JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Relationship of Complexity and Order in Determining Aesthetic Preference in Architectural Form
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Architectural research
  • Volume 13, Issue 4,  2011, pp.19-30
  • Publisher : Architectural Institute of Korea
  • DOI : 10.5659/AIKAR.2011.13.4.19
 Title & Authors
The Relationship of Complexity and Order in Determining Aesthetic Preference in Architectural Form
Whang, Hee-Joon;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This investigation, based on empirical research, examined the role of complexity and order in the aesthetic experience of architectural forms. The basic assumption of this study was that perception in architectural form is a process of interpreting a pattern in a reductive way. Thus, perceptual arousal is not determined by the absolute complexity of a configuration. Rather, the actual perceived complexity is a function of the organization of the system (order). In addition, complexity and order were defined and categorized into four variables according to their significant characteristics; simple order, complex order, random complexity, and lawful complexity. The series of experiments confirmed that there is a point on the psychological complexity dimension which is optimal. By demonstrating that consensual and individual aesthetic preference can be measured to have a unimodal function of relationship with complexity, the results of the experiments indicated that complexity and orderliness are effective design factors for enhancing aesthetics of a building facade. This investigation offered a conceptual framework that relates the physical (architectural form) and psychological factors (complexity and order) operating in the aesthetic experience of building facades.
 Keywords
Complexity;Order;Aesthetic Preference;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGrow Hill.

2.
Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274-290. crossref(new window)

3.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

4.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Ends and means of experimental aesthetics, Canadian journal of psychology, 26, 303-325. crossref(new window)

5.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Washington D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Co.

6.
Berlyne, D E., McDonnell, P., Nicki, R. M., & Parham, L. C. C. (1967). Effects of auditory pitch and complexity on EEG desynchronization and on verbally expressed judgments. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 21, 346-367. crossref(new window)

7.
Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data. New York: Wiley.

8.
Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky A. (1970). Mathematical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

9.
Crozier, J. B. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In D. E. Berlyne (Eds.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 27-90). Washington D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Co.

10.
Granger, G. W. (1955). An experimental study of color preferences, Journal of General Psychology, 52, 3-20. crossref(new window)

11.
Guilford, J. P. (1940). There is a system in color preferences. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 30, 455-459. crossref(new window)

12.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). System in the relationship of affective value to frequency and intensity of auditory stimuli. American Journal of Psychology, 67, 691-695. crossref(new window)

13.
Heyduk, R. (1972). Static and dynamic aspects of rated and exploratory preference for musical compositions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

14.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 11, 135-143. crossref(new window)

15.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Humanscape: Environments for people. Ann Arbor,Michigan: Ulrich's Books, Inc.

16.
Lewin, K. (1946). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In Carmichael, L. (Eds.), Manual of child psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

17.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlynes's psychophysical theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 1, 53-80. crossref(new window)

18.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & West, A. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79-96. crossref(new window)

19.
Nasal, J. L. (1988b). The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Eds.), Environmental Aesthetis: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 300-320). New York: Cambridge University Press.

20.
Normore, L. F. (1974). Verbal Response to visual sequences varying in uncertainty level, In D. E. Berlyne (Eds.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 109-119). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

21.
Purcell, A. T. (1984). The aesthetic experience and mundane reality. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Cognitive process in the perception of art (pp. 189-210). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

22.
Rosch, E. (1975). The nature of mental codes for color categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 302-322.

23.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Behavior and the natural Environment (pp.88-125). New York: Plenum Press.

24.
Vitz, P. C. (1966). Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science, 11, 105-114. crossref(new window)

25.
Vitz, P. C. (1971). Preference for tones as a function of frequency (hertz) and intensity (decibels). Perception and Psychophysics, 11, 84-88.

26.
Walker, E. L. (1973). Psychological complexity and preference: A hedgehog theory of behavior. In D. E. Berlyne & K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, Reward, Preference, (pp. 65-97). New York and London: Academic Press.

27.
Walker, E. L. (1980). Psychological complexity and preference. Monterey: Brooks/cole.

28.
Whang, H. J. (2001). An analytical study on the quantitative information rate of architectural facade by applying Coding method, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, v17 n3, 101-108.

29.
Whitfield, T. W. A., & Slatter, P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 65-75. crossref(new window)

30.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics; The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment. New York: Plenum Press.