大學生對建築空間之美感評量

College Students' Aesthetic Evaluation on Architectural Space

10.30105/JDS.200907.0008

莊修田(Hsiu-Tyan Chuang)；劉時泳(Shih-Yung Liu)；劉懿瑾(Yi-Ching Liu)

形態美學 ； 美感評量 ； 美感因素 ； 美感反應 ； Formal Aesthetics ； Aesthetic Evaluation ； Aesthetic Factors ； Aesthetic Response

設計學研究

12卷1期（2009 / 07 / 01）

153 - 173

繁體中文

爲探討人造環境中物理特徵與人們的美感反應之問的關係，本研究進行形態美學相關實證研究，並檢驗了不同屬性（特別是設計類與非設計類）大學生之間的可能差異。本研究以建築空間的圖片爲調查工具，以國內1167位大學生爲調查對象。在發展調查工具的過程中，先運用多元的交叉比對，逐步約縮做爲調查題目的圖片數量，然後不經「預試」過程，直接進行正式的問卷調查，再根據對調查所得資料的統計分析，進一步約縮題目及因素數目；再以德菲法及焦點團體法解讀各因素之屬性與特徵，並據之對因素命名；最後進行差異分析。結果，本研究獲得兩項主要結論：一、具有「現代科技造形及材質，表現出流動曲線無限延伸及張力感」特徵的建築空間，較可能讓人產生美的感覺；相反的，「誇張的造形與表現手法、過度運用結構體的變化導致突兀感、過於單調的分割與質感、嚴肅的色調與色系搭配」，相對較無法令人產生美的感覺。二、在美感評量的8個因素中，不同性別在3個因素、不同年級在4個因素上有顯著差異，而設計類與非設計類學生則在5個因素上有顯著的差異存在，呼應了國外在這方面的研究結果。本研究最後提出後續研究與設計教學之建議。

To explore the relation of physical features of man-made environment and people's aesthetic response, this study is to carry out the empirical research of formal aesthetics and test the possible differences among college students who major in the design and non-design. We used various photographs of architectural space as the tool of investigation to 1,167 college students. During the process of developing research instrument, we first used multi-cross comparison, and gradually narrow down the quantity of pictures used for the investigation, then conducting formal investigation without going through the ”pilot test” process. After the field investigation, we further reduced the quantity of factors and questionnaires according to the statistical analysis of data gathered through the investigation. Then the methods of Delphi technique and the focus group are used to interpret the various factors and physical features, and naming all the factors accordingly before the final differentiation analysis. Two major conclusions are drawn from this study. First of all, a built space with features of ”form of modern technology and materials, showing the flowing curve of infinite extension and tension” is more likely to create aesthetic response. Contrarily, ”exaggerated form and presentation, excessive use of the structure lead to unexpected changes in sense, and too monotonous segmentation and texture with the solemn tones of color” would hardly give rise to the aesthetic response. Secondly, at the aesthetic evaluation of the 8 factors, different gender and age are significantly diverse in 3 and 4 factors respectively, while students with design and non-design major have significant differences in 5 factors. The conclusion responds studies made abroad in this regard. This study concludes with follow-up proposals for research and teaching of design.

1. 伊彬、林演慶(2008)。近一世紀審美實徵研究趨勢。設計學報，13(2)
   連結：
2. Beaton, A.(1985).Left Side, Right Side.New Haven:Yale University Press.
3. Broto, C.(2007).Apartment Interiors.Page One Publishing Ltd.
4. Devlin, K.,J. Nasar(1989).The beauty and the best: Some preliminary comparisons of high versus popular residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same.Journal of Environmental Psychology,9
5. Dewey, J.(1958).Art as Experience.New York:Putnam.
6. Duffy, M.(1986).Preferences in nursing home design.Environment and Behavior,18
7. Feagin, S. F.,R. Audi (Ed.)(1995).The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
8. Feimer, N. R.(1984).Environmental perception: The effects of media, evaluative content, and observer sample.Journal of Environmental Psychology,4
9. Gifford, R.(1980).Environmental dispositions and the evaluation of architectural interiors.Journal of Research in Personality,14
10. Gifford, R.,W. H. Donald,M-C. Werner,J. R. D''Arcy, JR.,T. S. Kelly.(2000).Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons.Environment and Behavior,32(2)
11. Groat, L.(1982).Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting tasks.Journal of Environmental Psychology,2
12. Groat, L,C. Despres,E. H. Zube (Eds.),G. T. Moore (Eds.)(1991).Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design.New York:Plenum.
13. Hershberger, R. G.,In H. Sanoff (Eds.),S. Cohn (Eds.)(1969).A study of meaning and architecture.EDRA 1: Proceedings of the First Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference,Raleigh:
14. Hershberger, R. G.,R. C. Cass,G. Davis (Ed.)(1974).Man Environment Interaction: Evaluations and Applications, the State of Art in Environmental Design Research-Field Applications.Milwaukee:Environmental Design Research Association.
15. International Federation of Interior Architects/Designer(2007).International Interiors Annual 2007.Singapore:
16. Kaplan, R.,S. Kaplan(1989).The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.New York:Cambridge University Press.
17. Kubovy, M.,A. E. Kazdin (Ed.)(2000).Encyclopedia of psychology.New York:Oxford University Press.
18. Lang, J.(1987).Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design.New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
19. Martindale, C.,K. Moore(1988).Priming, prototypicality and preference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,14(4)
20. McLaughlin, J. P.,P. Dean,P. Stanley(1983).Aesthetic preference in dextrals and sinistrals.Neuropsychologia,21(2)
21. Mead, A. M.,J. P. McLauglin(1992).The roles of handedness and stimulus asymmetry in aesthetics preference.Brain and Cognition,20(2)
22. Nasar, J. L.(1989).Symbolic meanings of house styles.Environment and Behavior,21(3)
23. Nasar, J. L.(1988).Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application.New York:Cambridge University Press.
24. Nasar, J. L.,G. T. Moore (Eds.),R. W. Marans (Eds.)(1997).Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Volume 4: Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization.New York:Plenum Press.
25. Nasar, J. L.,J. Kang(1989).A post-jury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a center for the visual arts.Environment and Behavior,21(4)
26. Oostendorp, A.,D. E. Berlyne(1978).Dimensions in the perception of architecture-II, Measures of exploratory behaviour.Scandivanian Journal of Psychology,19
27. Rapoport, A.、張玟玟譯(1991)。住屋形式與文化。台北:境與象出版社。
28. Santayana, G.(1955).The sense of beauty.New York:Dover.
29. Scott, S. C.(1993).Visual attributes related to preference in interior environment.Journal of Interior Design Education and Research,18
30. Seaton, R. W.,J. B. Collins,W. S. Mitchell (Ed.)(1970).Environmental Design: Research and Practice.Los Angeles, CA:Environmental Design Research Association.
31. Stamps, A.E.(2000).Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment.Boston:Kluwer Academic.
32. Tatarkiewicz, W.(1970).History of aesthetics.The Hague:Mouton.
33. Valentine, C. W.(1968).The experimental psychology of beauty.London:Methuen.
34. Wohlwill, J.F.,I. Altman (Eds.),J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.)(1976).Human Behavior and the Environment: Advances in Theory and Research.New York:Plenum.
35. Zube, E. H.,J. L. Sell.,G. Taylor(1982).Landscape perception: Research, application and theory.Landscape Planning,9
36. 中華民國室內設計協會(2007)。TID台灣室內設計大獎2007。台北:中華民國室內設計協會。
37. 日本商業空間設計協會(2007)。2007JCD design Award。日本東京:日本商業空間設計協會。
38. 日本商業空間設計協會(2005)。2005JCD design Award。日本東京:日本商業空間設計協會。
39. 李文姬(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中原大學室內設計研究所。
40. 周鶴樹(2005)。環境認知與美感品味之關係探討。2005基礎造形與環境視察國際學術研討會，台北:
41. 林昌修、林芳怡、黃衍明、劉克峰、蕭瑞綺、蘇智鋒、鍾小芳(2005)。台灣的世界級。台北:木馬文化事業有限公司。
42. 阿杰多馬哈默、李雯燕譯(2006)。世界建築大師手繪圖集。中國瀋陽:遼寧科學技術出版社。
43. 施瑞萍(2002)。試談美感形成的原因。黑龍江教育學院學報，21(3)
44. 商店建築(2005)。商店建築，5
45. 商店建築(2006)。商店建築，11
46. 崔光宙(1992)。美感判斷發展研究。台北市:師大書苑。
47. 許佳容(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中原大學室內設計研究所。
48. 連德仁(1997)。專科學校設計類科與非設計類科學生之美感認知傾向。臺中商專學報，31
49. 陳怡君(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中原大學室內設計研究所。
50. 彭嘉儀(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中原大學室內設計研究所。
51. 漢寶德(2004)。漢寶德談美。台北市:聯經。
52. 謝依珊(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中原大學室內設計研究所。

1. 陳文亮、江雅媚(2014)。從生活型態觀點探討消費者對空調機美感認知之研究。設計學研究，17(1)，91-112。