“Thinking Out of the Box” from Out of the Box! Increasing the Dimension of “Starting Point” Case Study: Architecture Students
- 1 TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands
- 2 TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands
- 3 Science and Research Branch, Azad Islamic University, Tehran, Iran
- 4 Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
To start a design process with plan and section in 2D environment (pen and paper) will exclude thousands of possibilities, which the designer will never be able to consider them. The 2D designer will never touch upon the rich world of complexity. Starting the design from higher dimension is the solution to get rid of old conventional designing methods. Adding extra dimension to the “starting point” is applying CAD (computer aided architectural design) software not to extrude the 2D lines, but thinking from a higher dimension. Now thinking out of the box from out of the box becomes possible. To prove the hypothesis, authors decided to conduct an experiment and asked a group of architecture students to design a same architectural task with different dimensions. First the conventional pen and paper in 2D and the second time applying 3D environment interface of their own choice for the same task. The jury of experts concluded that students were more creative when they chose a 3D interface (higher dimension).
- Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45, 357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
- Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., & Fleming, L. (2002). Time Pressure and Cre- ativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Field Study.
- Child, I. L., & Cordasco, F. (1970). Italian or American? The 2. Generation in Conflict. New York-USA: Russell [and] Russell.
- Christiaans, H. H. (2002). Creativity as a Design Criterion. Communication Research Journal, 14, 41-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1401_4
- Crozier, W. R., & Chapman, A. J. (1984). Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art. The Netherlands: Elsevier.
- Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art.
- Gordon, D. A. (1956). Individual Differences in the Evaluation of Art and the Nature of Art Standards. The Journal of Educational Research, 50, 17-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1956.10882347
- Hekkert, P., & Van Wieringen, P. C. (1996). Beauty in the Eye of Expert and Nonexpert Beholders: A Study in the Appraisal of Art. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1423013
- Hofstee, W. K. B. (1985). Limits on the Objectivity Principle in Assessment and Selection. Dutch Journal of Psychology (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie), 40, 459-473.
- Jones, D. (2012). The Aha! Moment: A Scientist’s Take on Creativity. Baltimore, USA: JHU Press.
- Oosterhuis, K. (2011). Towards a New Kind of Building: A Designers Guide for Non-Standard Architecture. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: NAi Uitgevers/Publishers Stichting.
- Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone Has Creative Potential.
- Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of Originality and Appropriateness as Predictors of Creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 537-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3
- Runco, M. A., Mccarthy, K. A., & Svenson, E. (1994). Judgments of the Creativity of Artwork from Students and Professional Artists. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 23-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712708
- Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.