1
Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan University of Art
2
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan University of Art
3
Assistant Professor, Saba Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
Abstract
Design could be defined as an iterative process of manipulating graphical representations to generate creative ideas. As such, a graphical representation plays the role of visual stimulus for creativity in architectural education. Nonetheless, as an accepted convention in architectural education, students are expected to not directly utilize such graphics as their design concept. Therefore, graphical representations can stimulate design creativity in either of the two roles: their ambiguity or their structural similarity to the given design problem. This paper examines the effectiveness of graphical representations in each of these two roles. To this end, undergraduate students were asked to design a building in response to shown graphical representations with direct similarity, structural similarity or ambiguousness. Three different lecturers then assessed the resulting designs in terms of their originality and feasibility. The analysis of variances for these assessments demonstrated that structural similarity has no meaningful impact on stimulating originality. Conversely, ambiguousness could be useful in generating new ideas. None of the visual stimuli influenced feasibility of design solutions, however.
Ball, Linden J. & Thomas C. Ormerod & Nicola J. Morley. âSpontaneous Analogising in Engineering Design: A Comparative Analysis of Experts and Novicesâ, in Design Studies 25, No. 5 (2004), pp. 495â508.
Casakin, Hernan. âVisual Analogy as a Cognitive Strategy in the Design Process: Expert versus Novice Performanceâ, Journal of Design Research 4, No. 2 (2004), p. 124.
________ . âVisual Analogy, Visual Displays, and the Nature of Design Problems: The Effect of Expertiseâ, in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37, No. 1 (2010), pp. 170â188.
Denis, Michel & Stephen M. Kosslyn. âScanning Visual Mental Images: A Window on the Mindâ, in Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/ Current Psychology of Cognition, 18(4) (1999) pp. 409-465.
Dixon, Raymond A. âExperts and Novices: Differences in Their Use of Mental Representation and Metacognition in Engineering Designâ, Access in: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/18376, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011.
Finke, Ronald A. Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization. Psychology Press, 2014.
Goel, Vinod. Sketches of Thought. MIt Press, 1995.
Goldschmidt, Gabriela. âModeling the Role of Sketching in Design Idea Generationâ, in An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, London: Springer, 2014, pp, 433â450.
Goldschmidt, Gabriela & Anat Litan Sever. âInspiring Design Ideas with Textsâ, in Design Studies 32, No. 2 (2011), pp. 139â155.
Goldschmidt, Gabriela & Maria Smolkov. âVariances in the Impact of Visual Stimuli on Design Problem Solving Performanceâ, in Design Studies 27, No. 5 (2006), pp. 549â569.
Heylighen, Ann. In Case of Architectural Design. Critique and Praise of Case-Based Design in Architecture, Thesis for: PhD in Engineering Science: architecture, 2000.
Heylighen, Ann & Ilse M. Verstijnen. âClose Encounters of the Architectural Kindâ, Design Studies 24, No. 4 (2003), pp. 313â326.
Lindman, Harold R. Analysis of Variance in Experimental Design, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
Linsey, J.S. & Kristin L. Wood & Arthur B. Markman. âModality and Representation in Analogyâ, in Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22, No. 02 (2008), pp. 85â100.
Mou, Tsai-Yun & Chun-Heng Ho. âNovicesâ Satisfactory Design, Some Implications for Performance and Satisficing in Character Designâ, in Design Computing and Cognitionâ08, Springer, 2008, pp. 473â490.
Novick, Laura R. & Keith J. Holyoak. âMathematical Problem Solving by Analogyâ, in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17, No. 3 (1991), pp. 398.
Ozkan, Ozgu, & Fehmi Dogan. âCognitive Strategies of Analogical Reasoning in Design: Differences between Expert and Novice Designersâ, in Design Studies 34, No. 2 (2013), pp. 161â192.
Purcell, A. Terry & John S. Gero. âEffects of Examples on the Results of a Design Activityâ, in Knowledge-Based Systems 5, No. 1 (1992), pp. 82â91.
Schon, Donald A. & Glenn Wiggins. âKinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designingâ, in Design Studies 13, No. 2 (1992), pp. 135â156.
Stacey, Martin & Claudia Eckert. âAgainst Ambiguityâ, in Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12, No. 2 (2003), pp. 153â183.
Suwa, Masaki & Barbara Tversky. âWhat Do Architects and Students Perceive in Their Design Sketches? A Protocol Analysisâ, in Design Studies 18, No. 4 (1997), pp. 385â403.
Tseng, Winger SW & Linden J. Ball. âHow Uncertainty Helps Sketch Interpretation in a Design Taskâ, in Design Creativity 2010, Springer, 2011, pp. 257â264.
Verstijnen, Ilse M. & Cees van Leeuwen & G. Goldschmidt & Ronald Hamel & J.M. Hennessey. âSketching and Creative Discoveryâ, in Design Studies 19, No. 4 (1998), pp. 519â546.
Zahner, Doris & Jeffrey V. Nickerson & Barbara Tversky & James E. Corter & Jing Ma. âA Fix for Fixation? Rerepresenting and Abstracting as Creative Processes in the Design of Information Systemsâ, in AI EDAM 24, No. 2 (May 2010), pp. 231â244.
