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

Seyed Farhad Tayyebi; Yüksel Demir

doi:10.25038/am.v0i22.381

Authors

Seyed Farhad Tayyebi
Yüksel Demir

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i22.381

Keywords:

architectural attributes, building preferences, attribute satisfaction, ormal appreciation, building aesthetics

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

Author Biographies

Seyed Farhad Tayyebi

Seyed Farhad Tayyebi, studies architectural engineering (2004–2009) and M.Sc. in Architecture (2011–2013). He is studying his Ph.D. in architectural design since 2013 and currently doing research as a Ph.D. Candidate in the field of Architectural Design at Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. He is currently finalizing his dissertation on the correlation between architecture and music. During his dissertation progress and personal investigations, he has been working on various aspects of architectural forms including, architectural composition and architectural forms evolutions through history, building attributes, visual qualities, and architectural form appraisals.

Yüksel Demir

Yüksel Demir, studied Architecture in Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture (1983–1987), got his master (1990) and Ph.D. (2000) degrees from ITU Institute of Science & Technology Architectural Design Program. Practiced architecture (1987–1989). Worked as a teaching assistant since 1989, and served as the head of the department of Fine Arts in ITU (2007–2016). He is currently working as a Professor in ITU Department of Architecture. Under his administration, the department opened elective art courses for all engineering students of ITU. He took part in the development process of an interdisciplinary first-year basic design studio in ITU department of Architecture (2000–2004). Demir worked in Politecnico Di Milano DIAP (now DASTU) as a guest professor (2010–2015) and was a visiting professor at Anadolu University, Department of Architecture (2009–2013), and Auburn University CADC (2016 Fall & 2017 Fall).

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.005

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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350928541

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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.410

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b

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. DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025878

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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i22.381