تأثیر آشنا بودن و پیچیدگی نماهای آپارتمانی در زیبایی سه سبک نما در تهران- مقایسه دیدگاه معماران و غیر معماران

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری معماری، گروه معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران

2 استاد، گروه معماری و مرمت، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران

3 استاد، گروه معماری و منظر، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

بیان مساله: نماهای آپارتمان‌های مسکونی نقش شاخصی در شکل‌گیری منظر شهر و حس و حال مردم دارند. این نماها با توجه به عناصر فیزیکی شکل دهنده به صورت سبک های متفاوت از هم متمایز می‌شوند. وجود ویژگی‌های خاصی در طرح‌های نماها می‌تواند تأثیرات حسی و روحی خوشایندی بر افراد بگذارد. شناسایی کیفیتهای ادراکی مؤثر بر ترجیحات سه سبک نماهای آپارتمانی می‌تواند گامی در جهت طراحی نماهای آپارتمانی مطلوب با توجه به دیدگاه مشترک معماران و غیر معماران باشد.
سوال تحقیق: با توجه به مسئلة پژوهش، دو سؤال پژوهش حاضر بدین شرح ارائه می‌گردد: میزان پیچیدگی سه سبک نما چه تأثیری بر ارزیابی زیبایی نما از منظر معماران و غیر معماران دارد؟ میزان آشنا بودن سه سبک نما چه تأثیری بر ارزیابی زیبایی نما از منظر معماران و غیر معماران دارد؟
اهداف تحقیق: در این پژوهش تأثیر کیفیت‌های ادراکی و احساسی آشنا بودن و پیچیدگی در ارزیابی زیبایی‌ سه سبک نمای مدرن متأخر، نئوکلاسیک و پست مدرن توسط دو گروه معماران و غیرمعماران مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است.
روش تحقیق: پرسشنامه‌ای برای ارزیابی پانزده تصویر نما اتخاذ گردید. این پرسشنامه توسط 340 غیر معمار و 143 معمار تکمیل شد. تأثیر پیچیدگی و آشنا بودن بر ارزیابی زیبایی سه سبک نما با روش آماری رگرسیون چندگانه تحلیل شد. نمودارهایی که سطوح پیچیدگی و آشنا بودن مرتبط با سطوح ارزیابی زیبایی را نشان می‌دهند مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند.
مهم­ترین یافته ­ها و نتیجه­ گیری تحقیق: نتایج تحلیل رگرسیون نشان می‌دهند که رابطه بین متغیر‌های مستقل پیچیدگی و آشنا‌بودن با متغیر وابسته زیبایی، معنی‌دار است. با توجه به مقادیر ضرایب رگرسیون، متغیر پیچیدگی (با ضرایب رگرسیون استاندارد 421/0، 337/0 و 430/0) در ارزیابی زیبایی نماها در مقایسه با متغیر آشنا‌بودن (با ضرایب رگرسیون استاندارد 179/0، 138/0 و 115/0) نقش مؤثرتری دارد. البته تحلیل نمودارهای فراوانی انتخاب سطوح آشنا بودن مرتبط با بالاترین ارزیابی زیبایی نشان می‌دهد که فراوانی انتخاب دو گزینة آشنا بودن زیاد و آشنا بودن کم مرتبط با فراوانی انتخاب بالاترین سطوح زیبایی می‌باشد و لذا این اختلاف رگرسیون حاصل شده است. بر خلاف یافته‌های سایر پژوهش‌ها، بالاترین سطوح پیچیدگی و آشنا‌بودن دو سبک نمای مدرن متأخر و پست مدرن مرتبط با بالاترین ارزیابی زیبایی برای دو گروه معماران و غیر معماران است. با توجه به ترجیح سطح پیچیدگی بالا توسط دو گروه معماران و غیرمعماران، پیشنهاد می‌شود که معماران به غنای بصری نماهایی که طراحی می‌کنند توجه کنند. استفاده از عناصر معماری آشنا نیز پیشنهاد می‌شود.

چکیده تصویری

تأثیر آشنا بودن و پیچیدگی نماهای آپارتمانی در زیبایی سه سبک نما در تهران- مقایسه دیدگاه معماران و غیر معماران

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Familiarity and Complexity of Apartment Facades on the Beauty Assessment of Three Facade Styles in Tehran - Comparing the Views of Archi-tects and Non-architects

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahboubeh sadat Mortazavi 1
  • Fatemeh Mehdizadeh Saradj 2
  • Mohsen Faizi 3
1 Ph.D. of Architecture, Architecture Department, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Architecture and Historic Preservation Department, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, Landscape Department, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Research Problem: The facades of residential apartments play an important role in forming the city landscape and the people's mood. These façades are distinguished in different styles according to the physical elements that they encompass. The presence of certain features in façade designs can have pleasant emotional and spiritual effects on people. This research examines the impact of perceptual and emotional qualities of familiarity and complexity on assessing the aesthetics of late-modern, neoclassic and postmodern style facades by two groups of architects and non-architects. Identifying the perceptual qualities that are effective in preferences of three styles of apartment facades can be a step towards the design of desirable apartment facades according to the common point of view of architects and non-architects
Research Question: According to the research problem, the two questions of the current research are presented as follows: What effect does the degree of complexity of the three facade styles have on the evaluation of the beauty of the facades from the perspective of architects and non-architects? What effect does the degree of familiarity of the three facade styles have on the evaluation of the beauty of the facade from the perspective of architects and non-architects?
Research Method: A questionnaire was adopted to assess fifteen façade images. The questionnaire was filled out by 340 non-architects and 143 architects. The effect of complexity and familiarity on the beauty evaluation of three façade styles was analyzed with multiple regression. Graphs showing levels of complexity and familiarity associated with levels of beauty evaluation were examined.
The Most Important Results and Conclusion: The results of regression analysis show that the relation-ship between the independent variables of complexity and familiarity with the dependent variable of beauty is significant. According to the values of the regression coefficients, the complexity variable (with standard regression coefficients of 0.421, 0.337 and 0.430) has a more effective role in evaluating the beauty of the facades as compared to the familiarity variable (with standard regression coefficients of 0.179, 0.138 and 115 0). It is note worthy that the analysis of the graphs of the frequency of choosing the levels of familiarity related to the highest evaluations of beauty shows that the frequency of choosing the two options of high familiarity and low familiarity are related to the most frequency of choosing the highest levels of beauty. Therefore, this regression difference has been obtained. Results show that the presence of two independent variables of familiarity and complexity are significant for predicting the beauty of facades. In contrast to other findings in this field, the highest levels of complexity and familiarity of the late-modern and postmodern façade styles are related to the highest assessments of beauty by the majority of the population of both groups of architects and non-architects. The majority of the architects agree that the neoclassic style façade has minimum and moderate complexity related to minimum beauty levels and the majority of non-architects agree that this façade style has maximum and moderate complexity related to maximum and moderate beauty levels, respectively. Considering the preference for high complexity by both groups of architects and non-architects, it is suggested that architects provide adequate façade elements in their façade designs. The use of familiar architectural elements is also suggested.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • complexity
  • familiarity
  • façade aesthetics
  • facade styles
  • architects
  • non-architects

مراجع

پاکزاد، جهانشاه. 1382. پدیدارشناسی نماهای مسکونی و سیر تکوین توقعات از آن. نشریه هنرهای زیبا، 14(14): 102-91. https://journal.ut.ac.ir/article_10813.html
پور جعفر، محمد رضا، علوی با المعنی، مریم. 1391. استخراج معیارهای هماهنگی و ناهماهنگی نماهای ساختمان با دستگاه بینایی انسان با توجه به اصول بوم شناسی بصری. انجمن علمی معماری و شهرسازی ایران، 1(3): 5-18. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2013.61951
سالینگاروس، نایکوس. 1387. یک نظریه معماری. ترجمة سعید زرین مهر، و زهیر متکی. تهران: مرکز مطالعاتی و تحقیقاتی شهرسازی و معماری.
قبادیان، وحید. 1392. سبک‌شناسی و مبانی نظری در معماری معاصر ایران. تهران: علم معمار.
مرتضوی، محبوبه سادات، مهدیزاده سراج، فاطمه، فیضی، محسن. 1401. ترجیحات بصری معماران و غیر معماران در ارزیابی عناصر فیزیکی نماهای آپارتمانهای مسکونی میان مرتبه در تهران. نشریه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، 27(1): 87-75. https://doi.org/10.22059/JFAUP.2022.325269.672641
مرتضوی، محبوبه سادات، مهدیزاده سراج، فاطمه، فیضی، محسن. 1400. شاخصه سبک‌های متداول نماهای آپارتمان‌های مسکونی در تهران معاصر. نشریه نامة معماری و شهرسازی، 14(32): 66-49. https://doi.org/10.30480/AUP.2021.2812.1571
مزینی، منوچهر. 1394. مقالاتی در باب شهر و شهرسازی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
Abu-Obeid, N.  2006. The effect of consistency between type and style in church and nonreligious buildings on the semantic responses of Jordanians. Architectural Science Review, 50(1): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5010
Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, CH., & Kilicoglu, O. 2009. Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity, and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1): 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.005
Belke, B., Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. 2015. When challenging art gets liked: Evidences for a dual preference formation process for fluent and non-fluent portraits. PLoS ONE 10(8): 1-34. https://doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131796
Berlyne, D. E. 1970. Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Percept. Psychophys, 8: 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131796
Berlyne, D. E. 1974. Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington D.C.: Hemisphere. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/3394907
Blake, P. (1976). The Master Builders; Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright. New York: W.W. Norton. https://archive.org/details/masterbuildersle0000blak
Chan, L. K. 1998. Less is more or a bore? Detail and formal complexity in architecture. Hong Kong Papers in Design and Development, 1: 59–68. https://hkapi.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/items/fa0566d1-ad2b-4b6c-842a-725afddf8b42
Chassy, P., Lindell, T. A. E., Jones, J. A., & Paramei, G. V. 2015. A relationship between visual complexity and aesthetic appraisal of car front images: an eye-tracker study. Perception, 44: 1085–1097. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006615596882
Chatterjee, A. & Vartanian, O. 2016. Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1): 172–194.https://doi.org/10.1111/ nyas. 13035
Cubukcu, E. & Diktas, E.O. 2013. Turkish modern and postmodern houses: evaluative differences between design and nondesign students. International Journal of Architectural Research, 7 (1): 37–51. https://www.archnet.org/publications/6921
Devlin, K. & 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(4): 333–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80013-1
Erdogan, E. & Akalin, A. 2012. A cross-sectional study of the architectural preferences of students at two Schools of architecture. Journal of Selcuk University Natural and Applied Science, 1(3): 1–27. http://josunas.selcuk.edu.tr/login/index.php/josunas/article/view/19/16
Erdogan, E., Binici, S., Akalin, A., & Yildirim, K. 2013. Urban Codes: Familiarity, impressiveness, complexity, and liking in façades of houses. Gazi University Journal of Science, 26(2): 319–330. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287270886_URBAN_CODES_Familiarity_impressiveness_complexity_and_liking_in_facades_of_houses
Ewing, R. & Handy, S. 2009. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1): 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155
Fantz, R. L. 1964. Visual experience in infants: decreased attention to familiar patterns relative to novel ones. Science, 146: 668–670. https://doi:10.1126/science.146.3644.668.
Harris, C. M. (ed.) 2006. Dictionary of Architecture & Construction. Fourth Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://www.academia.edu/33513469/Dictionary_of_architecture_and_construction
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds D’Arcy, J. & Shaw, K. T. 2000. Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons, Journal of Environment and Behavior, 32(2): 163-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972487
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemn, W., & Shaw, K. T. 2002. Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently: cognitive properties and physical bases. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(2): 131–148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228911177_Why_architects_and_laypersons_judge_buildings_differently_Cognitive_properties_and_physical_bases
Hedman, R. & Jaszewski, A. 1984. Fundamentals of Urban Design. Washington: American Planning Association. https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsofur0000hedm
Hekkert, P. 2006. Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2): 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972667
Ilbeigi, M. & Ghomeishi, M. 2017. An assessment of Aesthetics in Conceptual Properties and its Relation to Complexity among Architects and Non-Architects in Residential Façade Design in Iran. Journal of Buildings and Sustainability, 2(1): 50-58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327578557_An_assessment_of_Aesthetics_in_Conceptual_Properties_and_its_Relation_to_Complexity_among_Architects_and_Non-Architects_in_Residential_Facade_Design_in_Iran
Ilbeigi, M., Kohneroudposht, A. M., Ghomeishi, M., & Behrouzifard, E. 2019. Cognitive differences in residential facades from the aesthetic perspectives of architects and nonarchitects: A case study of Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, 101760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101760
Imamoglu, C. 2000. Complexity, liking, and familiarity: Architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1): 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0155
Jakesch, M. & Leder, H. 2009. Finding meaning in art: preferred levels of ambiguity in art appreciation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(11): 2105–2112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903038974
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. 1972. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4): 334–356. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207221
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. 1982. Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger. https://archive.org/details/cognitionenviron0000kapl
Klinger, A. & Salingaros, N. 2000. A pattern measure. Environment and Planning B, 27(4): 537-548. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2676
Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. 1997. Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In:  L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, L. Decker, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 141-164. https://web.stanford.edu/dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/1997/1997%20Designing%20rating%20scales%20for%20effective%20measurement%20in%20surveys.pdf
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. 2004. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95: 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
Liao, H. I., Yeh, S. L., & Shimojo, S. 2011. Novelty vs. familiarity principles in preference decisions: Task-context of past experience matters. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(43): 1–8. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00043
Mastandrea, S., Bartoli, G., & Carrus, G. 2011. The automatic aesthetic evaluation of different art and architectural styles. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 5(2): 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021126
Mehrabian, A. 1976. Public places and private spaces: The psychology of work, play, and living room environments. New York: Basic Books. https://archive.org/details/publicplacespriv0000mehr
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Schindler, I., Hanich, J., Jacobsen, T., & Koelsch, S. 2019. What are aesthetic emotions? Psychological Review, 126: 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000135
Muth, C., Hesslinger, V. M., & Carbon, C. C. 2015. The appeal of challenge in the perception of art: how ambiguity, solvability of ambiguity, and the opportunity for insight affect appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9: 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038814
Nasar, J. L. 1983. Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15(5): 589-614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916583155003
Nasar, J. L. 1984. Visual preferences in urban street scenes. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 15(1): 79-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002184015001005
Nasar, J.L. 1989. Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21(3): 235-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391658921300
Nasar, J.L. 1994. Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3): 377-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600305
Nasar, J. L. & Kang, J. 1999. House style preferences and meanings across taste cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(1): 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00109-1
Nasar, J. L. & Devlin, A. S. 2000. Regional variation in preferences for vernacular houses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1): 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02304.x
Park, J., Shimojo, E., & Shimojo, S. 2010. Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107: 14552-14555.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004374107
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. 2017. Move me, astonish me… delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna Integrated Model of top-down and bottom-up processes in Art Perception (VIMAP) and corresponding afective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21: 80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02. 003
Purcell, T. 1986. Environmental perception and affect: A schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18(1): 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916586181001
Purcell, T. & Nasar, J. L. 1992. Experiencing other people's houses: a model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3): 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80135-5
Purcell, T. 1995. Experiencing American and Australian high- and popular-style houses, Environment and Behavior, 27: 771-800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276003
Reis, A. T. L. & Lay,  M.C. 2010. Internal and External Aesthetics of Housing Estates. Environment and Behavior, 42(2): 271-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509334134
Ruta, N., Mastandrea, S., Penacchio, O., Lamaddalena, S., & Bove, G.  2018. A comparison between preference judgments of curvature and sharpness in architectural façades. Architectural Science Review, 62(2): 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1558393
Sadeghifar, M., Pazhouhanfar, M. & Farrokhzad, M. 2018. An exploration of the relationships between urban building façade visual elements and people’s preferences in the city of Gorgan, Iran. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 15(6): 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1548340
Smets, G. (1973). Aesthetic Judgement and Arousal: An Experimental Contribution to Psycho-Aesthetics. Belgium: Leuven University Press. https://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-judgment-arousal-experimental-psycho-aesthetics/dp/9061860016
Stamps, A. E. & Nasar, J. L. 1997. Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1): 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0036
Stamps, A.E. 1999a. Architectural detail, Van der Laan septaves and pixel counts. Design Studies, 20(1): 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00025-
Stamps, A.E. 1999b. Physical Determinants of Preferences for Residential Facades. Environment and Behavior, 31(6): 723-751. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972326
van de Cruys, S., and Wagemans, J. 2011. Putting reward in art: a tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-perception, 2(9): 1035–1062.https://doi:10.1068/i0466aap
Venturi, R. 1966. Complexity and contradiction in architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art. https://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Contradiction-Architecture-Robert-Venturi/dp/0870702823
Whitfield, T. W. A. 1983. Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3: 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80002-4
Wickelgren, W. A. 1979. Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Wohlwill, J. F. 1968. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 4(5): 307–312. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210521 
Wohlwill, J. F. 1975. Children's responses to meaningful pictures varying in diversity: Exploration time vs. preference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20(2): 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(75)90108-3
Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal efects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9: 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
Zeki, S. 2019. Beauty in Architecture: Not a Luxury - Only a Necessity. Architectural Design, 89(5): 14–19.  https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ad. 2473
www.wellcertified.com/standard, Retrieved at March 2019.  
نشریه علمی اندیشه معماری
دوره 8، شماره 15 - شماره پیاپی 15
بهار و تابستان ۱۴۰۳
فروردین 1403

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار