Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:30:06.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Framework for metaphor-based spatial configuration design: a case study of Japanese rock gardens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2019

Yuval Kahlon*
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture, Tokyo Institute of Technology, School of Environment and Society, Fujii Lab, Meguro Ku, Ookayama 2 Chome-12-1, Tokyo, Japan
Haruyuki Fujii
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture, Tokyo Institute of Technology, School of Environment and Society, Fujii Lab, Meguro Ku, Ookayama 2 Chome-12-1, Tokyo, Japan
*
Author for correspondence: Yuval Kahlon, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Metaphors are powerful tools for design, enabling designers to encapsulate sets of properties and relations as short verbal descriptions. This paper aims to clarify how simple spatial configurations may emerge from concise metaphoric descriptions at the conceptual design phase. To this aim, we propose a framework for a metaphor-based design process. As a basis for the framework, we introduce the concept of “complementary visual potential” – a property which ties the spatial configuration of the objects in the composition with their metaphoric roles. The framework is developed by studying the practice of metaphor-based spatial configuration design in Japanese rock gardens. Accordingly, it is implemented and tested in this context by attempting to generate alternative designs for an existing rock composition in the famous garden of Ryōan-ji. This is followed by a discussion of its possible implications and potential for generalization to other areas of design.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Casakin, HP (2006) Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33, 253268.10.1068/b3196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, H and Aoki, Y (2003) Dual deep-structure to associate a shape with its linguistic description: a hypothetical framework and an experimental implementation. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 2, 115121.10.3130/jaabe.2.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, H, Nakashima, H and Suwa, M (2013) Proposing designology: inquiry into activities of design and inquiry into design. 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research, Tokyo, Japan. pp. 2232–2243.Google Scholar
Gero, JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11, 2636.Google Scholar
Gero, JS and Fujii, H (2000) A computational framework for a situated design agent, part b: constructive memory. Knowledge-Based Systems 13, 36136810.1016/S0950-7051(00)00076-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, JS and Kannengiesser, U (2004) The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25, 373391.10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, JJ (2015) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hey, J, Linsey, J, Agogino, AM and Wood, KL (2008) Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education 24, 283294.Google Scholar
Kannengiesser, U and Gero, JS (2012) A process framework of affordances in design. Design Issues 28, 5062.10.1162/DESI_a_00123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (2003) Metaphors We Live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, JRA and Fadel, GM (2009) Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design 20, 1327.10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, S and Richie, D (2009) Japanese Stone Gardens: Origins, Meaning, Form. North Clarendon: Tuttle Publishing.Google Scholar
McGrenere, J and Ho, W (2000) Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept. Proceedings of Graphics Interface, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. pp. 179–186.Google Scholar
Nakagawara, C (2004) The Japanese garden for the mind: the ‘bliss’ of paradise transcended. Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs 4, 83102.Google Scholar
Slawson, D (1991) Secret Teachings in the Art of Japanese Gardens: Design Principles, Aesthetic Values. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha International.Google Scholar
Soegaard, M (2002) The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction: 5. Affordances. Available at: www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-computer-interaction/affordances.Google Scholar
Spivak, DI and Kent, RE (2012) Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation. PLOS ONE 7, e24274, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takei, J and Keane, MP (2001) Sakuteiki, Visions of the Japanese Garden: A Modern Translation of Japan's Gardening Classic. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Tonder, GJ and Lyons, MJ (2005) Visual perception in Japanese rock garden design. Axiomathes 15, 353371.10.1007/s10516-004-5448-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, A (2017) Out of Your Mind: Tricksters, Interdependence and the Cosmic Game of Hide-and-Seek. Boulder, CO: Sounds True Publishing.Google Scholar
Yamada, S (2009) Shots in the Dark: Japan, Zen, and the West. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar