Metaphor as an Extension of Deduction and Method of Architectural Design Reasoning

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch, Mashhad, Iran,

3 Professor, Department of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Sciences & Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Problem statement: Although the field of the research process is new, research in this area has advanced rapidly. This reflects the diversity of intellectual and theoretical methods governing the research process. The majority of studies have described design experiences using an analytical approach and point of view. The approach of thinking about design has often been overlooked in this research. The main concern of processes will be lost due to this detached viewpoint, yet the design process itself is a style of thinking. Regardless of the awareness gained from the research phase, the design process will invariably apply logical thinking processes to achieve its purpose. As a result, the goal of this study is to figure out the link between deduction and metaphor as a style of reasoning. Also, what influence can metaphor have as an argumentative approach in creating an architectural work?
Research objective: This study attempts to understand the link between deduction and metaphor as a core thinking tool in design methodologies and apply it logically.
Research method: Deductive and inferential reasoning was employed in two stages, the bibliographic method was used for data collection, and the logical reasoning method was used for data analysis.
Conclusion: This research aims to understand better the role and function of logical reasoning in the architectural design process and the impact of metaphor as an arguing tool. According to the conclusions of this study, deduction and metaphor are among the complete logical procedures that play a crucial role in the production of architectural works in a four-part mechanism. By keeping the features of deduction, metaphor is a type of deduction that leads to the uniqueness and twofold meaning in architecture.

Keywords


Antoniades, A. C. (2007). Architectural analogies (A. R. Ai, Trans.). Tehran: Soroush.
Azimi, M. (2016). Metaphor and deduction, creative strategies for using visual resources in architectural design. The first competition of the Comprehensive International Conference on Engineering Sciences in Iran. Anzali: Conference Secretariat in collaboration with Tabriz University, Guilan University.
Brown, M. (2017). Architectural thinking: the design process and the imaginative eye (S. Haghir, Trans.). Tehran: Fekr-e No.
Borhanifar, S., Mousavi, S. J., Talischi, Gh. & Mazhari, M. I. (2017). Transferring the meaning of a painting in architecture Recounting the meaning of a painting by Madame Dawsonville and the studio collection in the architecture of a wall house. Bagh-e Nazar, 14 (46), 51-64.
Batoei, H. & Rezaei, M. (2016). Rethinking the concept of metaphor in the scope of creating the space of architecture and literature (Case study: excellent general architectural works executed in Tehran 2005-2006). Third International Conference on Recent Innovations in Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Planning. Tehran: Nikan Institute of Higher Education / University of Tehran.
Bayat, B. & Moghaddasi, M. M. (2014). Metaphor in the process of architectural design. Second International Congress on Structure, Architecture and Urban Development. Tabriz: Permanent Secretariat of the International Congress of Structure, Architecture and Urban Development.
Casakin, H. & Miller, K. (2005). Individual learning styles and design performance in the metaphorical reasoning process. Design Research, 7(3), 275-293.
Casakin, H. (2007). Metaphors in Design Problem Solving: Implications for Creativity. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 21-33.
Chakrabarti & Blessing. (2014). A Review of Theories and Models of Design. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science, 16(95), 325-340.
Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. New York: Wiley Chichester.
Casakin, H. & Goldschmidt, G. (2000). Reasoning by visual analogy in design problem-solving: the role of guidance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, (27), 105-119.
Davoodi, S. & Ayatollahi, S. M. H. (2008). What is a metaphor and how does it affect the production of a plot? Soffeh, 17 (47), 17-26.
Dubberly, H. (2004). Video visions of the future: a critical review. CHI EA ’04 CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1584-1585.
Dorst, K. (2010). The Nature of Design Thinking. DTRS8 interpreting design yhinking. Sydney.
Faizi, M., Alipour, L. & Mohammad Moradi, A. (2017). Creating architecture in a way comparable to nature. Iranian Architectural Studies, 6 (11), 85-101.
Ghorbani, M. (2018). The effect of metaphor in increasing students’ creativity in teaching architectural design. The Second National Congress on the Development of Technology Infrastructure of the Road and Construction Industry of Iran with a focus on resilience and crisis management. Tehran.
Grout, L. & Wang, D. (2005). Research Methods in Architecture. (A. Einifar, Trans.). V. 1. Tehran: University of Tehran.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). Making Architecture Doing Design (L. Etezadi, Trans.). Soffeh, 1(2), 18-29.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). Visual Analogy in Design, “Cybernetics and Systems. World Scientific, 94(1), 507-514.
Goldschmidt, G. (1995). Visual Displays for Design: Imagery, Analogy and Databases. n A. Koutamanis, H. Timmermans & I. Vermeulen (Eds.). Visual databases in architecture. UK: Avebury, Aldershot.
Hemmatyar, E., Mohajernia, M. & Bastani, M. (2015). Metaphor and its role in the plot. The Second Scientific Research Conference of New Horizons in the Field of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Culture and Urban Management of Iran. Tehran: Association for the Development and Promotion of Basic Sciences and Technologies.
Hearn, M. F. (2003). Idea that shaped Buildings. Massachusett: Sabon by graphic composition, MIT press.
Kumar, V. (2003). Innovation Planning: Models, Tools, Uses. Humans Interaction Technology Strategy Conference. Chicago: Chicago Historical Society.
Khakzand, M., Muzaffar, F., Faizi, M. & Azimi, M. (2009). Visual deduction and its place in creative teaching of architectural design. Education Technology, 4 (2), 63-72.
Khodaei, S., Talischi, Gh. & Daneshgar Moghaddam, G. (2013). The role of metaphor and metaphorical thinking in shaping the idea of architectural work. International Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Sustainable Urban Development. Tabriz: Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch.
Rezaei, M. (2014 a). Analytics of design, revision of ideas and concepts in the process of designing contemporary form and space. Tehran: Islamic Azad University ‌ - Tehran Central Unit.
Lakov, G. & Johnson, M. (2008). Theories of Communication. V. 4. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural and Social Studies.
Lawson, B. (2016). How do designers think? Disambiguation of the design process (H. Nadimi, Trans.). Tehran: Shahid Beheshti Publications.
Lawson, B. (2013). what do designers know? (H. Nadimi, F. Baghizadeh & F. Shariat Rad, Trans.). Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University.
Rezaei, M. (2014 b). Review of the design process (decoding “deduction” as a method of creating form and space). Hoviatshahr, 8 (18), 71-80.
Schon. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner., London: Basic Book.