Analysis of the effect of gender on the aesthetic preferences of symmetry in the façade of contemporary Iranian architectural buildings

Wahdattalab, Massud; Heshmati, Atefeh

doi:10.30479/at.2020.13416.1541

Analysis of the effect of gender on the aesthetic preferences of symmetry in the façade of contemporary Iranian architectural buildings

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

¹ Assistant professor in architecture at Tabriz Islamic Art University

² Master of Architecture, Tabriz Islamic Art University

10.30479/at.2020.13416.1541

Abstract

Research Problem: Aesthetic evaluation seems to be very difficult in the present time because of the various and sometimes contradictory definitions of aesthetics. However, the experimental aesthetics approach, which is based on the experience and perception of the audience, can be very useful and effective in evaluating visual qualities. The experimental aesthetics is based on the mindset and conception of the observer, therefore it attributes the perception of beauty to the individual's mind and related factors to them such as age and gender. According to the experimental aesthetics, approach gender is one of the most important factors that affect aesthetic preferences. Due to the importance and worthiness of symmetry in Iranian Islamic architecture, in this essay, we researched particularly this visual compone
Research Question: Current research examines the relationship between gender and symmetry as one of the important visual components. In this study, we want to answer this question: what is the effect of gender on the evaluation of the visual preferences of the symmetry component in the façade of contemporary Iranian architectural buildings.
Research Method: The research hypothesis has been tested using a questionnaire. To compile a questionnaire, 5 random prototypes of contemporary Iranian architectural buildings were selected and 7 groups, each contained 4 images and were produced by changing and manipulating the original images. Due to the interdependence and interaction of symmetry and complexity on each other, the symmetrical and asymmetrical images of each were tested in two simple and complex modes. Participants in the test were asked to arrange 4 categories of images in terms of their beauty priority from top to bottom. These 4 categories of images were "symmetrical and simple", "symmetrical and complex", as well as "asymmetrical and simple" and "asymmetrical and complex”.
The Most Important Results and Conclusion: The results show that "symmetrical and complex" images are typically the highest priority for individuals, regardless of gender, with the highest level of order and complexity. Symmetrical images usually look more regular. But that doesn't always mean simplicity. Sometimes by repeating the patterns and putting them together we can get more complex and new patterns that are very amazing and beautiful. As we see in Iranian Islamic architecture, this technique has been used a lot.
In compiling the research questionnaire, more complex images were produced using the vertical symmetry of the prototype. These images were more detailed, more diverse, and had more fractures. The images created from the manipulation of the prototype, while having the desired complexity, were also regular. Therefore, according to Eisenhower's formula, it was predicted that visual preferences would be the highest priority.
We must emphasize that this result cannot be generalized to the architectural group. Architects are more interested in the complexity and complex images compared to the other groups, and they have rated the "complex and asymmetrical" images as more beautiful ones. Although there is no difference between men and women in the choice of images, among the group of the architecture students but in the non-architectural groups (mathematics and liberal arts) Men compared to women have given higher scores to symmetrical images and symmetry is a very influential component in evaluating men's aesthetics preferences. But in women's visual preferences, complexity has played a more prominent role and women tend to choose more complex images.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

20.1001.1.25383019.1400.5.10.17.0

Main Subjects

Environmental psychology

References

آیوازیان سیمون. (1387). ضمیمه کتاب فون‌مایس پیر، نگاهی به مبانی معماری از فرم تا مکان همراه با تحلیل و قیاس با مبانی معماری ایران، تهران: دانشگاه تهران، موسسه انتشارات و چاپ. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/712540

بمانیان محمدرضا؛ آرین امیرخانی و لیلیان محمدرضا. (1389). نظم و بی‌نظمی در معماری: طحان. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/search/briefListSearch.do?command=FULL_VIEW&id=2036447&pageStatus=0&sortKeyValue1=sortkey_title&sortKeyValue2=sortkey_author

داندیس دونیس اِ. (1389). مبادی سواد بصری: سروش. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/search/briefListSearch.do?command=FULL_VIEW&id=2467350&pageStatus=0&sortKeyValue1=sortkey_title&sortKeyValue2=sortkey_author

رامین علی. (1390). نظریه‌های فلسفی و جامعه‌شناختی در هنر: نشر نی. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/search/briefListSearch.do?command=FULL_VIEW&id=2456280&pageStatus=0&sortKeyValue1=sortkey_title&sortKeyValue2=sortkey_author

گروتر یورگ کورت. (1390). زیبایی‌شناسی در معماری: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. https://libs.nlai.ir/bibliography/25Dz-_o%3D/%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C/

مهدوی نژاد محمدجواد و ناگهانی نوشین. (1390). تأثیر سواد بصری بر درک زیبایی در آثار معماری. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان‌شهر. دوره4. شماره7. http://www.armanshahrjournal.com/article_32682.html

وحدت طلب، مسعود. 1389. زیباشناسی زیستی، بررسی ویژگی‌های زیستی در داوری زیبایی شناسانۀ آثار معماری. تهران: رسالۀ دکتری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. http://library.sbu.ac.ir/islandora/object/thesis%3A28728

وحدت‌طلب ‌مسعود؛ یاران ‌علی و محمدی‌خوش‌بین ‌حامد. (1397). بررسی مفهوم و ارزیابی پروخالی در جداره‌های خانه‌های تاریخی تبریز. پژوهش‌های معماری اسلامی. دوره19. شماره6: 66-84. http://jria.iust.ac.ir/article-1-1011-fa.html

هاسپرس جان و اسکراتن راجر. (1389). فلسفه هنر و زیبایی‌شناسی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران، موسسه انتشارات و چاپ. https://libs.nlai.ir/bibliography/2Q8NhJE3/%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%81%D9%87-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C/

Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C., & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students' evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 124-132.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494408000443

Alkhresheh, M. M. (2012). Preference for void-to-solid ratio in residential facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 234-245. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494412000126

Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-06077-000

Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation: Hemisphere. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-07344-000

Cronin, H. (1993). The ant and the peacock: Altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today: Cambridge University Press. https://www.amazon.com/Ant-Peacock-Altruism-Sexual-Selection/dp/0521457653

Dufrenne, M. (1973). The phenomenology of aesthetic experience: Northwestern University Press. https://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Aesthetic-Experience-Existential-Philosophy/dp/0810105918

Eisenman, R. (1967). Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 8(4), 169-170. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03331603

Eisenman, R., & Rappaport, J. (1967). Complexity preference and semantic differential ratings of complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Psychonomic Science, 7(4), 147-148. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03328508

Eysenck, H. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48(1), 83. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1941-03069-001

Eysenck, H. J. (1968). An Experimental Study of Aesthetic Preference for Polygonal Figures. The Journal of General Psychology, 79(1), 3-17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221309.1968.9710447?journalCode=vgen20

Galindo, M. P., & Hidalgo, M. C. (2005). Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. International Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 19-26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207590444000104

Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U. (2017). The ambiguity of Artworks–a guideline for empirical aesthetics research with artworks as stimuli. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1857. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01857/full

Imamoglu, Ç. (2000). COMPLEXITY, LIKING AND FAMILIARITY: ARCHITECTURE AND NON-ARCHITECTURE TURKISH STUDENTS'ASSESSMENTS OF TRADITIONAL AND MODERN HOUSE FACADES. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 5-16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249449990155X

Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2001). Aesthetics electrified: An analysis of descriptive symmetry and evaluative aesthetic judgment processes using event-related brain potentials. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19(2), 177-19. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/P7W1-5F1F-NJK9-X05B

Johnson, O., & Knapp, R. H. (1963). Sex differences in aesthetic preferences. The Journal of social psychology, 61(2), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1963.9919486

KÖSEOĞLU, E., & ÇELİKKAYALAR, E. (2016). Yapılı Çevrede Renk Tercihleri. Mimarlık Bilimleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi (MBUD), 1(2), 57-65. http://www.academia.edu/download/51997870/yapili-cevrede-renk-tercihleri.pdf

Leder, H., Tinio, P. P., Brieber, D., Kröner, T., Jacobsen, T., & Rosenberg, R. (2019). Symmetry Is Not a Universal Law of Beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37(1), 104-114. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0276237418777941

Little, A. C., Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: data from the UK and the Hadza, an isolated group of hunter-gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1629), 3113-3117. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2007.0895

Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 661. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-10737-001

McManus, I. C. (2005) Symmetry and asymmetry in aesthetics and the arts. European Review, 13(S2), 157-180. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Mcmanus/publication/4732061_Symmetry_and_asymmetry_in_aesthetics_and_the_arts/links/0deec519125251f84d000000.pdf

McManus, I., Cook, R., & Hunt, A. (2010). Beyond the golden section and normative aesthetics: why do individuals differ so much in their aesthetic preferences for rectangles? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 113.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/aca/4/2/113/

Moller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. The American Naturalist, 151(2), 174-192. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/286110

Myszkowski, N., Storme, M., & Zenasni, F. (2016). Order in complexity: How Hans Eysenck brought differential psychology and aesthetics together. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 156-162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916302902

O'Connor, Z. (2008). Façade colour and aesthetic response: Examining patterns of response within the context of urban design and planning policy in Sydney. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/4093

Pecchinenda, A., Bertamini, M., Makin, A. D. J., & Ruta, N. (2014). The pleasantness of visual symmetry: Always, never or sometimes. PloS one, 9(3). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092685

Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and social psychology review, 8(4), 364-382. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

Shepherd, K., & Bar, M. (2011). Preference for symmetry: Only on Mars? Perception, 40(10), 1254-1256. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p7057

Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(12), 452-460. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661399014035

Weichselbaum, H., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2018). Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a function of art expertise. i-Perception, 9(2). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2041669518761464

Weyl, H. (1952). Symmetry Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, 17. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691173252/symmetry

Zhang, M., Du, J., & Tang, Y. (2019). Preference for Chinese Vernacular Windows: Combined Effects of Shape and View. Paper presented at the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-20151-7_19