RETHINKING BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION: DECONSTRUCTION OF ANATOLIAN CARPETS

Year 2018, Issue: 9, 463 - 478, 12.12.2018

Serap Durmuş Öztürk , Asu Beşgen , Nilgün Kuloğlu

Abstract

The main objective this article is to evaluate the elements/concepts/arts belonging to Anatolia as a deconstruction problem in re-thinking the basic design education and in the development of the basic design teaching methodology. Within this scope; Basic Design Course handled in a wide frame has been re-fictionalized with the theme of “Basic Design Anatolia” in different years during the period. Karadeniz Technical University (KTU) Department of Architecture Studio of Basic Design shows existence with the period themes and fictions renewing and changing itself every year in the light of the search continuing in the areas of philosophy, art and science. The fictions discussing the phenomenon of Basic Design with different intellectual and meaning dimensions and with changing example and expression ways have aimed to form a representation language using the authentic values of Anatolian art by taking a position with cultural target within the frame of “Basic Design Anatolia” upper theme in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Fall terms. In conclusion, hhis article using the Anatolian art as a tool and the deconstruction as a method brought the quartet of Repetition/Symmetry/Harmony/Contrast into question and showed that the students may produce the examples which may yield more unique results by means of binary oppositions given.

Keywords

Architectural Education, Basic Design Course, Deconstruction, Art, Anatolian Carpets

References

• Asasoglu, Ali, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglu and Nilgun Kuloglu. 2009. DESIGNtrain Book: Training Tools for Developing Design Education, Trabzon, Turkey: Vizyon Printing Center.
• Benjamin, Andrew. 1988. “Deconstruction and Art / The Art of Deconstruction,” in What is Deconstruction?, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 33-56.
• Besgen Gencosmanoglu, Asu and Seda Nezor. 2010. “Criticizing Architectural Education Through Abstraction,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9: 1335-1341.
• Besgen, Asu, Nilgun Kuloglu and Sara Fathalizadehalemdari. 2015. “Teaching/Learning Strategies Through Art: Art and Basic Design Education,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182: 428-432.
• Bonollo, E. and W. P. Lewis, 1996. “The Industrial Design Profession and Models of The Design Process,” Design and Education Journal, 6 (2): 4-19.
• Boucharenc Christian G. and T. Saiki. 2002. “International Comparative Research on Basic Design,” Japan: Design Research Association, 29 (2): 20-27.
• Boucharenc, Christian G. 2006. “Research on Basic Design Education: An International Survey,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16: 1-30.
• Brunette, Peter and David Wills. 1994. Deconstruction and the Visual Arts: Art, Media, Architecture, Cambridge University Press.
• Bunch, Michael A. 1993. Core Curriculum in Architectural Education, San Francisco: Melen Research University Press.
• Casakin, Hernan P. 2007. “Factors of Metaphors in Design Problem-Solving: Implications for Design Creativity,” International Journal of Design, 1: 21-33.
• Çıkış, Şeniz and Ela Çil. 2009. “Problematization of Assessment in The Architectural Design Education: First Year as a Case Study,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1: 2103-2110.
• Collins, Jeff. 2005. Introducing Derrida, Third Edition, United Kingdom: Icon Books.
• Cross, Nigel. 1997. “Descriptive Models of Creative Design: Application To An Example,” Design Studies, 18: 427-455.
• Çubukcu, Ebru and Şebnem G. Dündar. 2007. “Can Creativity Be Taught? An Empirical Study on Benefits of Visual Analogy in Basic Design Education,” ITU A|Z, 4 (2): 67-80.
• Cuff, Dana. 1998. Architecture: The Story of Practice, Cambridge: MIT Press. Denel, Bilgi. 1981. Temel Tasarım ve Yaratıcılık, Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Basım İşliği.
• Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology, (trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak), Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Derrida, Jacques. 1982. Margins of Philosophy, USA: The Harvester Press.
• Durmuş, Serap. 2009. “A Deconstructionist Reading in Religious Spaces: Shah Faisal Mosque” (Dini Mekânlarda Yapıbozumcu Bir Okuma: Kral Faysal Cami), Master’s Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey.
• Durmuş, Serap. 2011. “Philosophy For the Theory of Architecture: Jacques Derrida and Deconstruction,” Theory of Architecture Symposium/ARCHTHEO 2011 (Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University), Theory for the Sake of the Theory Proceedings, Vol. 1, 23-26 November, İstanbul, pp. 256-264, 2011.
• Durmuş, Serap. 2015. “Teaching/Learning Strategies through Art: Philosophy & Basic Design Education,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182: 29-36
• Dutton, Thomas. 1991. “The Hidden Curriculum and The Design Studio”, in Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy, New York, USA: Bergin and Gravey.
• Esin, Nur. 1996. “Mimariye Değişik Bir Bakış: Dekonstrüktivist Mimari,” in Mimari Akımlar II, der. O. Tunataş, İstanbul: YEM Yayın.
• Gibson, James J. 1950. The Perception of the Visual World, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
• Gibson, James J. 1968. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, London: Gerorge Allen and Unwin Ltd.
• Güngör, İ. Hulusi. 2005. Görsel Sanatlar ve Mimarlık İçin Temel Tasar, İstanbul: Patates Baskı Yayınları.
• Gür, Şengül Ö. 2000. “Mimarlıkta Temel Eğitim Dersi Uygulaması,” Mimarlık Dergisi, 293: 25-34.
• Gür, Şengül Ö. and Serap Durmuş. 2012. “Deconstruction as a Mechanism of Creativity and its Reflections on Islamic Architecture,” Architectoni.ca, 1 (1): 32-45.
• Gürer, Latife. 1990. Temel Tasarım, İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Universite Matbaası.
• Harvey, David. 2003. Postmodernliğin Durumu, İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Hickman, Roger. 2007. “Wipped-Fancying and Other Vices: Re-evaluating Assessment in Art and Design, in The Problem Of Assessment in Art And Design, Raymend, T. (Ed), Bristol: Intellect Books.
• Higgott, Andrew. 1996. “Teaching first year: What do they need to know?,” in Architectural History and the Studio, Hardy, A. and Teymur, N. (eds), London: Question Press, 181-186.
• Itten, Johannes. 1975. Design of Form: The Basic Course at the Bauhaus and Later, John Wiley & Sons.
• Kellner, Douglas. 2000. “Toplumsal Teori Olarak Postmodernizm: Bazı Meydan Okumalar ve Sorunlar,” in Modernite Versus Postmodernite, trans. ed. Mehmet Küçük, Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
• Kuloğlu, Nilgün. 2017. “Mimarlık Eğitiminde İlk Yıl İkilemi”, in Mimari Tasarım Eğitimine Çağdaş Önermeler, (ed. Gür, Ş. Ö.), İstanbul: YEM Yayın, 79-94.
• Maier, Manfred. 1981. Basic Principles of Design, U.S: Van Nostrand Reinhold Inc. Oxman, Rivka. 2004. “Think-Maps: Teaching Design Thinking in Design Education, Design Studies, 25: 63-91.
• Politzer, Georges. 1997. Felsefenin Temel İlkeleri, İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınları.
• Schön, Donald A. 1985. The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials, London, England: RIBA Publications Limited.
• Schön, Donald A. 1988. “Toward a Marraige of Artistry & Applied Science In the Architectural Design Studio,” Journal of Architectural Education, 41 (4): 4-10.
• Schön, Donald A. 1991. The Reflective Practitoiner: How Professionals Think in Action, London, England: Basic Books.
• URL-1, http://www.mimarizm.com/haberler/egitim/temel-tasar-anadolu_127716, 2017.
• Wallschlarger, Charles and Cynthia Busic-Snyder. 1996. Basic Visual Concepts and Principles for Artists, Architects, and Designers, Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Wigley, Mark. 1993. The Architecture of Deconstruction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.