Extracting Personal Preferences for Architectural Attributes: Examining the Reliability of Several Direct and Indirect Questioning Methods

Seyed Farhad Tayyebi, Yüksel Demir

Abstract


The personal satisfaction with the formal attributes of buildings has an underlying essence and needs some exploratory attempts to secure a reliable set of individual attribute satisfactions. This paper aims to discover reliable methods for extracting the personal preferences for the formal attributes by examining the accuracy of several questioning methods. Focusing on building facades, the attributes are defined at first to cover a wide range of architectural forms. The study then introduces eight methods of extracting personal preferences: four attribute-based methods directly ask participants for their attribute preferences, and four building-based methods extract each attribute satisfaction from the analysis of appreciation of architectural forms. A survey then extracts individuals’ satisfaction with the attributes via each method; the outcomes of each questioning method are examined by applying them into preference prediction of another set of building images integrated into the survey. The analysis shows that the most accurate results are achieved when participants directly express their opinions about the attributes illustrated in a building’s image. Among the building-based methods, considering all the visible attributes in the analysis of the building preferences can reveal the second-most accurate data. Finally, although the combination of both methods enhanced the result’s accuracy, the former method is more efficacious while a lower number of attributes are considered and knowledgeable people are addressed; otherwise, the latter method is practically more valid for laypeople and scalable to a large number of people.

 

Article received: May 28, 2020; Article accepted: July 11, 2020; Published online: September 15, 2020; Original scholarly paper

How to cite this article: Tayyebi, Seyed Farhad and Yüksel Demir. "Extracting Personal Preferences for Architectural Attributes: Examining the Reliability of Several Direct and Indirect Questioning Methods." AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 22 (2020): 111-134. doi: 10.25038/am.v0i22.381


Keywords


architectural attributes; building preferences; attribute satisfaction; formal appreciation; building aesthetics.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akalin, Aysu, Kemal Yildirim, Christopher Wilson, and Onder Kilicoglu. “Architecture and Engineering Students’ Evaluations of House Façades: Preference, Complexity and Impressiveness.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, 1 (2009): 124–32.

Çakırlar, Yasemin Burcu. “Factors Affecting Evaluations of Storefront Designs and Inference on Store Characteristics.” Bilkent University, 2010. http://hdl.handle.net/11693/15093.

Cook, Richard, and Adrian Furnham. “Aesthetic Preferences for Architectural Styles Vary as a Function of Personality.” Imagination, Cognition and Personality 32, 2 (October 1, 2012): 103–14. doi: 10.2190/IC.32.2.b.

Erdogan, Ebru, Serap Binici, Aysu Akalin, and Kemal Yildirim. “Urban Codes: Familiarity, Impressiveness, Complexity and Liking in Façades of Houses.” Gazi University Journal of Science 26, 2 (2013): 319–30.

Ferrari, Sônia Campaner Miguel. “Cinema, Architecture and Conditions of Artistic Experience in Big Cities.” AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 21 (2020): 109–19. doi: 10.25038/am.v0i21.362.

Gargus, Jacqueline. Ideas of Order: A Formal Approach to Architecture. Virginia: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1994.

Gombrich, Ernst Hans. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. A.W. Mellon Lecture in the Fine Arts, 1956 National Gallery of Art. Washington: Princeton University Press, 1960.

Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Hackett publishing, 1976.

Hanlon, Don. Compositions in Architecture. Hobokem, New Jersey: Wiley, 2009.

Herzog, Thomas R, and Ronda L Shier. “Complexity, Age, and Building Preference.” Environment and Behavior 32, 4 (July 1, 2000): 557–75. doi: 10.1177/00139160021972667.

Imamoglu, Çagri. “Complexity, Liking and Familiarity: Architecture and Non-Architecture Turkish Students’ Assessments of Traditional and Modern House Facades.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, 1 (2000): 5–16. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0155.

Li, Hua. “‘Composition’ and Regularisation of Architectural Production in Contemporary China.” Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China 4, 4 (2010): 465–73. doi: 10.1007/s11709-010-0097-z.

Lucan, Jacques. Composition, Non-Composition: Architecture and Theory in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Lausanne, Switzerland: Routledge, 2012.

Miu, Andrei C., Simina Pițur, and Aurora Szentágotai-Tătar. “Aesthetic Emotions Across Arts: A Comparison Between Painting and Music.” Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2016): 1951. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01951.

Nasar, Jack L. “The Evaluative Image of Places.” In Person-Environment Psychology: New Directions and Perspectives, 2nd Ed., edited by W. Bruce Walch, Kenneth H. Craik, Richard H. Price, 117–68. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2000.

Petrović, Milica. “Universal Language of Geometry: Geometrical Grid–The Nature of Space.” AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 16 (2018): 69–84. doi: 10.25038/am.v0i16.255.

Sanhueza, Miguel Zamorano. “Displacing Meanings: Hidden Signs of Aesthetics in the Chilean Context.” AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 21 (2020): 101–8. doi: 10.25038/am.v0i21.361.

Schumacher, Patrik. “Design Parameters to Parametric Design.” In The Routledge Companion for Architecture Design and Practice: Established and Emerging Trends, edited by Mitra Kanaani and Dak Kopec, 3–20. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2015.

Scruton, Roger. The Aesthetics of Architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.

Silvera, David H., Robert A. Josephs, and R. Brian Giesler. “Bigger Is Better: The Influence of Physical Size on Aesthetic Preference Judgments.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15, 3 (2002): 189–202.

Silvia, Paul J., and Christopher M. Barona. “Do People Prefer Curved Objects? Angularity, Expertise, and Aesthetic Preference.” Empirical Studies of the Arts 27, 1 (2009): 25–42.

Tayyebi, Seyed Farhad, and Yüksel Demir. “Architectural Composition: A Systematic Method to Define a List of Visual Attributes.” Art and Design Review 7, 3 (2019): 131–44. doi: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012.

Wiersema, Daphne V., Job Van Der Schalk, and Gerben A. van Kleef. “Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue? Need for Cognitive Closure Predicts Aesthetic Preferences.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6, 2 (2012): 168.

Wright, Frank Lloyd. In the Cause of Architecture: Essays by Frank Lloyd Wright for Architectural Record, 1908–1952. Edited by Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer. New York: Random House Incorporated, 1928.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i22.381

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 AM Journal of Art and Media Studies

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

AM Journal of Art and Media Studies ISSN 2217-9666 - printed, ISSN 2406-1654 - online, UDK 7.01:316.774

Contact: amjournal@outlook.com

Publisher: Faculty of Media and Communications, Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia

Indexed in: ERIH PLUSEBSCODOAJ, and in The List of Scientific Journals Categorization of Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia (M51-2019). Beginning with No. 12 2017, AM is indexed, abstracted and covered in Clarivate Analytics service ESCI.