1

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

AESTHETICS AND DAY-LIGHTING CORRELATION: AN

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF FORM AND PLACEMENT

OF WINDOWS ON BUILDINGS

Olusegun Moses Idowu (PhD)^and Sumadanda Humphrey

Department of Architecture, Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola, Nigeria

ABSTRACT:

Design concepts or principles such as ‘Form follows function’, ‘Beauty in usability’, or

Original Article

‘Attractive things work better’ suggest that a positive correlation exists between aesthetics

and functions of a building. Windows are designed probably for aesthetics and daylight in

spaces of a building. However the design of windows for adequate daylight may be

antithetical to that of aesthetic enhancement. This study sought to ascertain the effect of

window form and position on, and the correlation if any, between aesthetics and daylight

in spaces of a building. 143 respondents in four groups who were mainly undergraduate

and postgraduate students and lecturers in Architecture were the respondents in the

study. Six simulated elevations of an existing building with different form and placement

but same window area were ranked in order of aesthetic pleasantness. Six architectural

models of a typical room in the building were constructed with the window forms and

placement as on the simulated elevations. Day-lighting levels were observed with lux

meter outside, and at 16 positions on the floor of the simulated rooms. Mean daylight

factors and daylight levels of in the rooms were calculated. Spearman’s Rank Order

Correlation Coefficients were employed to ascertain correlation between aesthetic

rankings of the elevations and respective daylight factors. It was found that window forms

and positions affect both aesthetic rankings and daylight factors in rooms of the buildings.

Correlation coefficients of +0.94 were obtained in three of the four ranking groups, while

the other ranking group recorded a coefficient of +0.77. The study concluded that the

correlation between aesthetics and day-lighting through window design is at least

appreciable and positive. It was recommended that windows form be rectangular with

geometric proportion toward ‘the golden ratio’

PII: S238315531800001-7

Received: 27 Feb. 2017

Accepted: 20 Jun. 2017

Revised: 25 May. 2018

Published: 05 Jun. 2018



Corresponding author:

E-mail:

idowumosegun@gmail.com

Tel: +2348061510635

KEYWORDS:

Buildings; Window form; Window position; Aesthetics; Day-lighting; Correlation.

INTRODUCTION

enhance aesthetics in buildings retrofitted for

thermal performance through changes in materials

Aesthetics has been referred to as that branch of and components of window as reported in Gyimah

philosophy dealing with the nature, art, taste and and Tetlow [9] and Apogee Enterprises [10].

expression of beauty. Involving the study of sensory Window design for thermal or visual comfort may

or sensori-emotional values, it is sometimes also be antithetical or contradictory to aesthetics

described as ‘judgement of sentiment and taste’ [1, enhancement. For instance, passive cooling

2], and ‘the science of how things are known via the enhancement in the warm-humid and hot-humid

senses’ or ‘standards of taste’ [3]. Environmental climates requires window areas and positions

aesthetics has also been defined [4] as psychological different from those required in the hot-dry and

pleasure sensation towards the environment. cold-dry climates [11]. Visual comfort challenges

Architreacher [5] held that architectural aesthetics is may not be equally addressed through daylight in

governed by elements such as form, colour, light and these scenarios.

shade.

Windows are designed for day-lighting, natural

Windows and day-lighting

ventilation, outdoor view prospects, and to enhance

Daylight is admitted into architectural spaces

the aesthetics of buildings [6, 7]. Rich and Dean [8] through design of fenestrations in form of side-

are of the opinion that the proportions, framing lighting (wall opening) or top-lighting (roof

materials and position of windows can influence the openings) of buildings [7]. While side-wall windows

feel and quality of spaces in a building. Climatic and clerestory windows are components of side-

factors, thermal and visual comfort needs may lighting, monitor light, saw-tooth light, and north

influence the form, materials and components of roof light are examples of top-lighting. Even though

windows. The resultant window designs sometimes day-light quantum admitted into space partly

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

2

depends on height of fenestration as cited in (throughout) from the whole to the individual

Abraham [7], Moscoso [12] described windows as elements of the building, as evident in the natural

the most basic daylight collectors, capable of proportion of the human body. Often referred to as

influencing the aesthetic quality of spaces in a ‘the golden ratio’ (harmonic or divine proportional

building. Other factors that may affect amount of ratio), this natural proportion has been celebrated as

daylight admission include: intensity and direction the hallmark of aesthetic proportion in historic

of sunlight; luminance (photometric brightness) and buildings such as the Pantheon. It is expressed [19]

luminance distribution of clear, partly cloudy, and as the proportion of two dimensions such that the

overcast skies; surrounding physical features and ratio of the shorter (s) to the longer (l) is the same as

terrain [6]. The light falling on a point indoors is the ratio of the longer to the sum of the shorter and

made of the sky component, the component reflected the longer (i.e, s:l = l:[s+l]). Empirical studies [17,

by interior surfaces, and the component reflected by 19, 20] show that architectural forms with

external surfaces. Daylight factor is a measure of proportions closer to the golden ratio (1: 1.618) are

interior day-lighting and defined [13] as a ratio of adjudged more aesthetically delightful to beholders

the light falling on a point indoors to that which from diverse backgrounds. The golden ratio is often

would fall on the point from an unobstructed sky.

Daylight influences the pleasantness, excitement, in which each number is the sum of the two

order, complexity, legibility, coherence, preceding numbers

correlated with the ‘Fibonacci Sequence’ of numbers

spaciousness, openness, and spatial definition of a (e.g.,0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,65,99,164). The sequence

space [12, 14]. In Abraham [7], day-light is also cited is believed to be exhibited in patterns found in some

to create healthier and more stimulating work natural forms including bones in the human hand

environment, enhance productivity and afford better [19].

quality

illumination.

Efficient

Windows

The proportional quality of a building is

Collaborative [15] adds that these attributes are determined in part by the relationship between

influenced by the size, geometry, distribution and window and wall. The extent to which a building

placement of widows on the building. Abraham [7] displays the quality of proportion is an aggregation

however warns that visual problems may be created of characteristics, ranging from the massing of its

by windows if not fitted with light shelves (Figure 1a) principal features to the proportion and disposition

or venetian blinds. Unacceptable brightness levels of windows, the ratio of the ground storey to upper

and excessive contrast ratios of the background to floors and wall to roof. According to Smith [17], the

the foreground are among the problems associated sum of ‘window-ness’ is pitched against the totality

with windows.

of ‘wall-ness’, one against the other within the limit

of deferential dominance (figures 1b & 1c). Windows

as a discrete feature have significance in terms of

proportion. The Georgian and Victorian windows for

Windows and aesthetics

According to Ching [16], the visual properties of instance conform to the golden ratio, but differ

shape, size, colour and texture, position, and sharply in aesthetic value due to the difference in

orientation constitute the form of a building, and number of their panes (Figure 1d).

that the aesthetics of an architectural form or

Eurythym and symmetry are related criteria for

element is influenced by variables including judging the beauty of the design. Eurythym is the

proportion, scale, balance, rhythm, contrast, and right relationship, proportional as well as formal, of

unity. Aesthetic judgement, according to Smith [17], the parts of an individual element (such as window).

often engages visual proportions at both primary Symmetry on the other hand is the right relationship

(first-order) and secondary (second-order) levels. In of individual elements to the composition as a whole.

a similar vein, Vitruvius [18] believed that due For Vitruvius, symmetry is the most important

regard for proportion creates orders and makes aesthetic quality in a building, and it is the

architecture beautiful. For him, harmony is achieved harmonious correlation of proportions throughout a

only when correct proportions are employed design [18].

Figure 1a: Light shelf daylight distribution. Source: Abraham [7]

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

3

Figure 1b: Building aesthetics and window size

Figure 1c: Aesthetics, window distribution and placement on wall

Figure 1d: Georgian (three panes) and Victorian (two panes) windows

The research problem Given that daylight for visual comfort is one of

The prescriptive interpretation of “form follows the functional requirements of an architectural space

function” [19] holds functional requirements to be influenced by form and position of windows, how

more important than aesthetic considerations of much of it (day-lighting) is provided in a ‘beautiful

buildings.

building’? In other words, what is the correlation

But for architects like Alberti and Ruskin [18], between the daylight in spaces and the aesthetics of

beauty was the overriding criterion in determining a building? This study elicits the nature and degree

the success of a building; beauty is inseparable from of correlation, if any, between the aesthetic and the

suitability for use, and hence an aspect of utility.

day-lighting values of window forms and placement

on buildings.

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

4

METHODOLOGY

1530mm respectively above floor level (Figures 2 to

4; Table 1).

The investigation is a simulated experimental design

A lux meter was deployed to measure daylight

as espoused in Groat and Wang [21]. It is a graphical levels (DL) outside and on 16 designated points on

simulation of the elevation of part of an existing the floor of the model rooms placed at window sill

Department of Architecture building. Five other level indoors. Two out-of-the-model measurements

elevations with same area but different form and were taken before and after the in-the-model

position of windows were simulated, and the six measurements. Daylight factor (DF) for each of the

elevations presented on A-4 paper-page (Figure 4). model rooms were calculated as ratio of in-the-

Physical architectural models of a room in the model mean daylight level to the average value out-

building were constructed with the six different of-the-model.

forms and positions of windows on the external

walls.

Copies of the simulated elevations were produced

and administered to the respondents who were

mostly architectural educators and students.

Weighted means were calculated to obtain the

Description of the study objects

All the elevations (named G, H, J, K, L, and M) aggregated aesthetic ‘weight’ of each elevation by

have same wall, room, and window areas but differ respondent groups. The mean daylight factors of the

in the form (shape) and distribution (position) of model rooms and the corresponding elevations’

their windows. Windows of the rooms on each aesthetic weighted means were ranked in order of

elevation are of the same form and distribution. magnitude from the highest (ranked as 1^st) to the

Elevation G has two windows each 1200 x 1200mm, lowest value (ranked as 6^th). Aesthetic rankings by

1200mm apart and 930mm above floor. Elevation H the four respondent groups were in-turn paired with

has two windows 1600 x 900mm each, 400mm the corresponding daylight factor rankings in order

apart and 1230mm above floor. J and K have same to establish any correlation. The Spearman’s Rank

window shape and spacing as H, but different Order Correlation Coefficients, as described in

positions of 1830mm and 630mm respectively above Koleoso [2 2], were calculated for the four groups.

floor level. L and M have one window each 2400 x Values obtained were interpreted using the following

1200mm centrally placed along the wall length but rule of thumb: ±0.00 to ±0.19, negligible; ±0.20 to

of different height above floor level: 930mm and ±0.39, low; ±0.40 to ±0.59, moderate; ±0.60 to

±0.79, substantial; ±0.80 to ±0.99, high; ±1, perfect.

Table 1: Design attributes of the study objects

Window attributes

G

H

J

K

L

M

Geometry:

(Ratio)

Square

(1: 1)

Rectangle

(1: 1.8)

Rectangle

(1: 1.8)

Rectangle

(1: 1.8)

Rectangle

(1: 2)

Rectangle

(1: 2)

1200 x

1200mm

1600 x

900mm

1600 x

900mm

1600 x

900mm

2400 x

1200mm

2400 x

1200mm

Dimension

Number

2

1

Horizontal

spacing

400mm

630mm

400mm

1230mm

400mm

1830mm

400mm

630mm

mid-wall length

930mm

mid-wall length

1530mm

Height above floor

RESULTS

daylight factor of 0.20. Daylight factor of 0.33,

daylight level range of 512.0 lux, and mean daylight

Table 2 shows the daylight levels (DL) and daylight level of 284.5 lux were observed in elevation K-

factors (DF) in the model rooms of the simulated room. In elevation L-room, observed were daylight

elevations G, H, H, K, L, and M. The aesthetic factor of 0.34, mean daylight level of 310.3 (and SD

rankings of the elevations according to respondent of 236.7), and daylight level range of 759.0 lux.

groups are indicated in tables 3 to 6, while in table 7 585.0 lux was the range of daylight level observed in

are the correlation coefficients of the daylight factor elevation M-room, while the means of daylight level

of the elevation-rooms and aesthetic ranking of the and daylight factor in the room were 224.3 lux (and

elevations by respondent groups.

SD of 175.3) and 0.24 (SD of 0.18) respectively

Daylight levels in elevation G-room range from (Table 2).

54.0 lux to 758.0 lux with mean value of 280.3 (and

The 300 level student respondents (Table 3)

standard deviation, SD of 207.92 lux). The mean ranked the aesthetic appeals of elevations G, H, J, K,

daylight factor for the room is 0.31. Elevation H- L, and M as 4^th(mean rank weight of 3.71), 3^rd(mean

room has daylight factor of 0.30, daylight level range rank weight of 3.84), 6^th(mean rank weight of 1.84),

of 492.0 lux, and mean daylight level of 267 lux. 2^nd(mean rank weight of 4.32), 1^st(mean rank

Observed in elevation J-room are daylight level weight of 5.12), and 5^th(mean rank weight of 2.25),

range of 381.0 lux, mean value of 180.0 lux, and while their rankings by 500 level student

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

5

respondents (in table 4) were 2^nd(mean rank weight weight of 1.38), 3^rd(mean rank weight of 3.53), 1^st

of 4.18), 4^th(mean rank weight of 3.42), 6^th(mean (mean rank weight of 5.15), and 5^th(mean rank

rank weight of 2.24), 3^rd(mean rank weight of 4.02), weight of 3.23).

1^st(mean rank weight of 4.73), and 5^th(mean rank

The Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation

weight of 2.75). The elevations in the same order Coefficient of the daylight factor of the elevation-

were ranked by the 600 level students (table 4) as 3^rdrooms and aesthetic ranking of the elevations by 300

(mean rank weight of 4.06), 2^nd(mean rank weight level student respondents (ARTS/DFR) was +0.94.

of 4.26), 6^th(mean rank weight of 1.84), 4^th(mean Same values of correlation coefficient (+0.94) were

rank weight of 3.58), 1^st(mean rank weight of 4.77), obtained for 500 level students and architects

and 5^th(mean rank weight of 2.55); and were ranked respondents groups, while the value obtained for

by architects (table 5) as 2^nd(mean rank weight of 600 level students respondents was +0.77.

4.31), 4^th(mean rank weight of 3.38), 6^th(mean rank

Table 2: Daylight levels (DL) and daylight factors (DF) in the model rooms

Elevation G

Room

Elevation H

Room

Elevation J

Room

Elevation K

Room

Elevation L

Room

Elevation M

Room

S/N

DL

DF

0.07

0.06

0.09

0.83

0.12

0.50

0.60

0.44

0.42

0.20

0.54

0.29

0.21

0.23

0.22

-

DL

DF

0.05

0.06

0.40

0.30

0.41

0.36

0.37

0.46

0.60

0.32

0.33

0.34

0.23

-

DL

DF

DL

DF

DL

DF

DL

DF

1

65.00

41.00

42.00

45.00

52.00

361.0

267.0

369.0

319.0

333.0

413.0

409.0

533.0

288.0

294.0

299.0

208.0

492.0

267.0

150.8

39.00

44.00

47.00

44.00

72.00

69.00

73.00

69.00

281.0

288.0

297.0

420.0

309.0

317.0

293.0

218.0

381.0

180.0

132.9

0.04

0.05

0.08

0.31

0.32

0.33

0.47

0.34

0.35

0.33

0.24

-

51.00

46.00

48.00

55.00

485.0

230.0

398.0

363.0

335.0

513.0

395.0

558.0

291.0

284.0

216.0

512.0

284.5

169.0

0.06

0.05

0.06

0.56

0.27

0.46

0.42

0.39

0.59

0.46

0.65

0.34

0.33

0.25

-

31.00

47.00

55.00

42.00

367.0

790.0

732.0

201.0

355.0

582.0

481.0

235.0

193.0

315.0

323.0

216.0

759.0

310.3

236.7

0.03

0.05

0.06

0.05

0.40

0.86

0.80

0.22

0.39

0.63

0.52

0.26

0.21

0.34

0.35

0.23

-

30.00

35.00

36.00

34.00

76.00

232.0

231.0

80.00

249.0

503.0

615.0

291.0

220.0

313.0

395.0

250.0

585.0

224.3

175.3

0.03

0.04

0.08

0.24

0.08

0.26

0.53

0.65

0.31

0.23

0.33

0.41

0.26

-

2

3

60.00

54.00

4

84.00

5

758.00

108.00

457.00

554.00

403.00

385.00

186.00

496.00

267.00

194.00

209.00

205.00

704.0

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Range

Mn

SD

Rank

280.31

207.92

0.31

0.23

0.30

0.17

0.20

0.15

0.33

0.20

0.34

0.26

0.24

0.18

3rd

4th

6th

2nd

1st

5th

Table 3: Aesthetic ranking by 300 level students (ARTS)

Rating frequency positions/(weigth)

Mean

weight

Mean

rank

4^th

S/N

Subject

1^st(6)

6

2^nd(5)

3^rd(4)

4^th(3)

5^th(2)

6^th(1)

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Elevation G

Elevation H

Elevation J

Elevation K

Elevation L

Elevation M

10

17

12

4

3.71

5

1

14

1

12

4

19

3

4

19

2

27

1

3.84

1.84

3rd

6^th

2^nd

1^st

14

30

1

12

11

6

11

9

15

2

4.32

5.12

2

1

3

20

22

2.25

5^th

Table 4: Aesthetic ranking by 500 level (graduating) students (ARFS)

Rating frequency positions/(weigth)

Mean

weight

Mean

rank

S/N

Subject

1^st(6)

8

2^nd(5)

3^rd(4)

4^th(3)

5^th(2)

6^th(1)

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

Elevation G

Elevation H

Elevation J

Elevation K

Elevation L

Elevation M

14

9

7

3

4.18

3.42

2.24

4.02

4.73

2.75

2^nd

4^th

6^th

3^rd

1^st

6

3

4

1

7

5

16

5

10

9

2

20

3

8

9

8

7

14

7

5

21

3

4

2

3

7

11

13

5^th

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

6

Table 5: Aesthetic ranking by 600 level students (ARSS)

Rating frequency positions/(weigth)

Mean

weight

Mean

rank

S/N

Subject

1^st(6)

5

2^nd(5)

3^rd(4)

4^th(3)

5^th(2)

6^th(1)

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

Elevation G

Elevation H

Elevation J

Elevation K

Elevation L

Elevation M

9

3

1

4.06

4.26

1.84

3.58

4.77

2.55

3^rd

2^nd

6^th

4^th

1^St

7

2

9

0

5

7

3

1

9

4

3

5

0

19

4

6

7

5

10

3

2

12

1

2

0

2

1

18

4

5^th

Table 6: Aesthetic ranking by architects (ARAR)

Rating frequency positions/(weigth)

Mean

weight

Mean

rank

S/N

Subject

1^st(6)

3

2^nd(5)

3^rd(4)

4^th(3)

5^th(2)

6^th(1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Elevation G

Elevation H

Elevation J

Elevation K

Elevation L

Elevation M

2

6

1

0

4.31

3.38

1.38

3.53

5.15

3.23

2^nd

4^th

6^th

3^rd

1^S

0

3

7

4

0

3

4

2

0

3

1

4

0

4

2

1

5

1

2

8

2

0

6

0

1

5^th

Table 7: Correlation of aesthetic and daylight factor rankings (DFR)

ARTS/DFR

ARFS/DFR

ARSS/DFR

ARAR/DFR

*SROCC

Remarks

+0.94

+0.77

+0.94

High

Substantial

*Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient.

Figure 2: Details of simulated rooms with elevations G, H, and J.

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

7

Figure 2: Details of simulated rooms with elevations G, H, and J.

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

8

Figure 4: Simulated elevations of part of an existing building.

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

9

DISCUSSION

beautiful forms are more functional (form follows

function).

The results reveal differences in mean and individual

floor-bay values of daylight level and daylight factor

in the rooms under study. Whether these differences CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

are significant or not, they suggest that one or the

two window design variables (form and position)

The study attempted to ascertain the effects of

under study affect daylight quality and quantity. The window forms and positions on day-lighting and

effect of individual variables may be appreciated by aesthetics of buildings.

paired comparison of daylight in rooms with

It was revealed that rooms with a rectangular

windows of only one different design parameter. For window-form conduce to higher values of daylight

instance, comparisons of elevation H- and J-rooms, level and daylight factor than those with two

and L- and M-rooms reveal that windows at higher (smaller) square window-forms. However, daylight

level conduced to lower mean daylight levels (DL) levels are more evenly distributed in the room with

and daylight factors (DF) on the room floor. It also two smaller (square) windows than in the room with

shows that daylight is more evenly distributed (of one rectangular window.

better quality) on the floor of rooms with higher

It was also found that windows at higher level

level windows. A comparison of H- and K-rooms conduced to lower mean daylight levels (DL) and

(having same window form) also reveals the same daylight factors (DF) on the room floor. It also shows

pattern of more evenly distributed daylight on floor that daylight is more evenly distributed (of better

of room with higher window level.

quality) on the floor of rooms with higher level

A comparison of G- and L-rooms (of same widow windows.

height) reveal that L-room with a rectangular

Window forms and vertical positions on walls

window-form conduce to higher values of daylight were also found to affect aesthetic ranking of

level and daylight factor than G-room with two buildings. Aesthetic ranking stepped up as window

(smaller) square window-forms. However, daylight form got closer to the golden ratio; lower aesthetic

levels are more evenly distributed in the room with values were observed as window moved vertically

two smaller (square) windows than in the room with away from the centre of wall. A high or an

one rectangular window.

appreciable and positive correlation between

The aesthetic rankings of the elevations are also aesthetics and daylight design of windows on walls

different, again suggesting that one or the two was discovered in the study. To enhance aesthetics

variables under study (window form and position) and daylight through window designs, it is

affect aesthetics. There is some level of consistency recommended that: (i) windows form be of

in the rankings among the respondent groups. For rectangular geometry of proportion close to the

instance elevations J, L, and M were ranked as 6^th, golden ratio; (ii) windows be positioned to minimise

1^st, and 5^threspectively by the four respondent eccentricity on individual room-walls.

groups. L and M have same window form but differ

only in window vertical position on wall. Their

aesthetic ranking gap (1^stto 5^th) seem too wide to

ignore, and this is suggestive of a significant

aesthetic effect of window vertical position on wall.

The same pattern is noticeable between J and H

having same form but different window positions on

wall. Lower aesthetic values are observed as window

moves vertically away from the centre of wall. L and

G are of the same height but different window forms,

and were ranked seemingly different in aesthetic

DECLARATIONS

Authors’ Contributions

All authors have directly participated in the

planning, execution, or analysis of this study, and

have read and approved the final version submitted.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing

appeals, also suggesting that window form has effect interests.

on aesthetics. The ratio of the rectangular window

(1:2) in L is closer to the golden ratio (1: 1.62) than

REFERENCES

that of square windows (1:1) in G. This result

concurs with Lidwell et al. [12] and Idowu and

Okonkwo [20], and further strengthens the aesthetic

harmony theory of the golden ratio.

[1] Nick Z (2007). Aesthetic judgement. In: Stanford

encyclopaedia of philosophy.

The Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation

Coefficients of +0.94 in three of the four ranking

groups and +0.77 in one suggest that there is a high

positive correlation between aesthetics and daylight

design of windows on walls. It indeed reinforces the

believe [12, 13] that attractive things work better or

[2] Architecture-student (n.d): Aesthetic components

of architecture. Online: Retrieved 15^thApril 2011.

http://www.architecture-student.com/tag/aesthetics .

[3] Lang J (1987). Creating architectural theory:

The role of the behavioural sciences in

environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold. Google Scholar

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1

10

[4] New World Encyclopaedia (n.d): Aesthetics.

Retrieved October 31, retrieved from:

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry

http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2379863 ; Google

Scholar

[13] Burberry P (1979). Environment and Services.

New York: B. T. Batsford Limited. Google Scholar

[5] Architeacher (2002). Aesthetics. Centre for the

Study of Art and Architecture. Retrieved 2015,

[14] Kendall D (2011): Aesthetic and happiness: How

space affects well-being. Retrieved October 30

from: www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-kendal .

retrieved

from:

http://www.architeacher.org/aesthetics/archi-

main.html .

[15] Efficient Windows Collaborative (2016). Design

[6] Harrold RM (1983). Daylight. In: Callender, J. H.

(Ed): Time saver standards for architectural

design data. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Google Scholar

considerations

Retrieved

for

October

window

performance.

from:

31

www.efficientwindows.org/design.php

[16] Ching F (2007). Architecture: Form, space and

order. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Google

Scholar

[7] Abraham LE (1996). Daylighting. In Gottfried, D.

A., and Simon, L. N. (Eds.): Sustainable building

technical manual. U. S. A.: Public Technology,

Inc. Google Scholar

[17] Smith PF (2003). The dynamics of delight:

Architecture and aesthetics. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

[8] Rich P and Dean Y (1999). Principles of element

design: windows. London: Architectural Press.

Google Scholar

[18] Hearn MF (2003). Ideas that shaped buildings.

London: The MIT Press. Google Scholar

[9] Gyimah KA and Tetlow D (2014): Achieving

energy efficiency and aesthetics through windows

[19] Lidwell W, Holden K and Butler J. (2003).

Universal principles of design. Massachusetts:

Rockport Publishers. Google Scholar

in

the

Tropics.

Google

Scholar ;

https://doi.org/10.26796/jenrm.v1i1.42

[20] Idowu OM and Okonkwo MM (2011): Aesthetic

effect of building’s structural forms: An

experimental study of columns, beams, arches,

and triangular pseudo-arches. Environmental

Review, 4(2). Google Scholar

[10] Apogee Enterprises (2015). Chicago’s Prudential

Tower I replaces windows for updated aesthetics,

tenant comfort, energy-efficiency. Retrieved

October 31, 2016 from: http://www.apog.com

[11] Odim OO, Okonkwo MM and Idowu OM (2012).

Thermal comfort passive design. AARCHES

monographic series, 2. Google Scholar

[21] Groat L and Wang D (2002). Architectural

research

methods.

New

York:

John Wiley and Sons Inc. Google Scholar

[12] Moscoso CP (2016). Daylighting and architectural

quality: Aesthetic perception of daylight indoor

[22 ]Koleoso (1999). Research methods and

A

statistics. Ondo: Alex Publishers.

environment.

Retrieved

Oct.

30

from:

Citation: Idowu O. M. and Humphrey S. (2018).

Aesthetics and day-lighting correlation: an experimental

study of form and placement of windows on buildings. J

Art Arch Stud. 7 (1): 01-10.

Journal of Art and Architecture Studies (JAAS)

ISSN: 2383-1553

Volume 7, No. 1: 01-10.

2018 SCIENCE LINE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51148/jaas.2018.1