COMPUTER ENGINEERING | |||||
Bachelor | TR-NQF-HE: Level 6 | QF-EHEA: First Cycle | EQF-LLL: Level 6 |
Course Code: | 5010003079 | ||||||||
Ders İsmi: | Art in Public Space | ||||||||
Ders Yarıyılı: |
Spring Fall |
||||||||
Ders Kredileri: |
|
||||||||
Language of instruction: | TR | ||||||||
Ders Koşulu: | |||||||||
Ders İş Deneyimini Gerektiriyor mu?: | Yes | ||||||||
Type of course: | Üniversite Seçmeli | ||||||||
Course Level: |
|
||||||||
Mode of Delivery: | E-Learning | ||||||||
Course Coordinator : | Öğr.Gör. Erkan KOLAT | ||||||||
Course Lecturer(s): |
Dr.Öğr.Üyesi Filiz DOĞAN |
||||||||
Course Assistants: |
Course Objectives: | This course teaches students the contemporary and emerging art of public space |
Course Content: | In this course, art in public space will be introduced with examples from past to present, contemporary art approaches and artists will be included. The subjects to be taught during this course include the definition of space and its historical process, the relationship of art with public space, art movements in the public space, etc. have topics |
The students who have succeeded in this course;
|
Week | Subject | Related Preparation |
1) | ||
2) | ||
3) | ||
4) | ||
5) | ||
6) | ||
7) | ||
8) | ||
9) | ||
10) | ||
11) | ||
12) | ||
13) | ||
14) | ||
15) | ||
16) |
Course Notes / Textbooks: | |
References: | • Altıntaş, Osman; Eliri, İsa. (2012), “Birey Toplum İlişkisinde Kent Kültürü, Kamusal Alan ve Onda Şekillenen Sanat Olgusu”, İdil Sanat ve Dil Dergisi, Cilt: 1, Sayı: 5, Volume: 1, Number: 5, s.s. 61-74. • Bayram, B., 2007. Kamusal Mekan Kalitesinin Yükseltilmesinde Yöntemler ve Kamusal Sanatın Rolü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, ĠTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. • Carr,S., Francıs, M., Rivling, L.G. ve Stone, A.M., 1992, Public Spaces, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. • Çağlın, Pınar. (2010), “Kamusal Sanat ve Kent İlişkisi”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Disiplinlerarası Anabilim Dalı Kentsel Tasarım Programı: İstanbul. • Çevik, N. Bingöl, M. Ve Durmuş, T. Kamusal Alan Bağlamında Kentsel Mekanlarda Çağdaş Sanat Yansımaları” Fine Arts, ISSN: 1308-7290 (NWSAFA), 2019 • Doğanay, Gizem (2015). Kamusal Alanda Cam Heykel, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Seramik Ve Cam Tasarımı Anasanat Dalı Seramik Tasarımı Programı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi • Ercan, Halil Fazıl. (2018). Kamusal Açık Alanlarda Sanat ve Battalgazi Çınar Park Örneği. İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi. ISSN: 1309-9876. E-ISSN: 1309- 9884. s. 44-57. • Erdal, G., (2013). Ambalajın Dili ve Psikolojik Etkisi, Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Sayı: 35, Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi, İktisat ve Girişimcilik Üniversitesi, Türk Dünyası Kırgız Türk Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, s. 7, Celalabat, Kırgızistan • Ertürk, S. (1983). Mimari mekânların algılanması üzerine deneysel bir çalışma. Yayınlanmış doktora tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon. • Gadsby, J.M., (1995). Looking at the Writing on the Wall: A Critical Review and Taxonomy of Graffiti Texts. • Görgülü, E. (2017). JR’ın Inside Out Projesindeki Portreler ve Kamusal Sanat. Medeniyet Sanat Dergisi, C. 3, S. 2, s.167-186. • Güneş, S. (2009). Sokak Sanatı. İstanbul: Artes Yayınları. • Hauser, A., 1984, Sanatın toplumsal tarihi, çev.Yıldız Gölönü, Remzi Kitapevi, İstanbul. • Hubbard, P., Faire, L., Lilley, K., 2003, Memorials to modernity public art in the city of future, Landscape Design, Volume 28 • Kent, F., Davies, S., Khacadurian, A., Madden, K., 2001, How to turn a place around, Project for Public Places Inc., Newyork. • Lang, J., 1994, Urban Design:The American Experience, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. • Madden, K., 2001, How to Turn a Place Around, A handbook for creating successful public spaces. project for public spaces, edited by: Andrew Schwartez. • Martel, C.(1995). Ben Enerjiyim, Arion Yayınevi, s. 85,İstanbul. • Oktay, D., 1999, Kentsel Ortak Mekanların Niteliği ve Kent Yaşantısındaki Rolü, Yapı Dergisi, 207, s.54-61, İstanbul. • Öztürk, Ö. (2007). Kentsel Kimlik Oluşumunda Güzel Sanatların Yeri: İzmir Örneği (Yayımlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara. • Paumier, C.B., Dimond, C.C. ve Rich, D.P., 1988, Designing the Successful Downtown, The Urban Land Institute, Columbia. • Sanatblog, (2015). Jr İstanbul’da: Şehrin Kırışıklıkları. http://www.sanatblog.com/jristanbulda-sehrin-kirisikliklari/ • Sheilk, S. (2005), Anstelle der Öffentlichkeit? Oder: Die Welt in Franfmenten, (Kamusal Alanın Yerine Ne mi? Ya da, Parçalardan Oluşan Dünya), Kritik der Kreativiat, yay. Haz. Gerald Raunig ve Ulf Wuggenig, Viyana. • Stone, N.J., (2003). Environmental view and color for a simulated telemarketing task, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23(1), 63-78. • Stone, N.J., English, A.J. (1998). Task type, posters, and workspace color on modd, satisfaction and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 18, 175-185. • Susuz, Mehmet. (2017), “Göstergebilim Bağlamında Tüketim Kültürü ve Sanat: Enstalasyon”, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Güzel Sanatlar Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı Resim-İş Eğitimi Bilim Dalı: Samsun. • Uçar, T. F. (2004). Görsel iletişim ve Grafik Tasarım, İnkılap Yayınları, İstanbul. • Varol, E., 2004. İnsan Çevre Etkileşimi Açısından Kamusal Mekanda Sanatın Rolü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. • Veryeri-Alaca, Ilgım. (2008). Louıse Bourgeoıs’nın Sanatının Kronolojik Dönüşümü. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt 17, Sayı 3, 2008, s.1-16 • Woolley, H., 2003, Urban Open Spaces, Spon Press, London. |
Ders Öğrenme Kazanımları | 1 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
8 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Program Outcomes | ||||||||||||||||
1) PO 1.1) Sufficient knowledge in mathematics, science and computer engineering | ||||||||||||||||
2) PO 1.2) Ability to apply theoretical and applied knowledge in mathematics, science and computer engineering for modeling and solving engineering problems. | ||||||||||||||||
3) PO 2.1) Identifying complex engineering problems | ||||||||||||||||
4) PO 2.2) Defining complex engineering problems | ||||||||||||||||
5) PO 2.3) Formulating complex engineering problems | ||||||||||||||||
6) PO 2.4) Ability to solve complex engineering problems | ||||||||||||||||
7) PO 2.5) Ability to choose and apply appropriate analysis and modeling methods | ||||||||||||||||
8) PO 3.1) Ability to design a complex system, process, device or product to meet specific requirements under realistic constraints and conditions. | ||||||||||||||||
9) PO 3.2) Ability to apply modern design methods under realistic constraints and conditions for a complex system, process, device or product | ||||||||||||||||
10) PO 4.1) Developing modern techniques and tools necessary for the analysis and solution of complex problems encountered in engineering applications | ||||||||||||||||
11) PO 4.2) Ability to select and use modern techniques and tools necessary for the analysis and solution of complex problems encountered in engineering applications | ||||||||||||||||
12) PO 4.3) Ability to use information technologies effectively. | ||||||||||||||||
13) PO 5.1) Examination of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics, designing experiments | ||||||||||||||||
14) PO 5.2) Examination of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics, experimentation | ||||||||||||||||
15) PO 5.3 ) Analysis of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics, data collection | ||||||||||||||||
16) PO 5.4) Analyzing the results of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics | ||||||||||||||||
17) PO 5.5) Examining and interpreting complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics |
No Effect | 1 Lowest | 2 Low | 3 Average | 4 High | 5 Highest |
Program Outcomes | Level of Contribution | |
1) | PO 1.1) Sufficient knowledge in mathematics, science and computer engineering | |
2) | PO 1.2) Ability to apply theoretical and applied knowledge in mathematics, science and computer engineering for modeling and solving engineering problems. | |
3) | PO 2.1) Identifying complex engineering problems | |
4) | PO 2.2) Defining complex engineering problems | |
5) | PO 2.3) Formulating complex engineering problems | |
6) | PO 2.4) Ability to solve complex engineering problems | |
7) | PO 2.5) Ability to choose and apply appropriate analysis and modeling methods | |
8) | PO 3.1) Ability to design a complex system, process, device or product to meet specific requirements under realistic constraints and conditions. | 5 |
9) | PO 3.2) Ability to apply modern design methods under realistic constraints and conditions for a complex system, process, device or product | |
10) | PO 4.1) Developing modern techniques and tools necessary for the analysis and solution of complex problems encountered in engineering applications | |
11) | PO 4.2) Ability to select and use modern techniques and tools necessary for the analysis and solution of complex problems encountered in engineering applications | |
12) | PO 4.3) Ability to use information technologies effectively. | |
13) | PO 5.1) Examination of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics, designing experiments | |
14) | PO 5.2) Examination of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics, experimentation | |
15) | PO 5.3 ) Analysis of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics, data collection | |
16) | PO 5.4) Analyzing the results of complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics | |
17) | PO 5.5) Examining and interpreting complex engineering problems or discipline-specific research topics |
Anlatım | |
Bireysel çalışma ve ödevi | |
Course | |
Grup çalışması ve ödevi | |
Homework | |
Soru cevap/ Tartışma | |
Uygulama (Modelleme, Tasarım, Maket, Simülasyon, Deney vs.) | |
Web Tabanlı Öğrenme |
Homework |
Semester Requirements | Number of Activities | Level of Contribution |
Homework Assignments | 4 | % 30 |
Midterms | 1 | % 30 |
Semester Final Exam | 1 | % 40 |
total | % 100 | |
PERCENTAGE OF SEMESTER WORK | % 60 | |
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL WORK | % 40 | |
total | % 100 |
Activities | Number of Activities | Duration (Hours) | Workload |
Course Hours | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Homework Assignments | 4 | 2 | 8 |
Midterms | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Final | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Total Workload | 12 |