re-thinking moment in the first year education process and it might be discussed starting from that very harsh confrontation that take place in design studios.
That’s why we ask, how can architectural education approach in a positive way the energy for better and various human urban models and designs to get more attraction for skilled and motivated students?
In general the first year students in schools of architecture are not prepared for studying the curriculum in a systematic way. Moreover students have different learning styles individually. The way to motivate the beginners, to make them open for creativity, phantasm and responsible planning should be discussed. Since, there are numerous methods of education, especially in the basic fields of architecture like design theories and practice, fundamentals of technical construction and art & architectural history, each school of architecture will lay claim to its special way and success, but what are the future guidelines in a globalizing world that is in control of economic structures?
Design might be considered as an instrument and a medium of expression, a kind of international language; or as a non-neutral actor that internationally tries to equalize taste, needs, as the modern building structures disregards national, regional and local culture and behaviour. The awareness of such facts is indeed very important in teaching and learning, both for academicians and students, not only in universities but also in high schools and secondary schools.
The congress now accentuates this global effect and also the protection of the individual characters of design education and practice.
Although, design is a kind of international language, learning and adaptation process to this language of students can not be standardized at ease, since the students have different tendencies to disparate learning styles. Moreover standards and characteristics of schools are different as well. Also the concerns of the first year design education might differ according to regional demands and culture as well as the methods of teaching.
Sharing those methods are now challenging in the “DESIGNTRAIN Congress; Trailer II: DESIGNing DESIGN EDUCATION”. The congress now also helps and demonstrates new thinking and experimenting in this large field.
7
According to these, we tried to have some titles that best exemplifies the approaches in finding some solutions to our main problem. These are:
• Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions:
• First Experiences: Open Day - Get together, First Day, First Tasks, First Actions
• Team Working: Basic Exercises
• Ways of Thinking in Design Education versus Methods of Teaching
• Intuitive Thinking versus Rationale Teaching: Creativity and Problem Solving
• Experimental Learning: Reflection in Action – Reflection on Action
• Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge
• Team Work - Self Learning
• Supporting First Year Design Education: Contribution by Cooperation and Networking
• Building Equipment Company – Seminars and Workshops / Construction Areas – Look and Learn / Interdisciplinary Thinking: Integrated Courses – Civil - Mechanical Engineering, Geodetics, Economics, Arts
• Comprehending First Year Design Education: Scopes, Courses and Lectures
• Notion of Scale and Proportion / Perception of Space, Experiencing Space
• Technical Drawing, CAD Programs / Understanding Human Needs
• Dreaming First Year Design Education: Utopias, Expectations and Reality
• Study Motivation before and after First Year
• Basics and Superstructure – How to Continue in the Next Years
• Close to or Far Away – Fantasy and Reality Conflicts
• Self Confidence – Critics and Evaluation
8
• “Design” as a Common Language of Nations
• Cultural and Local Effects on Design Education
We received over a hundred abstracts for this aim, and selected 65 original papers from different countries all over the world, from Europe, Asia and USA.
It is a great pleasure for me to thank to those who supported us in making this event to an unforgettable one. First the keynoters - Bryan Lawson from the University of Sheffield, UK, Alexandros N. Tombazis from Greece and Sengul Oymen Gur from the Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey. Also I would like to thank the DESIGNTRAIN Project partners and their representatives - Heiner Krumlinde from Hochschule Bochum, Germany, Manfredo Manfredini from Politecnico Di Milano, Italy, Nazan Kirci from Gazi University, Turkey, Joost Lanshage from the European League of Institutes of the Arts, The Netherlands and my dear colleagues Nilgun Kuloglu and Ali Asasoglu from Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey, this great job would not have been possible without your help.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Iakovos Potamianos from the University of Thessaloniki, Greece, Frances Hsu from Georgia Institute of Technology, USA and Greg Watson from Mississippi State University, USA for all their help and contributions.
I’d like to thank to you all, the DESIGNTRAIN Congress; Trailer II participants, for realizing this important event by sharing your valuable knowledge.
On behalf of the DESIGNTRAIN Congress; Trailer II organizing committee,
Asu BESGEN GENCOSMANOGLU Manager of DESIGNTRAIN Project
9
WHAT IS CREATIVE? CREATIVITY IN ARCHITECTURAL THEORY, PRACTICE AND EDUCATION KEYNOTE ADDRESS Prof. Dr. Sengul Oymen GUR, Ph. D. Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Architecture 61080 Trabzon-Turkey
Tel: +90 4623262818 Fax: +90 4623250262, +90 4623772692
Email: [email protected]
10
Abstract
In this keynote speech I will expound on creativity in general. However, rather than dealing with the ways and methods of fostering creative thinking in architecture or in architectural education, I will question what creativity actually is and how exactly one discriminates the creative from the non- creative in architectural works. What are its features and properties and how can they be distinguished and/or traced? Introduction In architecture the term creativity equally pertains to subheadings such as design practice, design process, design research, design education and those social issues architecture is entangled with. Therefore there are many aspects of creativity in our discipline. Also, different phases of design process require particular creativity in themselves (Fig.1). For this matter ‘creativity’ bears significance in theory, practice and criticism of architecture and is the subject of many ongoing discussions on architectural education in general and design studios in particular. Since creativity is an important issue in designing I must render a brief review of design activity as it is practiced today. Today design activity retreated to the old, mystic, ‘black-box’ approach again due to a lack of confidence in design methods which had caused tremendous turmoil among professionals around 60s. Later they fell into disuse as outmoded interests of earlier generations. Nigel Cross (2006) gives an excellent account of the “Forty years of design research”: studies had flared up by the 1963 conference on design methods held in London and others had followed (Jones and Thornley, 1963; Gregory, 1966; Broadbent and Ward, 1969). Some notable architects had rejected the professed design methodologies from the very start as they perceived them as a menace to their creativity. Soon major pioneers of the proposal have admitted that their approach to design did not work. Only after two years of having published his major work on the ‘synthesis of form’ (1964) Alexander confessed that the city was not a tree (1966; 1971). Jones (1970) unwittingly demonstrated especially how the proposed design phase approaches were not operable. Broadbent described the progress in 1969 and retreated in 1973. After 1980s some significant books concerning design thinking in architecture appeared (Lawson, 1980; Schön, 1983; Rowe, 1987); design congresses and journals proliferated; societies and associations were founded and some are still successfully active today. Horst Rittel (1973) had considered the endeavors of 1960’s, which were based on systematic, rational and ‘scientific methods’ as the ‘first generation of methods’ implying
11
that another would follow. The second generation of design methods in architecture moved towards participatory processes, from optimization towards satisfying solutions. 1980s witnessed unprecedented progresses in civil and mechanical engineering in terms of design methods and techniques but no real progress seems to have been made in architecture in terms of methods.
Figure 1. Architectural Design as a Process Matrix (Gür, 1978: p.121).
After 1980s some significant books concerning design thinking in architecture appeared (Lawson, 1980; Schön, 1983; Rowe, 1987); design congresses and journals proliferated; societies and associations were founded and some are still successfully active today. Horst Rittel (1973) had considered the endeavors of 1960’s, which were based on systematic, rational and ‘scientific methods’ as the ‘first generation of methods’ implying that another would follow. The second generation of design methods in
1 2 3 4 5 6 STEPS
PHASES
Problem
Recognition
Identification
2. Reflective Thinking; Creative Activity
3 Choice &
Development Phase
4 Implementation
12
architecture moved towards participatory processes, from optimization towards satisfying solutions. 1980s witnessed unprecedented progresses in civil and mechanical engineering in terms of design methods and techniques but no real progress seems to have been made in architecture in terms of methods. However, it is worthy of noting that most architects of the last three or four decades are raised by some studio-masters who sometime in their academic life were grasped by interest in design methodology. Notwithstanding the fact that design methods were criticized in general, many studio masters have developed their own methodologies from the multiple choice inventory which had emerged from the studies on design methodology. With these methods and techniques they have experimented all their academic lives through. The reason why such experiments do not show up in periodicals is that in such a ‘hard science’ and technology- oriented world they withhold their soft techniques, which might be very perceptive, reliable, affective and eliciting for architectural design teaching. Their disciples clandestinely inherit these approaches. In this indirect way methodologies live on. The fact that studio masters do not document and authenticate their formal methodologies is very poor evidence that no such methodology exists. Nevertheless after the demise of social and architectural meta-theories, personalized approaches of practicing architects intertwined with their individual discourses started to boom and were readily disseminated by the media. The main dissension between practicing architects blows up between those who stick with the fundamentalist theories of architecture (the mainstream architecture) and others who flirt with the non-fundamentalist ones. Architects differ in their affection, predilections and prejudices for and about history and traditions of architecture. Some prefer architectural conventions (see Ghirardo, 1991; i.e. Israel, 1994; Vattimo, 1991, 1996; Pinos, 1993) and some do not. Some are socially motivated (see Frampton, 1980, 1996; i.e. Dean, 1991) and some are not. Yet, some rely heavily upon analogies, myths and fiction, such as Charles Moore, Michael Graves and Robert Venturi, etc., others prefer to play with geometry and “other geometries” such as Daniel Libeskind, Peter Eisenman, Eric Owen Moss, Zaha Hadid, etc. (Moss, 1993; Rajchman, 1998); and yet, some pour their thoughts into forms through three-dimensional hand-made models, such as Frank Gehry (1994), Coop Himmelblau (1993) and very many others. They display differing attitudes towards nature, culture and building context. They sometimes invent concepts and appropriate them. The only view shared by almost all of them is that Modern Architecture restricted innovative and
13
imaginative thinking and caused dull and non-inspiring environments to come into being. They betray their creative powers by a variety of morphological configurations but it is not clear how they do it. Unfortunately an architect’s account of his own intellectual procedures is often untrustworthy, seldom convincing and usually an afterward story. What Albert Einstein said once for scientists is equally valid for architects: “I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don’t listen to their words, fix your attention to their deeds” (Medawar, 1969: p.10). Therefore in this brief study rather than annotating architects’ account of their own intellectual procedures I will dwell upon what is creative and how it can be traced and verified in a work of architecture. But firstly, I must clarify the term creativity.
What is creativity?
Systematic inquiry into creativity occurred from 1950s onwards and aimed towards a more fundamental understanding of human creativity. These researches adopted psychometric, cognitive, psychodynamic and pragmatic approaches to define creativity (Durling 2003). Only the last one deals with design fields, to a certain extent. In fact, very few researchers from a design background have undertaken studies on creativity and have investigated the knowledge about the underlying intellectual and social drivers of creativity.
However, researchers made a rather convincing case that “creative personality” exists; and that some personality variables regularly and predictably relate to creative achievements in arts, sciences and design professions (Myers and Myers, 1980; Myers, 1993; Diehl, 1992; McCaulley, 1990; MacKinnon, 1962). MacKinnon (1962) had already demonstrated the significance of intuitive thinking and rapid judgment in high ability architects. The common dispositions observed among these creative people are openness to new experiences, being less conventional, less conscientious, more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile and impulsive (Feist, 1999). Based on a rather exclusive research Durling (2003a) has contended that ‘interior design students have a propensity toward questioning and rebelling against established norms; they have a disposition toward intense affective experience; they are of extraversion orientation, which makes them comfortable in working with others; they combine intuition with thinking rather than combining sensing with feeling; they markedly prefer perception rather than judgment; they prefer being
14
different for its own sake; they prefer style over practicality; they make unusual associations; and they sometimes deliberately break the rules set by the tutor, for example by pushing a brief to the limit’.
Creativity is a broad and vague concept. Criterion of creativity varies from one discipline to another. In engineering, for example, it may be predicated on some functional improvement on the product: It may be made cheaper, safer, stronger, of better performance, multi-functioned, etc (Berkun, 2003). Some creativity, for that matter, may be a systematic affair with serious implications for success and failure as opposed to creativity in artistic domains, which value the different, the eccentric, and even the frivolous. The role of creativity in sciences, on the other hand, is best understood by quoting Henri Poincare; “It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover,” (Anon.). In effect, creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel and appropriate, although in the past it has been defined as ‘effective surprise’ (Bruner, 1962); the act of creating ‘the unexpected’…