Investigation of Architect and Non-Architect Participants’ Perceptual Evaluations on Different Period Mosque Facades
Keywords:Perception, Mosque, Architect, Non-Architects, Facade
In architecture, perception based studies about building facades have become more popular. In recent studies, mostly residential buildings and business center type of buildings had been selected as target buildings. The lack of study of the perception of the facades of religious structures has created the basic motivation for this work. In the current study, the facade features of (Seljuk period, Ottoman period and Republic period) some important mosques from different periods were evaluated according to the adjective pairs of complexity, preference and impressiveness variables. Also, whether or not the general views of the mosques represent Islamic religion and their level of arousing curiosity were questioned. For this purpose, in the study, a total of 16 mosques were used. The results obtained from the participants as architect and non-architect are given. It is seen that the participant architects show a statistically more negative approach compared to those who are non-architects in the perceptual evaluations of the facades of the mosques for complexity variable. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference between the participants' evaluations of preference and impressiveness variables (at p <0.05 level).
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 Stimulative” 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 LJ. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16 (3): 297-334.
Crozier JB (1974). Verbal and explorotary 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 Architectureal and Planning Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 131-148.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: anexamination 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 Testng Principles, Applicatons, and Issues. 7th Editon. (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” Academi 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.
How to Cite
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.