SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER
The Meaning of Studio Practice Over Shadowed by Technology in Design Process
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Altınbaş University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, İstanbul, TURKEY
Online publish date: 2017-11-15
Publish date: 2017-11-15
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(12):7659–7670
KEYWORDS
This article has been presented in ICES 2017 - International Conference on Environmental Sciences & Educational Studies. This article belongs to the special issue " Interdisciplinary Research on the Environmental Education, Educational Studies in Sustainability & Instructional Technologies and Designs".
ABSTRACT
Design discipline can be defined as it has dynamic, technologic, socio- cultural features and its process changes constantly. The design problems in the design studio are mostly fictional; the virtual user, program and space become concrete by the requirement program that is specified according to research in this process. Although this designed virtual space has potential for construction, it is observed that it remains at conceptual format on paper and doesn’t become reality. It is a stubborn fact that both conceptual and construction project provide essential contributions to design discipline and make references to different aspects of design. The final design artifact generated in the light of this information, is beyond being just the perceptions, opinions and technological advancements. It can be defined as the reflection of the existence of its designer. In this report it will be emphasized how is design realized, how are the concern of conceptual thinking, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating and resulting processes attained, where is the place of intelligence in the perception of problems. The importance of intelligence in the solving the problems and the experiences of memory in this process will be represented as well. As a result of this the design process and studio practice can be recognized as an “experimental” process and the developments in technology provide various interfaces and data. One of the purposes of this report is the discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of technology in the construction phase, which is the continuation of cognitive process. Beside this, design as an “interface” of susceptibility of its designer will be examined whether it reflects the original identities with technological advancements or not. Within the scope of this study, the real-physical environments perceived by an individual and the “perceptional phychology of space” created in individual’s mind is compared to the individual’s spatial perception experiencing in the virtual environments. The idea of the digital space created by using the VR and AR virtual reality technologies have been researched about to what extent it might be involved with the perception of real human psychology in design education. The effective use of technological visualizing methodologies such as VR and AR will expose a new perspective in design education.
 
REFERENCES (36)
1.
Atalayer, F. (1994). Gorsel sanatlarda estetik iletisim. Anadolu Universitesi Guzel Sanatlar Fakultesi Yayinlari, Eskisehir.
 
2.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality Presence. Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.
 
3.
Bachelard, G. (2013). Mekânın Poetikası, (A. Tumertekin, çev). İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları.
 
4.
Barrett, H. (2006). Researching and evaluating digital storytelling as a deep learning tool. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1, 647.
 
5.
Baykan, C. A. (2002). Mimarlık Sanallık ve Sanal Mekânların Tasarımı, Arredamento Mimarlık Çağdaş Mimarlık Sorunları Dizisi: Mimarlık ve Sanallık. İstanbul: Boyut Yayıncılık.
 
6.
Bertol, D. (1996). Designing Digital Space: An Architect’s Guide To Virtual Reality. NY: John Wiley & Sons, 23-39.
 
7.
Besgen, A., Kuloglu, N., & Fathalizadehalemdari, S. (2015). Teaching/Learning Strategies through Art: Art and Basic Design Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 428–432.
 
8.
Bowman, D. A., & Hodges, L. F. (1999). Formalizing the design, evaluation, and application of interaction techniques for immersive virtual environments. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 10, 37-53.
 
9.
Burdea, G., & Coiffet, P. (1994). Virtual Reality Technology. Paris: Wiley-Interscience, Hermes.
 
10.
Celik, G. I. (2008). A Research on Comparative Analyzes of Interior Architecture Education Programmes (Postgraduate Thesis), Karadeniz Technical University, Physical Science Institute.
 
11.
Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25-39.
 
12.
Dikmen, C. B. (2011). Significance of Studio Study in Architecture Education: Basic Education Studios, e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy Engineering Sciences, 1A0257, 6(4), 1509-1520.
 
13.
Eryalçın, B. (1994). Hayalle Gerçeğin Dansı, Sanal Gerçeklik. Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi, 323(21). Ankara: Tübitak Yayınları.
 
14.
Gibson, J. J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
 
15.
Gibson, J. J. (1968). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. London: Gerorge Allen and Unwin Ltd.
 
16.
Gokaydin, N. (1990). Egitimde Tasarim ve Gorsel Algi. Sedir Yayinevi, Ankara.
 
17.
Kut, S., Aydınlı, S., & Erdem, A. (2013). Sibertektonik Mekan. Tasarım Kuram Dergisi, 15, 21-33. İstanbul: MSGSU Yayınları.
 
18.
Lacan, J. (1977). The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho Analysis. London: Hogarth.
 
19.
Law, S. (2012). Önsöz, 30 Saniyede Felsefe (Eds. Barry Loewer). İstanbul: Caretta Kitapları.
 
20.
Lefebvre, H. (1998). The Production of Space. Oxford, UK: Blachwell Publishers Ltd.
 
21.
Manovich, L. (2002). The Poetics of Augmented Space: Learning from Prada. New Media: Theories and Practices of Digitextuality, 75–92.
 
22.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). The phenomenology of perception (reprinted). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
 
23.
Merrifield, A. (2000). Henri Lefebvre: A Socialist in Space. Mike Crang and Nigel Thrift (eds). In Thinking Space. London: Routledge, 167-182.
 
24.
Milgram, P., & Kishino A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321-1329.
 
25.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. SPIE Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, 2351.
 
26.
Navarro, I., Fonseca, D., Redondo, E., Sánchez, A., Martí, N., & Simón, D. (2012). Teaching evaluation using augmented reality in architecture.
 
27.
Oppenheim, C. (1993). Virtual reality and the virtual library. Information Services and Use, (13), 215-227.
 
28.
Özen, A. (2004). Sanal Ortamlarda Mekansal Okuma Parametreleri ve Sanal Müzeler (Masters Thesis). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
 
29.
Pimental, K., & Teixeira, K. (1993). Virtual Reality Through the New Looking Glass, 2nd Ed. NY: McGraw-Hill.
 
30.
Pool, C. R. (1997). A new digital literacy: A conversation with Paul Gilster. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 6-11.
 
31.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
 
32.
Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., & Rivlin, L. G. (1970). Environmental Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting. NY, USA: Holt, Rinehart and Wiston.
 
33.
Redondo, E., Fonseca, D., Sánchez, A., & Navarro, I. (2012). Augmented reality in architecture degree. New approaches in scene illumination and user evaluation. Journal of Information and Application in Education, 1(1), 19-27.
 
34.
Sánchez, A. (2000). Design of Virtual Reality Systems for Education: A Cognitive Approach. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 345–362.
 
35.
Schön, D. (1985). The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials. Londra: RIBA.
 
36.
Waterworth, J. A. (1997). Personal spaces: 3D spatial worlds for information exploration, organisation and communication. In R. Earnshaw & J. Vince, (Eds.), The Internet in 3D, NY: Academic Press.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215