TR
11111

COURSE INTRODUCTION AND APPLICATION INFORMATION

mmr.fadf.ieu.edu.tr

Course Name
Code
Semester
Theory
(hour/week)
Application/Lab
(hour/week)
Local Credits
ECTS
Fall/Spring
Prerequisites
None
Course Language
Course Type
Elective
Course Level
-
Mode of Delivery -
Teaching Methods and Techniques of the Course Case Study
Simulation
Course Coordinator -
Course Lecturer(s)
Assistant(s) -
Course Objectives
Learning Outcomes The students who succeeded in this course;
  • Student will be able to develop a consciousness on the differences of architectural representations.
  • Student will be able to develop a design using theoretical knowledge.
  • Student will be able to develop academic reading skills in English.
  • Student will be able to do architectural criticism through architectural representations.
  • Student will be able to develop learning skills through diverse methods such as reading, presenting, discussing, designing and filmmaking.
Course Description

 



Course Category

 Core Courses
Major Area Courses
X
Supportive Courses
Media and Managment Skills Courses
Transferable Skill Courses

 

WEEKLY SUBJECTS AND RELATED PREPARATION STUDIES

Week Subjects Required Materials
1 Introduction postscript: Slessor, C. (2013). Editorial View: Architectural Representation. The Architectural Review (http://www.architectural-review.com/view/editorial-view-architectural-representation/8647155.article)
2 Preliminaries II: Representation: Why is it important required: Olsberg, N. (2013). The Evolving Role of the Drawing. The Architectural Review (http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/the-evolving-role-of-the-drawing/8646928.article) optional: Tufte, E.R. (1997). Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative. Graphic Press: Connecticut. (pages 28-31)
3 Origins of Architectural Representation I required: Smith, K.S. (2005). Architect’s Drawings. Oxford: Architectural Press. (p.6-9). optional: Ousterhout, R. G. (1999). Master builders of Byzantium. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.(Chapter 3, 58-85)
4 Origins of Architectural Representation II required: Smith, K.S. (2005). Architect’s Drawings. Oxford: Architectural Press. (p.19-21,27) optional: Ackerman, J.S. (1997). Villard de Honnecourt's Drawings of Reims Cathedral: A Study in Architectural Representation. Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 18, No. 35. (1997), pp. 41-49.
5 Sketches required: Smith, K.S. (2005). Architect’s Drawings. Oxford: Architectural Press. (p.2-5) optional: Cross, N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Berlin: Verlag (p.54-58, The role of sketching in design)
6 Conceptual Diagrams: Case Studies required: Do, E.Y. & Gross, M. D. (2001). Thinking with diagrams in architectural design. Netherland: Kluwer Academic. (1-8) optional: Dogan, F., & Nersessian, N. J. (2003). Collaboration in design: Evolving conceptual diagrams. In Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D. (Eds.), 2003 Cognitive Science Society Conference, Boston, MA. July 3-August 02: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7 Rethinking Scale I: Architectural Models required: Smith, A.C. (2004) Architectural Model as Machine. Oxford: Architectural Press. (Introduction) optional: Yaneva, A. (2009). Made by the office for metropolitan architecture: An ethnography of design. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. (p. 45-48, 78-85)
8 Midterm
9 Rethinking Scale II: Representation in Urban Design required: Shane, D.G. (2010). Urban diagrams and urban modeling. In "Diagrams of Architecture: AD Reader", edited by Mark Garcia. Chichester: Wiley AD Reader. optional: Allen, L., Smout, M. (2008). The Retreating Village. London: The Bartlett School of Architecture
10 Re-presentation/ representation required: Cook, P. (2008) Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. (p.64-73, drawing as statement) optional: Cook, P. (2008) Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. (p.92-110, drawing as composition)
11 Photographs to support design ideation To be announced
12 Representing Utopias To be announced
13 Representation as a critical practice To be announced
14 Rethinking Scale III: Mock-ups required: Bell, K. (2007). Mock-ups: Giving hospital clients the ultimate reality check. Healthcare Design.(http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine. com/article/mock-ups-giving-hospital-clients-ultimate-reality-check) optional: Pietroforte, R., Tombesi, P., & Lebiedz, D. D. (2012). Are physical mock-ups still necessary to complement visual models for the realization of design intents? Journal of Architectural Engineering, 18(1), 34-41.
15 Student presentations PPT presentations
16 Review of the Semester  
Course Notes/Textbooks
Suggested Readings/Materials Abrahams, T. (2013). Computers in Theory and Practice. The Architectural Review (http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/computers-in-theory-and-practice/8646960.article) Bafna, S. (2008) How architectural drawings work - and what that implies for the role of representation in architecture, The Journal of Architecture, 13:5, 535-564. (available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13602360802453327) Cross, N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Berlin: Verlag (p.54-58, The role of sketching in design) Dogan, F., & Nersessian, N. J. (2012). Conceptual diagrams in creative architectural practice: the case of Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum. Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 16(1), 15-27. Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kellet, R. (1990). Le Corbusier's Design for the Carpenter Center: A documentary analysis of design media in architecture, Design Studies, 11(2),164--180. Olsberg, N. (2013). The Evolving Role of the Drawing. The Architectural Review (http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/the-evolving-role-of-the-drawing/8646928.article) Ousterhout, R. G. (1999). Master builders of Byzantium. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.(Chapter 3, 58-85) Pietroforte, R., Tombesi, P., & Lebiedz, D. D. (2012). Are physical mock-ups still necessary to complement visual models for the realization of design intents? Journal of Architectural Engineering, 18(1), 34-41. Slessor, C. (2013). Editorial View: Architectural Representation. The Architectural Review (http://www.architectural-review.com/view/editorial-view-architectural-representation/8647155.article) Tufte, E.R. (1997). Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative. Graphic Press: Connecticut. (pages 28-31) Yaneva, A. (2009). Made by the office for metropolitan architecture: An ethnography of design. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. (p. 45-48, 78-85)

 

EVALUATION SYSTEM

Semester Activities Number Weigthing
Participation
16
10
Laboratory / Application
Field Work
Quizzes / Studio Critiques
Portfolio
Homework / Assignments
4
30
Presentation / Jury
1
10
Project
Seminar / Workshop
Oral Exam
Midterm
1
25
Final Exam
1
25
Total

Weighting of Semester Activities on the Final Grade
23
75
Weighting of End-of-Semester Activities on the Final Grade
25
Total

ECTS / WORKLOAD TABLE

Semester Activities Number Duration (Hours) Workload
Course Hours
(Including exam week: 16 x total hours)
16
3
48
Laboratory / Application Hours
(Including exam week: 16 x total hours)
16
Study Hours Out of Class
15
2
Field Work
Quizzes / Studio Critiques
Portfolio
Homework / Assignments
4
4
Presentation / Jury
1
3
Project
5
Seminar / Workshop
Oral Exam
Midterms
1
3
Final Exams
1
5
    Total
105

 

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES AND PROGRAM QUALIFICATIONS RELATIONSHIP

#
 Program Competencies/Outcomes
* Contribution Level
1
2
3
4
5
1

Ability to apply theoretical and technical knowledge in architecture.

 X
2

Ability to understand, interpret and evaluate architectural concepts and theories.

 X
3

Ability to take on responsibility as an individual and as a team member to solve complex problems in the practice of architecture.

 

 X
4

Critical evaluation of acquired knowledge and skills to diagnose individual educational needs and to direct self-education.

 X
5

Ability to communicate architectural ideas and proposals for solutions to architectural problems in visual, written and oral form.

 X
6

Ability to support architectural thoughts and proposals for solutions to architectural problems with qualitative and quantitative data and to communicate these with specialists and non-specialists.

 X
7

Ability to use a foreign language to follow developments in architecture and to communicate with colleagues.

 X
8

Ability to use digital information and communication technologies at a level that is adequate to the discipline of architecture.

 X
9

Being equipped with social, scientific and ethical values in the accumulation, interpretation and/or application of architectural data.

 X
10

Ability to collaborate with other disciplines that are directly or indirectly related to architecture with basic knowledge in these disciplines.

 X

*1 Lowest, 2 Low, 3 Average, 4 High, 5 Highest

 

İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi | Sakarya Caddesi No:156, 35330 Balçova - İZMİR Tel: +90 232 279 25 25 | webmaster@ieu.edu.tr | YBS 2010