Developing a New Method for the Architectural Design Process: An Experimental Study Using Found-Object Art in the Design Studio

References

• ACE. 2009. Arts for Children’s Enrichment, Arts for Children’s Enrichment is sponsored in part by National Endowment for the Arts, Art Works and the Boeing Company in collaboration with Washington State University’s College of Liberal Arts, College of Education, Museum of Art, and 4-H Youth Development Program.
   Google Scholar
• Ainsworth, K. 2011. Sustainability By Design Creative Collaborations and Sustainable Practice. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Design (Honours). Australia: School of Design Studies College of Fine Arts, University of New South Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Allison, L. 1981. Trash Artists Workshop. Illinois, USA: Fearon Teacher Aids.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, S. P. 2011. Seductive Interaction Design: Creating Playful, Fun, and Effective User Experiences. New Riders: Peachpit Press, CA, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Athavankar, U. A. 1997. “Mental Imagery as a Design Tool.” Cybernetics and Systems 28: 25–47.10.1080/019697297126236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athavankar, U. A., Mukherjie, A. 2003. “Blindfolded Classroom: Getting Design Students to Use Mental Images.” In Human Behaviour in Design, edited by U. Lindemann, 111–120. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-07811-2
   Google Scholar
• Backman, G. 1991. Meaning by Metaphor: An Exploration of Metaphor with a Metaphoric Reading of Two Short Stories by Stephen Crane. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala.
   Google Scholar
• Bechky, B. A. 2003. “Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction.” American Journal of Sociology 109 (3): 720–752.10.1086/379527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramston, D. 2009. Idea Searching, Basic Product Design, 01. Lausanne, Switzerland: Published by AVA Publishing SA.
   Google Scholar
• Brassai, G. 1999. Conversations with Picasso. University of Chicago ( from original published 1964).
   Google Scholar
• Brereton, M. 2004. “Distributed Cognition in Engineering Design: Negotiating between Abstract and Material Representations.” In Design Representation, edited by G. Goldschmidt and W. L. Porter, 83–103. London: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/b97667
   Google Scholar
• Brookes, A. J., Poole, D. 2005. Innovation in Architecture. Spon Press, published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 2005. Engineering Design Methods Strategies for Product Design. Third ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.
   Google Scholar
• Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J. 1994. Making Common Sense Leadership as Meaning-Making in a Community of Practice, Published as CCL Report No. 156, Center for Creative Leadership.
   Google Scholar
• Encyclopedia69. 2016. Resource Document: http://www.encyclopedia69.com/eng/d/junk-art/junk-art.htm.
   Google Scholar
• EOAE. 2016a. Resource Document: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/definitions/found-objects.htm.
   Google Scholar
• EOAE. 2016b. Resource Document: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/definitions/junk-art.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., and J. Whyte. 2009. “Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects’.” Organization Studies 30 (1): 07–30.10.1177/0170840608083014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, E. S. 1992. Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fez-Barringten, B. 2012. Architecture: The Making of Metaphors. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fish, J. 2004. “Cognitive Catalysis: Sketches for a Time-lagged Brain.” In Design representation, edited by G. Goldschmidt and W. L. Porter, 151–184. London: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/b97667
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, B., and R. Krishnamurti. 2008. Ordering the Aesthetic (A+) in Architecture: Advancing a Theory of Modular Computation. School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. 1993. Process and Products in Making Sense of Tropes, in Metaphor and Thought. edited by A. Ortony. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2004. “Design Representation: Private Process, Public Image.” In Design Representation, edited by G. Goldschmidt and W. L. Porter, 203–217. London: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/b97667
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2007. “To See Eye to Eye: The Role of Visual Representations in Building Shared Mental Models in Design Teams.” CoDesign 3 (1): 43–50.10.1080/15710880601170826
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G., and M. Smolkov. 2006. “Variances in the Impact of Visual Stimuli on Design Problem Solving Performance.” Design Studies 27 (5): 549–569.10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goncalves, M., et al. 2014. “What Inspires Designers? Preferences on Inspirational Approaches During Idea Generation” Design Studies 35 (1): 29–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heskett, J. 2002. Design: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ibrahim, M. S., et al. 2012. “Design Grammars Evaluation Tools In The First Year Studio.” Journal of Information Technology in Construction 17: 319–332.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennett, K. 2013. Arts & Lifestyle, Trash to Treasure, Provided by the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). Canada: Saskatchewan.
   Google Scholar
• Khakzand, M., and M. Azimi. 2015. “Metaphor: A Creative Aid in Architectural Design Process.” International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning 25 (2): 67–75.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. 1987. “Image Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 2 (3): 219–222.10.1207/s15327868ms0203_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., Johnsen, M. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Lauer, D. A., and S. Pentak. 2011. Design Basics. 8th ed. Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Law, H. 2013. White Trash. MA thesis submitted to the Faculty of The College of Imaging Arts and Sciences School for American Crafts Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. 1994. Design in Mind. Butterworth: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. 2005. How Designers Think, The Design Process Demystified. 4th ed. Jordan Hill, Oxford, UK: Architectural Press is an imprint of Elsevier Linacre House.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y. T. 1996. “Is Designing one Search or Two? A Model of Design Thinking Involving Symbolism and Connectionism.” Design Studies 17 (3): 435–449.
   Google Scholar
• McDonough, W., Braungart, M. 2003. The Hannover Principles Design for Sustainability, 10th Anniversary ed. William McDonough + Partners
   Google Scholar
• McLuhan, H. M. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam-Webster. 2016. Resource Document: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junk%20art.
   Google Scholar
• Odegard, N. 2012. “When Matter Comes to Matter – Working Pedagogically with Junk Materials.” Education Inquiry 3 (3): 383–400.
   Google Scholar
• Oswick, C., and M. Robertson. 2009. “Boundary Objects Reconsidered: From Bridges and Anchors to Barricades and Mazes.” Journal of Change Management 9 (2): 179–193.10.1080/14697010902879137
   Google Scholar
• Oxman, R. 2007. “Digital Architecture as a Challenge for Design Pedagogy: Theory, Knowledge, Models and Medium.” Design Studies 29 (2): 99–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell, A. T., and J. S. Gero. 1998. “Drawings and the Design Process.” Design Studies 19 (4): 389–430.10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00015-5
   Google Scholar
• Raeburn, M. 2016. Found Object Art: ’Stuff I Made from Junk’, available at: http://marshallraeburn.com/
   Google Scholar
• Recycled Art. 2006. Hallie Ford Museum of Art at Willamette University, Teachers Guide, August 26 – November 4, Developed by the Oregon Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Rick, J., and K. K. Lamberty. 2005. “Medium-Based Design: Extending a Medium to Create an Exploratory Learning Environment.” Interactive Learning Environment 13 (3): 179–212.10.1080/10494820500401883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sass, L. 2007. “A Physical Design Grammar: A Production System for Layered Manufacturing Machines.” Automation in Construction 17: 691–704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. R., et al. 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A. 1996. “The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 119 (1): 3–22.10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smothers, F. T., and R. W. Drumond. 1975. “Notes Toward a Performance Specification System for Design Education.” DMG-DRS Journal 9 (3): 206–213.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, D. 2002. Found Object Art (Schiffer art books). Pa, USA: Schiffer Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Torgny, O. 1997. Metaphor - a Working Concept, Presented at the ‘Contextual Design – Design in Context.’ Conference Arranged by European Academy of Design in Stockholm 23-25th of April 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, D. 2010. The Mechanical Design Process. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Whyte, J. K., B. Ewenstein, M. Hales, and J. Tidd. 2007. “Visual Practices and the Objects Used in Design.” Building Research & Information 35 (1): 18–27.10.1080/09613210601036697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Your Dictionary. 2016. Resource Document: http://www.yourdictionary.com/junk-art#americanheritage.
   Google Scholar