The aim of this study is to compare development of cultural and art consciousness in interior design students enrolled in three major universities in Istanbul, Turkey. The study examines design preferences in relation to art and culture exposure. Findings from a survey conducted with interior design students indicated that significant differences between cultural and art consciousness stem from three factors: participation in liberal arts courses in the K–12 curriculum, exposure to classical music, and class standing. These factors appear influential in shaping the cultural and art consciousness development of interior design candidates and need to be emphasized in both K–12 and undergraduate curricula.
References
1.
AydinK. (2009). Social stratification of culture and leisure in Turkey.Cultural Trends, 18(4), 295–311. DOI: 10.1080/09548960903268113.
2.
BerlyneD. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Oxford, UK: Taylor and Francis.
3.
BourdieuP. (2007). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (revised ed.). London: Routledge.
4.
DevlinK., & NasarJ. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(4), 333–344. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80013-1.
5.
GansH. J. (1999). Popular culture and high culture (revised ed.).New York: Basic Books.
6.
GiffordR. (1980). Judgments of the built environment as a function of individual differences and context.Journal of Man-Environment Relations, 1(1), 22–31.
7.
GiffordR., HineD. W., Muller–ClemmW., ReynoldsD. J., & ShawK. T. (2000). Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons.Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163–187. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.202.
8.
GroatL. (1982). Meaning in post–modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2(1), 3–22. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(82)80002-9.
9.
GronowJ. (1997). The sociology of taste. London: Routledge.
10.
HumeD. (1975). Of the standard of taste. In essays, moral, political and literary (revised ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Jara–DíazS. R. (1989). Income and taste in mode choice models: Are they surrogates?Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 25(5), 341–350. DOI: 10.1016/0191-2615(91)90027-G.
12.
JeffersC. S. (1997). Discovering a gap: A comparison of personal and educational aesthetic preferences of students and teachers.Studies in Art Education, 39(1), 57–73.
13.
KälviäinenM. (1999). Customer taste as a challenge in the design process. Proceedings of the 3rd EAD Conference on Design Cultures (Vol. 2, pp. 78–102), Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.
KeaneL., & KeaneM. (2001). The culture of design education. In ColemanC. (Ed.), Interior design handbook of professional practice (pp. 92–125). NY: McGraw–Hill Professional.
16.
KotlerP., & ArmstrongG. (1999). Principles of marketing (revised ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall International, Inc.
17.
MannD. A. (1979). Architecture, aesthetics, and pluralism: Theories of taste as a determinant of architectural standards.Studies in Art Education, 20(3), 15–29.
18.
PantzarM. (2000). Consumption as work, play, and art: Representation of the consumer in future scenarios.Design Issues, 16(3), 3–18.
19.
SchillerJ. C. F. (2001). Letters upon the aesthetic education of man. New York, Bartleby.com. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from http://www.bartleby.com/32/501.html.
20.
SchirrmacherR. (1988). Art and creative development for young children. Albany, NY: Delmar Publisher Inc.
21.
TaylorA. B., & HelmstadterG. C. (1971). A preliminary pair comparison test for measuring aesthetic judgment in young children. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, 4–7 February. Retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED048351).
22.
VeblenT. (1994). The theory of leisure class.New York: Penguin Books.
23.
WenchunW., & KazuhiroI. (2002). Aesthetic development in cross–cultural contexts: A study of art appreciation in Japan, Taiwan and The United States.Studies in Art Education, 43(4), 373–391.
24.
WilsonM. A. (1996). The socialization of architectural preference.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(1), 33–44.
25.
WoodwardI., & EmmisonM. (2001). From aesthetic principles to collective sentiments: The logic of everyday judgments of taste.Poetics, 29(6), 295–316. DOI: 10.1177/0004869003394005.
26.
YalcintanM. C., & ThornleyA. (2007). Turkey's foundation universities and the case of Koç University in Istanbul.Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, 25(6), 822–843. DOI: 10.1068/c0580.
