Van Nostral Neinhold

8/18/2019 Van Nostral Neinhold

1/300

PROCEEDINGS PART I

DESIGNingDESIGNEDUCATIONd es i g n t r a i nC O N G R E S SAmsterdam, 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

DESIGNingDESIGNEDUCATIONd es i g n t r a i nC O N G R E S SAmsterdam, The Netherlands 05-07 June 2008

D E S I G N i n g D E S I G N E D U C A T I O N

P R O C

E E D I N

G S P A

R T I


2/300

1

DESIGNTRAIN CONGRESS TRAILER II

PROCEEDINGS

DESIGNing DESIGN EDUCATION

PART I


3/300

2

DESIGNTRAIN ORGANIZERS

KTUKARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITYFACULTY OF ARCHITECTURETRABZON, TURKEY

FB

HOCHSCHULE BOCHUMUNIVERSITY OF APPLIED ARTSDEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTUREBOCHUM, GERMANY

PDM

POLITECNICO DI MILANODEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNINGMILAN, ITALY

GU

GAZI UNIVERSITYDEPARTMENT 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


4/300

3

CONGRESS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Aktan ACARGazi University, Department of Architecture, TURKEY

Al i ASASOGLUKaradeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY

Asu BESGEN GENCOSMANOGLUKaradeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY

Anette HARDS

Kent Architecture Centre, UK

Ozgur HASANCEBIKaradeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY

Nazan KIRCIGazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY

Betul KOCGazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY

Heiner KRUMLINDE

Hochschule Bochum, University of Appleid Arts,Dept. of Architecture, GERMANY

Nilgun KULOGLUKaradeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY

Joost LANSHAGEEuropean League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA), NETHERLANDS

Manfredo MANFREDINIPolitecnico Milano, Dept. of Architecture and Planning, ITALY

Pihla MESKANEN ARKKISchool of Architecture for Children and Youth, FINLAND

Fulya OZMENGazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY


5/300

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 5

KEYNOTE ADDRESS 9

004 A VISION 26

005 THE DESIGN PROCESS - BETWEEN IMAGINATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION 43006 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 138013 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


6/300

5

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to DESIGNTRAIN…

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 projectnamed as; “Training Tools for Developing Design Education” and issupported by European Commission, Leonardo da Vinci Programme.

The DESIGNTRAIN Project started in October 2006 and will end in the endof 2008.

The core of the DESIGNTRAIN Project idea is based on the adaptationproblems experienced by the students/design students who have studied intheir present education system, when they focus on the process of design.The DESIGNTRTAIN Project has double goals and is composed of twostages thereof. The goal of the first stage is to test and develop skills for thepro-professions and the goal of the second stage is to orient design students

to design thinking and improve their problem solving capacities by way ofconducive exercises. The far-reaching goal of the project is to render theprocess of design education feasible and economic in terms of using humanresources.

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 designstudents, 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 discusswhether there can be some supporting modules in teaching andunderstanding the rapidly changing design language and/or design

education, in the process of first year design education. Our aim as theDESIGNTRAIN Team is to get retrieval of information related to design andto 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 andmore affecting the approach and the design education of students ofenvironmental, architectural and interior design. Motivation, engagement andknowledge of younger students seem to experience a deep reconfiguration


7/300

6

phase. The first year education process can be considered as the start of atraining process and consequentially a confrontation of the students indesign studios.

The matter finds a strategic evaluation and re-thinking moment in the firstyear education process and it might be discussed starting from that veryharsh confrontation that take place in design studios.

That’s why we ask, how can architectural education approach in a positiveway the energy for better and various human urban models and designs toget more attraction for skilled and motivated students?

In general the first year students in schools of architecture are not preparedfor studying the curriculum in a systematic way. Moreover students have

different learning styles individually. The way to motivate the beginners, tomake them open for creativity, phantasm and responsible planning shouldbe discussed. Since, there are numerous methods of education, especiallyin the basic fields of architecture like design theories and practice,fundamentals of technical construction and art & architectural history, eachschool of architecture will lay claim to its special way and success, but whatare the future guidelines in a globalizing world that is in control of economicstructures?

Design might be considered as an instrument and a medium of expression,a kind of international language; or as a non-neutral actor that internationallytries to equalize taste, needs, as the modern building structures disregards

national, regional and local culture and behaviour. The awareness of suchfacts is indeed very important in teaching and learning, both foracademicians and students, not only in universities but also in high schoolsand 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 adaptationprocess to this language of students can not be standardized at ease, sincethe students have different tendencies to disparate learning styles. Moreover

standards and characteristics of schools are different as well. Also theconcerns of the first year design education might differ according to regionaldemands and culture as well as the methods of teaching.

Sharing those methods are now challenging in the “DESIGNTRAINCongress; Trailer II: DESIGNing DESIGN EDUCATION”. The congress now

also helps and demonstrates new thinking and experimenting in this largefield.


8/300

7

According to these, we tried to have some titles that best exemplifies theapproaches in finding some solutions to our main problem. These are:

• Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities andImpressions:

• First Experiences: Open Day - Get together, First Day, First Tasks,First Actions

• Team Working: Basic Exercises

• Enjoying First Year Design Education: Ability and Motivation

• Ways of Thinking in Design Education versus Methods of Teaching

• Intuitive Thinking versus Rationale Teaching: Creativity andProblem Solving

• Experimental Learning: Reflection in Action – Reflection on Action

• Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge

• Communication in First Year Design Education: Cooperation,Presentation and Expression

• Team Work - Self Learning

• Foreign Language Training, Intercultural Communication

• Graphical Presentations and Verbal Expressions

• 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 andLectures

• Notion of Scale and Proportion / Perception of Space, ExperiencingSpace

•

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


9/300

8

• Globalization versus Localization in “Design Education”

• “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 originalpapers from different countries all over the world, from Europe, Asia andUSA.

It is a great pleasure for me to thank to those who supported us in makingthis event to an unforgettable one. First the keynoters - Bryan Lawson fromthe 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 GaziUniversity, Turkey, Joost Lanshage from the European League of Institutesof the Arts, The Netherlands and my dear colleagues Nilgun Kuloglu and Ali

Asasoglu from Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey, this great job wouldnot have been possible without your help.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Iakovos Potamianos from theUniversity of Thessaloniki, Greece, Frances Hsu from Georgia Institute ofTechnology, 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 IIparticipants, for realizing this important event by sharing your valuableknowledge.

On behalf of the DESIGNTRAIN Congress; Trailer II organizing committee,

Asu BESGEN GENCOSMANOGLU

Manager of DESIGNTRAIN Project


10/300

9

WHAT IS CREATIVE?CREATIVITY IN ARCHITECTURAL THEORY, PRACTICE AND EDUCATION

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Prof. Dr. Sengul Oymen GUR, Ph. D.Karadeniz Technical UniversityFaculty of Architecture

61080 Trabzon-Turkey

Tel: +90 4623262818Fax: +90 4623250262, +90 4623772692

Email: [email protected]


11/300

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 creativityactually is and how exactly one discriminates the creative from the non-creative in architectural works. What are its features and properties and howcan they be distinguished and/or traced?

Introduction

In architecture the term creativity equally pertains to subheadings such asdesign practice, design process, design research, design education andthose social issues architecture is entangled with. Therefore there are manyaspects 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 ingeneral and design studios in particular.

Since creativity is an important issue in designing I must render a briefreview of design activity as it is practiced today. Today design activityretreated to the old, mystic, ‘black-box’ approach again due to a lack ofconfidence in design methods which had caused tremendous turmoil amongprofessionals 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 1963conference 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 methodologiesfrom the very start as they perceived them as a menace to their creativity.Soon major pioneers of the proposal have admitted that their approach todesign 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 atree (1966; 1971). Jones (1970) unwittingly demonstrated especially how the

proposed design phase approaches were not operable. Broadbentdescribed the progress in 1969 and retreated in 1973.

After 1980s some significant books concerning design thinking inarchitecture appeared (Lawson, 1980; Schön, 1983; Rowe, 1987); designcongresses and journals proliferated; societies and associations werefounded 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


12/300

11

that another would follow. The second generation of design methods inarchitecture moved towards participatory processes, from optimizationtowards 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 ofmethods.

Figure 1. Architectural Design as a Process Matrix (Gür, 1978: p.121).

After 1980s some significant books concerning design thinking inarchitecture appeared (Lawson, 1980; Schön, 1983; Rowe, 1987); designcongresses and journals proliferated; societies and associations were

founded and some are still successfully active today. Horst Rittel (1973) hadconsidered the endeavors of 1960’s, which were based on systematic,rational and ‘scientific methods’ as the ‘first generation of methods’ implyingthat another would follow. The second generation of design methods in

1 2 3 4 5 6STEPS

PHASES

Problem

Recognition

Identification

of HumanBehavior Sets

Identification

of ProblemSituation

Goal Setting

Prediction

Design of

Objectives

Programming

1 Intelligence

Phase

2 DesignPhase

1 . D e c omposition and Composition Process

2. Reflective Thinking; Creative Activity

3 Choice &

DevelopmentPhase

4 ImplementationPhase

5 EvaluationPhase

Feedback

Requiremen

Alternatives

Field

Feedback to the Intell igence Phase


13/300

12

architecture moved towards participatory processes, from optimizationtowards satisfying solutions. 1980s witnessed unprecedented progresses incivil 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 fourdecades are raised by some studio-masters who sometime in theiracademic 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 designmethodology. With these methods and techniques they have experimentedall 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 veryperceptive, reliable, affective and eliciting for architectural design teaching.Their disciples clandestinely inherit these approaches. In this indirect waymethodologies live on. The fact that studio masters do not document and

authenticate their formal methodologies is very poor evidence that no suchmethodology 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 themedia. The main dissension between practicing architects blows upbetween those who stick with the fundamentalist theories of architecture (the

mainstream architecture) and others who flirt with the non-fundamentalistones. Architects differ in their affection, predilections and prejudices for andabout history and traditions of architecture. Some prefer architecturalconventions (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 uponanalogies, myths and fiction, such as Charles Moore, Michael Graves andRobert Venturi, etc., others prefer to play with geometry and “othergeometries” such as Daniel Libeskind, Peter Eisenman, Eric Owen Moss,

Zaha Hadid, etc. (Moss, 1993; Rajchman, 1998); and yet, some pour theirthoughts into forms through three-dimensional hand-made models, such asFrank Gehry (1994), Coop Himmelblau (1993) and very many others. Theydisplay differing attitudes towards nature, culture and building context. Theysometimes invent concepts and appropriate them. The only view shared byalmost all of them is that Modern Architecture restricted innovative and


14/300

13

imaginative thinking and caused dull and non-inspiring environments tocome 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’saccount of his own intellectual procedures is often untrustworthy, seldomconvincing and usually an afterward story. What Albert Einstein said oncefor scientists is equally valid for architects: “I advise you to stick closely toone principle: Don’t listen to their words, fix your attention to their deeds”(Medawar, 1969: p.10). Therefore in this brief study rather than annotatingarchitects’ 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 aimedtowards a more fundamental understanding of human creativity. Theseresearches adopted psychometric, cognitive, psychodynamic and pragmaticapproaches to define creativity (Durling 2003). Only the last one deals with

design fields, to a certain extent. In fact, very few researchers from a designbackground have undertaken studies on creativity and have investigated theknowledge about the underlying intellectual and social drivers of creativity.

However, researchers made a rather convincing case that “creativepersonality” exists; and that some personality variables regularly andpredictably relate to creative achievements in arts, sciences and designprofessions (Myers and Myers, 1980; Myers, 1993; Diehl, 1992; McCaulley,

1990; MacKinnon, 1962). MacKinnon (1962) had already demonstrated thesignificance of intuitive thinking and rapid judgment in high ability architects.The common dispositions observed among these creative people areopenness to new experiences, being less conventional, less conscientious,more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile andimpulsive (Feist, 1999). Based on a rather exclusive research Durling(2003a) has contended that ‘interior design students have a propensitytoward questioning and rebelling against established norms; they have adisposition toward intense affective experience; they are of extraversion

orientation, which makes them comfortable in working with others; theycombine intuition with thinking rather than combining sensing with feeling;they markedly prefer perception rather than judgment; they prefer being


15/300

14

different for its own sake; they prefer style over practicality; they makeunusual associations; and they sometimes deliberately break the rules setby the tutor, for example by pushing a brief to the limit’.

Creativity is a broad and vague concept. Criterion of creativity varies fromone discipline to another. In engineering, for example, it may be predicatedon 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 seriousimplications for success and failure as opposed to creativity in artisticdomains, which value the different, the eccentric, and even the frivolous.

The role of creativity in sciences, on the other hand, is best understood byquoting Henri Poincare; “It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that wediscover ,” (Anon.).

In effect, creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel andappropriate, although in the past it has been defined as ‘effective surprise’(Bruner, 1962); the act of creating ‘the unexpected’ and ‘the original’ by theDeconstructionist architects, i.e. ‘shock’ by Tschumi (1991, 1994). For

Polanyi it is an ‘illumination’ (1958; p.123), ‘a kind of awareness’.Nonetheless, as quoted by Durling (2003), Guilford posits that (1950; 444-454) ‘an important and persistent feature of all creativity is the ability to setaside established conventions and procedures’.

Since creativity is a dynamic thought process in action some prefer to usethe idiom ‘imaginative leap’ or ‘intuitive leap’ which obviates an image of afragment of possible worlds, instead of the passive concept of creativity. ‘As

a human behavior, creativity is a rapid intuitive deduction that owes itspower to the infirmity of our powers of reasoning’ says Medawar, and adds,“That creativity is beyond analysis is a romantic illusion we must outgrow. Itcan not be learned perhaps but it can certainly be encouraged and abetted.”(Medawar, 1969; p.57).

In the very challenging act of abetting perceptiveness, imaginativeness,sensitiveness and judgmental abilities of students of architecture at least fivesuggestions can be set forward:

1. Emphasize theoretical/historical knowledge of architecture.2. Expound on the canons of masters of architecture then and now.3. Practice architectural design skill of transforming and representing

spatio-visual concepts in either morphology or basic design courses.


16/300

15

4. Exercise ‘incentive, which may be a restrictive clause-ranging from ascientific/technological rationale to a personal fancy in studio projectsso as to elicit creativity’.

5. Dramatize possible futures so as to augment student’s perceptiveness-

a feeling for alternative socio-physical futures gained from theknowledge of other disciplines such as philosophy, sciences, arts,sociology, economy, etc., as well as from extra-curricular activities, lifeexperiences, etc.

However the question ‘what is creative?’ remains unanswered in all abovementioned discussions pertaining creativity. How would the practicing

architects, studio-masters or even the critics tell the ‘creative’ from the ‘non-creative’? What are the features and/or the criteria of creativeness? Thisarea of research is fully omitted from the study of creativity.

What is c reative?

Design in architecture is an act of transformation and in that sense it is thehighest form of practical adaptation to our environment. We transform andadapt. It is also a form of communication where constructs, concepts,

mental pictures of reality existing in the mind of the designer aretransformed into visions of future realities via the language of architecturalcomposition (Fig. 2).

Instrumenys of affects

(grammatical terms)

Cultural ConventionsKnowledge of otherdisciplinesHistory and Theory of

Arts & Architecture

PerceptsImages

Affects

Language of ArchitecturalComposition

WordInscriptionLineFormPatternColorTextureDimensionShadowLightRelation,

etc

ThingsConceptsEvents-flows &behavior

Preperatory Milieu Mental Communicationfield field

Figure 2. Transformative nature of architectural design


17/300

16

Based on this view of architecture, for any architectural work to bedistinguished as creative it must transform something, must cause achange, a difference in the environment. Styles and trends in architectural

history emerge from clauses of consensus among architect designers on

established conventions and procedures of their times. But time is always ina state of flux. Movements and events change their character over time-themost creative impetus of all. This situation necessitates differences both inapproaches and solutions. Eventually architecture transforms itselfperennially to meet the demands of the times. Thus the crucial conceptswith respect to creativeness in architecture can be pinned down astransformation, time/space and ‘difference’-an observation which

immediately brings to mind Jacques Derrida and his definition of difference:“Difference is a self dramatization”

Différance

Derrida employs the French word différance while he is trying to prove how

saying is not any more significant than writing. The word is used as a punbecause in speaking French the word différance can mean either to differ orto defer, depending on the context. Différance can mean to differ fromsomething or to defer something. Culler (1982) defines difference as auniversal system of dissociations, discriminations, distances and differencesbetween things. It is the point where those concepts/words which exist in thesame vocabulary start to differ and deviate in terms of meaning. In thedefinition of difference at the Angelfire website the primary emphasis is on

the word “same” which implies repetition of an idea. The power of idea isreflected in its concurrency and consistency and the idea repeats itself withits internal laws. In an article called Plato’s Pharmacy, from Dissemination,Derrida provides a commentary on the law that governs the truth of theeidos (idea):

“The truth of eidos, as that which is identical to itself,always the same as itself and always simple, eidos,undecomposable, invariable. The eidos is that whichcan always be repeated as the same. The ideality and

invisibility of the eidos are its power-to-be repeated.Now, law is always a law of repetition, and repetition isalways submission to a law” (D 125).

The fundamentalist theories of architecture such as the classical based onPlato’s Metaphysics and Pythagoras’s mathematics, as well as the Modern

Architecture based on scientific Positivism used to operate on canons(ideos) and gained their power from repetition. No two Renaissancechurches of the 15

th Century Italy are identical; no two Seljuk mosques of


18/300

17

the 11th

Century are identical, but all mosques of a certain period are thesame; so are all the churches, with imperceptible differences which defer theimminent changes. ‘The identifiability of the mark in its repetition and its

differentiality is what allows them to hop about from context to context’. By

introducing the word différance into philosophy Derrida has proposed apowerful modification of the ordinary notions of identity and difference: ‘Anysingle meaning of a concept or text arises only by the effacement of otherpossible meanings, which are themselves only deferred, left over, for theirpossible activation in other contexts’. When the deferred takes over the textis not the same any more…a new identity, a new meaning, a new buildingstyle might have been achieved is that which is implied.

‘Trivial insignificance signifies a possibility… Insignificant trace is the mark ofa difference a priori’ posits Derrida. This may be likened to ‘MA’ (a short

imperceptible interval) in Japanese dramas by which the subject matterchanges or to the term ‘inflection point’ in Deleuze’s philosophy whichimplies an insignificant signifier of drops and rises in speech (Cache, 1995).

Saussure (1915) had already emphasized something very similar in

linguistics:

“Inaudible is the difference between two phonemeswhich alone permits them to be and to operate assuch. The inaudible opens up the apprehension of two

present phonemes such as they present themselves”

In architecture the identity of conventional buildings is based on essential

and integrated unity where differences are subordinated. At the point wherethe inaudible is heard, that is, differences can no more be subordinated thenthe building type has moved into another state of being. A noticeable breakup with the past takes place. It betrays itself by the absence, reversal ortrivialization of the past canons and conventions at the level of majortaxonomies of architecture.

These taxonomies might be the most fundamentals such as the foundationsystem, structural system, wall system, fenestration system, enclosure

system; a more hard core level might be floor system, circulation system,service system; more abstract still, the order of nature, culture andcommunity, individual experiences. Sub-taxonomies such as;interior/exterior, positive space/negative space/anti-space also exist inarchitecture.


19/300

18

In this brief, Derrida’s major discourse might be inter-contextualized as ‘thecreative is that which is a difference a priori’. In search of it one might look atseveral things in architecture. In this pioneering work absence which is ‘the

condition of being different of all possible differences’ is the strongest case

to start with in order to render a convincing argument on what ‘the creative’is. The mark of creativeness might be the absence of some conventionsand/or exclusion of some rules.

Furthermore the canons of the earlier periods in architecture were alsobased on some dichotomies where one side was valued over the other, asin Western metaphysics and literature: Egyptian architecture champions the

columns, Roman the wall; Gropius valorizes served spaces, Kahn,Eisenman and Hadid valorize the servant spaces, this architect is sociallyresponsible, that architect is merely formalist. As a result the opposite-the

other-is always suppressed, overlooked and camouflaged in favor of theformer. Therefore reversal of hierarchies might be considered as anothertrace of creativeness. Valuable hierarchies in architecture might be:function/form, form/matter, intelligible/sensible, marginality/centrality,served/servant, fixed/flexible, stable/flowing, repetitive (iterable)/unique,

fit/misfit, discovered/invented, concept (mind)/vision (body),material/transcendental, concept (referent)/sign, correction/trivialization(mistakes, accidents. jokes, puns and witty manipulations) etc.

An insignificant sign of creativeness might be a balance maintained

between the conflicting and competing pairs of architectural concepts.‘Betweenness’ is proposed by Peter Eisenman in this respect as a tool ofnegotiation and compromise. In connection with dichotomies such as

intelligible/sensible and mind/body ‘playing over the limits ’ is anotherallusion made by Bernard Tschumi (1996).

Dislocating the ‘ideos’ per se through syntactic and semantic plays mightbe a very creative argument (Eisenman, 1988). This might be illustratedthrough dislocated plans, sections or building elements in architecture.

Again, rather than a hypothetically strong correlation between form andmatter, dissolution of relationships between the signifier and thesignified, which opens up to the creation of multiple meanings, might be

another way.Pioneering a preference for an architectural taxonomy over thecomplimentary or substitutive other(s) so as to cause an unprecedentedchange in the overall conception of a particular building can be considered astrong trace of creativeness. For instance, Max Berg’s design of the roof of asports facility in lace-like concrete structure can be considered as a strongsign of creativeness.


20/300

19

‘Event architecture’ proposed by Bernard Tschumi bears socialconnotations. Conventions in architecture repeat themselves as long as

social patterns continue. Human beings are in need of a comfort zone, they

need protection against others, from natural disasters and epidemics, theyneed food and water; they value privacy in congruence with their culturalheritage; they want to have national and individual identity no matter howsuppressed they are; they require support for their communal tasks, theyneed housing when they are alive and cemeteries when they die (Benedikt,1991). Nevertheless the flow of times on the one hand and unprecedentedevents on the other, require transformation of approaches in physical design

so as to accommodate the new, the invented, the reversed, the multiplied.Therefore Tschumi (1991) suggests that architects ought to follow veryclosely the changes of time and design for the event. Thus any design which

foresees the possible changes in the flows and invents a future accordinglyis the most creative of all.

All the above paradigms and unsupported arguments oblige exemplificationand illustration. They are demonstrated in the following chart, (Table 1).


21/300

20

Concepts/wordswhich design atedifferenc e

Content oftransformation

Element oftransformation

W h o Where andwhen

absenc e

space syntax andorganization

stairs to ramps

GiuseppeMomo

F. Ll WrightNormanFoster

VatikanMuseum, 1932

GuggenheimMuseum, N.Y.,1959Reichstag,Berlin, 1999

absence space organization disappearance of

walls and doorsinto partition s

F. Ll. Wright

Unitarian Chur ch

absenc e office space

organization

disappearance of

walls and partitions F. Ll. Wright

Buffalo Building,Johnson andWax CompanyBuilding

absenc e fenestration Corner s Mies van derRohe

Crown Hall, IIT,Chicag o

absenc e space syntax

floor plan form(CrossFrom Latin to

Greek)

Giuliano daSangallo

S. Maria della

Carceri, Prato,

1485

absenc e space syntax

floor plan form(central

organization wi thcurved geometries)

Leonardo daVinc i

S. Maria DellaConsolazione,

Todi, 150 4

absenc e space organization City/non-city DanielLibeskin d

City End Project(unbuilt)

absenc e fenestration

denial of substance(use of glassinstead of externalwalls)

Mies van derRohe

GermanPavillion,

Barcelona, 1928

absenc e

space syntax

(non-directedness;confusion;depredation)

Layout-

dissemination ofoverlappingrectangles, multiple

axes

(metaphorically theholocaust)

Daniel

Libeskin d

Jewish Museum,

Berli n

reversaloutside/insid e

space organization columniation anonymou s Greek vs.Roman

reversal (fulcra) ground-buildingrelation s

Foundations(pilotis)

Le CorbusierOscarNiemeyer and

Soares Filho

Swiss PavilionParis, 1932Interbau ApartmentHouse, 1957

reversal

marginality/centrality

space syntax staircases (frommain hall to thewings)

Andrea

Palladio

Villa Godi Porto,

1540

reversal:

marginality/centrality space organization

Location of book

shelves

Louis Kahn Exeter Library

reversalfreedom/dominance

layout organization

Disappearance ofcentral dominance

BernardTschum i

Parc de LaVilette

Table 1. A Few Examples of Marks of difference: Creativeness


22/300

21

Concluding statementI ventured into something which is hitherto unspoken. My locutions might notbe totally convincing and might probably require further scientific and/orparticipatory research and substantial argument. I am sure I could not

Concepts/words

which designate

difference

Content of

transformation

Element of

transformationWho

Where and

when

reversal:

servant/servedspace organization Corridors

Peter

Eisenman

Frankfurt

Biology

laboratories

reversal

(bridges within)spatial connections circulation models

originunknown; i.e.

Mecanoo

Delft University

Library, Holland

reversal

(of materials)material of building

componentfloor cladding

Henri

Labrouste,Biblioteque

St. Genévieve

(origin)

Mario Botta

Rem Koolhaas

Museum of

Modern Art, SanFrancisco, 1995

Uthrecht,

Holland, 1997

dislocating the

‘ideos’space organization

additional subsystems

to the major(conventional) axe

systems

Walter

Gropius

Bauhaus

Building inDessau

dislocating the

‘ideos’space syntax

grids at play;

geometry

Peter

Eisenman

Kochstrasse

Socail Housing,Berlin

dislocating the


exposing the service

and circulation

systems at the façade

Richard

Rogers &

Renzo Piano

Pompiodu

Centre

dislocating the


House syntax and

semantics

Peter

EisenmanHouses 1-10

dislocating the

‘ideos’expression framing the façade

José LouisSert

WeekendHouse,

Garraf Spain,

1935

dislocating the

‘ideos’

expressionground/figure

relationships

configurations

structural systemindustrial modes

house to house

relations

gardensMoshe Safdie

Habitat’67,Montreal, 1967

dislocating the

‘ideos’ by way of

metaphor

expressionvoids as mega

elements of design

Mario Botta

Tadao Ando

Johan Otto

von

Spreckelsen,

Breganzona

Single-familyhouse,

Ticino, 1988

Kiyou Bank Ltd.Sakai Branch, ,

Osaka,1989

La Grande

Arche de La

Défense,

Paris, 1989

dislocating the

‘ideos’

ground/figure

relations (refuting

gravity)

massing

Arata Isozaki

Eric Owen

Moss

Coop

Himmelblau

KitakyusyuConferenceCenter

Fukuoka, 1990

The Box inCulver City,

California, 1994

Ufa Cinema

Center,

Dresden, 1998

Table 1 (continued). A Few Examples of Marks of difference: Creativeness


23/300

22

answer all. I believe the question what is creative deserves a better answerthan this one because of its importance in architecture. Nevertheless, Iwould feel content if further research might depart from where I left and

interpret the tryouts here from their specific standing. “What we can not

speak about we must pass over in silence” said Wittgenstein in Tractatus(his dissertation at Trinity College) but if this grave question remainsunanswered I am afraid no discussion on fostering creativity can provefruitful.

References

Alexander, Christopher. (1964). Notes on the synthesis ofform. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Alexander, Christopher (1966) The City is not a Tree. AD

Berkun, Scott. (2003) How To Run a Design Critique.January. www.CHlplace Interactive –Discussion Forum.Benedikt, Michael (1991) Deconstructing the Kimble. New

York: Sites.Broadbent, Geoffrey and A. Ward (Eds.) (1969) Design

Methods in Architecture. London:Lund Humphries.

Broadbent, Geoffrey (1973) Design in architecture. NewYork: John Wiley

Bruner, Jerome S. (1962) The Conditions of Creativity. In

Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking. H. Gruber et al. (Eds.) NewYork: Atherton. 1-30.Cache, Bernard (1995) Earth Moves: The Furnishing of

Territories. Cambridge: MIT Press.Coop Himmelblau (1993) The End of Architecture. In The

End of Architecture: Documents and Manifestos. Peter Noever (Ed). Munichand the MAK-Austrian Museum of Applied Arts. Vienna: Prestel-Verlag.17-25.

Cross, Nigel (2006) Forty Years of Design Research” inDRQ 1(2), Dec. 3-5.

Culler, Jonathan (1982) On Deconstruction: Theory andCriticism after Structuralism. New York: Cornell UP.

Dean, Andrea. (1991) Socially Motivated Architecture. InCritical Architecture and Contemporary Culture. William J. Lillyman, MarilynF. Moriarty and David J. Neuman (Eds.) Oxford: Oxford UP.125-133.

Diehl, J. L. (1992). The Relationship between Creativity,Imagery and Personality Types in Interior Design Students, DoctoralDissertation, Oklahoma State University. University Microfilms International,1993. 93-21561.


24/300

23

Durling, David (2003) His response to a question in PHD-Design Discussion group newsletter; Feb.14.

Durling, David (2003a) Horse or Cart? Designer Creativity

and Personality, AED Paper Draft.

Eisenman, Peter (1988) The House of Cards. New York:Oxford UP.

Feist, G. J (1999) The Influence of personality on artistic andscientific creativity. In

R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge:Camb. U. Press; 273-296.

Frampton, Kenneth (1991) Reflections on the autonomy of

architecture: a critique of contemporary production. In Out of site: a socialcriticism of architecture.

D. Ghirardo (Ed.) Bay Press: Seattle. (1980). Place.

Production and Scenography: In International Theory and Practice Since1962. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. New York: Thames Hudson:Gehry, Frank (1994) Keynote address. In Critical

Architecture and ContemporaryCulture William J. Lillyman, Marilyn F. Moriarty and David J.

Neuman (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford UP. 165-185.Ghirardo, Diane (1991) Terragni, conventions and the critics.

In critical architecture and contemporary culture. William J. Lillyman, MarilynF. Moriarty and David J. Neuman (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford U. Press; 91-104.

Gur, Sengul Oymen (1978) Social Sciences in Architectural

Education: a Proposed Approach. Ph. D. Dissertation, U. of Pennsylvania.Microfilm Labs. Ann Arbor. Microfilm Laboratories, Michigan.Gur, Sengul Oymen (2007) Modernity vs. Postmodernity in

Architectural Education. JAPR. Vol.24 (2). 91-109.Israel, Frank (1994) Montage, Collage, and Broken

Narrative. In Critical Architecture and Contemporary Culture William J.Lillyman, Marilyn F. Moriarty and David J. Neuman (Eds.). Oxford: OxfordUP. 104-125.

Jones, J. Christopher (1970) Design Methods. Chichester:John Wiley and Sons.

Jones, J. Christopher and D. J. Thornley (Eds.). (1963)Conference on Design Methods. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lawson, Bryan (1980) How designers think. 2nd Edition.Butterworth Architecture. Oxford.

Lawson, Bryan (1997) How designers think-the designprocess demystified. Oxford: Oxford UP.

McCaulley, M. H. (1990) The MBTI and Individual Pathwaysin Engineering Design. In Engineering Education. Vol. 80(5). 537-542.


25/300

24

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962) The Personality Correlates ofCreativity: A Study of American Architects. In Proceedings of The FourteenthInternational Congress on Applied Psychology. Vol.2. G. S. Nielson (Ed.).

11-39.

Medawar, Peter B. (1969) Induction and Intuition In ScientificThought. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. IndependenceSquare. (1991). Transformative Dimension of Adult Learning. San Francisco.CA: Jossey-Bass. (1995). Transformation Theory of Adult Learning. InDefense of The Life World. M. R. Welton (Ed.) New York: Sunny Press. 39-70.

____ (1997) Transformative Learning: Theory To Practice. In Transformative

Learning In Action: Insights From Practice. New Directions for Adult andContinuing Education 74. P. Cranton (Ed.) San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.41-50.

Moss, Eric Owen (1993). Out of Place Is the One RightPlace. The End of Architecture: Documents and Manifestos. Vienna Architectural Conference. Peter Noever (Ed.) Munich: Prestel-Verlag. 61-71.

Myers, I. and P. Myers (1980) Gifts Differing. Palo Alto. CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B. (1993) Introduction to Type. Fifth edition. Oxford:Oxford Psychologist Press.

Peirce, Charles Sanders (1957) Essays in the Philosophy ofScience. Liberal Arts Press.

Pinos, Carme. (1993). Following the Trace. The End of

architecture: Documents and Manifestos. The End of Architecture:Documents and Manifestos. Vienna Architectural Conference. Peter Noever(Ed.) Munich: Prestel-Verlag.73-84.

Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge towards a PostCritical Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Rajchman, John (1998) Constructions. Cambridge: MITPress.

Rowe, Peter G. (1987) Design Thinking. Cambridge: MITPress.

Saussure, Ferdinand de (1915) Course de LinguistiqueGénérale. Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye with Albert Riedlinger (Ed).Wade Baskin (Trans.). (New York: The Philosophical Library Inc. 1959; New

York: McGraw Hill, 1966).Schön, Donald A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How

Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.Sternberg, R. J. (1986) Intelligence Applied: Understanding

and Increasing Your Intellectual skills. San Diego. Harcourt BraceJovanovich.


26/300

25

Tschumi, Bernard (1991) Event Architecture. In Architecturein Transition: Between Deconstruction and New Modernism. Peter Noever(Ed) Munich: Prestel. 125-130.

Tschumi, Bernard (1996) Architecture and Limit I-II-III. In

Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture. Kate Nesbitt (Ed).New York:Princeton Architectural Press. 150-169.

Vattimo, Gianni (1991) The End of Modernity, Nihilism andHermeneutics. In Postmodern Culture. Jon R. Snyder (Trans.) Baltimore:John Hopkins UP.

____ (1996) Ornament/Monument. In Rethinking Architecture: a Reader in Cultural Theory. N. Leach (Ed). New York:

Routledge. 147-160.Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophical Investigations.

G.E.M. Anscombe (Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.


27/300

26

A VISION FOR TRAINING DESIGN PROGRAM at AJMAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGYTraining as a Way of Teaching in Design Education

Dr. Abdulmounim T. Ali , Associate professor Faculty of Engineering

Ajman University of Science &Technology

Tel: + 971-6-7482222

Fax: + 971-6-7482277Email: [email protected]. Box 346 U.A.E.Mobile: + 971-50-4102484

EducationThe Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A.Ph.D. in Design & Decoration

Pratt Institute, U.S.A.

Master of Sciences in Interior Design

Baghdad University, Academy of Fine Arts, IraqBachelor of Fine Arts

Experience

Ajman University of Science & Technology, U.A.E. from 1999 Associate ProfessorDepartment of Interior Design


28/300

27

Al- Yarmouk University, Jordan, 1991-1998 Assistant Professor

Department of Interior Design

Baghdad University- College of Arts, Iraq, 1989-1991TeacherDepartment of Interior Design


29/300

28

ABSTRACT

This study looks into the training program, which is an integral part of theInterior Design Program at Ajman University of Science & Technology

(AUST). The Department of Interior Design has established trainingcooperation with many local offices and a number of design relatedcompanies and organizations.The training program is implemented in two parts, each with duration of 8weeks. The 16 weeks training is considered as 4 Cr.Hrs.of a total of 134

hours of the program. The aim of the training is to expose the student towork environment and practice what is learnt in class and design studios.During training, the students will be able to:

Apply theoretical knowledge to solve real design problems.Enhance active factors to give a hand in helping and improvement the

aesthetic qualities of the environmental aspects.Improve their practical skills.Help them to develop his artistic abilities in design, and to gain aesthetic

design experiences in factual life serving community needs.Develop a strong foundation and help the students to achieve their fullpotential, and to develop a self-motive approach to perform work in a team.

Ajman University of Science & technology places strong emphasis on qualityassurance and quality control. The same applies to the Department ofInterior Design .The quality of the training program is assessed from differentaspects. Evaluation and recommendations based on the assessment .The

main goal of the assessment is to modify/ update the program on a continualbasis to ensure that the graduates of this program are of high quality andhave achieved the desire objectives. For this, feedbacks are sought from thesites companies, training advisors, academic advisors, training student’ssurveys, and Alumni.Developments / actions are taken following, the recommendations fromevaluation..This study highlights the importance of training program in preparingstudents for a successfully professional practice.

Key words:Teaching Methods.Design Program.

Ability and Motivation.Training.Evaluation and Feedback Assessments.


30/300

29

A VISION FOR TRAINING DESIGN PROGRAM at AJMAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGYTraining as a Way of Teaching in Design Education

IntroductionTraining is an essential and an integral part of the curriculum of InteriorDesign program at Ajman University of Science &Technology . Studentshould spend a period of 4 months working in offices or related institutions in

order to gain practical skills and to get an understanding of the workenvironment. The Department of Interior Design has established trainingcooperation with many local offices and number of design related companiesand organizations.The training period is 16 weeks taken during two summers (training1 &

training2), each of 8 weeks duration. The training accounts for 4 credit hoursand students receive grades based on their performance during bothexternal training sessions.

A training manual is prepared to provide guidelines to students concerningtheir external training. The manual is made up of four parts:

1. Training Plan2. Guidelines for Trainee Students3. Guidelines for Practical Training4. Evaluation and Feedback Assessments.

Kilmers (1992) stated that Interior Design is one of the most stimulating andcreative professions. As a mixture of art, science, and technology, an interiordesign manipulates space, form texture, colour, and light to improve thequality of human life.The purpose of the training is to equip the student with basic practical skillsneeded at design sites and to provide them with theoretical and practicalinformation needed to help them take maximum benefit from their training.Training gives the student new techniques and methods needed. Training is

so necessary for development of material and plan. Capabilities that help

them to achieve what they want on their own level. Trevor Bentley (1992)stated that learning is a process which takes place as an interaction betweenlearners and their environments. Training provides students with knowledgeto develop confidence, integrity, and enhance artistic abilities by giving themthe necessary aesthetic design experience, and to prepare them to becomemore productive in providing services to the community, keeping in view itsinterests and needs.


31/300

30

Training ob jectives• There are specific objectives for practical training that must

understood and appreciate to get maximum benefit from training

sessions. Evaluation of training will be based on the level of

achievement of the following objectives:• The Correlation of theoretical knowledge with professional practice.• The acquirement of an additional technical knowledge concerning

the field of training.• The improvement of communication skills both oral, and in writing.• Showing the initiative and development of self-confidence in

handling the assigned tasks in real-life.

• Learning the significance of teamwork, and to act as a responsiblemember of the teamwork.

• Development the personality by learning about self-control

punctuality, professional responsibility, and time management, etc.• The Demonstration of a positive attitude of AUST student as a

serious learner, and an ability of making contribution to the ongoing jobs at the training sites.

• Training Program is required to cover essential work-related skills,

techniques and knowledge.• To enhance skills and enable learning and personal development,

which extends the range of development way outside the studiowork skills and knowledge to create far more exciting, liberating,motivational opportunities.

•

Understanding the peculiar problems facing the UAE society andneeds.

The significance of the design curriculum at Ajman UniversityBadrul H. Khan (2001) stated that training is an important tool for improvingknowledge and skill. The centre of training and continuing educationcoordinates training program at Ajman University of Science & Technology.The program is required to cover essential work-related skills, techniquesand knowledge, and deals with taking a positive progressive approach to thissort of professional practice (Training Centre, 2005).Importantly however, the most effective way to develop students is toenhance skills training, which will enable learning and personal

development. The students will have the opportunities to extend the range oftheir development outside the studio work into the real live work experiencesenvironment; and with specialists with broad experiences to develop theirabilities and concepts. Mel Silberman (1990) stated they help participants tobecome more a ware of their feelings and reactions to certain issues andnew ideas. The students will be more aware and able to create far moreexciting, liberating, motivational opportunities.


32/300

31

Training p rogramThe purpose of the training is to equip the students with basic practical skillsneeded at design sites and to provide them theoretical and practical

information needed to help them take maximum benefit from their training.

Training gives the students new techniques and methods needed, to be ableto relate the learning to their own experiences and needs. Training is sonecessary for development self-confidence and helps them to achieve whatthey want.Training help to develop and enhance the artistic abilities by giving themneces