A Qualitative Study of Aesthetic Visual Preferences for Domed Buildings from the Viewpoints of Art and Non-Art Students

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Professor, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student of Islamic architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Domed buildings and, in particular, domed squares are among the most important visual elements in the public view of the cities. Despite the importance of the domed square in Iranian architecture, there has not been much studying related to the aesthetic evaluation, through the mental approach for these buildings. Due to the fact that domed structures are associated with the historical memory and identity of the people, it is important to identify the factors that have the greatest impact on their aesthetic preferences. The purpose of this study is to identify the factors of aesthetic desirability of a domed square from the viewpoint of students in two groups of artistic and non-artistic disciplines and is trying to answer the question of “which factors contribute to the preferences of the people for the form of domed buildings?” Another question is about the impact of arts education on these preferences. The research is conducted based on a qualitative approach. The data is obtained via using Q-sort technique and semi-structured interviewing tool. The participants are consisted of 46 students (23 art disciplines and 23 non-art disciplines students). They were selected from students of Tabriz University and Tabriz Islamic Art University via the convenience sampling method, and the sample size was determined by data saturation. In order to provide visual stimuli, at first, 16 domed buildings (with curved domes) were selected in various shapes from the famous and historical mausoleums as mentioned in the resources related to Iranian -Islamic architecture. Then, their general form that consists of three parts of the dome, the drum, and the base were simulated using AutoCAD software. The buildings’ height was considered to be the same for all of them. Visual stimuli were presented to participants in four categories. After ranking the stimuli in two stages, they were asked to give reasons for their preference for each of the four top selected buildings. Data analysis was performed using the qualitative method of thematic analysis. Eight main themes and 27 subthemes were extracted. Based on the results, the desirability of the form of domed building is clustered around four general concepts including visual richness, size and proportion, simplicity, and style of the building (related to familiarity and novelty). The motion or variety factor that appeared in the form of a polygonal base or drum versus rectangular shape have an important role in the desirability of the form. Also, good proportions were very important for most participants. They compared the three main parts of the buildings in terms of size and chose more natural and balanced proportions. Although the preferences of two groups of art and non-art students were based on almost common themes and, three of the four top choices were shared between them; art students showed a tendency toward simplicity and volumetric purity and at the other hand, the visual richness related to the features of elegance, and complexity was more preferred by non-art students. The results of this research can be helpful for designers of monuments and urban important buildings in terms of predicting preferential factors.

Graphical Abstract

A Qualitative Study of Aesthetic Visual Preferences for Domed Buildings from the Viewpoints of Art and Non-Art Students

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

امین‌زاده، بهناز. 1389. ارزیابی زیبایی و هویت مکان. هویت شهر. 5(7): 3-14.
بل، سایمون. 1394. منظر، الگو، ادراک و فرایند، ترجمه بهناز امین‌زاده، چاپ چهارم. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
پیرنیا، محمدکریم. 1380. سبک‌شناسی معماری ایرانی، تدوین غلامحسین معماریان، انتشارات پژوهنده- نشر معمار، تهران.
حاجی‌قاسمی، کامبیز. 1389. گنجنامه: امام‌زاده‌ها و مقابر (دفاتر یازدهم، دوازدهم و سیزدهم)، مرکز چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران.
رضازاده، راضیه. 1383. بررسی نقش معماری در تداعی معانی و انتقال مفاهیم، معماری مسجد: سنتی یا نوآورانه. هنرهای زیبا (18): 37-48.
فراهانی، امیرحسین، و موحد، ضیاء. 1383. بازسازی منطق ترجیح.‌ مقالات و بررسیها 76(2): 11-29.
کریمی مشاور، مهرداد، سجادزاده، حسن، و وحدت، سلمان. 1394. سنجش اولویت‌های خوانش منظر فضاهای شهری از دیدگاه شهروندان (نمونه موردی : میدان‌های شهری همدان). باغ نظر 12(37): 3-14.
گلچین، پیمان، ناروئی، بهروز،‌ و ایرانی بهبهانی،‌ هما. 1392. بررسی ترجیحات استفاده‌کنندگان بر پایة ارزیابی کیفیت بصری مطالعة موردی: پارک جنگلی شهری ملت زاهدان. محیط‌شناسی 39(4): 193-203.
لنگ، جان. 1393. آفرینش نظریه معماری: نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط. ترجمه علیرضا عینی‌فر. چاپ هفتم. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
مایس، پی‌یر فون. 1391. نگاهی به مبانی معماری از فرم تا مکان. ت: سیمون آیوازیان. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
مدیری، آتوسا، و نوراللهی اسکویی، نیکو. 1393. ارزیابی ادراک بصری فضایی میدان امام حسین (ع). مطالعات شهری 3(11): 77-86.
مهوش، محمد، و مرادپور، رضا. 1395. در جستجوی تصویر کالبدی مسجد مطلوب در پنداشت‌های ذهنی جامعه، نمونه موردی: شهر بجنورد، خراسان شمالی. نشریه معماری و شهرسازی آرمان­شهر 9(17): 139-149.
مولوی، مهرناز. 1384. تحلیل فرمال فضای شهری و پایه‌های فلسفی آن. هنرهای زیبا (21):‌ 27-34.
هاسپرس،‌ جان. 1376. مسائل زیباشناسی. در: تاریخ و مسائل زیباشناسی. ترجمه محمدسعید حنایی کاشانی. تهران: هرمس.
هیلن‌برند، روبرت. 1393. معماری اسلامی: شکل، کارکرد و معنی، ترجمة باقر آیت‌الله‌زاده شیرازی، چاپ هفتم، روزنه، تهران.
وحیدزادگان، فریبا، ایرانی بهبهانی، هما، و طالبیان، محمدحسن. 1392. ارزیابی متغیرهای تأثیرگذار بر زیبایی منظر تاریخی- فرهنگی آرامستان‌های اسلامی ایران (نمونه موردی تخت فولاد اصفهان). مطالعات شهر ایرانی اسلامی (11): ‌73-78.
Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, CH., and Kilicoglu, O. 2009. Architecture and Engineering Students’ Evaluations of House Façades: Preference, Complexity and Impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29(1): 124-132.
Alp, A.V. 1993. An Experimental Study of Aesthetic Response to Geometric Configurations of Architectural Space. Leonardo 26(2): 149-157.
Berlyne, D.E. 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology,
Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77-101.
Brown, G. and Gifford, R. 2001. Architects predict lay evaluations of large contem- porary buildings: whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 93–99.
Devlin, K. and Nasar, J.L. 1989. The Beauty and the Beast: Some Preliminary Comparisons of 'High' versus 'Popular' Residential Architecture and Public versus Architect Judgments of Same. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9: 333-344.
Fawcett, W., Ellingham, I., and Platt, S. 2008. Reconciling the Architectural Preferences of Architects and the Public, The Ordered Preference Model. Environment and Behavior 40(5): 599-618.
Gifford, R., Hine, D.W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, Jr., D.J., and Shaw, K. T. 2000. Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Environment and Behavior 32(2): 163-187.
Gjerde, M. 2010. Visual aesthetic perception and judgement of urban streetscapes. In: P. Barrett (ed.) Building a Better World: CIB World Congress. Salford, UK: CIB Press.
Hanyu, K. 2000. Visual Properties and Affective Appraisals in Residential Areas Daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20: 273-8.
Holsti, O. R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Imamoglu, C. 2000. Complexity, Preference and Familiarity: Architecture and Nonarchitecture Turkish Students’ Assessments of Traditional and Modern House Façades. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20(1): 5–16.
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Karimi Moshaver, M. and Abrar Asari, H. 2014. The Effect of Tall Facades Complexity on the Aesthetic Quality of Urban Landscape (The Case Study: Tehran-Iran). Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 2(5): 146-156.
King, N. 1998. Template analysis, in G. Symon and C. Cassell (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: Sage.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., and Augustin, D. 2004. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology 95: 489-508.
Markovi ́c, S. and Alfirevi ́c, D. 2015. Basic dimensions of experience ofarchitectural objects’ expressiveness: effect of expertise. Psihologija 48, 61–78.
Nasar, J.L. 1998. The Evaluative Image of the City. California: Sage Publication.
Nasar, J.L. 1994. ‘Urban Design Aesthetics: The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors. Environment and Behavior 26: 377-401.
Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. London: Sage.
Reis, A.T.da L., Biavatti, C.D., and Pereira, M.L. 2014. Composição arquitetônica e qualidade estética [Architectural composition and aesthetics quality]. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre 14(1): 191-213.
Santayana, G. 1896. The Sense of Beauty; Being the Outlins of Aesthetic Theory, C. Scribner's Sons.
Stamps III, A.E. 1999. Physical determinants of preferences for residential facades. Environment and Behavior 31(6): 723-751.
Wickelgren, W.A. 1979. Cognitive Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Zajonc, R.B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9(2, Pt.2): 1–27.
Journal of Architectural Thought
Volume 3, Issue 6 - Serial Number 6
September 2020
Pages 1-16

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics