Kemal YILDIRIM, H. Derya ARSLAN, Esin GÜLŞEKER

Investigation of Architect and Non-Architect Participants’ Perceptual Evaluations on Different Period Mosque Facades

In architecture, perception based studies about building facades havebecome more popular. In recent studies, mostly residential buildings andbusiness center type of buildings had been selected as target buildings.The lack of study of the perception of the facades of religious structureshas created the basic motivation for this work. In the current study, thefacade features of (Seljuk period, Ottoman period and Republic period)some important mosques from different periods were evaluatedaccording to the adjective pairs of complexity, preference andimpressiveness variables. Also, whether or not the general views of themosques represent Islamic religion and their level of arousing curiositywere questioned. For this purpose, in the study, a total of 16 mosqueswere used. The results obtained from the participants as architect andnon-architect are given. It is seen that the participant architects show astatistically more negative approach compared to those who are nonarchitectsin the perceptual evaluations of the facades of the mosques forcomplexity variable. On the other hand, there was no statisticallysignificant difference between the participants' evaluations ofpreference and impressiveness variables (at p

PDF

___

Akalin-Baskaya, A., & Yildirim, K. (2007). Design of circulation axes in densely-used polyclinic waiting halls. Building and Environment, 42, 1743–175.
Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house facades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 124-132.
Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. & Saylan, A. (2010). Users’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Open House International, 35(1), 57-65.
Arslan H.D. and Yıldırım K., (2017). "Perceptual Evaluations of Different Period Mosque Facades: Preference, Complexity, Impressiveness and Simulative” Megaron Journal, 12,4,511- 523.
Arslan, H.D., Ceylan M., (2012). “Judging Primary School Classroom Spaces Via ANN Model” Gazi University Journal of Science, 25, 1,
Baytin, Ç. (1994). “ An Approach to the Case of New Buildings in Historical Environments, An Applied Model for Istanbul, İstanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, PhD Thesis, İstanbul.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Wiley.
Brown, G., Gifford, R. (2001). Architects Predict Lay Evaluations Of Large Contemporary Buildings: Whose Conceptual Properties?, Journal of Environmental Psychology, . 21, 93- 99.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16 (3): 297-334.
Crozier, J.B. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level
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.
Dunn, J. V., Hayes, M. V. (2000). Social Inequality, Population Health, and Housing: A Study of two Vancouver Neighborhoods”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 563-587.
Evans, G. W. (2003). The Built Environment and Mental Health, Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy Medicine, 80, 4, 536-555.
Füeg, F. (1981). “Mimarinin Temelleri”, Çev: Kazmaoğlu, M., Yapı, No. 39, sf. 28-32, YEM Yayınları, İstanbul.
Gifford, R., Hine D. W., Müler-Clemm, W., Reynolds, 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, Vol. 32, pp. 168-187.
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Clemm, W. M., Shaw, K. T. (2002). Why Architects and Laypersons Judge Buildings Differently: Cognitive Properties and Physical Bases, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 131- 148.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 3-22.
Hershberger, R. G. & Cass, R. (1974). Predicting user re-sponses to buildings. In J. L. Nasar, (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195-211.
Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. In J. L. Nasar, (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175-194.
Herzog, T. R., & Shier, R. L. (2000). Complexity, age, and building preference. Environment and Behavior, 32, 557–575.
Imamoglu, C (2000). Complexity, preference and familiarity: architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 5–16.
Kaplan, R.M. & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2009). Psychological Testing Principles, Applications, and Issues. 7th Edition. (Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth)
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. & Wendt, J.S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.
Kobayash, K., Sato, M. (1992), Type Ia Supernova Progenitors, Environmental Effects and Cosmic Supernova Effects, Type Ia Supernova: Theory & Cosmology, pp. 63-89.
Krier, R., (1993) “Architecture and Urban Design” Academy Editions.
Küller, R. (2002). The Influence of Light on Circarhythms in Humans, Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science, Vol. 21, pp. 87–91.
Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes: a study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589–614.
Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meaning of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, 235-257.
Noguchi, H., Sakaguchi, T. (1999). Effect of Illuminance and Color Temperature on Lowering of Physiological Activity, Applied Human Science Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 117-123.
Panayides, P. (2013). “Coefficient alpha: interpret with caution”, Europe’s Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 687-696.
Stamps, A. E. (1991). Comparing preferences of neighbors and neighborhood design review board. Environment and Behavior, 23, 618–629.
Stamps, A. E. (2003). Advances in visual diversity and entropy. Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design, 30, 449– 463.
Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y., Sato, H. (2005). Visual Effects of İnterior Design in Actual-Size Living Rooms on Physiological Reponses, Building and Environment, Vol. 40, pp. 1341-1346.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 4, 307–312.