Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
In recent years, the use of photorealistic rendered images has become a common practice in architectural representation. These images are used to demonstrate how a building looks like before it is actually constructed and they are presented to clients and society to promote design concepts (Drettakis et al., 2007; Whyte, 2002). However, it is not clear whether these images are connoted in the same way as the actual constructed building. This lack of clarity raises important questions about the effectiveness and reliability of photorealistic renders in architectural communication. For this reason, this research aims to investigate the similarities and differences between the two dimensions by the application of semiotics. Social semiotics is the study of how signs are used to communicate within social contexts, including language, media, visual art, and architecture (Schrøder, 1994). It examines the meaning-making and interpretation of signs in these contexts (Jewitt et al., 2017; G. Kress et al., 2006; G. R. Kress, 2010; O’Halloran, 2008). One way in which meaning is conveyed is through the use of metaphors, which are a specific type of sign or symbol used in a more creative or expressive way to communicate complex ideas or concepts (Jr et al., 1994; Kovecses, 2010; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Steen, 2008). These symbols are used as a communicative tool, enabling the building to effectively express its underlying personal emotions to those who interact with it (Huang & Zhou, 2020). Metaphors facilitate the evocation of emotions, transmission of abstract concepts, and enhancement of the depth and richness of language by interpreters (Forceville, 2012; Goatly, 2007; Kovecses, 2010). Metaphors are related to the “understanding and experiencing of one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). They are typically classified as conceptual or image metaphors (Casakin, 2019; Jr et al., 1994; Lakoff & Johnson, 2008).
Following speculations regarding the significant link between metaphors and iconic buildings proposed by Jencks (2005) Uluğ (2022) empirically demonstrated that iconic structures carry more connotations and generate a greater number of metaphors compared to ordinary buildings. Subsequently, questions arise regarding whether these outstanding and distinctive buildings (iconic) primarily raise positive or negative associations. In response to this question, this research studies to develop the existing semiotic model by introducing new components. The investigation in this research focuses specifically on the “sensory” side of image metaphors, which can be further sub-classified as symbolic and sensory metaphors. To test the efficaciousness of the model, the research selected the most distinctive buildings in Kyrenia, Cyprus and investigated the connotations and metaphors. The paper classifies the metaphors into two as symbolic and sensory. Symbolic metaphors utilize symbols or figurative representations, which can be thought of as physical-to-physical analogies, to convey meaning. In contrast, sensory metaphors rely on sensory experiences, perceptions, and emotions, which can be considered physical-to-non-physical analogies, to transmit meaning.
It is important to mention that there has been limited research conducted on the differences between the connotation of photorealistic rendered images and actual constructed buildings. Therefore, this research aims to examine and comprehend potential connotative similarities and differences between these two mediums, followed by a discussion on the theories of the field (Arnheim, 1954; Baudrillard, 1994; Eco, 1979; Evans, 1989; Pallasmaa, 2012). In other words, this article aims to compare the architectural user experiences represented as sensory metaphors. It aims to reveal the semantical differences in terms of “architectural user experiences” by developing a model and research method in semiotics.
Literature Review: Formation of Semiotic Model to Measure Sensory Metaphor
The article formulated a Semiotic Model (Figure 1) which aims to uncover the metaphorical dissimilarities in “architectural user experiences.” Specifically, the study introduces a model to illustrate the connotative differentiation between architectural photorealistic rendered images and physically constructed buildings, providing insights into the societal implications (connotations) associated with these variations. This model is produced on Lang’s “Sensory Aesthetic” framework by integrating “Image Metaphors,” leading to the development of a fresh conceptualization referred to as Sensory Metaphor. So, research used sensory metaphors for the classification and identification of the metaphors which were related to the senses of the subjects (interpreters). The subsequent subtitles clarify the themes employed as essential components for constructing the model to investigate sensory metaphor. However, in order to define the subcategories of sensory metaphors, namely positive, negative, and neutral sensory metaphors, it is necessary to test this model. Afterwards, a research methodology has been developed to achieve this objective, utilizing semi-structured interviews. The details regarding this research methodology and the materials used are thoroughly explained in the “Research Method and Materials” section.
Semiotic model creation to investigate sensory metaphor (Source: Author).
The Sign (The Building)
The key notion at the social semiotic study is the sign (G. Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996). The sign systems which can be mainly sub-categorized as signifier and signified (Figure 1) allow the communication between individuals. The sign can represent a wide variety of things, including objects, events, actions, repeated processes, states of affairs, emotional situations, and more (Chandler, 2007). Uluğ (2022) discusses a connection between the sign and the building by designing a semiotic model of architecture. The signs associated with a building may be intended to convey a specific meaning, but their interpretation can vary among different subjects due to their diverse experiences and perspectives. Nonetheless, these signs can be examined and analysed in order to more fully comprehend the meanings and messages being conveyed by the building. The signs are the referents (i.e., stands for) which refer to another. Johansen and Larsen (2002) discussed the idea that signs can represent relationships in both an imagined universe and in the real world. This suggests that a sign may be either based on imagination or reality. Therefore, the building could symbolize not only a built sign (reality), but also a sign that has not-yet-been-built (imagined universe). In this regard, this research studied the architectural image of the building in two dimensions: (a) Photorealistic rendered images of the building to visualize yet-un-built building and (b) the actual constructed building as reality.
Photorealistic Rendered Images of the Building (Artificial Image)
Photorealistic rendered images, also known as renders, renderings, CGI (computer generated images), realistic architectural visualization and architectural visualizations, are digital visualizations that aim to create a spatial understanding of future built environments, or “imaginaries” (Mélix & Christmann, 2022). They are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional objects, environments and spaces (Pejic et al., 2017). According to Evans (1989), these “presentational drawings” serve to “propagate a completely defined idea,” allowing architects to clearly communicate their visions and designs. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in real-time presentations of architectural visualizations (Boeykens, 2013). These visualizations, which are created using rendering software, provide a photorealistic three-dimensional depiction of the proposed architectural design before it is constructed (Bern, 2023; Dinur, 2021; Kim & Chai, 2020). Photorealistic renderings are often preferred by architects because they allow for highly detailed and accurate visualizations of their designs, which can be useful for presenting ideas to clients, showcasing designs to stakeholders, and communicating with project teams. Photorealistic renderings are easy to comprehend for non-professionals because they resemble photographs and modelled representations (Bern, 2023; Kuhlo, 2013).
Actual Constructed Building (Reality)
Actual constructed building refers to the physical structure or completed building that has been constructed in its designated space, context or located in its real-world environment. It represents the final product of the building process and it include all aspects of the structure, including its interior and exterior design, materials used, and any additional features or amenities. This dimension is the actual and real structure, as opposed to a conceptual design or a digital visualization. According to Ching et al. the physical building is the real and built structure (F. D. K. Ching, 2020; F. D. Ching & Winkel, 2021). In other words, completed actual building is the finished product of the construction process, and it exists in the physical world in other words reality.
Theories on the Relationship Between Photorealistic Rendered Images and Actual Constructed Buildings
This part of the literature review examines the theories on the relationship between the photorealistic rendered images and actual constructed building. Evans (1989) theory studied how architectural ideas could be presented through various media such as drawings, models and digital renders. He examined the relationship between the architectural representations and the built reality. He examined the theory of “translation vs. transformation.” This theory is about the process of the building moving from an architectural representation to a built structure which means it is not a direct translation but often a transformation. Architectural representations can sometimes convey an idealized version of a building that may not explain the complexities of real-world construction.
On the other hand, Juhani Pallasmaa’s theories were relevant when discussing the comparison between how a building looks in a render and experienced in reality. His theories focus on the sensory and embodied aspects of perception. He emphasizes that architecture is not just a visual art but a “multisensory experience.” He believes that the experience of architecture involves all the senses—sight, sound, touch, smell and even taste. Additionally, his concept of “atmosphere” plays an important role while comparing the renders with real world. Atmosphere refers to the mood or emotional impact a space can have in it users (interpreters) (Pallasmaa, 2012).
Moreover, Baudrillard’s hyper reality theory is related with the research papers focus. Photorealistic renders could create a “hyperreal” condition where the image is perceived as more real or ideal than the actual building. This “idealization” of buildings, could lead a “disconnection” when the actual building doesn’t match (mismatch) the hyper real expectations (Baudrillard, 1994).
Additionally, Rudolf Arnheim’s theory roots in psychology and studies how the users perceive visual elements. His work suggests that architectural representations can have a significant impact on how building is perceived, before it is built (Arnheim, 1954).
Furthermore, Eco’s theory on semiotics explores how signs and symbols convey meaning. His theory offers a framework for understanding how “meaning is communicated” through signs including buildings and architectural representations (Eco, 1979). His semiotics ideology provides a framework understanding the potential gap between the meaning conveyed by a render and reality of the built structure. According to his theory, architectural representations can sometimes idealize or exaggerate certain aspects of a design to create more appealing images, but this can lead to a disconnect when the final building does not fully match the architectural representations.
These theories present the need for an experimental research, in other words, pointing out the significance of the research paper. They are very valuable and providing a foundation for the discussions. It’s important to emphasize that these theoreticians didn’t conduct experimental analysis in the scientific or empirical sense. Their work primarily focuses on theoretical, philosophical and critical concern.
Metaphors
Metaphors can be seen as a product of the interpretation of signs, as they are created through the process of assigning meaning to them. Metaphors are the signified or secondary function of the sign system of Saussure (Chandler, 2007; Krampen, 1987; Uluğ, 2022). Metaphors are commonly used in fields such as visual media, architecture, and the built environment (Forceville, 2012; Gibbs, 2011). Architects often utilize metaphors in the design process and as a means of communication about buildings before, during, and after their construction (Bafna, 2008; Caballero, 2011; Cameron & Markus, 2001; Casakin, 2012, 2019; Coyne & Snodgrass, 1995; Di Palma, 2006; Goldschmidt & Sever, 2011; Logan, 2008; Medway & Clark, 2003; Melles, 2008; Schön, 1993; Snodgrass & Coyne, 1992; Watson, 1984). However, metaphors are not only used by architects, but also by society and individuals as a way to describe complex experiences or concepts (Caballero & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2009). Metaphors in language enable individuals to comprehend a concept or idea by drawing parallels and comparisons to something else, which entails utilizing various forms of analogy, similarity, and comparison in thinking (Steen, 2008). Metaphors, a common literary device in language, can be classified into two main categories: conceptual metaphors and image metaphors (Gibbs, 2011; Jr et al., 1994; Lakoff & Johnson, 2008). According to (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), image metaphors involve the use of concrete images or experiences to understand or describe more abstract concepts, utilizing sensory details and sensory language to create a mental image that helps to convey the meaning of the abstract concept.
Image metaphors can be sub-classified as sensory metaphors and symbolic metaphors. This research focuses specifically on the definition of the “sensory metaphors,” which can be related to (Lang, 1988) concept of sensory aesthetics and aesthetic emotions.
Sensory Metaphors
This section defines sensory metaphors and their relationships with sensory aesthetics, as identified through the literature review. Sensory metaphors, as discussed by Lang (1988) and Porteous (2013), are related to sensory aesthetics which refer to the sensations received from the environment and involve the arousal of one’s perceptual systems. According to Langer (2009) sensory aesthetics involves the use of sensory stimuli to create an emotional or intellectual response in the viewer, and can include the use of visual or auditory elements such as color, line, shape, form, texture, and sound. Shusterman (2006) posits that sensory aesthetics has initiated a subjectivization (i.e., refers to individualization, subjectification or emotionalization) of beauty, or the process in which beauty becomes subjective and is viewed or experienced in a personal or individual way. For this reason, subjects (individuals) can have different emotional responses to the same stimulus or situation (Kovecses, 2010; Leder, 1990; Sibley, 2001). The full appreciation of aesthetics, according to (Krishna et al., 2010) is made possible through the combination of sensory inputs. On the other hand, Berlyne (1974) suggests that formal aesthetics should be experimented with sensory aesthetic components. Rush argues that the aesthetic experience of architecture involves a multisensory and immersive experience, including the volumes, textures, and sounds that impact the overall feeling of a building as one moves through it (Shiner, 2011).
These viewpoints suggest that the appreciation of aesthetics involves a combination of sensory inputs that create a multidimensional experience, rather than being limited to visual form alone.
Research Methods and Materials
This article structured and presented a semiotic model (Figure 1) to investigate metaphorical differences by comparing architectural photorealistic rendered images and actual constructed buildings. This section provides a detailed application of the model as a research methodology. The research data was based on connotations of citizens’ real architectural experience. In this regard, six distinctive buildings (signs) as case studies were selected, which are constructed in the last 10 years and they are the most outstanding structures with their aesthetical, structural and material qualities in the city of Kyrenia, Cyprus. Researchers especially chose new buildings which are not effected by any renovation process. Accordingly, this research compared the photorealistic rendered images with the constructed buildings. In this regard, the designed research method comprised two different stages (Figure 2). The first stage included presentations of the colored (original) photorealistic rendered images to complete proceed the first semi structured interview (SSI-1). The second stage includes site visits of the selected buildings to proceed the second semi structured interview (SSI-2).
Research method diagram to investigate sensory metaphors (Source: Author).
It’s important to mention that each selected subject experienced the building individually so the subjects were not influenced by each other’s experiences. The recorded semi-structured interviews allowed researchers to examine the architectural experiences of subjects, which collected a variety of data such as body gestures and language, personal experiences, and verbalized thoughts. In this regard, the article aims to answer the following questions:
What are the architectural user experience differences in terms of sensory metaphors between photorealistic rendered images and constructed buildings? This question aims to semantically understand the relationship between different types of architectural user experiences in terms of sensory metaphors and their impact on society.
How do differences in architectural experiences affect the semiotic responses of society? This question aims to investigate the relationship between architectural experiences and semiotic responses. Accordingly, the created semiotic model is used to understand and analyze these differences.
Application of Semiotic Model to Measure Sensory Metaphor
The initial phase of the research involved the development of a sensory metaphor measurement model. Subsequently, a research methodology was formulated to apply and evaluate the newly created model. It is important to highlight that the six local cases were especially selected in order to investigate the society’s architectural experience in reality which enables direct research observation. In this paper, the research method involved thirty subjects, chosen to gather substantial data for addressing the research questions. The subjects, consisting of 15 men and 15 women, were randomly selected from various professional backgrounds outside of architecture discipline. They were grouped into four sectors as construction, business, civil service and education. This sectorial distribution ensured a broad spectrum of perspectives relevant to the study’s objectives. The age demographics of the subjects were also taken into account, providing a diverse range of representations, with 7 subjects (23.3%) aged 20 to 29, 14 subjects (46.7%) aged 30-39, and 9 subjects (30%) aged 40 to 69. There are no issues with the sensory organs of any of the subjects, as they are able to see and hear properly. The number of the buildings and subjects were limited because the application of research method was very time consuming.
The duration of the first semi-structured interview varied between 8 to 32 min. The average time consumption for SSI-1 was 15 min. On the other hand, the application of SSI-2 with the site visit on one subject for the six buildings consumed approximately 150 min. In total, completing SSI-2 with 30 subjects consumed minimum 75 working hours. Semi-structured interviews were coded and analyzed by using the aesthetic emotions and experience measure developed by (Russell & Pratt, 1980) in the continuation of the research methodology. The way a subject experiences a building through their senses can result in a positive, negative or neutral emotions assessment (Figure 2). Therefore these emotions play a crucial role in shaping subjects’ understanding and interpretation of the social world. For instance, these emotions can be positive, such as feelings of joy or pleasure, or negative, such as feelings of discomfort or disappointment. A comprehensive examination of the analysis methodology and its outcomes is provided in the “Case Study Analysis and Findings” section, explaining the specifics of the investigation. In order to evaluate the developed method, it is necessary to test it with specific cases. In this regard, the selected cases are distinctive buildings which are more than nine stories residential & commercial (mixed-use) buildings.
Case study 1: The Akacan Elegance Residence features a design with two cylindrical structures at the ends and four rectangular prisms positioned in the centre. Vertical circulation systems link the rectangular prisms, with dark glass framing utilized for these vertical connections. Wooden cladding is applied to the vertical elements, as well as to sections of the balcony railings on the cylindrical forms and to the north-facing balcony railings of cuboids (Figure 3).
Photorealistic rendered images (a) (
Case study 2: The Nurel 21 Bee Tower is designed as a rectangular prism. The building's corner edges and the parapet walls on the top floor are clad with a specially produced material resembling aluminium composite panels, creating a hexagonal texture (Figure 4).
Photorealistic rendered images (a) (
Case study 3: The Magic Tower Building form can simply be defined as a rectangular prism. The façade of the building faces south, east, and west directions designed as a glass surface as well as it is covered up with iron sun shading elements (Figure 5).
Photorealistic rendered images (a) (Ermiyagil & Hurol, 2021) and constructed building (b) visuals of magic tower (Kayalar & Uluğ, 2024).
Case study 4: The Magic Plus Building is designed in a triangular shape that follows the contextual axis. The north façade of the building is terraced toward the sea view and a gigantic pergola is designed on top of them to create a communal semi-open space for the users. The building has a clustered geometry that emerges as the combination of a rectangle and a triangle (Figure 6).
Photorealistic rendered image (a) (klş, 2016;
Case Study 5: The Perla Building has a curved geometry and it has curvilinear balconies around the flats. The building consists of two separate blocks and the space between the two blocks has been left as an open area for common use (Figure 7).
Photorealistic rendered image (a) (“Perla by Özyalçın | Özyalçın Construction | Projelerimiz,”n.d.) and constructed building (b) visuals of Perla by Özyalçın (Kayalar & Uluğ, 2024).
Case Study 6: The Avrasya Gold Building is formed from the triangular shape of the site and it has a reinforced concrete structure system. The building has an irregular building geometry. White aluminum composite panel coatings are used on the balcony parapets which creates a flowing appearance (Figure 8).
Photorealistic rendered image (a) (
The First Stage of the Research Method (SSI-1)
The initial stage of the research was related to the first semi-structured interview (SSI-1). It was about the architectural experience of the society on the photorealistic architectural renders. All these colored images were systematically presented to the subjects and one specific interview question was asked for each building one by one. This question is
A calm and comfortable interview environment was prepared for the subjects to express their thoughts and accordingly, they explained their architectural experiences about the buildings. Photorealistic rendered images were presented through the computer screen and their comments were voice recorded. It is also important to mention that each subject was interviewed individually and his/her answers were recorded individually. Therefore, subjects were not influenced by each other’s answers and experiences.
The second stage of the Research Method (Site Visit and SSI-2)
The second stage of the research method was based on on-site visits to the selected case studies together with the semi-structured interview (SSI-2). Site visit targets subjects experiencing the completed actual building in their context and then application of SSI-2. The visits were done according to a specific route sequence and the same question of SSI-1 was asked to the subjects in the SSI-2, which was
Case Study Analysis and Findings
The designed research method was analyzed by “Scales of the Affective Quality Attributed to Places” which was created by (Russell & Pratt, 1980) for measuring built and natural environments in terms of aesthetic emotions and experience. The measure was formulated by 40 items in total and had 8 scales. Four scales were positive senses (arousing, exciting, pleasant, and relaxing), and 4 scales were negative senses (sleepy, gloomy, unpleasant, and distressing). After the investigation of the method and application of case studies, the authors realized that the subjects could create “neutral sensory metaphors” as well apart from positive and negative. Therefore, neutral sensory metaphor classification was included in the classification system. These gave the opportunity to measure and understand the subjects’ architectural experience in the selected case studies.
Analysis of Case Study 1—The Akacan Elegance Residence
In the case studies of the Akacan Elegance Residence Building, 179 sensory metaphors in total were produced by the subjects for the photorealistic rendered images of the building after the SSI-1. Table 1 reveals that 107 sensory metaphors were positive, 1 of them was neutral and 71 of them were negative. Secondly, 363 sensory metaphors in total were produced by the subjects for the constructed building (SSI-2). Sixty-one sensory metaphors were positive, 3 of them were neutral, and 299 of them were negative.
Detailed Numerical Data on Positive, Negative, and Neutral Sensory Metaphors for Artificial Image (Renders) and Reality of the Case Study 1: Akacan Elegance Residence.
The findings of Case 1 indicate that the subjects were not satisfied with the constructed actual building. Positive sensory metaphors decreased from 107 to 61 and negative sensory metaphors increased from 71 to 299 (Figure 9). On the other hand for the second question of the SSI-2, 36.67% found the constructed building “different/dissimilar” than the photorealistic rendered images. In addition, it was found that 16.67% of respondents expressed that the information provided was “irrelevant,” 23.33% identified “inconsistency” and 20% reported “disappointment” which may be considered as synonymous terms of different.
Comparison between photorealistic rendered images and actual constructed building in terms of positive, neutral, and negative sensory metaphors in the akacan elegance residence (Source: Author).
Analysis of Case Study 2—The Nurel 21 Bee Tower
In the case studies of the Nurel 21 Bee Tower, 137 sensory metaphors in total were produced by the subjects for the photorealistic rendered images of the building after the SSI-1. Table 2 reveals that 109 sensory metaphors were positive, 3 of them were neutral and 25 of them were negative. Secondly, 323 sensory metaphors were produced by the subjects for the SSI-2. 0 of the sensory metaphors were positive, 4 of them were neutral, and 319 of them were negative. The findings of Case 2 indicate that the subjects were not satisfied with the constructed actual building. Positive sensory metaphors decreased from 109 to 0 and negative sensory metaphors increased from 25 to 319 (Figure 10). On the other hand for the second question of the SSI-2, 66.67% found the constructed building “completely different/opposite” than the rendered images. Additionally, 43.33% identified “irrelevant,” 26.67% said “inconsistency” and 40% responded “disappointment” which could be considered as synonymous word of different.
Detailed Numerical Data on Positive, Negative, and Neutral Sensory Metaphors for Artificial Image (Renders) and Reality of the Analysis of Case Study 2: Nurel 21 Bee Tower.
Comparison between photorealistic rendered images and completed actual constructed building in terms of positive, neutral and, negative sensory metaphors in the nurel 21 Bee tower (Source: Author).
Analysis of Case Study 3—The Magic Tower
In the case studies of the Magic Tower, 211 sensory metaphors in total were produced by the subjects for the photorealistic rendered images of the building after the SSI-1. Table 3 reveals that 101 sensory metaphors were positive, 3 of them were neutral and 107 of them were negative. Secondly, 482 sensory metaphors were produced by the subjects for the SSI-2. 15 of the sensory metaphors were positive, one of them was neutral, and 466 of them were negative. The findings of Case 3 indicate that the subjects were not satisfied with the constructed building. Positive sensory metaphors decreased from 101 to 15 and negative sensory metaphors increased from 107 to 466 (Figure 11). On the other hand for the second question of the SSI-2, 40% found the constructed building “different,” 66.67% said “completely different/opposite” and 26.67% said “no similarity/ dissimilar” to the photorealistic rendered images. Additionally, 50% identified “irrelevant,” 40% said “inconsistency” and 33.33% responded “disappointment” which could be considered a synonymous word of different.
Detailed Numerical Data on Positive, Negative, and Neutral Sensory Metaphors for Artificial Image (Renders) and Reality of the Analysis of Case Study 3: Magic Tower.
Comparison between photorealistic rendered images and actual constructed building in terms of positive, neutral, and negative sensory metaphors in the magic tower (Source: Author).
Analysis of Case Study 4—The Magic Plus
In the case studies of the Magic Plus, 219 sensory metaphors in total were produced by the subjects for the photorealistic rendered images of the building after the SSI-1. Table 4 reveals that 138 sensory metaphors were positive, 4 of them were neutral and 77 of them were negative. Secondly, 429 sensory metaphors were produced by the subjects for the SSI-2. 37 of sensory metaphors were positive, 4 of them were neutral and 388 of them were negative. The findings of Case 4 indicate that the subjects were not satisfied with the constructed building. Positive sensory metaphors decreased from 138 to 37 and negative sensory metaphors increased from 77 to 388 (Figure 12). On the other hand for the second question of the SSI-2, 53.33% found the constructed building “different,” 13.33% said “no similarity/ dissimilar” and 13.33% said “didn’t find what I expected” than the photorealistic rendered images. Additionally, 23.33% said “irrelevant,” 36.67% identified “inconsistency” and 36.67% responded “disappointment” which could be considered as the synonymous word of different.
Detailed Numerical Data on Positive, Negative, and Neutral Sensory Metaphors for Artificial Image (Renders) and Reality of the Analysis of Case Study 4: Magic Plus.
Comparison between photorealistic rendered images and completed actual constructed building in terms of positive, neutral, and negative sensory metaphors in the magic plus (Source: Author).
Analysis of Case Study 5—The Perla by Özyalçın
In the case studies of the Perla by Özyalçın, 183 sensory metaphors in total were produced by the subjects for the photorealistic rendered images of the building after the SSI-1. Table 5 reveals that 62 sensory metaphors were positive, 8 of them were neutral and 113 of them were negative. Secondly, 440 sensory metaphors were produced by the subjects for the SSI-2. 137 sensory metaphors were positive, 9 of them were neutral, and 294 of them were negative. Findings of Case 5 indicate that positive sensory metaphors increased from 62 to 137 and negative sensory metaphors increased from 113 to 294 (Figure 13). On the other hand for the second question of the SSI-2, 3.33% found the actual building “not same.” On the other hand, 26.67% found the constructed building “same,” 13.33% said “looks like” and 26.67% said, “there is not much difference.” Additionally, 3.33% identified “irrelevant,” 13.33% said “inconsistency” and 20% responded “disappointment” which could be considered as the synonymous word of different.
Detailed Numerical Data on Positive, Negative, and Neutral Sensory Metaphors for Artificial Image (Renders) and Reality of the Analysis of Case Study 5: Perla by Özyalçın.
Comparison between photorealistic rendered images and actual constructed building in terms of positive, neutral and, negative sensory metaphors in the Perla by Özyalçın (Source: Author).
Analysis of Case Study 6—The Avrasya Gold
In the case studies of the Avrasya Gold, 188 sensory metaphors in total were produced by the subjects for the photorealistic rendered images of the building after the SSI-1. Table 6 reveals that 138 sensory metaphors were positive, 5 of them were neutral and 45 of them were negative. Secondly, 417 sensory metaphors were produced by the subjects for the SSI-2. Fifty-three sensory metaphors were positive, 5 of them were neutral, and 359 of them were negative. Findings of Case 6 indicate that positive sensory metaphors decreased from 138 to 53 and negative sensory metaphors increased from 45 to 359 (Figure 14). On the other hand for the second question of the SSI-2, 73.33% found the constructed building “different” and 13.33% said “not same” than the rendered images. Additionally, 30% identified “irrelevant,” 23% said “inconsistency” and 36.67% responded “disappointment” which could be considered as the synonymous word of different.
Detailed Numerical Data on Positive, Negative, and Neutral Sensory Metaphors for Artificial Image (Renders) and Reality of the Analysis of Case Study 6: Avrasya Gold.
Comparison between photorealistic rendered images and actual constructed building in terms of positive, neutral, and negative sensory metaphors in the avrasya gold.
Comparison of the Findings and Discussion
This section of the research paper aims to compare the findings and relate them to key theoretical frameworks. Primarily, findings indicate that subjects produced high numbers of sensory metaphors for the actual constructed buildings when they experienced them in their physical real environment during the “site visits”. Also, the findings demonstrates that sensory metaphors of the constructed buildings can be more complex and this finding supports the “multi-sensory experience” and “atmosphere” theory of Pallasmaa (2012). The constructed buildings offer more immersive and multi-sensory experience as they can be physically experienced by the subjects. Contrary, the photorealistic rendered images can be limited and static because they may not capture the multi-sensory experience in a physical environment. The experience may be created by the virtual integration of materials, light, scale, and sound but it may not be the actual physical representations. In other words, the building experienced on the computer screen as photorealistic rendered images only engages people’s sense of sight. However, in the actual constructed building experience, people’s all of the senses are activated and they have the opportunity to experience the environment in multiple dimensions in the context. The subjects possessed the ability to evaluate the building in its current contextual setting, perceive every environmental detail in relationship between material, texture, layout and spatial configuration. On the other hand, subjects cannot experience the visual depth, scale, or physical features at the photorealistic rendered image experiences. They provide a single perspective which may limit and manipulate the environmental experience.
Secondly, subjects produced higher positive sensory metaphors when they were experiencing the photorealistic rendered images. For instance, 107 positive sensory metaphors were produced for the photorealistic rendered image and 61 positive sensory metaphors were produced for the constructed building in Case 1 (Figure 15). On the other hand, subjects produced more negative sensory metaphors when they experienced the constructed buildings. For instance, 71 negative sensory metaphors were produced for the photorealistic rendered image and 299 negative sensory metaphors were produced for the constructed building in Case 1 (Figure 16). Total number of positive and negative sensory metaphors of all the cases are demonstrated in Figures 15 and 16.
Comparison between artificial images and reality in terms of positive sensory metaphors.
Comparison between artificial image and reality in terms of negative sensory metaphors.
This finding promotes the hyper reality, idealization and disconnection theory of Baudrillard (1994), translation vs. transformation theory of Evans (1989) and meaning theory of Eco (1979). The finding indicates that glossy, inauthentic, and unreal photorealistic rendered images have the potential to convey misleading information. Therefore, the subjects could not experience their expectations, in other words subjects reported negative sensory metaphors since their expectations haven’t matched with the photorealistic rendered images. When the photorealistic renders are analyzed, it is clear that they are prepared with perfectionist thinking with manipulated context. For instance, they are modeled with exaggerated landscape elements by eliminating the existing buildings with manipulated materials and context. Therefore this provokes disappointment or a sense of disconnect when the real building fails to reflect the idealized rendered image.
Additionally, the finding of the research correlates with the theory of Arnheim’s manipulation theory (Arnheim, 1954). Renders can manipulate visual elements to create a specific impression. But the dynamic and interactive nature of perception might lead to a different impact when the real is experienced. Artificiality can be easily manipulated or misrepresented when the design is presented with its favourable angle. Another observation indicates that photorealistic rendered images fail to precisely (carefully) capture the real context. Consequently, subjects may lack sufficient information about the built and natural environment. This insufficiency in understanding might prevent the subject’s ability to fully comprehend the true nature of the surrounding and this potentially results a mismatch between their expectations and the actual experience.
Only photorealistic rendered images may not provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of an architectural design and this indicates the need for additional information. However, they have the potential to reveal emotions in subjects that diverge from the actual reality. Bern (2023) also found out that the representation of finished building projects (photorealistic rendered images) is inherently deceptive within the realm of competition architecture.
Most of the subjects experimented that Case 3 was the most “irrelevant,”“inconsistent,” and “the most disappointing” building when it was compared with the photorealistic rendered images (Figure 17). The findings show that there is a significant inconsistency between the two mediums of the Case 3. When these issues are investigated, it is seen that the sun-shading elements in the photorealistic renders are completely different in the reality (a). Also, the visual pollution elements such as the advertising billboards are not accurately demonstrated (b). The space displayed as a cafe is constructed as individual commercial units (c). The surrounding buildings (d), irregular lighting elements and litter (e), parking areas in front of the building (f), the bus stop (g), and main road traffic circulation (h) are not presented in the photorealistic rendered images.
Comparison between artificial image (Renders) and reality in terms of positive and negative sensory metaphors (Source: Author).
Briefly, the aesthetic and structural qualities of the building such as outer core, shading elements, colour, texture and materials of the building are manipulated in the photorealistic renders. As a result, Case 3 was perceived by subjects as being irrelevant and not meeting their expectations, leading to a sense of disappointment.
Conversely, Case 5 is found to be the least irrelevant because the subjects considered that the building resembles its photorealistic renders. This may attribute that the rendered images accurately reflects the building’s reality and the visualization considers the actual context.
Conclusion
The research formulated “A Semiotic Model to Investigate Sensory Metaphor (Figure 1)” by incorporating sensory aesthetics and developed a research methodology that can be applied to buildings in two dimensions: artificial image and reality (Figure 2). This methodology can be utilized to identify the connotation similarities and differences between the buildings’ virtual and reality dimensions.
Nowadays, virtual realities are in common use by architects to present their final design products. However, this research emphasizes that photorealistic rendered images and constructed buildings can connote differently.
Consequently, photorealistic rendered images are useful for visualizing and understanding the appearance of objects and environments but they have limitations in terms of the architectural experience when sensory metaphors are considered. The sensory metaphors in photorealistic rendered images and constructed buildings differ significantly.
The findings emphasize the theories of multi-sensory experience and hyper reality. In this regard, the photorealistic rendered images may create unrealistic expectations and this may create disappointment on subjects and users. This emphasizes the importance of accurately represented photorealistic rendered images within their actual context. This could prevent the creation of misleading connotations.
This research paper contributes to a broader understanding of how manipulated 3D photorealistic renders influence architectural user experience and connotations. It highlights the importance of architectural visualizations. Consequently, the research paper suggests that integration of contextual reality into photorealistic rendered images could balance the sensory metaphors creation in two different medium. This may minimize the user disappointment and manipulative connotations.
Further Suggestions
As a future suggestion, it would be valuable to expand the research focus to include a comparison between 3D architectural animations or virtual reality and actual constructed buildings (reality), aiming to investigate potential differences in the metaphorical creation of sensory metaphors. This extension would provide a broader understanding of the connotative differences between virtual and physical architectural representations, shedding light on the detailed aspects of sensory metaphors in architectural experiences.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iDs
