計画系 676 号

【カテゴリーⅠ】 日本建築学会計画系論文集 第77巻 第676号，1333-1342，2012年 6 月

J. Archit. Plann., AIJ, Vol. 77 No. 676, 1333-1342, Jun., 2012

�
A DESIGN EXPERIMENT BASED ON ARCHITECTURAL
INTERPRETATIONS
A OF NARRATIVE
Design Experiment based FILM
on Architectural STRUCTURES
Interpretations of
From film to architecture : mapping a transformation process of film into architecture (Part 1)
Narrative Film Structures
物語映画構造の建築的解釈に基づく設計実験
From Film to Architecture: Mapping a Transformation Process of Film into Architecture (part 1)
建築から映画への変換プロセス（その１）
��������������������
�������������������
Richard DOUZJIAN ＊ and Teruyuki MONNAI ＊＊
Richard DOUZJIAN�Teruyuki MONNAI�
リチャード ドゥズジヤン，門 内 輝 行
������������*,�����**

In this paper, a preliminary report is given on an architectural workshop entitled “Extended Cinematics: A Design Process
Based on Architectural Interpretations of Narrative Film Structures” that was organized as a design experimentation
platform for transforming film into architecture. Then based on structuralist semio-linguistic approaches to film analysis,
and using the architectural designs resulted from the experiment, a mapping process that includes Design Derivation
Diagrams surveying the transformation of narrative into architecture is introduced. Finally, using data from the latter
diagrams, film-specific properties are identified to influence these transformation processes more than the design topics
assigned to the participants.
�
Keywords: architecture, narrative film, architectural design, film analysis, design experiment, analogy�
��, ��������������, ����, �����

1. Introduction
During our 2010 summer holidays visiting our native country of Lebanon, we had given a concise presentation in the Holy Spirit
University of Kaslik (HSUK) about our research in Kyoto University. The presentation was at the request of the Dean of the Faculty of
Fine and Applied Arts of HSUK, who had also attended it. Following the success of this presentation, and in response to the interest
expressed by the attendees, we were once more invited to organize an intense weeklong workshop revolving mainly around our research
topic.
We regarded this workshop as an opportunity to implement and experiment with the architectural design process we were, and still are,
developing, and use its results to further advance our research and support our hypotheses. Thus based on the working title of our
thesis*1), we entitled the workshop Extended Cinematics: A Design Process Based on Architectural Interpretations of Narrative Film
Structures. The workshop took place during the third week of March 2011, from the 14th to the 18th; and 8 architecture students in total
participated in it (four 5th year students, and four 6th year students).

2. Paper Objectives
In this paper we introduce the Extended Cinematics Workshop and give a preliminary report about its own objectives and purposes,
and then elaborate its contents. We introduce the entirety of the Workshop in order for the later analytical sections of this paper to be put
in proper context and thus understood better.
After presenting the context, we move on to analyze the actual design works produced by and obtained from the workshop participants.
Therefore, by presenting samples, examples and preliminary results of our ongoing analytical works investigating the obtained designs,
the first objective of this paper becomes the introduction of a mapping process that surveys the transformation of films into architectural
objects. This process is based on structuralist semio-linguistic approaches to film analysis.
A second objective for this paper is to identify to which extent a film and its specific properties can exert influences over the
architectural conception and design processes of architects using films as origin for architectural design.
＊
* Architect,
LecturerDr.
at Eng., Lecturer at
LAU (Lebanese LAU (Lebanese
American American
University), University),
Architect, Dr. Eng. Visiting Professor at レバノン・アメリカン大学 講師・建築家・博士 （工学）
� ��� ��(��)����������������
HSUK Visiting
(Holy Prof. atUniversity
Spirit HSUK (Holyof Spirit
Kaslik)University of Kaslik) �カトリック聖霊大学 客員教授
� � � �������������� � � � �
＊＊
Prof., Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Graduate School of 京都大学大学院工学研究科建築学専攻 教授・工博
** Professor, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Graduate School of � � � � �����������������������
Engineering, Kyoto University, Dr. Eng.
Engineering, Kyoto University, Dr. Eng.

− 1333 −
3. Workshop Overview
The Extended Cinematics Workshop lasted 5 days in total and was divided into 3 main phases of one and a half days on average each,
and they were as follows: Phase 1 - Theoretical Background and Film Screenings (days 1&2), Phase 2 - Group Analysis (days 3&4), and
Phase 3 - Individual Design (days 4&5). We also note that at
the end of Phase 2 and Phase 3, students held, respectively,
group and individual presentations exhibiting the results of
their works through open debates.
Finally, in the workshop’s controlled environment we
provided each of the two groups a large working table (Fig. 1,
a), and a tripod panel with A1 hanging papers (Fig. 1, b). The
panels were used during Phase 2 (Photo 1), where the
Fig. 1 Workshop’s Controlled Environment Layout
participants shared all of their ideas with their group a: working tables of Groups 1 and 2; b: size A1 hanging paper panels;
members: the standing position of A1 panels and the c: digital video recorder and monitor

participants writing/sketching
their ideas directly on them,
facilitated and accelerated the
dissemination of the analytical
findings within the groups. We
had insisted on this type of open
communication format during
this phase, refraining the
participants from working on
an individual level. On the
other hand, Phase 3 was mainly
conducted on the working tables
(Photo 2), applying the ideas on
A1 papers laid horizontally,
encouraging individual thought
Photo 1 (left) & Photo 2 (right) Overview of the Workshop’s Controlled Environment
and focus, all the while having Photo 1: Participants working in groups on the A1 panles during the Group Analysis, Phase 2.
Photo 2: Participants designing on the tables during the Individual Design Phase 3. The recording
the possibility to communicate
installation (digitial camcorder, DVD recorder, and the video monitor) is seen at the deep end of the
with fellow group members and Photo.
consult their analysis results
still hanging next to them. The whole workshop with all its three phases was constantly recorded with a digital camcorder on a tripod,
attached to a DVD recorder (recording everything directly on DVDs) and a control monitor (Fig. 1, c) to continuously verify the proper
angle and content of the recordings. Our understanding of the participants’ works during our research was largely based on these
recordings of the workshop progress with the final group and individual presentations, complemented by the A1 panels.

3.1. Workshop Objectives and Purposes

The first objective for conducting the Workshop was to give the participants basic notions on film and architecture semiotics; train
them “to read” film from a structuralist semio-linguistic approach, and, stimulate them into acquiring a new architectural design process.
Acquiring the above basic film analysis skills, the participants were required to conduct group level analyses on two films and derive
from them individual architectural designs, thus fulfilling our second objective for the Workshop: collecting an as large as possible sample
of architecture designs using a specific film as source, providing us with concrete examples of the possibilities of architectural design
using our Extended Cinematics Process.
The objectives met above were the outcome of our initial purposes for accepting the HSUK’s Dean’s invitation to organize our Workshop.
While developing the theoretical aspects of the Extended Cinematics, we had come to a conviction that concrete applications of our
hypotheses were a necessity in order to anchor them to reality and render our process applicable in design practices. In consequence, a
feasibility study was our first purpose for holding the Workshop: it was central for our research to see if it was possible to achieve
architectural design based on the deeper structures of Narrative Film. We also believed that it would be very important to complement

− 1334 −
this feasibility study with a thorough survey on the variety of designs that could derive from a single initial film, and the extent of
influence the latter can exert on the design process.

3.2. Phase 1: Theoretical Background and Film Screenings

Since the participants were 5th and 6th year architecture students, they were unfamiliar with most of the theoretical contents of our
research, specifically the fields of semiotics and film studies. Moreover in order for them to apprehend the full potential, and properly
follow the logic of the Extended Cinematics Process (which would allow them to appropriately analyze a narrative film and generate
architecture based on it), we were bound to give them at least some minimal and necessary background information in the form of
lectures during the first 2 days. Thus, Phase 1 was organized and offered within 4 main lectures:
Lecture 1, Semiotics and Structuralism: We introduced brief definitions of semiotics and structuralist theories and philosophies to the
participants. Since the core subjects of our theoretical background revolved around film and architecture semiotics, and structuralist
analysis of narrative films, we found it a natural need to introduce to the participants the origins of these notions.
Lecture 2, Film Semiotics: We started by presenting a concise history of film and cinema, reaching to the more contemporary and
comprehensible definitions of film. This was followed by different structuralist theories on the subject of film structures. The lecture was
concluded with our synthesis of the latter theories in the form of a constructed model that we refer to as “the Architectonics of Narrative
Film”.
Lecture 3, Architecture Semiotics: Following the same logic as above, we introduced Donald Preziosi’s Semiotics of the Built
Environment1) as it classifies the built environment from its smallest units of comprehension to the largest; and then, based on Umberto
Eco’s works, the interrelations of Form, Function and Sign2) were debated.
Lecture 4, Narrative Structures in Film: In this final lecture, we introduced structuralist and formalist definitions and approaches to
Narrative, leading us then to expand on the notions of what we refer to as “Architectonics of Narrative” and its various components:
Plot/Syuzhet, Story/Fabula, Discourse Space/Time and Events. We closed the lecture with the definition of Diegesis and its
“Architectonics”.
During this Phase 1, we screened one case study film at the end of each day, hence 2 in total: Russian Ark (day 1), and Short Cuts (day
2). Both of these films were the subjects of our own personal analyses until that point, and during the Workshop they were the cases the
participants were to analyze and derive specific architectural designs from. It is important to note however, that while the participants
knew beforehand they were to watch both films, they did not know yet which of both or what design topic they would be designated to
derive architectural designs from in the Individual Design Phase.

3.3. Phase 2: Group Analysis

Before starting with their group analyses, the participants had no experience whatsoever in film analysis; thus we started Phase 2 by
presenting our own analytical works conducted on the above films3),4). The purpose of presenting these works was to give a general
example of a structuralist film analysis process suited for architects, and for the participants to base their own analyses on.
The first of our 2 presented works was the case study of Russian Ark (RA), where we conducted a thorough structuralist semio-linguistic
analysis of the film and uncovered preliminary analogies between filmic and architectonic elements. As for the second case study of Short
Cuts (SC), we had used structuralist semio-linguistics in a slightly different approach to the first one, and continued developing the film-
architecture analogies by constructing a referential “Film to Architecture Analogy Table” (Table 1). This Analogy Table was used as the
backbone for the analytical and design studies in the workshop.
At this stage the participants were asked to use both of these case studies’ results as references and starting points for their own group
analytical works.
And so, the participants were divided by means of lottery into 2 equal groups of 4, each based on the above 2 films. Each group
consisted of 4 participants and 1 film. The group having RA as case study was designated as Group 1; and the one having to work on SC
as Group 2. The participants were asked then to analyze the designated films as coherent groups, not excluding any member’s ideas, and
making use of all the previous information we had provided them with, while keeping in mind that the results of their analyses would
later be used in architectural design.
After a period of one and a half days, Phase 2 came to a conclusion, and the groups were required to give an open presentation on the
results of their analyses. Three participants took turns in presenting Group 1’s results, and two participants presented Group 2’s results.
Since this was the participants’ first attempt ever to conduct such a study, we were not anticipating any important results from their
analyses. However, there was an unexpected important finding that was made by Group 1 during their study of RA, and 2 group
members later used this finding in their individual architectural designs. The finding they had made was about Pier Paolo Pasolini’s

− 1335 −
concept of “Im-Signs” in film which he defines as: any and all Table 1 Film to Architecture Analogy Table
object included in the camera-frame and constituting a
Film Architecture
fraction of the captured image; in other words, film images
Architectonic elements of spatial
are made of elementary units of comprehension, and these
Optical Devices and/or visual separation and/or
units are any and all objects the camera captures in its shots.
connection
Group 1’s interpretation of this concept came as a reaction to
Syntagma Spatial Unit
the lack of conventional editing and segmentation in RA. As
we had demonstrated to them right before starting with this Space: Grouping of spatial units

phase, RA was unconventionally structured, making use of Segment (based on adjacency and/or

its Characters and the Architectonic Structure its was shot common programmatic features)

in (the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia), Narrative Segment Functional Space
namely its; moreover, the smallest units of meaning in RA, Inter-Segmental Connection
Inter-Spatial Connection (ISpC)
the Narrative Syntagmas (�) were also dependent on the (ISC)
latter 2. And �, according to our own demonstrations3) were Intra-Segmental Relation (ISR) Intra-Spatial Relation (ISpR)
analogous to Spatial Units in Architecture (subspaces of a
Diegetic Spatial Structure Spatial Structure/Organization
larger single Space). Our surprise was that Group 1 making
use of all this information came to the conclusion that the Narrative: Primary Function:

individual Characters and Architectonic Elements in RA - Fabula - Programmatic content

were similar to, if not the actual, Im-Signs; additionally, - Plot/ Syuzhet - Programmatic organization

they had concluded that the latter were analogous to “Spa- Architectonic/Built Environment
Narrative Existent
Signs”*2), the Absolute Minimal Architectonic Elements that Functional Element
would define a coherent space. Group 1’s Participant 3 later Architectural Event, Happening or
Narrative Event
interpreted these Minimal Architectonic Elements as being Program
analogous to Planes, which according to the De Stijl
movement are the basic and primary elements that compose a three-dimensional space.
Concerning Group 2 and their study of SC, their analytical results were actually more descriptive and did not contain any actual new
information. However, there were 2 points that although at first seemed irrelevant in this phase, turned out to be important while
analyzing Group 2’s individual designs: the first point was their identification of the 2 Major Narrative Events that are common to all 9
Narrative Entities or NE*3) and that occur in the beginning and ending of the film; the second point is their identification of the existence
and importance of Open Narratives*4) in SC. The relevance of these 2 points was perceived during Phase 3, because all 4 members of
Group 2 used both points in their designs, all the while each of the former having completely different architectural interpretations for
the latter.

3.4. Phase 3: Individual Design

Since Phase 3 consisted of participants designing on the
individual level, we organized another lottery where each
of them ended up with a random architectural design topic.
The total number of topics was 4, and they were: Shopping
Mall, Residential Complex, Cultural Center and Ferry
Terminal.
The lottery was organized in such a manner that the 4
topics were unique to every participant in a single group,
while those in the other one had the exact same. This Fig. 2 Design Distribution Diagram
resulted in obtaining 8 individual architectural designs,
derived from 4 different topics, and 2 films (Fig. 2).
In order to further constrain the parameters of differentiation between the 8 participants and add more realism to their designs, we
provided them with a single architectural site to insert their projects in. The site in question was a 50x100m rectangle by the
Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 3).
Due to limitations in time (only one and a half days to complete their designs and present their works), the students were asked to focus
more on the process of generating form and space rather than providing a well-polished design

− 1336 −
without any justifications in regards to the film. By complying with our N
instructions, the participants put down all their thoughts on their processes
and design intentions on their presentation boards in as much detail as
possible.
Finally, having developed their designs in the allowed time frame, all the
participants but one*5), presented their individual finished works during an
open-public presentation session at the end of day 5 of the Workshop.

4. Film to Architecture Transformation Mapping Fig. 3 Site of Phase 3’s Architectural Design Exercise
4.1. Derivation Diagrams
Having concluded the workshop and collected all of the participants’ design boards, we thus proceed with our own personal work, which
consists of thoroughly analyzing the designs, and more specifically, mapping the transformation process of each of the 2 films into specific
architectures.
Therefore, using our previous “Film to Architecture Analogy Table” (Table 1) as a starting point, we reorganize it in a branching tree
diagram in order to distinguish its different levels of structures, i.e. distinguishing the elements that exist on the macrostructural level,
the more generic Components, from the ones that exist on the microstructural level, the less generic Sub-Components. Also, following the
same logic as Table 1, each Film Component and Sub-Component is positioned facing, and in direct relation to, its Architectural
analogous counterpart. We refer to this diagram as the Film-Architecture Analogy Derivation Diagram, or FAADD (Fig. 4) and it is read
from left to right:
1- because we are currently more interested in the transformation process of Film into Architecture, and not vice versa;

Fig. 4 The generic preliminary Derivation Diagram (DD)

− 1337 −
 2- and because of the sequence adopted in the Individual Phase of the Workshop (Phase 3) where the Film existed first, and
then based on each participant’s design topic and individuality, it became subjected to a series of interpretations and
transformations, in order to finally become an Architecture.
We use the generic FAADD as a primary canvas to be filled with 1) the Film-Specific Properties (FSP) of RA and SC as they were
interpreted and understood by each and every participant, 2) the architectural designs referring to the afore-mentioned FSP and

Fig. 5 IDDD-6 (Individual Design Derivation Diagram of Participant 6)

One example of the total 8 IDDDs mapping on a basic level the transformation of film into architecture. In this case the film is Short
Cuts, and the architectural design topic is a Cultural Center.

− 1338 −
conceived by each participant, 3) and the Topic-Specific Properties (TSP) that stand for the architectural interpretations of each FSP
made by each participant.
We repeat this act of filling the FAADD with FSP and TSP for each of the 8 participants’ individual designs, leading us to obtain 8
separate and individual diagrams that map each step of the transformation process of film into architecture; we refer to each of these new
diagrams as an Individual Design Derivation Diagram or IDDD, and designate them the number of their corresponding participant, e.g.
IDDD-6 is the Individual Design Derivation Diagram corresponding to the interpretations and designs of Participant 6 (Fig. 5).
In the IDDD then, the peripheral columns of the Components and Sub-Components remain unchanged; however, it is the more internal
columns of the FSP and TSP, in addition to the central column of the actual architectural designs that change from 1) one participant to
another, 2) one topic to another, and 3) one film to another.
We have to specify that we insert the FSP and TSP in the IDDDs based on each participant’s own interpretations of the films they were
assigned: these interpretations were communicated to us either verbally during the individual presentations at the end of Phase 3 of the
Workshop, or in written form on the individual design sheets as design descriptions or complementary notes. However, there were cases
where some participants’ interpretations of some FSP and/or TSP were either unclear or exceptionally misinterpreted; therefore we had
to make our own interpretations and decisions of the available data in order to insert these FSP/TSP in their relatively proper places.
Moreover, during the process of our understanding and extracting the participants’ interpretations and designs, we found that 2
additional notions had to be added to the FAADD because 3 participants had given them significance and used them in their design
processes: the first notion was the finding made by the members of Group 1 (ref. Section 3.2 of this paper) concerning the Im-Signs, which
were interpreted and used by Participant 3 and Participant 4 as the architectural space-defining minimal units they referred to as
“Spa-Signs”; and the second notion, was the film Viewer, which was introduced by Participants 4 and 5 (of Groups 1 and 2 respectively),
and analogized to the User of actual architectural space. We classify the Im-Signs and “Spa-Signs” as Components because they are
notions that can be generalized to all films and architectures; as for the Viewer/User situation, although they are not actual components
of film/architecture in the proper sense, we still classify them as such at this stage of our research because we cannot undermine that 2
participants had used them in a design generating manner. Consequently, our preliminary generic FAADD is augmented with 2
additional Components and becomes the FAADD that the IDDDs are based on (these 2 additional notions are marked with *and ** in Fig.
5).

4.2. (Sub)Components Table 2a (Sub)Components Usage Pattern Chart – Common Film, Different Topics
Usage Pattern Comparative RA SC
Components Sub-Components
Charts P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8
Having completed all 8 Optical
IDDDs, we start exploring Devices
them from different Im-Signs
angles; we reorganize the
Narrative Syntagmas (�)
FAADD in Table form Syntagmas
Non-Narrative Syntagmas (�)
again and add to it the
Narrative Entities (NE)
newly acquired data from
Narrative Segments (NS)
the IDDDs in more
Segments Non-Narrative Segments (NNS)
abstract and accessible
Film Inter-Segmental Connection (ISC)
ways, providing us with
Intra-Segmental Relation (ISR)
many valuable analytical
charts. In this paper
Diegesis (In)Dependence from/on Narrative
however we focus on 3 of
Existents
these charts: the
Fabula
(Sub)Components Usage
Narrative Plot
Pattern Charts (Table 2a,
Events
Table 2b and Table 3).
In Table 2a, we map Viewer

within a single film group RA: Russian Ark; SC: Short Cuts; P1…P8: Participant 1, …Participant 8

the usage patterns of the film Components and Sub- Components by each participant. For example in the case of Participant 3 (P3 in the
Table) the film of origin is RA, and the design topic is Residential Complex, and she made use of the following (Sub)Components in her

− 1339 −
design process: Im-Signs, Narrative Syntagmas, Non- Table 2b (Sub)Components General Usage Pattern Chart
Narrative Syntagmas, Diegesis, and Plot.
Components Sub-Components RA SC
In Table 2a then, we follow and compare within a single
Optical Devices
group the usage patterns of film (Sub)Components that
Im-Signs
respond to 4 different design topics while being derived
Narrative Syntagmas (�)
from a single common film, while at the same time Syntagmas
Non-Narrative Syntagmas (�)
surveying the general usage patterns of each film with the
Narrative Entities (NE)
other, i.e. RA general usage pattern v/s SC general usage
Narrative Segments (NS)
pattern (Table 2b).
Segments Non-Narrative Segments (NNS)
As for Table 3, we somewhat reverse the approach of
Inter-Segmental Connection (ISC)
Table 2a, meaning that we survey 2 design processes and Film
Intra-Segmental Relation (ISR)
usage patterns that fall under a same design topic, while
being derived from 2 different films, e.g. Participant 1 and
Participant 5 have the same architectural design topic of Diegesis (In)Dependence from/on Narrative

Shopping Mall, but the first has RA as film of origin, Existents

whereas the second has SC. Fabula

Narrative Plot

4.3. Synthesis Events

In Section 4.1, we introduced the generic FAADD Viewer

followed by the more specific IDDDs, which are a mapping RA: Russian Ark; SC: Short Cuts
process of film transformation
Table 3 (Sub)Components Usage Pattern Chart – Common Topic, Different Films
into architecture where it
Shopping Cultural Residential Ferry
was possible to follow the
Components Sub-Components Mall Center Complex Terminal
transformation process of
P1 P5 P2 P6 P3 P7 P4 P8
each and every film
Optical
Component, Sub-
Devices
Component, and FSP into
architectonic elements, and Im-Signs

how in consequence it was Narrative Syntagmas (�)

Syntagmas
also possible to reverse trace Non-Narrative Syntagmas (�)

these latter elements back Narrative Entities (NE)

to their points of derivation Narrative Segments (NS)

and film of origin. By means Segments Non-Narrative Segments (NNS)

of this mapping process, we Film Inter-Segmental Connection (ISC)

could already see how no 2 Intra-Segmental Relation (ISR)

IDDDs were identical (even
while having either the Diegesis (In)Dependence from/on Narrative
same film as origin, or the Existents
same design topic to Fabula
develop) because of the Narrative Plot
participants’ individual Events
choices and interpretations Viewer
of each film’s Components P1…P8: Participant 1, …Participant 8
and Sub-Components into
the FSP. The importance of the FSP as architectural conceptual stimulators and/or design generators was thus brought into light.
The FSP, as the name indicates, are Specific and Unique to each and every film, and the architectural objects derived from them reflect
these Specificities to certain degrees.
We comprehended this concept following our synthesis of Tables 2a, 2b and 3:
1- in Table 2a, although all 4 participants from each film group had a design topic different from the others, they’re
(Sub)Components usage patterns had many similarities, which made us start hypothesizing that the common film factor had a more

− 1340 −
influence on the transformation and design processes, than the disparate design topics;
2- the above hypothesis started making more sense while looking at Table 3, where the general usage patterns of each film were
quite dissimilar: this dissimilarity is of course reflected in turn in the FSP, TSP and the architectural designs themselves, leading to
architectural objects with dissimilarities that can be traced back the films of origin;
3- the above 2 points were further validated when Table 3 was put into comparison with Tables 2a and 2b: by looking at the
participants 2 by 2 based on their common design topics, we could clearly see that their usage patterns were also dissimilar; meaning
that the common design topics had not influenced them enough to acquire usage patterns with discernible similarities, but it was rather
the difference in their films of origin that pushed them to the considerable distinction.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, after giving a general report about the Extended Cinematics Workshop held in Lebanon from March 14th to 18th, we
introduced a mapping process of the transformation of narrative films into architecture. The theoretical framework of this process was
based on structuralist semio-linguistics, while its practical development was undertaken thanks to the above workshop.
After this introduction, we proceeded to identify the importance of film specific properties and the influence they exerted on the
transformation process of film into architecture.
Finally, looking back again at Section 4.1, we had mentioned that we had added 2 Film Components to the FAADD in order to complete
all 8 IDDDs without any loss of information; this lead us to conclude that we should view our generic FAADD as an evolving referential
structuring process that is ready to adapt and assimilate new ideas and approaches, and not as a rigid and closed procedure. Therefore,
at this stage of our research our mapping cannot yet be considered as complete, thus we will continue developing by means of conducting
further design experiments similar to the one introduced in this paper.

Acknowledgments
This research is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Creative Scientific Research "Design Theory for Dynamical Systems with Semiosis"
(Leader Prof. Tetsuo Sawaragi).
We express our gratitude to Mr. Elie Tohme, Dean of the Faculty of Fine and Applied Arts, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Lebanon,
for inviting us to organize and hold the Extended Cinematics Workshop, as well as for providing logistic and additional financial support.
Our thanks also go out to Mr. Joseph Housni, for his organizational assistance.
Last but not least, our acknowledgments go out to all 8 participants without whom the workshop wouldn’t have taken place:
Carine Arab (P5), Mehsen Al Araigy (P8), Elie Derjany (P2), Sally Hanna (P6), Toufic Matta (P5), Mariella Tannouri (P1), Hiba Tawk
(P3) and Mireille Younes (P7).

Notes
*1) The working title of our doctoral dissertation is: From Film to Architecture: An Extended Cinematic Design Process Based on Architectural
Interpretations of Narrative Film. It aims to provide architects interested in film and/or extending their design/conceptual potentials, a design process that
would help them generate spaces originated from a single film, a whole corpus of films, or some selected significant filmic elements (scene, shot, sequence,
narrative structure, etc.). This process would assist the architects in reproducing or transposing to certain extents the unique qualities of their chosen
film(s) into reality, and augment them with new substantial, formal, narrative, iconic, semantic, and perceptual dimensions.
We have coined this design process as Extended Cinematics: a way of dealing with architectural design by projecting or extending into reality most of the
relevant dimensions and properties relating to, or representative of narrative film, based on structuralist semio-linguistic interpretations.
*2) A designation appointed by the members of Group 1.
*3) Individual pseudo-independent stories that make up Short Cuts.
*4) Stories that don’t have a clear ending, and leave the door open for individual interpretations.
*5) Due to personal urgent matters Participant 8 had to leave the presentations session before his turn had come up. In consequence, Participant 8 had sent
us by e-mail a description of his design intentions and process. However, the text he had sent was detailed/developed enough for a full and detailed
understanding of his designs.

References
1) Preziosi, Donald: The Semiotics of the Built Environment, Indiana University Press, 1979.
2) Eco, Umberto: Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture, in Signs, Symbols and Architecture, Broadbent Geoffrey, Bunt Richard and Jencks
Charles (eds.), John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1980.
3) Douzjian, Richard, Monnai, Teruyuki: A Search for Architectonic Spatial Structures in Narrative Film: Case Study of “Russian Ark”, Journal of
Architectural Planning, AIJ, Vol. 76 No. 660, pp. 341-351, 2011.2.
4) Douzjian, R., Monnai, T.: From Film to Architecture: Toward a Design Methodology for Architectural Interpretations of Narrative Film, DesignEd Asia
Conference Proceedings, 2010
�

− 1341 −
�����
�����������������������������
�����
������������������������������
�����������������������������
������������������������������
������������������������������
��������������������������
������������������������������
��������������������������
�������������
�����������������������������
�������������
������������������������������
�����������������������������
������������������������������
������������������RA���������
������������������������������
���SC���������������������������
������������������RA���������
������������������������������
���SC���������������������������
�������������������
������������������������������
�������������������
�������
�����������������������������
�������
������������������������������
�����������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������
��������������������������������
��������������� � �������������
������������������������������
� ��������������� � �������������
������������������������������
������������������������������
������������������������������
������������������������������
������������������������������
��������������������������
������������������������������
�������RA � SC ��� 2 ������� 4 �����
��������������������������
�������RA � SC ��� 2 ������� 4 �����
������������������������������
����������������� � ������������
������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������� � ������������
�
�������������������������������
� �
� �
− 1342 −
���� � ���������������
����� � ���������������
���������������
�
�����������������������������
���������������
���������������������������DD:
�����������������������������
generic-preliminary Derivation Diagram�����������
���������������������������DD:
generic-preliminary Derivation Diagram�����������
��������������
�����������������������������
��������������
�������������� RA � SC ������FSP: Film-
�����������������������������
Specific Properties�����������������
�������������� FSP
RA � SC ������FSP: Film-
��
Specific Properties�����������������
�����������FSP FSP ��
�����������������
�TSP: Topic-Specific Properties��������������
�����������FSP �����������������
�TSP: Topic-Specific Properties��������������
���������������� ��������������
�IDDD: Individual Design Derivation
���������������� Diagram��������
��������������
�IDDD: Individual Design Derivation Diagram��������
������������������������������
��������� IDDD �������������������
������������������������������
�� IDDD �������������������
�����������������
��������� � ����������
�����
�� � �������������� ����������
�����������������
������������������������������
����� � �������������
������������������������������
������������������������������
�����������������������������
������������������������������
������������
�����������������������������
� ������������
�����
�
�����������������������������
�����
������������������������Im-Signs��
�����������������������������
����Viewer�����������������������
������������������������Im-Signs��
������������������������������
����Viewer�����������������������
������������������������������
�����������������FAADD: Film-Architecture
������������������������������
Analogy Derivation Diagram���������
�����������������FAADD: Film-Architecture
�Analogy Derivation Diagram���������
（2011年 8 月10日原稿受理，2012年 3 月16日採用決定）