Art and Design Review, 2019, 7, 131-144

http://www.scirp.org/journal/adr
ISSN Online: 2332-2004
ISSN Print: 2332-1997

Architectural Composition: A Systematic

Method to Define a List of Visual Attributes

Seyed Farhad Tayyebi, Yüksel Demir

Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

How to cite this paper: Tayyebi, S. F., & Abstract

Demir, Y. (2019). Architectural Composi-
tion: A Systematic Method to Define a List Architects are now capable to construct diverse architectural compositions
of Visual Attributes. Art and Design Re- with various formal attributes. Although theorists have defined diverse sets of
view, 7, 131-144.
composition attributes, no former list covers the features of our newly built
https://doi.org/10.4236/adr.2019.73012
buildings. This study, for the first time, introduces a systematic method to de-
Received: May 7, 2019 fine all the visual attributes in the composition of a building. Arising from the
Accepted: June 8, 2019 definition of composition, the proposed method, after defining the composi-
Published: June 11, 2019
tion layers and families, prepares a composition graph; then, by introducing
Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and three roots of the attributes, it creates a list of the visual attributes. To give a
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. better insight, the method applied to four buildings and their visual attributes
This work is licensed under the Creative
are extracted accordingly. The employment of the procedure on a set of
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY 4.0). building images sharing a criterion can reflect the most in-common formal
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ attributes among them. Therefore, a list of building attributes are also pre-
Open Access pared by applying the method on 200 randomly selected building images. The
proposed method is adjustable to our needs and also applicable to various art
forms which the term composition covers. Consequently, the introduced
method has the potential to be an assistive tool in many formal explorations
studies.

Keywords
Architectural Composition, Composition Syntax, Formal Attributes, Visual
Attributes

1. Introduction
Composition has experienced multiple definitions over its centuries of back-
ground. Alberti defines composition as “the procedure in painting whereby the
parts are composed together in the picture” (Grayson & Alberti, 1972: p. 73). In
architecture, Gaudet defines composition as “the combination of parts in a co-

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 Jun. 11, 2019 131 Art and Design Review
S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

herent whole” (Lucan, 2012: p. 158). Jon Brantingham, the composer of Holly-
wood, defines musical composition as “the process of making or forming a piece
of music by combining the parts, or elements of music” (Brantingham, 2019).
They generally emphasize the syntax of composition, which mostly concerns the
orders and arrangements of the parts. From this perspective, a decent composi-
tion requires syntactical features. Despite considering various essential traits, the
initial feature, as well as the final aim of composition, is mentioned deeply but
concisely as “the achievement of unity” (Lucan, 2012: p. 235). As Blanc, Pon-
tremoli, and Dews put it, the parts of good compositions are unified in such a
way that any changes would not make it better, if not destroy it (Dews, 2003;
Lucan, 2012: p. 24). From this viewpoint, composition is profoundly defined as
“variety in unity”; “seeking variations within unification and seeking unity
within varieties” (Li, 2010). From another point of view, some theorists concern
the semantic aspect of composition; they mostly concern the perception of a
composition and focus more on content and artistic communication by visual
elements (Aldrich, 1969). Accordingly, the trace of sign and symbols emerges in
a composition (Frutiger, 1989; Langer, 1957), rather than the arrangement and
unification of the physical elements. This paper, without concerning the seman-
tic aspects of composition, concerns the syntactic aspect of composition focusing
on the physical elements and their attributes.
Syntactically, the composition elements and principles are the basis of the
composition attributes. As they are analogous to noun and verb in a design lan-
guage (Kasprisin, 2011), Dew expresses that most of the artists’ decisions are
“based on the elements and principles of design” (Dews, 2003: p. 13). Composi-
tion elements and composition parts are generally used interchangeably in lite-
rature, and they refer to the composition constituents. As the word part may re-
call, what to assume as a composition influences on parts recognition. For ex-
ample, Alberti defines “parts of a ‘historia’ [painting] are the bodies, parts of the
bodies are member, and part of member is the surface” (Grayson & Alberti,
1972: p. 73). In an architectural plan as a composition, the rooms would be its
parts; and for a building façade, the windows, roofs, railings and so on are their
composition parts (Kruger, 1991); what to consider as a composition defines a
proper list of its elements.
As the second subject, composition principles involve the rules and methods
of organizing the parts. Although Greg Albert discusses various composition
principles based on his unique rule “never make any two intervals the same”
(Albert, 2003), some theorists provide a list of shared techniques and rules, in-
cluding graduation, hierarchy, contrast, complexity, contradiction, balance, and
so on (Meiss, 2013). Diverse literatures reflect some architecture composition
principles, which are mostly explored by building analysis via diagrams and ab-
stract sketches (Clark & Pause, 2012; Krier, 2010). Among them, some theorists
and researchers like Hanlon and Pend believe in existing timeless composition
principles (Hanlon, 2009; Li, 2010), while others believe in periodical maxims

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 132 Art and Design Review

 S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

and formulas which are fluctuating over the ages. Gargus defines a set of funda-
mental transformations of forms by some principles and asserts that “the em-
phasis on specific principles can shift” over the time (Gargus, 1994). The exag-
gerated verticality of Middle Ages has been substituted with horizontality and
moderated proportion through Renaissance (Arnheim, 2009). The symmetrical
axis-based architecture of the 19th century has shifted toward equilibrium and
balance until the late 19th century, then inclined toward the unbalanced and
asymmetrical plan (Lucan, 2012: p. 221). Then, Le Corbusier defines a modular
system to unify the composition elements (Corbusier, 1954) and, recently,
Schumacher discusses the ontological shift from the ideal rigid geometrical fig-
ure with straight-line toward the dynamic and adaptive geometrical entities via
spline and nurbs (Schumacher, 2015: p. 11). Despite various epochal shifts, in
practice, some theorists like Leon Krier and Andres Duany “follow any
pre-conceived set of design principles”; others like Ron Kasprisin’s believes on
the combination of various principles (Barnett, 2013), reminding Eclecticism in
art. Consequently, regardless of the different perspectives and various fluctua-
tions, some believe that the “formal rules derived from the academies” must be
eliminated to promote “the personal inventiveness” (Caniggia & Maffei, 2001: p.
31). From this perspective, Wright in the 20th century says, “Composition [as a
method] in architecture is, I hope, dead” (Wright, 1928: p. 259); lastly, the term
“Non-composition” emerges to escape the compositional modes and move
beyond the composition principles (Lucan, 2012).
In recent decades, architects radically questioned the sufficiency of the com-
position principles, and rejected any restriction by the former governing rules of
composition. Nowadays, architects move beyond the limitation of the rules and
technological advancements eliminate the limitation of the composition ele-
ments. Thus, new forms have been emerged in architecture, even in wooden
structure buildings (Fallacara, Pantaleo, & Scaltrito, 2019). Tokajuk by compar-
ing the building forms during three decades reflect the evolution line of the arc-
hitectural forms in Poland (Tokajuk, 2019). As Breen discuss the phenomena of
architectural composition (Breen, 2019), many scholars via different perspective
reflect the emergence of formal revolutions and some search for an appropriate
design pattern (Jiang & Qian, 2019). There is no constraint in either composi-
tion elements or the composition principles; accordingly, very diverse composi-
tion forms and visual attributes exist in our buildings. Even the unique formal
attributes changed into the remarkable signature of the building’s architect.
Various formal features in the building composition are considered as by archi-
tects. We can find the importance of shadow by the platonic elements in Lois
Kahn’s building, significance of proportion in Le Corbusier’s work, massive ele-
ments in the majestic compositions of Mario Botta, smoothness in Greg Lynn
and Zaha Hadid’s work, whiteness in the Richard Meier’s buildings, and extreme
complexity within Frank Gehry’s work, the variety of artistic textures in Jean
Nouvel’s buildings, and straightforward design in the minimalist architectures of

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 133 Art and Design Review

S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

Peter Zumthor.
Nowadays, any formal attributes are visible in recent buildings. As the mani-
pulation of the attributes and visual properties can radically influence on build-
ing forms, identifying and perception of the formal attributes are emphasized by
many theorists, practitioners, and teachers. Although various set of composition
attributes can be found in literature, they do not cover all the existing ones in
our diverse buildings forms; lack of a proper method for defining a comprehen-
sive list resulted in introducing multiple sets of attributes prepared by the sub-
jective opinion of the theorists. Accordingly, this study aims to introduce a sys-
tematic method to extract the composition attributes of a building, to be further
progressed to a comprehensive list of composition attribute. To prepare the me-
thod, at first, the composition attributes are extracted from both discursive theo-
ries and building forms in practice, via analyzing over 150 building images. Sev-
eral classifications have explored their basis. Then, a systematic procedure is
created to reveal the roots of the attributes in layer-base conforming the essence
of composition, leading to a comprehensive list of the attributes. Finally, al-
though the method is proposed in a simple manner, it went a long way to design
a valid systematic method to cover all the visual attributes of a building compo-
sition. The procedure has two phases; at first, a composition graph with its
components is prepared; afterward, the graph will lead us to define a proper list
of composition attributes in a more objective manner. Consequently, after dis-
cussing the procedure in the next part, it is applied on four buildings to reveal
their composition attributes and illustrate the method in practice.

2. Defining Attribute Procedure

The procedure aims to introduce a systematic method for defining the composi-
tion attributes of a building. The proposed method concentrates on building
façades, though it can disclose the composition attributes of different objects
which the term composition covers. Generally, regardless of the composition
principles, the composition elements and the composed object as physical ele-
ments are the main roots of the attributes. Thus, at first, the objects and its
composition elements are identified, to prepare the composition graph of the
building. Finally, after defining their properties, a proper list of composition
attributes will be extracted.

2.1. Composition Layers and Scales

Regarding the definition of composition, composition elements are assembled or
organized to form a composed object, known as a unified object. That is, a uni-
fied object (a composition) contains various elements (parts) connected togeth-
er, each can be allocated to a different layer of composition. From the scale point
of view, the elements belong to a smaller scale, and the unified object is located
in a larger scale. Thus, each composition has 2 main layers, the layer of the ele-
ments in a smaller scale and the layer of the unified object on a larger scale. Ac-

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 134 Art and Design Review

 S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

cordingly, a composition layer refers to a specific scale in which the composition

elements or the unified object of a composition exist within. Figure 1 illustrates
the definition of composition and its assigned composition layers.
Each composition element might be considered as a unified object of other
smaller-scaled elements. Likewise, a unified object can also be a component of
another larger-scaled composition. Composition has chain-like composition
elements and unified object, possessing a fractal essence (Figure 2, right). On
one side, any architecture element is composed by some material formed by
some ingredients. On the other side, as Durand discusses “Buildings are the ele-
ments of which cities are composed” (Durand, 2000: p. 143); Blondel similarly
believes on “no discontinuity between architectural and urban design” (Lucan,
2012: p. 17). From this perspective, the chain of composition can exceed the arc-
hitectural realm, from material science to urban studies. To focus on architec-
tural composition attributes, the fractal nature of composition needs a proper
limitation for both the smallest and the largest scales (Figure 2, left).
Among the concentrated scale range, there might be a various number of in-
termediate layers. For instance, defining a building as the composition of some
materials, no intermediate layer would exist between material and building as
the smallest and the largest composition layers. Instead by considering a build-
ing as a composition of walls, roofs, and windows, one intermediate layer would
be defined as building elements. Similarly, French architect J. N. Huyot pro-
poses the order of building composition as architectural elements (like shaft),

Figure 1. Graphical composition definition & distinguishing their composition layers via scale.

Figure 2. The chain of composition layers.

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 135 Art and Design Review

S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

architectural type (column with capital), a simple subject (like vestibule), and
complex subjects (like building), regarded here as four composition layers (Lu-
can, 2012: p. 88). Alternatively, the graph below illustrates 6 composition layers
from the architectural material to building (Figure 3). Any composition can
possess several numbers of composition layers. Worth mentioning, although the
number of layers correlates in defining composition attributes, a higher number
of layers do not necessarily lead to more comprehensive composition attributes.
Rather, to have a well-organized list of attributes, instead of an exhaustive num-
ber of layers with little difference in scale, distinctive composition layers are re-
quired. Hence, the redundant intermediate layers should be discerned, as sup-
posedly the three intermediate layers are eliminated in the graph below.
The considered scale-range and the number of intermediate layers are under
the influence of various issues. The profound influence of material in the newly
constructed buildings leaves no place to discern it as the smallest-scaled layer of
composition. The ultimate unified object can be considered from part of a wall
to a complex building. Since the introduced method aims to discover the
attributes of real-world buildings, the number of intermediate layers is under the
influence of various issues related to both observer and building properties, in-
cluding observer’s standpoint, its distance to the buildings, the accuracy of the
perception, building details, overall building form, the number of elements, etc.
Although various issues influence the number of the identified layers, the quan-
tity of the layers is not a significant matter; instead, as far as the layers are dis-
tinctive and fully understandable, regardless of their quantity, they will lead to a
proper list of composition attributes. The number of intermediate layers is ad-
justable to our needs, which will be clarified after having a general insight about
the whole method.

2.2. Composition Family and Their Properties

After defining the proper composition layers, this step defines the components
of each layer and their properties. Each distinctive component of a layer is called
a family. For instance, if the materials of a building are brick, stone, and wood,
the families of the material layer would be brick, stone, and wood. Noteworthy,

Figure 3. Various intermediate layers for a specific composition.

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 136 Art and Design Review

 S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

each family must be independent of another family in the same layer; otherwise,
the family belongs to another layer of composition, and the layer or family need
revision. For instance, a combination of wood and brick is not a material family.
Having the chain-like nature of composition in mind, each family of a layer is
formed by the assemblage of some families in the smaller-scaled layer. For ex-
ample, a distinctive wall as a family of element layer is formed by one or some
families in material layer, like brick or wood. Therefore, the relationship between
the families is gradually being revealed. Figure 4 samples a composition graph
with 3 composition layers and 5 composition families, and a glance over the
Figure 5 can facilitate its perception.
Following the procedure, each family has some properties. For instance, the
properties of a material as a family member can be its color, texture, reflectivity
and so forth. As graph 4 shows, the properties are written below each family. A
proper list of the family properties can be obtained with the aid of theoretical
discourses, personal experience, even comparing the families, as well as the
software simulating realistic images. For example, 3ds Max lists various proper-
ties of a material in a user-friendly order; it can make an assistive list of proper-
ties such as quality, color, texture, pattern, pattern size, transparency, translu-
cency, reflection, self-illumination, edge-properties, index of refraction, rough-
ness, and so on. Since this study focuses on the visible composition attributes in
building images, the very distinguishable properties need to be identified, rather
than an extensive number of properties hard to specify. Until now, after defining
the visible number of properties, a composition graph is prepared.
Arising from the composition graph, there are three main roots for the com-
position attributes: 1) The overview on the family (rectangular shapes in the
graph), 2) the relationship between the families (lines in the graph), and 3) the
family properties (the features under each family).
1) The families’ overview leads to some composition attributes and their val-
ues. For example, the existence of just one family in the material layer will lead
to the number of material (single material), as a composition attributes and its

Figure 4. Sample of a composition graph (layers, families, family relationships, and family properties).

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 137 Art and Design Review

S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

value in parentheses; in case of existing five family members in the architectural

element layer, then an attribute would be the number of elements (five or many).
Worth mentioning, the number of the layers can reflect a composition attribute,
compare graphs in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
2) The lines showing the relationship between the families reflect another set
of composition attributes. For example, if all building elements had been formed
by just one material, the number of material in each element (one) would be a
composition attribute. The first two roots are the general overview of the graph.
3) In most cases, the family properties are the main source of composition
attributes. Each property mostly reflects the value of the composition attributes.
For instance, plain white as a property of a material, right-angle cube as a property
of an element, and symmetry as a property of the unified object are considered as
values for the following composition attributes: material color (with the value of
white), material texture (no texture/plain), element geometry (right-angle cube),
and symmetricity (symmetry).
Please consider, if there was just one family in a composition layer, then all of
its properties can turn into some composition attributes. In case of existing more
than one family in a composition layer, the relationship between them will lead
to a meaningful list of composition attributes. For instance, if both black and
white materials utilized in a building, relationship between their colors which is
in-contrast would be the value of an attribute: material color (in-contrast).
Noteworthy, although the method reflects various attributes, not all of them are
significant and practically influential. The more detailed the graph is produced,
the more number of attributes will be extracted. Finally, the most significant
ones should be excerpted out of them. In case of focusing on some particular is-
sues, the attributes need selection accordingly. Finally, the attributes needs re-
finements to have the most remarkable composition attributes. The method is
applied on four samples selected in a way reflecting these considerations.
In case of applying the method for a set of buildings, the attributes and their
values should be harmonized, since it make more sense to have a proper list
covering them all. After gathering the significant composition attributes of each
building, a set of attributes and their quantified values can be prepared, and each
composition attributes and their values should be accordingly revised and
adapted. For example, despite the existence of color spectrum, 6 values with a
clear border can be defined, and the attributes can be valued accordingly, like
(white, grey, black, light warm color, dark warm color, and cold color). That is,
every color attributes has one of these 6 values, though it may add an ignorable
“aboutness” to the values. This adaptation makes the measurement, comparison,
finding similarities, and discovering the differences much easier; in brief, this
harmonization makes the method more applicable for many further architectur-
al investigations.

3. Applying the Method

The introduced method is applied on four buildings, to reflect the method in

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 138 Art and Design Review

 S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

Figure 5. Composition attributes of samples 1 and 2.

Figure 6. Composition attributes of samples 3 and 4.

practice: StamisolFa building, Ronchamp church, Bossa Restaurant, and Seattle

Central Library, respectively designed by Serge Ferrari, Le Corbusier, Arco, and
cooperation of Koolhaas and Prince-Ramus. The first two samples have very dis-
tinctive parts, which comprise one intermediate layer in their composition
graph; they have three composition layers (Figure 5). The next two samples have
a monolithic formal character; they have just 2 composition layers, without any
intermediate layer (Figure 6). A glimpse over the Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows
the difference between their general formal appearance and their composition
layers. After defining their composition layers, the families of each layer are dis-
tinguished, and the composition graph is attained. Having a similar composition
graph, for each pair of samples just one graph is illustrated. Lastly, for every sin-
gle family, just 2 or 3 properties as examples are mentioned. Please consider,
these samples are selected in a way to show the building attributes either with or
without intermediate layer, to show different value of the same graphical model,
and to confirm that the graph can reflect the differences of the visual attributes
in a systematic manner.
Figure 5 reveals the composition graph and attributes of the first two samples.
The graph overview, the families and their relationship, shows the existence of
three attributes: both buildings have 2 materials with a few elements (Attributes
1 & 2) and in both buildings just one material forms each distinctive element (3).
The family properties as another source of composition parameters reflect some
other attributes. Regarding the existence of two families in a composition layer,
the relationship between the properties echoes a more considerable attributes
rather than each properties; both buildings use materials with contrast colors

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 139 Art and Design Review

S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

(4). In the first sample, one with a very dense texture and another has almost no
texture; their material textures are in contrast (5). While in the second sample,
both materials similarly have few textures (5). Having geometry as a property of
both elements in the two buildings results in accepting geometry as a composi-
tion attribute with the value of cubic right-angular Pythagorean for the first and
Smooth non-Pythagorean Sculptural-like for the second samples (6). There is no
shared area/volume among the distinctive elements of the buildings; parts are
distinguishable while there is no joint except their contours (7, and 8).
The next two buildings possess two composition layers, with just one family in
each. Apart from the overall scheme of the graph reflecting some composition
attributes, the whole family properties refer to the value of another set of com-
position attributes. As the graph displays, a single material forms each building
(1). Having just two layers reflects lacking a composition element (2). Material
quality can also introduce another composition attribute especially for sin-
gle-material building (3), although the dominant material of a multi-material
building can be mentioned as an attribute. The family properties reflect some
other composition attributes like the material color (4) and material texture (5).
In contrast to the third sample with ordinary absorbent wood, material reflec-
tion is an apparent property for the fourth sample material. Thus, material ref-
lectivity is an attribute discovered by comparison, as it is mentioned as an assis-
tive technique (6). Geometry is another composition attribute for both buildings,
which is cubic and fragmented respectively (7). Based on the images, both
buildings have no openings and possess slight stress on horizontality. Therefore,
their stress (8) and openness (9) are mentioned as two composition attributes,
although both buildings especially the library might be different in various pho-
tographs taken from a different stance or time.
Noticeable, some intermediate layers can be introduced for each building. For
example, in the last sample, each surface of the fragmented form can be consi-
dered as an element. Then, its composition graph would have three composition
layers; and the element properties can reflect some other attributes. For example,
the shape and geometry of the plates could be among the composition attributes.
In fact, the samples just illustrate the procedure and reveal the apparent compo-
sition attributes; rather than all the detailed attributes, which lastly require some
refinements. It is important to know that the method is adjustable to the degree
of accuracy we prefer to go through. If a special issue is the main concentration
for us, the method would directly reflect those attributes; if we need a detailed
composition attributes, the systematic method can be adaptable to the required
precision; in case of concerning the main issues, the main visible and influential
attributes would be acquired by applying the method with a few layers.
Furthermore, the parameters and their values reflect the composition
attributes visible in its image, rather than building as an object. For instance, the
color of a reflective material can differ in various weather conditions; the sample
four would be more greyish in cloudy and bluish under sunny weathers. In addi-
tion, over the nighttime, the building appearance is entirely different, and their

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 140 Art and Design Review

 S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

attributes alter accordingly. As another example, although the fourth building

seems to have a solid skin covering the building, it is almost transparent from
the inside. The images are the roots of the composition attributes, rather than
the building as an object. Consequently, the introduced method would be per-
ception-oriented method while applying to the real world buildings.
The Most In-Common Composition Parameters
Applying this method for a number of buildings can result in attaining a
comprehensive list of the shared composition attributes, though it is not the aim
of the paper; that is to say, although the introduced method aims to reflect the
visual attributes of a building façade, it has this potential to disclose the shared
ones among a set of building images. Accordingly, in a time-consuming process,
over 200 building forms have been investigated via this procedure and a list of
the shared composition attributes is prepared. There was no limitation over the
building selections; the buildings are selected randomly, designed by several
numbers of architects around the world. Since most of the recent building forms
have no clear distinguishable parts, the shared composition attributes related to
material and building layers as two ubiquitous composition layers. Finally, the
shared attributes among the building are listed below (Table 1). Please consider,
the prepared list is not a conclusive list of attribute, rather it shows that what
attributes are more in-common among the buildings in general and reflects

Table 1. The most in-common composition attributes of the selected building images.

Material-based Composition Attributes

Material Quality 5 Stone—Brick—Wood—Plaster/concrete—Aluminum

White—Grey—Black—Light Warm Color—Dark Warm Color—Cold
Material Color 6
Color
Material Texture 3 Without Texture & Pattern (T&P)—With some T&P—Full of T&P

Material Solidity 3 Solid—Almost Solid—Net shaped

Material Reflectivity 3 Matt—Reflective—Very reflective

Single Material—2, 3 Different Material—2, 3 Contrast Material—Many
Materials Quantity 4
Materials
Building-based Composition Attributes

Symmetricity 3 Symmetry—Partially Symmetry—Asymmetry

Rhythm 3 Rhythmic—Partially Rhythmic—No Rhythm

Pattern 3 Regular—Irregular—No Pattern

Stress 3 Horizontality—Neutrality—Verticality

Indentation 3 No Indent—Almost Indented—Fully Indented

Complexity 3 Simple—Moderately Complicated—Complicated

Decoration 3 No Decoration—Moderately Decorated—Fully Decorated

Openness 3 Almost Open—Moderately Open—Almost Solid

Geometry 4 Basic Geometry—Compound Geo.—Fragmented Geo.—Smooth Geo.

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 141 Art and Design Review

S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

that the method is applicable to extract the shared visual attributes among a set
of building images. Although, this list can be a basis of future studies, we suggest
to attaining an appropriate list of attributes that focuses more on the required
characteristics of building in further formal exploration.
Apart from the attribute, the values are also limited to the most in-common
easily-distinguishable features. For example, many architectural materials are
being used in our time like stone, brick, wood, concrete, aluminum, plaster,
mirror, glass, ceramic, Cor-Ten, copper, brass, porcelain tiles, creative Facade
Panel, Cemintel Facade Panel, etc. Among them, just five commonly-used mate-
rials are mentioned. Also, the spectrum-like diverse values of some parameters
are quantified into some analyzable and meaningful value groups, like the six
mentioned values for the material color, and dividing the building openness into
3 classes. Finally, since the attributes are limited to the properties visible in the
building images, the invisible, or undistinguishable ones are simply discerned
like material durability, stiffness, index of refractions, glossiness and so on. The
table below shows the shared composition attributes among the selected build-
ing.

4. Conclusion
This study introduces a systematic method for defining the composition attributes
of a building. After preparing a composition graph and exploring their proper-
ties, the root of the attributes is attained. Accordingly, the composition attributes
and their values are extracted in a more organized and objective manner. This
system, by scrutinizing the composition parts and unified objects of a chain-like
composition, reveals all the attributes of a composition in a more comprehensive
manner.
This method has enough potential to reveal the attributes of various formal
conditions. It can be applied on different composition scales, from wall to a
complex building. Similarly, although the introduced method is applied on
building images, it has potential to extract the composition attributes from a
conceptual sketch to the extent of real-world perception of a building. Conse-
quently, since the system arising from the definition of composition, it can po-
tentially extract the composition parameters of anything the term composition
covers. Interestingly, the system can be adjusted to our focal issues in our de-
sired accuracy level. For instance, while the material is the main concern of the
composition explorations, the attributes related to the first layer need considera-
tion. While set of composition attribute is required, the number of layers, fami-
lies, and their properties can reply the need, and introduce more-detailed com-
position attributes.
Noteworthy, applying this method on a set of buildings can reveal the shared
and disparate composition attributes. By applying this method on a building
group selected from a specific location or time, the shared attributes or values of
the area or era will be exposed. If various buildings of an architect are analyzed,

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 142 Art and Design Review

 S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

the architect’s preferred attributes or formal values will be discovered. The me-
thod can reveal the personal, regional, geological, cultural, periodical composition
attributes or values. Exploring various images of a building can reveal the shared
or inconsistent attributes of its composition. Setting its vast application aside,
this systematic method by its objective procedure explores visible composition
parameters of buildings and prepares a list for further formal investigations.

Acknowledgements
This paper is prepared based upon the Ph.D. dissertation of Seyed Farhad
Tayyebi, carried out under the supervision of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yüksel Demir, at
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. The authors are immensely grateful to
each member of the dissertation committee, Prof. Mehmet Nemutlu and Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Can Karadoğan, for their extensive professional guidance over the dis-
sertation progress.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
Albert, G. (2003). The Simple Secret to Better Painting: How to Immediately Improve
Your Work with the Golden Rule of Design. Cincinnati, OH: North Light Books.
Aldrich, V. C. (1969). Design, Composition, and Symbol. The Journal of Aesthetics and
Art Criticism, 27, 379-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/429424
Arnheim, R. (2009). The Dynamics of Architectural Form. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Barnett, J. (2013). Urban Design, the Composition of Complexity. Journal of Urban De-
sign, 18, 449-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.800379
Brantingham, J. (2019). Art of Composing. http://www.artofcomposing.com
Breen, J. L. H. (2019). Patterns & Variations: Designerly Explorations in Architectural
Composition and Perception. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Caniggia, G., & Maffei, G. L. (2001). Architectural Composition and Building Typology:
Interpreting Basic Building (Vol. 176). Siena: Alinea Editrice.
Clark, R. H., & Pause, M. (2012). Precedents in Architecture: Analytic Diagrams, Forma-
tive Ideas, and Partis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Corbusier, L. (1954). The Modulor: A Harmonious Measure to the Human Scale Univer-
sally Applicable to Architecture and Mechanics. London: Faber and Faber.
Dews, P. (2003). The Painter’s Workshop-Creative Composition & Design. Cincinnati,
OH: F+ W Media, Inc.
Durand, J. N. L. (2000). Precis of the Lectures on Architecture: With Graphic Portion of
the Lectures on Architecture (Britt, D., Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: Getty Publications.
Fallacara, G., Pantaleo, A., & Scaltrito, G. (2019). Beech Wood for Architectural Design:
Three Studies Case from an International Design Contest Terres de Hêtre BT. In F.
Bianconi, & M. Filippucci (Eds.), Digital Wood Design: Innovative Techniques of Re-
presentation in Architectural Design (pp. 1151-1181). Berlin: Springer.

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 143 Art and Design Review

S. F. Tayyebi, Y. Demir

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03676-8_47
Frutiger, A. (1989). Signs and Symbols: Their Design and Meaning (Bluhm, A., Trans.).
New York: Watson-Guptill Publication.
Gargus, J. (1994). Ideas of Order: A Formal Approach to Architecture. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Grayson, C., & Alberti, L. B. (1972). On Painting and On Sculpture: The Latin Texts of De
Pictura and De Statua (p. 62). London: Phaidon Press.
Hanlon, D. (2009). Compositions in Architecture. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Jiang, W., & Qian, Z. (2019). Spatial Composition Patterns of Modern Medical-Elderly
Care Buildings. Journal of Landscape Research, 11, 111-113.
Kasprisin, R. (2011). Urban Design: The Composition of Complexity. London: Routledge.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=p3lSXCRGEc0C
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833766
Krier, R. (2010). Architectural Composition. Fellbach: Edition Axel Menges.
Kruger, C. (1991). Reviewed Work: Architectural Composition by Rob Krier. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research, 8, 266-268.
Langer, S. K. K. (1957). Problems of Art: Ten Philosophical Lectures. New York: Scribner.
Li, H. (2010). “Composition” and Regularisation of Architectural Production in Con-
temporary China. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 4, 465-473.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-010-0097-z
Lucan, J. (2012). Composition, Non-Composition: Architecture and Theory in the Nine-
teenth and Twentieth Centuries. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
Meiss, P. von. (2013). Elements of Architecture: From Form to Place. Abing-
don-on-Thames: Routledge.
Schumacher, P. (2015). Design Parameters to Parametric Design. In M. Kanaani, & D.
Kopec (Eds.), The Routledge Companion for Architecture Design and Practice: Estab-
lished and Emerging Trends (pp. 3-20). Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis.
Tokajuk, A. (2019). Multi-Family Buildings—Architectural Trends of the Last Three
Decades in Poland. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471,
1-9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/8/082022
Wright, F. L. (1928). In the Cause of Architecture: Composition as Method in Creation.
In B. B. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Frank Lloyd Wright Collected Writings (pp. 259-260). New
York: Random House Incorporated.

DOI: 10.4236/adr.2019.73012 144 Art and Design Review