1

Creativity and process of creation in the

space of teaching Architecture: A case study at the University of Sheffield

Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PCHE)

University of Sheffield

2006-7

Student: Renato Cesar Ferreira de Souza

Supervisor: Jon Scaife

April 2007

Word count: 4569 words

2

Index

1. Introduction................................................................................................3 2. The focused discipline. ..............................................................................4 3. Creativity ...................................................................................................5

3.1. Space and process in the discipline......................................................5 3.2. Rejecting generalities about space and time ........................................6 3.3. Who is creative? ..................................................................................8

4. Objectivism in the Theory of Art and Architecture..................................10 5. Conclusion: Space to be creative - physical and social dimensions .........14 Appendix 1: .................................................................................................17 Appendix 2: .................................................................................................19 Bibliography: ...............................................................................................21

3

1. Introduction

“Genius is one percent inspiration and

ninety-nine percent perspiration” Thomas Alva Edison, quoted in Broadbent[1]

This case study will address attention to creativity in architectural subjects related to the

teaching of Architecture in the University of Sheffield. During that course the students

should join two main abilities: the one of imagining solutions in three dimensions and the

one of bringing those imaginations to the real world, through drawings and models.

Different types of exercises are strategically demanded to help the students achieving

other related skills, but in most of them the creativeness of the solutions provided is a

condition sine qua non to the progress in the course. Despite not being stated clearly,

being creative is an educational outcome that permeates all the stated pedagogical

objectives in the course.

The definition of the discipline from which this study comes from1 is that of a

pedagogical approach which considers activity and process, rather than of being space-

based. Students are assigned to work in studio groups, of between 15-20, working under

the guidance of a designated tutor and an eventual assistant for concentrated periods of

time on design projects. The projects may be either carried out individually, in groups or

in combinations of group and individual work. Reviews and tutorials are the educational

strategies used, and a Portfolio (plus a sketch-journal) is the means to record the

individual process.

1 “The design studio project at its best ‘provides the connective tissue that brings together, progressively, the many elements of architecture education.” ( quoted from Boyer and Mitgang (1996:10), cited in Rachel Sara (2004) in Between Studio and Street . Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield).

4

The average of students each year, in the classroom, has risen up to 150. This fact plus

the constant need of space to develop the exercises, has led to a lack of appropriate space

which will be considered here as a problem that potentially affects the creativity of the

students. Analysing the three main activities carried out as strategies to the student’s

evaluation (Portfolio, reviews and tutorials) it will be investigate in this research how

creativity could be more efficiently addressed through the course, potentially helping to

create a more suitable place to learn.

In order to investigate these phenomena, firstly a framework will discuss the

characteristics of creativity, relating the concept to an objective approach (Popper’s

objectivist theory of art) that permits using the regular strategy of assessment as a mean

to focus on the problem. Secondly, the hypotheses interpreting the problem will be

introduced, and an investigation guided by interviews with students and tutors will clear

the actual state of the problem. Thirdly, an analysis of the assessment’s methods will

permit concluding a solution.

2. The focused discipline.

As one can analyse through the short description in Appendix 1, creativity is an essential

requirement to the student development in the focused discipline. Through analysing the

educational outcomes stated there it is possible to discriminate how each activity holds a

concept of creativity, inferring its characteristics and making clear the mechanism where

it happens, regarding some spatial and temporal implications. However, only few

objectives clearly state a connection with creativity. Mainly, two pedagogical objectives

state it clearly:

• to develop imaginative thinking, from the articulation of abstract ideas to the creative

manipulation of materials;

• to initiate an understanding of the relationship between creative intentions, their

representation in drawings and models, and the reality of built works of architecture;

5

Apart those latter, creativity is a sort of embedded requirement through the other

expected educational outcomes, and the analysis of the assessment terms does not reveal

which educational objectives - using the taxonomy of Bloom [2] - would give means to

evaluate the creativity of the students. This looks as a general problem in the teaching of

Architecture, as I’ve detected in the research “A produção de material de arquitetura

didático via web” [3] (“The production of didactic material of architecture to support e-

learning”), which has demonstrated that, to Brazilians tutors in Architecture, the most

difficult task is enunciating those educational objectives in the Bloom’s style. The same

refusal of Bloom’s taxonomy that happens in Brazil possibly happens here, at Sheffield

University. That refusal in adopting Bloom’s taxonomy probably is because it allegedly

reduces the complexity of the learning process in order to identify, somewhat

mechanically, by a description, the criteria to asses the students’ creativity or

“Origination” skills. On the one hand, it is understandable that the importance of

psychomotor associated objectives2 to Architectural teaching turns that task a hard one,

nearly impossible without personal attendance and temporal observation of the student

assessed. On the other hand, it turns the discussion about creativity evaluation one of the

most mysterious and controversial task among architects.

3. Creativity

3.1. Space and process in the discipline

Analysing the philosophy of the course through all its documented statements, it is

possible to infer that creativity is regarded there as process. This process comprehends all

the students activities in the dealing with tutors and others students during the year, in

order to create individual solutions to architectural problems. It means that creativity is a

process of working - a process of creation - which method comes from individuals guided 2 Objectives as those named by Bloom [2] as Perception, Set, Guided Response, Mechanism, Complex Overt Response, Adaptation, and finally Origination, which is the outcome about creativity, emphasized as the highly developed skill.

6

by a common time and a common place: the classroom. In this sense, working groups and

formative assessments use the common time to happen as well the space is used in the

development of models needed by the individual expression. A concept of abstract space

(mentioned in the handbook as a “flexible space” of the course) is given by the

understanding that some activities can take place in situ, that means, in some outside

areas in which a building, an social event or a community is. This concept is here being

considered abstract because it is a metaphor to the architectural and urban problems

covered by the course, that means, problems related to the site, the neighbourhood and

the city: however the fact is that the students use the common physical space of the

classroom to develop their three-dimensional models of solutions or bi-dimensional

drawings, as well to engage in reviews with colleagues and tutors. Being a process of

creation, creativity is particularly attached to such spatial conditions, and the more

comfortable those spatial conditions are, the more supportive they will be to the creative

process.

3.2. Rejecting generalities about space and time

But to analyse more consistently how creativity is embedded to the everyday practice of

learning and teaching, some consideration needs to be done in order to clarify its

mechanisms. This means that the Design Studio I has a peculiar way to unfold creativity

in all its pedagogical tasks absolutely distinct from common conceptions about the term.

As mentioned by Laduke [4], the concept of creativity has generated uncountable

researches and has also generated uncountable mistakes. An explosion of research about

creativity took place in the 1950s and spread out to all sort of fields. It has been studied

from the perspectives of behavioural psychology, social psychology, psychometrics,

cognitive science, artificial intelligence, philosophy, history, economics, design research,

business, and management, among others. However, creativity has been regarded not

only by the scholarly interest but also by the laic opinion. According to Ostrower [5]

common people in western society tend to associate youth and expertise to creativity. To

her, that association tends to see a creative person as a genius, which causes more

7

prejudice and block the understanding of the phenomenon than clarify it in a accesible

terminology. Laduke [4] argues similarly that “creativity, as genius, has long held a high,

or even divine, position among human endeavours; too mystical to explore, too magical

to understand, too lofty to reach, too complex to explain.”

Also based mainly in behavioural studies from the 1950s, Geoffrey Broadbent [1] has

addressed attention to the way architects are creative. In the chapter “The Architect as

Designer”, he provides a deep study about creativeness and the personality, deducing a

complex panorama. Many times architects are regarded as a complex genius since the

ancient Greek period. He exemplifies this with the comment of the architect Vitruvius, in

which Vitruvius specifies a broad educational program to the architects:

“Let him be educated, skilful with pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history, have

followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine,

know the opinions of the jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the theory of the

heavens.” (Vitruvius quoted in Broadbent [1], pg 4)

Broadbent [1] and Ostrower [5] equally dedicate efforts to make clear that the genius idea

normally blurs the understanding of creativeness by introducing prejudices in the

classifications of expertise. Ostrower mentions that the laic idea of genius is normally

associated with ideological values that normally promote only the consumerism[6].

According to her, some of those common mistakes associated are:

• being a genius is requirement to be creative;

• Invention and creation are the same;

• Young people are more creative than older;

• Youth is the best period to be creative;

• Competition stimulates creativity;

• A good artist normally suffers incomprehension from his own time;

• Tradition does not lead to creativity.

Ostrower [5] dedicates her first book to analyse, in simple language, how those values are

committed with the alienation of the young people in one moment of their life when their

personalities are being moulded. At the same time, the exploitation of such moment as a

8

profitable deal in the consumerist society is very profitable. She concludes that the

perspectives are sadly bad nowadays to who dedicates himself to an artistic job, as

creative activities are hardly profitable and consequently far from providing a

comfortable and integrated life in the society. This situation makes the understanding of

an alienated and mechanic world as that place where is better to live, but living without a

soul.

While Broadbent verifies the prejudices inside taxonomy given mainly by psychologists,

Ostrower considers her experience as a Brazilian artist and teacher to negate the common

sense and the ideology inside it. Analysing both approaches of those authors, it would be

said here that they reject those ideas by arguing about the necessary association of

creativity with action in the everyday life, as it comprises time and space of engagement

into a creative labour and not only by general attributes of the subject’s behaviour or

about the objects as a result.

3.3. Who is creative?

It will be useless adopting here any concept detached from real life. For that reason, this

discussion will be initiated with the following concept:

“To create is basically to form, to shape something new. No matter in which field

creativity is being considered, it is all about new coherent states of organization

given by someone to the reality. It means new ways to understand correlations

among phenomena: creativity is about understanding the world, relating its

phenomena to other phenomena, ordering, configuring and meaning. Making

sense.” Ostrower[6] (my translation)

A long discussion about the engagement of creativity with action could be made in this

point, but it will be focused the dialectic form to depict that relation. Dialectic thought is

the process of thinking by contradictions, providing a first thinking about the condition of

the reality (thesis), opposing it to a second condition which should negate that first

9

instance (antithesis) until a new totality appears (synthesis) by means of some

transformation which will preserve the essence of the former terms but will elevate the

totality made on them into a new perspective. That transformation will be considered here

as a process towards one conduces, canny and artful, with the usage of proper tools (in a

broad sense), a dealing with the materiality3. That means, the action of synthesizing is a

process of creation that requires necessarily the conditions of transformability (plasticity)

of the reality by appropriate tools. In other words, it requires the condition of the object

(matter) as a transformable material and, at the same time, it requires the condition of the

subject as that who has the tools and the power to work over the materiality. This

conclusion is probably applicable since to small artistic activities till broad contexts, as

social and political creative transformations – it is, in fact, a relocation of the scope and

domain of creativity, posing an educational issue and its related political context: the

criteria of creativity is inside the total movement comprehended by the transformations of

subject and its historical context.

This latter concept came from the dialectics through the work of Hegel and Marx, each

one of them contributing differently in clarifying the engagement among subject and

object, the men and the world and the space and action. Many authors have contributed to

a phenomenology of the labour, but remarkably those two were very original in their

contributions. The starting point given by Kant [7] was thinking about the world as an

irreducible task of dealing with contradictions inside the process of knowledge. To Hegel

[8], however the contradictions between subject and object are the motor of the history

and are carried with the prominence of the subject, who guides the actions of

transformation of the reality. Opposing to Hegel, Marx [9] considers that the object (the

world and its social matter) is itself the leader towards social transformations by a

revolution in the social structure. Despite being the former references about Kant, Hegel

and Marx a cursory way to point out the idea of dialectics, the reference was made in

order to situate the reader among those concepts. By analysing those authors’ definitions,

seeking for a concept of creativity, one will realize that there is always a fundamental

importance given to the labour. Labour is the means through which the relation between

3 also in a broad sense, comprehending the social matter and even physical artistic matter.

10

subject and object (man and its world) come across new levels in the process of

overcoming contradictions. In Hegel, labour is mostly associated with the spiritual way

through which the subject transforms the world in order to recognize himself as identified

with the transformations that will lead to a complete unity in the future. Marx, by his

turns, considers that the subject’s labour is distorted by the social structure, which keeps

him alienated and not identified with the world. This situation will generate a new social

class which, together, will revolutionize the social structure, transforming the labour

again into the ideal of identification of the collectiveness. Following those arguments,

many others authors have claimed that labour is the core of humanization to men,

comprehending the creative process of transformation of the reality. It responds the

answer “who is creative?”: every man and women who is engaged with the labour.

4. Objectivism in the Theory of Art and Architecture

Since Vitruvius, it has been said that architecture has three dimensions:

Figure 1: Comparison illustrating the concepts in Hegel and Marx: persistence of the labour as a situated engagement towards the levels of contradictions. The intermediary level represents the transformation by labour in Hegel, and revolution in Marx.

11

- Constructive dimension, which embraces all technical knowledge and skills that

man develops in order to create functional places. The questions addressed to this

dimension are "How to do this?" It is rather obvious that this dimension can be

rationally approached and critically discussed and tested. The development of

building technology would not have been so great in the XX century without a

rational approach;

- Functional dimension, which refers to ordering things in the space for the

performance of activities in everyday life. The questions that belong to this

dimension are "How does it work?" Functional aspects can also be rationally

approached and critically discussed;

- Symbolic dimension or aesthetic dimension - which is related to the universe of

human perceptions, emotions and beliefs. The questions that arise in the analysis

of this dimension can be summed up in "What is it for?" They comprise the

general appearance of buildings (shapes, volumes, and colours). In architectural

theory, the aesthetic dimension is considered something to which we cannot

approach rationally. It consists of the artistic part of the architectural design

process. Most architectural criticism is dedicated to the aesthetic of the buildings,

although their authors claim to be addressing the three dimensions all together.

The success of a building, its popularity, is generally due to its appearance, to its

aesthetic qualities.

A good building design must contemplate the three dimensions equally. The balanced

situation is obviously more suitable for most architectural projects, although there are

many cases in which some technical, functional or aesthetic aspects should be over-

emphasized or neglected. As we do not know how to approach architectural aesthetics

rationally, we tend to develop complicated methodological apparatus to secure an

effective design process. These methodologies are focused on questions like "How does it

work?" and "How to do it?” and may lead to the misapprehension of the whole. In terms

of teaching architecture, this situation is problematic. As it has been seen, creativity

occupies a fundamental position as a process to be learned, in spite not having any

objective criteria to be assessed in the exercises in class. However, it will be argued that

12

the question “What is it for?” which unfolds in “What should it be like?” and “How

would we like it?” is more adequate to address architectural aesthetic in an objective way.

In her article “An Objetivist Theory of Architectural Creation” Malard [10] has studied

the contributions of Karl Popper to the understanding of the design as a process of

creation. According to Popper [11], the most important function of the emotions of an

artist is the fact that he/she uses it to criticise his/her ideas and this is an objective

attitude. In this way the artist uses himself as the main judge of his work; modifies what

he/she dislikes and improves what he/she finds good. Like scientists, artists work by trial

and error, eliminating errors through self-criticism.

Once looked through this point of view, learning by imitation and by repetition become

important elements in the learning experience. However, it could be said that when the

student follows up an example he is just repeating something that has already been done.

As he/she is not creating anything new, he/she will not be able to become creative.

However, Popper [12] argues that when we try to imitate a solution that somebody else

has discovered we are not actually learning by imitation. We are rather learning by trial

and error, since we imitate a solution and correct the mistakes we made. Instead of

ourselves, other people may correct our mistakes, as in the case of children learning by

imitating adults and being corrected by them. This is a typical trial and error process, in

which we eliminate errors through criticism (self-criticism or other people’s criticism).

If Popper is right, a great artist differs from an ordinary one in mainly in two aspects:

a) The quality of the idea that he/she can think of.

b) The aptitude for self-criticism, which unfolds in other two:

• Ability to grasp what has been wrong, either the representation of the idea or the

idea itself.

• Ability to correct, either the representation of the idea (by finding another way to

represent or depict) or the idea itself.

13

Therefore, concludes Malard, if an architect wants to improve her/his creative power,

he/she has to improve his/her personal conditions for having good artistic ideas and

his/her ability for self-criticism. Other people’s criticism plays an important role in

improving architect’s personal condition for having good aesthetic ideas. However, this is

only possible in the case that architectural aesthetics can be rationally explained. If a

successful architect says that the beautiful effects he/she obtained were just expressions

of his/her emotions, he/she will close the door for other people’s criticism and for the

possibility of being example for others architects. While generating architectural ideas to

solve spatial problems, the architect submits them firstly to his/her own discrimination;

selecting the one he thinks is the most suitable. The more accurate his/her selection

process, the better the choice will be. According to Malard, a good architect is one who

has the ability to choose the alternatives (hypotheses) most suitable, be according to

his/her emotions, be discussing the options in an objective way with others architects.

Obviously, the larger the universe of options, the more likely the chance he will make a

good choice. To enlarge this universe of options, the architect will have to join two

abilities, which are the focus on teaching: the one of imagining in three dimensions, and

the one of bring those imaginations to the real world, through drawings and models.

Finally, Malard [10] enumerates some consequences of this method when regarding

architectural teaching:

1. Creativity depends on the skill of generating hypothesis to be tested: fewer options,

poorer solutions;

2. Cooperative criticism plays fundamental role in the learning experience;

3. Knowledge is essential to contribute to the learning. The imaginative thought in

architecture is not constructed by the drawings, but it is constructed by the knowledge, it

is the knowledge that constructs the drawing.

4. The whole process is objective enough to be considered, in its records, as part of

evaluation: it is the process of creation itself;

A logical question, at this point, is whether those consequences provide a basis for a

pedagogic design in the teaching of Architecture. For sure this is a big task, and the

14

appropriate forum to discuss such new design would be in the real context of the

classroom and in the teaching managing of the departments. So far, what this essay can

emphasize is the importance of some evaluations that already happen, like the portfolio,

the sketch journal and other means of recording the individual creative process of the

students. Inside those assessment activities it would be possible to analyse how the space

of the classroom interferes over the individual skills related to creativity.

5. Conclusion: Space to be creative - physical and social dimensions

Analysing the evaluation model in the discipline here studied, it is possible to infer that

the conditions to apply Popper’s theory are already structured. Reviews and Tutorials are

strategic enough to permit the observation of the principles mentioned in the student’s

progress. Objectively, the records about the number of hypotheses generated in order to

solve a problem (studies) becomes an essential way to grasp about the student’s

engagement with his task.

At the same time, working groups probably will be more efficient resource when their

contribution are made clear, instead being considered as attacks. If students are thought

that architectural creation is carried out by trial and error - and elimination of errors by

criticism - they will develop a more critical attitude towards their projects; they will

accept other person's criticism as a contribution for improving their creative imagination,

rather than as attacks on their architectural ideas.

Those arguments lead to an appreciation of the real conditions in which they happen as

practicalities in the quotidian of the class. A participatory observation and interviews

with students4 were carried out to understand how they observe their own situation. In the

questionnaire applied, two initial questions were made to force them thinking through

creativity (What is it? and How does the tutor assess it?). However, only the last question

4 The questionnaire was applied in 24 April 2007 to 15 students (10% of the class).

15

was meaningful to grasp their vision: how does the physical space of the classroom

interfere on the creativity? The results were discussed with the coordinator of the second

year who gave more information to accomplish a conclusion.

The main hypothesis of this research is that, once the physical space is overloaded with

interposed activities, it loses its skills in being an environment to promote effective

exchanges during the sessions of working groups, when criticism activities happen.

Moreover, the lack of space constrains the engagement process with the labour of

student’s life, interfering negatively in the creativity. But what has been got through the

questionnaire was pretty different from all sort of expected dissatisfactions with the

space: in the opinion of 73.3% of the students, the classroom is a suitable space to their

activities, no matter the mentioned constrains. Only 26.7% reasoned about problems

related to overcrowding. The appendix 2 analyse those results.

At the first sight, those results could represent a refutation of the hypotheses. They could

be interpreted as if the majority of students were simply satisfied with the space.

However, analysing the categories of justification that they gave through the answers, it

is possible to asseverate that the social atmosphere given by the open floor, where all the

students work together, is regarded as the most important characteristic of that space,

characteristic that is very nice to creativity, according to students’ opinion. It means that

togetherness is still possible in that space, despite the nowadays physical constrains, and

when the space elements or activities bloke that quality, it disturbs collective creativity.

In order to confirm this last conclusion, I talked to the coordinator of the second year, and

she told me that, in the second year, the scheduling of evaluations and tutorials had been

introduced regarding better space to small groups, avoiding overcrowding. However, it

generated a high degree of dissatisfaction among the students, probably because the

togetherness was broken. This social issue probably can be regarded as an invariant

requirement to the learning. It can be interpreted however as if the space interferes over it

mainly when activities or things (physical barriers, walls, objects, and noise) break the

group into small ones, obliterating the immediate exchange of information. Thus, the

16

space is still the modulation to the perception and creativity of the groups, and all the

attempts to organize the space should regard it in a manner to keep togetherness

strategically. Through this point of view, it is not a contradictory fact but just add to the

space a correct dimension of its importance as an agglutinating factor, and how it

interferes over creativity. It opens other considerations to future researches, as concerning

to how the social life of the students plays an important role in their performances and

how the space of the campus can support it efficiently.

It has been shown in this essay that the actual structure of assessments in that discipline

and the pedagogical strategies adopted permit to add up the previous concepts discussed.

The spatial organization should be treated not only as a matter of individuality, either to

make easy and comfortable the tutorials or to make more efficient the assessment

sections. Impacting over the collective, the space should keep the sense of togetherness

which plays a role by giving the students confidence and insertion in the context of the

first year of the course. Scheduling the sessions of evaluations can be done in separate

space, in order to not interfere in the structure of the classroom. The organization of

material and space, their arrangements, should consider their configuration as not being

an obtrusive to the flux of information among the students, avoiding breaking spatial

contiguity.

17

Appendix 1:

According to the course handbook, the discipline focused in this essay is directed towards

three main aims:

- to widen the student’s perception of architecture by introducing them to the

diversity and richness of historical and contemporary ideas;

- to provide the practical opportunity to experiment with and develop

representational skills in graphics and model-making through which the students

may communicate architectural ideas.

- to introduce primary issues of cultural and technological significance within a

series of studio projects intended to stimulate both individual exploration and

collective discussion.

The exercises-projects are designed to test the student’s response to a series of

increasingly complex and challenging design problems. The early projects are short - one

or two weeks in duration; the final project in the year may take up to 6 weeks. Much of

the discussion around project work focuses on the appropriate means of representing and

communicating the design ideas; hence throughout the year the students should

experiment with a range of traditional and contemporary representation techniques.

Teaching is by group and individual tutorials, and by peer review. Students are

encouraged to work in the studio as much as possible, and are expected to attend tutorials

at least once a week.

According to the course handbook, the objectives of the First Year studio course are as

follows:

• to develop imaginative thinking, from the articulation of abstract ideas to the creative

manipulation of materials;

• to encourage an awareness of the diversity of architectural ideas and participation in

critical evaluation and debate;

18

• to initiate an understanding of the relationship between creative intentions, their

representation in drawings and models, and the reality of built works of architecture;

• to develop graphic dexterity, model-making and computer skills and the ability to

communicate ideas verbally;

• to begin to understand the potential value of working, co-operatively, with colleagues;

the juxtaposition of individual and team;

• to develop an understanding of domestic scale construction, structure and services

within a sustainable context.

As it has been mentioned previously, three forms of evaluation take place in the studio

design: tutorials, reviews and Portfolio assessment. The main aim of the tutorials is to

support students in their project work by means of a formative assessment. They might be

one-to-one, or more often they will involve small groups of students meeting with one

tutor. Learning takes place through dialogue which can sometimes be supported through

sketching, looking at other sources, examples of spaces and so on, assuring the constant

feed back to the students’ activities. All of the participants are expected to contribute to

discussion. The tutorial is less formal than the reviews and involves a smaller group of

people, being held at more frequent intervals as part of the ongoing activities.

Reviews (or critics and juries) are typically held as the culmination of a design studio

project. Students present their work visually and/or verbally to a panel that might include

tutors, visiting critics and other students, in order to receive a partial feedback. Through

dialogue, a useful learning opportunity is created, providing opportunity for reflection on

the project - on the process as well as the finished product. Tutors sometimes use these

events as an opportunity to make a preliminary assessment of students' work, with

posterior feedback in terms of grades.

The Portfolio should include a presentation of each studio project; the final outcome and

edited evidence of the design process. Each student's portfolio becomes a reflective

document, which describes not only the projects it contains, but also the thought process

19

that has contributed to each project. In this manner, each student is represented in their

portfolio.

Appendix 2:

Analysis of questionnaires:

The following sentences are the extract of the questionnaires:

1) Creativity is a solving problem process. The space of the discipline is good to

promote social contact and exchange of ideas;

2) Creativity is originality and novelty. The space interferes over the concentration

and at the same time promotes the experience of new ideas. The open-plan of the

class is good to make people interacting and the view of the city is inspiring;

3) Creativity is novelty, having a picture of things new or different in mind. The

space in the class provides less pressure to the individual and more inspirations

from looking out of the large windows.

4) Creativity is a thoughtful solution to a brief situation. Personalization and

individualization. The space influences positively, with the view and social

atmosphere. This social issue encourage conversation and discussion of ideas.

5) Creativity is the driving force behind design. The space provides a stimulating

environment but the business of it can interfere with individual work.

6) Creativity is the generation of concepts and ideas which leads to solutions of

problems. The space encourages creativity, sharing ideas about what is being

done, permits inspiration from looking at work of others.

7) Creativity is both good appearance and solution of problems. The space

sometimes is very crowded and disturbing, and when have music it helps. The

view is a good point to give inspiration.

8) Creativity is important. The space sometimes inhibits some creativity through a

lack of space. The environment is nice, natural light, the open plan permitting

20

visual contact with others. The student has chosen the university mainly because

the appearance of the space;

9) Creativity is important. The space has a positive impact over creativity in general.

When the classroom is crowded, messy at busy times, it has a negative effect.

Being in the 15 floor sometimes gives the feeling of being isolated. The students

sometimes rather be working at home.

10) Creativity is important. The space provides inspiration, from view to people. The

freedom permits more creativity and being open-minded.

11) Creativity is important, is having different ideas to suit the client. The cramped

and messy studio makes the student less creative. Poorly illuminated and it also

affects creativity.

12) Creativity is the ability to visualise and have visual thoughts. The space permits

communication between students that increase creative process. Talkative

atmosphere, the open plan is not too large as to see the other classmates in the

other sections (referring to working groups inside the same class).

13) Creativity is important, is the basis behind any design. The space permits a very

social atmosphere. This allows the exchanging of ideas, permitting to see the

works, talk to people, which provides a gain of ideas. The messy is positive since

there is different shapes, colours and volumes to look at and visualize.

14) Creativity is related to a flexible way to design. Innovation. People around always

helps in the space of the classroom. The social factor allowed in the space makes

the class more creative.

15) Creativity is discovering new solutions, shapes and forms. It is distinction of the

building design. The space, when not overcrowded encourages creativity. A

bigger space would be preferable since it makes the social dealing better and it

interferes over creativity.

Categories of positive aspects about space:

The space promotes visual and social contact, less pressure to individual, being a

talkative atmosphere, permitting the exchange and sharing of ideas, and looking other’s

works is positive. Also the space encourages conversation and discussion; people around

21

are helpful; It has a nice natural light and there is a positive messy, with different shapes

and colours. Incidence: 12 (73.3%)

Categories of negative aspects:

The space interferes over creativity when is busy, crowded, cramped, noisy and

disturbing. The high floor causes a feeling of being isolated. The space is poorly

illuminated and should be bigger. Incidence: 3 (26.7%)

Bibliography: 1. Broadbent, G., Design in Architecture - Architecture and the Human Sciences.

1973, London: John Wiley & Sons. 2. Bloom, B.S., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive

Domain. 1956, New York: David McKay Co., Inc. 3. Souza, R.C. A produção de material de arquitetura didático via web. 2000 2000

[cited 2007; Available from:http://www.arq.ufmg.br/rcesar/pmdvw/relatorio.html. 4. LaDuke, B. Knowledge Machine. 2007 [cited 2007 January 2007]; Available

from: http://www.anti-knowledge.com/book/00_Title.htm. 5. Ostrower, F., Criatividade e Processos de Criacao. 1992, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes. 6. Ostrower, F., Univesos da Arte. 1993, Rio de Janeiro: Campus. 7. Kant, I., Critique of pure reason, ed. E.s. library. 1934, London ; New York: Dent

: Dutton. 8. Hegel, G.W.F., Fenomenologia do Espirito. 1973, Petropolis: Vozes. 9. Konder, L., O que e dialetica. 1992, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Brasiliense. 10. Mallard, M.L. An Objetivist Theory of Architectural Creation. in Karl Popper

Centenary Congress. 2002. University of Vienna: Karl Popper Institut & the University of Vienna.

11. Popper, K.R., Two Kinds of Music, in Intellectual Autobiography, P.A. ed., Editor. 1974, LaSalle: London. p. 3-181.

12. Popper, K.R., ed. On So-Called Inductive Procedures, with Notes on Learning, and on the Inductive Style. ed. W.W. Bartley III ed. Realism and the Aim of Science. 1983, Routledge: London.