Document Type : Original Research Paper


1 Prefossor, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Asistant Prefosseor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran

3 Ph.D Candidate in Islamic Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran .


The pluralism of contemporary era in styles and creation of different artworks has led to various and sometimes contradictory definitions in aesthetics. As a result, aesthetic criteria have become disarranged. Aesthetic criteria, make measure and differentiate possible and therefore it is important to define and identify it. The purpose of his research is to study the effect and relation between porosity quantative measure and observer’s aesthetic preferences in architectural façades. In this research, after literateure review, using preferences studies’ methods in empirical aesthetic approach, 320 subjects were tested. The participants scored 32 visual representations made from 8 main façade of Tabriz historic houses with targeted manipulation. Aesthetic of porosity is investigated and analyzed, based on scores given to each visual stimulus. Based on the findings, the porosity According to research findings, it can be concluded that porosity, as a visual property, influences the aesthetic preferences of architectural façades and in a certain amount and range, increases preferences and appreciation. This property can also serve as a scale for aesthetic assessment and evaluation of the architectural façades and also function as an architectural strategy in designing façades.


-      بزی، خدارحم؛ میرشکاری، محمدعلی (1394). ارزیابی دیداری محیط و منظر پارک ملت زاهدان با رویکرد ترجیحات مردمی، آمایش محیط، (31)، صص. 99–121.
-      علی اکبری، اسماعیل؛ شاطریان، محسن؛ شیخ‌زاده، فاطمه (1394). بررسی میزان فضاهای رها شده شهر و توسعه آن با استفاده از اصول رشد هوشمند مطالعه موردی شهرکاشان، اولین همایش ملی علوم زمین و توسعه شهری.
-      گلچین، پیمان؛ ایرانی بهبهانی، هما (1392). ارزیابی محیط و منظر محوطه‌های باستانی با تأکید بر رویکرد زیبایی‌شناسی بصری: (مطالعه موردی منطقه بیشاپور - تنگ چوگان)، محیط شناسی، 39(2)، صص. 11–24.
-      گلچین، پیمان؛ نارویی، بهروز؛ ایرانی بهبهانی، هما (1392). بررسی ترجیحات استفاده کنندگان بر پایه ارزیابی کیفیت بصری (مطالعه موردی: پارک جنگلی شهری ملت زاهدان)، محیط شناسی، 39(4)، صص. 193–203.
-      مهدوی‌نژاد، محمدجواد؛ ناگهانی، نوشین (1390). تأثیر سواد بصری بر درک زیبایی در آثار معماری، آرمانشهر، 4(7)، صص. 51–61.
-      مهدوی‌نژاد، محمدجواد؛ نیکودل، فهیمه (1394). تعامل زیبایی بصری و فناوری های نوین نورپردازی در معماری شبانه ساختمان‌ها، آرمانشهر، 15، صص. 131–143.
-      وحدت‌طلب، مسعود؛ یاران، علی؛ محمدی خوش‌بین، حامد (1397). بررسی مفهوم و ارزیابی پُروخالی در جداره‌های خانه‌های تاریخی تبریز، پژوهش‌های معماری اسلامی، 6(2)، صص. 66–82.
-      Akalin A., Yildirim K., Wilson C., Kilicoglu O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 124–132.
-      Askari A., Binti Dola K. (2009). Influence of building façade visual elements on its historical image influence of building façade visual elements on its historical image: Case of Kuala Lumpur City, Malaysia, Journal of Design and Built Environment, pp. 49–59.
-      Bar M., Neta M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects, Psychological Science, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 645–648.
-      Belton SC., Jones A. (2011). Urban Porosity: Designing for the Modern Metropolis.
-      Berlyne DE. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation, Oxford, England: Hemisphere.
-      Bertamini M., Palumbo L., Gheorghes TN., Galatsidas M. (2014). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity? In IAEA Congress Proceedings, Vol. 107, pp. 154–178.
-      Brown G., Gifford R. (2001). Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary buildings: Whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 93–99.
-      Cela-Conde CJ., Marty G., Munar E., Nadal M., Burges L. (2002). The “style scheme” grounds perception of paintings, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp. 91–100.
-      Chatterjee A. (2003). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics, Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 56–60.
-      Commare L., Leder H., Rosenberg R. (2014). More than the sum of its parts: Perceiving complexity in the visual arts, In IAEA Congress Proceedings.
-      Cubukcu E., Kahraman I. (2008). Hue, saturation, lightness, and building exterior preference: An Empirical Study in Turkey Comparing Architects’ and Nonarchitects’ Evaluative and Cognitive Judgments, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 395–405.
-      Cui S., Stabat P., Marchio D. (2016). Numerical simulation of wind-driven natural ventilation: Effects of loggia and facade porosity on air change rate, Building and Environment.
-      Cupchic GC., Rickert M., Mendelson J. (1982). Similarity and preference judgments of musical stimuli, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 273–282.
-      Cupchik GC. (1986). A decade after Berlyne: New directions in experimental aesthetics, Poetics, Vol. 15, pp. 345–369.
-      Dazkir SS., Read MA. (2012). Furniture forms and their influence on our emotional responses toward interior environments, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 722–732.
-      Forster M., Jakesch M., Goller J., Leder H. (2014). The pleasure of ambiguity, In IAEA Congress Proceedings, pp. 198–203.
-      Frances R. (1976). Comparative effects of six collative variables on interest and preference in adults of different educational levels, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 62–79.
-      Friedenberg J., Umile E., Bailey A. (2014). Perceived beauty of random density patterns, In IAEA Congress Proceedings, pp. 469–471.
-      Gifford R., Hine DW., Muller-clemm W., Reynolds AJ., Shaw KT. (2000). Decoding modern architecture a lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 163–187.
-      Goodwin R. (2011). Porosity: the Architecture of Invagination (1st Editio), New York: RMIT University Press.
-      Heath T., Smith SG., Lim B. (2000). Tall Buildings and the Urban Skyline, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 541–556.
-      Hekkert P. (2006). Design aesthetics : principles of pleasure in design design aesthetics : principles of pleasure in design, Psychology Science, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 157–172.
-      Hussein D., Sarkar S., Armstrong P. (2018). Mapping preferences for the number of built elements, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 53–67.
-      Imamoglu Ç. (2000). Complexity, preference and familiarity: architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house façades, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 5–16.
-      Kaplan S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3–32.
-      Kaplan S., Kaplan R. (1989). The visual environment: public participation in design and planning, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 59–86.
-      Karaman A. (2005). Defining the regional identity: Conceptual Parameter Of Urban Morphology.
-      Kotsopoulos SD. (2005). Constructing Design Concepts a Computational Approch to the Synthesis of Architectureal Form.
-      Kotsopoulos SD. (2008). From design concepts to design descriptions, International Journal of Architectural Computing, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 335–360.
-      Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp. 489–508.
-      Linsen S., Leyssen MHR, Sammartino J., Palmer SE. (2011). Aesthetic preferences in the size of images of real-world objects, Perception, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 291–298.
-      Locher PJ. (2012). Empirical investigation of the elements of composition in paintings, In IAEA Congress Proceedings.
-      McManus IC. (2005). Symmetry and asymmetry in aesthetics and the arts, European Review, Vol. 13, pp. 157–180.
-      McManus IC., Cook R., Hunt A. (2010). Beyond the Golden Section and normative aesthetics: Why do individuals differ so much in their aesthetic preferences for rectangles? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 113–126.
-      Mura M., Troffa R. (2006). Aesthetic , perception and preference for historical and modern buildings, Journal of Cognitive Processing, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 66–67.
-      Myszkowski N., Storme M., Zenasni F. (2016). Order in complexity: How Hans Eysenck brought differential psychology and aesthetics together, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 103, pp. 156-162.
-      Nasar JL. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 377-401.
-      O’Connor Z. (2011). Façade colour and judgements about building size and congruity, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 397–404.
-      Ostwald MJ., Hong K., Chalup S. (2014). A computational analysis of pareidolia-derived emotional messages in architecture, In IAEA Congress Proceedings.
-      Palmer SE., Griscom WS. (2013). Accounting for taste: individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 453–461.
-      Palumbo L., Bertamini M. (2016). The curvature effect, Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 35–52.
-      Reis AT., Biavatti C., Pereira ML. (2012). Architectural composition of contemporary and historic buildings: An analysis through visual perception and cognition, In IAEA Congress Proceedings.
-      Riccardo F., van Oel C., de Jong P. (2010). Redesign of affordable housing facades. preparation of a visual experiment, In ERES Conference, Milano, pp. 1–16.
-      Roberts MN. (2007). Complexity and Aesthetic Preference for Diverse Visual Stimuli.
-      Sağlam H. (2014). Re-thinking the concept of “ornament” in architectural design, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 122, pp. 126–133.
-      Seifert J., Li Y., Axley J., Rösler M. (2006). Calculation of wind-driven cross ventilation in buildings with large openings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 94, No. 12, pp. 925–947.
-      Silvia PJ., Barona CM. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 25–42.
-      Stamps AE. (1999). Architectural detail, Van der Laan septaves and pixel counts, Design Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 83–97.
-      Stamps AE. (2006). Entropy, berlyne, kaplan: Integration of two aesthetic theories, Entropy and Mystery, pp. 1–13.
-      Stamps AE., Nasar JL. (1997). Design review and public preferences: effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 11–32.
-      Swirnoff L. (1982). The visual environment: consider the surface, The Environmentalist, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 217–222.
-      Vartanian O., Navarrete G., Chatterjee A., Fich LB., Leder H., Modrono C., Skov M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 110, pp. 10446–10453.
-      Wang T., Cant JS., Cupchik GC. (2016). The impact of depth of aesthetic processing and visual-feature transformations on recognition memory for artworks and constructed design patterns, Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 193–220.
-      Weber R., Brucks M. (2014). Aesthetic qualities of urban spaces, In IAEA Congress Proceedings.
-      Weber R., Vosskoetter S. (2008). The concept of scale in architecture—three empirical studies, Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 219–246.
-      Zabelina DL., Robinson MD., Ostafin BD., Council JR. (2011). Manipulating Mindfulness benefits creative elaboration at high levels of neuroticism, Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 243–255.