Experimentation and Representation in Architecture: analyzing one’s own design activity

Architects materialize ideas on physical supports to register their thoughts and to discover new possibilities from hints and suggestions in their own drawings. Uncertainty is inherent to creative processes encouraging the production of different ideas through testing. This research brings to light that the re-examination of artefacts from new points of view allows for the review and generation of design ideas and decisions, capacitating students to make yet new discoveries from what they have done so far. Tacit knowledge aids specific decisions. Student reports become analytical records of their material registers (sketches, physical and virtual models) making it explicit that which is implicit in those artefacts. This apparently confirms previous studies that suggest that knowledge per se not always triggers or controls decisions in design. Many physical as well as perceptive actions actually lead the initial steps and play a crucial role in the whole course of production. Besides serving as external representations, sketches and models provide visual hints that will be checked later, favouring the upcoming of the unexpected, stimulating creativity. The intent here is to point out how these different means of representation and expression contribute in a peculiar manner to the whole process of discovery and solution to problems in architecture. The authors propose here a reflection on the process of design and its uncertainties in its initial phase, concentrating on sketches and real models as experimentations. They consider these means not from a graphic and physical register stand point, but in terms of conception and concepts they embody, as records of students thinking and knowledge. Keywords: Experimentation; Uncertainty; Representation; Design Process; Cognition; Education

[1]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing , 1992 .

[2]  J. Wilting,et al.  The freedom to learn. , 1974, Nursing papers. Perspectives en nursing.

[3]  Rivka Oxman,et al.  Cognition and design , 1996 .

[4]  H. Simon,et al.  The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.) , 1996 .

[5]  Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Design of studies , 2001 .

[6]  John S. Gero,et al.  To sketch or not to sketch? That is the question , 2006 .

[7]  G. Goldschmidt,et al.  How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity , 2005 .

[8]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Uncertainty and sketching behaviour , 2000 .

[9]  S Gero John,et al.  A Cognitive and Computational Basis for Designing , 2007 .

[10]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions , 1998 .

[11]  D. Coghlan,et al.  Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization , 2000 .

[12]  Richard Buchanan,et al.  Wicked Problems in Design Thinking , 1992 .

[13]  Paul Rodgers,et al.  Using concept sketches to track design progress , 2000 .

[14]  Jonathan Stephen Fish,et al.  Amplifying the Mind’s Eye: Sketching and Visual Cognition , 1990 .

[15]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[16]  Rivka Oxman,et al.  Refinement and adaptation in design cognition , 1992 .

[17]  Rivka Oxman,et al.  Prior knowledge in design: a dynamic knowledge-based model of design and creativity , 1990 .

[18]  Roger C Schank,et al.  What We Learn When We Learn by Doing , 1995 .

[19]  Ö. Akin Psychology of architectural design , 1986 .

[20]  Yaneer Bar-Yam The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edition: By Herbert A. Simon , 1998, Complex..

[21]  R. Hamel,et al.  Sketching and creative discovery , 1998 .

[22]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  Design Representation: Private Process, Public Image , 2004 .

[23]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture , 1994 .

[24]  Rivka Oxman,et al.  Precedents in design: a computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge , 1994 .

[25]  Daniel M. Herbert Graphic Processes in Architectural Study Drawings , 1992 .

[26]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[27]  Edward Robbins,et al.  Why Architects Draw , 1997 .

[28]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[29]  D. Schoen Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .