Visual Culture in Architecture: Virgil Abloh’s Cross-Disciplinary Design Language

Abstract

This paper investigates the integration of Virgil Abloh’s Personal Design Language (PDL) within the broader context of architectural methodology. Through a series of workshops, architecture students and professionals engaged with Abloh’s principles to examine how subtle aesthetic and functional adjustments, grounded in artistic disciplines, can produce transformative effects on iconic 20th-century architectural forms. These workshops underscored the potential of Abloh’s interdisciplinary approach to enhance architectural discourse by introducing a novel lens through which contemporary design methodologies can be evaluated. The findings reveal that employing weighted coefficients for less commonly utilized design principles enabled novel evaluation processes, fostering creative experimentation and innovation. Additionally, this research highlights discrepancies that may arise when employing differing evaluation methodologies in the assessment of architectural work, thereby initiating a critical discussion on the public acceptance of architectural designs and the implications of varied grading frameworks in professional practice.

1. Introduction

The primary aim of this research is to ascertain whether the integration of different aesthetic influences from various creative fields into existing architectural structures can effectively reposition these objects within the context of contemporary architectural discourse, thereby revitalizing their narratives, concepts, and meanings. This inquiry is grounded in the idea that architectural meaning is not fixed but open to reinterpretation through cultural references, artistic symbolism, and minimal formal interventions. The study uses the conceptual and experiential design strategies of Virgil Abloh as an experimental framework to test this idea in an educational context.

Abloh, one of the most influential designers and architects of the 21st century, is recognized for his ability to merge diverse disciplines, including fashion, music, architecture, and visual art. His structured design philosophy, presented in the 2017 Harvard lecture titled Insert Complicated Title Here, introduces seven design principles that form a coherent system of visual thinking and creative action (Abloh 2017). These principles were used as a pedagogical tool in two student workshops, enabling participants to experiment with the symbolic transformation of selected iconic architectural objects.

While Abloh’s influence in architecture is limited compared to his work in fashion and branding, the relevance of his design logic to architecture lies in its conceptual clarity, interdisciplinary scope, and accessibility. His approach supports educational goals related to narrative construction, cultural referencing, and critical engagement with form and context (Warsh 2021; Darling 2022). His capacity to blur boundaries between high and low culture, and to redefine the figure of the contemporary designer, has been widely recognized and celebrated, including his appearance in Time magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people in 2018 (Murakami 2018).

The theoretical foundation of this research is informed by semiotic theories of architecture, particularly Umberto Eco’s distinction between the denotative (utilitarian) and connotative (ideological–symbolic) functions of architectural objects (Eco 1986, pp. 61–65, 76–77). According to Eco, architecture can be read as a system of signs that transmits meaning similarly to messages in mass media. This perspective allows for architecture to be understood not only as spatial organization but also as a cultural text open to reinterpretation. In this way, minimal interventions that shift an object’s connotative register—without altering its physical structure significantly—can become powerful tools of symbolic revaluation.

These ideas align with theoretical positions advanced by other authors. Fredric Jameson, in conversation with Rem Koolhaas, analyzed the operative nature of architectural images and their ideological impact (Jameson and Speaks 1992). Koolhaas himself, in “Cronocaos,” argued that preservation and innovation are not opposites, advocating for design approaches that operate within and upon existing structures (Koolhaas 2010, p. 18). Similarly, Viollet-le-Duc’s provocative notion that restoration should return a building to “a state that may never have existed at any given moment” introduces the idea of speculative historical layering (Viollet-le-Duc 1886, pp. 14–34), which resonates with Abloh’s logic of transformation.

This study also draws upon empirical research concerning the art infusion effect, a phenomenon wherein exposure to artistic content enhances perception, emotional response, and associative value. Hagtvedt and Patrick (2008) demonstrated that art influences consumers’ evaluations by increasing perceptions of luxury and symbolic worth. Their findings suggest that artistic content can enrich the perceived value of a product or object beyond its functional role. These effects have been confirmed by neuroimaging studies (Lacey et al. 2011), which showed that images identified as “art” activate regions of the brain associated with reward and emotional processing.

Several other studies support the view that art can play a functional role in shaping perception and meaning. Kristal et al. (2018) investigated the role of artistic design in fashion and found that it positively influences consumer behavior. Lee et al. (2015) confirmed the importance of visual art in advertising, while Logkizidou et al. (2019) emphasized how visual and artistic cues impact urban users’ experiences. Baumgarth and Wieker (2020) extended this concept to branding strategies, arguing that artistic association strengthens brand identity and differentiation. More recently, Park et al. (2023) identified consumer wealth as a moderating factor, further refining the understanding of how symbolic capital operates in aesthetic perception.

Although most of these studies stem from marketing and consumer psychology, their implications are relevant for architecture, particularly in educational contexts where the cultivation of symbolic awareness and cultural fluency is increasingly emphasized. By adopting a symbolic and interdisciplinary design logic, students can be encouraged to explore new forms of narrative thinking and conceptual clarity within the built environment.

The workshops presented in this study were designed to test these possibilities by inviting students to apply Abloh’s principles to selected architectural objects from the twentieth century. Through minimal yet symbolically loaded interventions, students explored how architecture can be reframed and re-signified through cross-disciplinary design methods. The results were evaluated using a two-layered scoring model that combined binary application of Abloh’s rules with weighted coefficients, enabling a nuanced analysis of design decisions and pedagogical outcomes.

This study investigates whether symbolic and minimal design interventions, inspired by Virgil Abloh’s interdisciplinary design approach, can serve as effective tools for reframing the perception and value of existing architectural objects within an educational context. The main objective is to explore the pedagogical potential of these interventions through a series of structured workshops. These workshops are designed to promote conceptual clarity, narrative thinking, and cross-disciplinary awareness among architecture students. By analyzing how students engage with these alternative frameworks, this research contributes to ongoing discussions about expanding architectural education through nontraditional and culturally responsive design methods.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Recent developments in architectural education have highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary thinking, yet there is still limited research on how symbolic and minimal interventions can be methodically applied in a pedagogical context. The integration of nontraditional design philosophies, particularly those derived from fashion, branding, and popular culture, remains largely underexplored despite their potential to enrich architectural discourse and encourage conceptual innovation among students.

To address this gap, the present chapter outlines the theoretical and conceptual foundation that informs the experimental framework of this study. The selected theories provide critical insights into how meaning is constructed in architecture and how existing objects can be reinterpreted through symbolic transformation.

These theoretical concepts directly informed the structure and goals of the design workshops, serving as both a pedagogical foundation and a framework for evaluating student responses. The discussion begins with Umberto Eco’s semiotic perspective, which offers a foundational lens for understanding architecture not only as function and form, but as a layered system of signs and cultural meanings.

In his seminal essay “Function and the Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture,” Umberto Eco (1986) establishes at the outset that the term “architecture” is employed in an expanded sense, encompassing not only architectural practice in the strict sense but also industrial and urban design. He further suggests that this definition may be extended to encompass “any type of design producing three-dimensional constructions destined to permit the fulfilment of some function connected with life in society,” thereby including disciplines such as fashion design, insofar as clothing functions as a cultural artifact and a means of participating in societal life. At the same time, this definition excludes objects “destined primarily to be contemplated rather than utilized in society, such as works of art” (Eco 1986, p. 57).

Eco draws a distinction between the denotative and connotative dimensions of architecture. Denotation refers to its “primary function, [its] utilitarian function” (Eco 1986, pp. 61–62), while connotation comprises a “complex of secondary functions” (Eco 1986, pp. 64–65). He clarifies that beyond denoting its practical utility, an architectural object may also connote ideological dimensions of its function or convey additional layers of meaning (Eco 1986, p. 64).

Eco’s assertion that “architectural objects seem to have characteristics in common with the messages of mass communication”—as they belong “to the realm of everyday life, just like pop music and most ready-to-wear clothing”—underlines his view that architectural discourse is often experienced peripherally, akin to how individuals process films, television, comics, or advertisements (Eco 1986, pp. 76–77). Interpreted in this way, architectural discourse becomes a dynamic field open to transformation, reproduction, and recontextualization. This is evident in Bernard Tschumi’s “Advertisements for Architecture” (Tschumi 1976–1977), Fredric Jameson’s reading of Rem Koolhaas’s architecture as an operative image enabling spatial and programmatic improvisation (Jameson and Speaks 1992), and in Virgil Abloh’s design strategy, which favors minimal interventions that open space for reinterpretation (Abloh 2017). Such approaches demonstrate how architectural discourse can be liberated from rigid formalism and repurposed for ongoing rearticulation, thereby fostering the emergence of new architectural and cultural meanings beyond conventional paradigms of fixed forms and functions.

This study also draws upon the theoretical foundations laid by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, particularly his provocative assertion that “to restore a building is not to repair it, nor to maintain or rebuild it, but to reestablish it in an ultimate state that never existed before” (Viollet-le-Duc 1886, pp. 14–34). This conceptualization of restoration as a “retrospective effort” not only engages the past but anticipates future architectural needs, framing restoration as an act of forward-thinking cultural production. This perspective finds resonance in Rem Koolhaas’s “Cronocaos” exhibition at the 2010 Venice Architecture Biennale, wherein he argued that “preservation and modernity are not opposites” (Koolhaas 2010, p. 18), thereby challenging the dichotomy between conservation and innovation.

A further theoretical pillar of this research is the concept of the art infusion effect, first introduced by Hagtvedt and Patrick (2008), which posits that the integration of art into products or environments enhances perceptions of luxury and value. This framework has been further developed by scholars who have sought to test its generalizability and broaden its application (Baumgarth and Wieker 2020; Park et al. 2023; Logkizidou et al. 2019). Notably, Baumgarth and Bahati Wieker’s meta-study, which synthesized findings from 27 empirical studies and approximately 5000 participants across multiple continents, confirmed the robustness of the art infusion effect in diverse cultural contexts (Baumgarth and Wieker 2020, p. 118).

Given the nature of method presented, particular attention has been paid to studies that examine the art infusion effect within the contexts of street and urban art, as well as fashion (Kristal et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2015). In addition, neuroscientific research demonstrating that images categorized as “art”—as opposed to non-art images—activate reward-related regions of the brain (Lacey et al. 2011) has provided further support for the hypothesis underlying this study. Collectively, these frameworks offer a multi-dimensional basis for understanding how contemporary architectural and design practices may generate meaning, value, and emotional resonance through aesthetic strategies grounded in both historical theory and current empirical research.

This review addresses thematic areas at the intersection of architecture, design theory, visual culture, and interdisciplinary methods. While Virgil Abloh’s design philosophy is widely discussed in popular media, the academic literature remains limited. Still, key sources provide insights into his methods and cultural role. In his Harvard GSD lecture, Abloh (2017) emphasized appropriation, disruption, and minimal intervention. In “Dissolving Power” (Abloh 2019), he critiques institutional hierarchies, while “Figures of Speech” (Darling 2022) and “Abloh-isms” (Warsh 2021) capture the socio-political and conceptual layers of his work.

Theoretical grounding is found in the literature on phenomenology, semiotics, and material ontology. Bachelard (2014) examines spatial imagination, Benjamin (1969) critiques mechanical reproduction, and Bourdieu (1996) explores the social construction of taste. Derrida and Moore (1974), Eco (1986), and Harman (2017) add layers through metaphor, semiotics, and object-oriented theory. Parallel to this, architectural theory evolves from Viollet-le-Duc’s creative restoration (1886), through Tschumi’s visual manifestos (Tschumi 1976–1977) and Jameson and Speaks’ (1992) ideological critique to Koolhaas’s (2010) preservation polemics. Later contributions by Hendrix (2013), Tawa (2017), and Penz (2018) blend design with cinematic thinking, while Ching (2023) and Daniels (2019) address pedagogical clarity and conceptual disruption.

Studies on art infusion explore how visual art impacts consumer experience. Introduced by Hagtvedt and Patrick (2008), the concept was later supported neurologically (Lacey et al. 2011) and expanded into branding (Lee et al. 2015; Logkizidou et al. 2019) and street art (Baumgarth and Wieker 2020). Kristal et al. (2018) highlight the tension in co-creation, while Park et al. (2023) emphasizes consumer wealth as a moderating factor. These works reveal how art shapes emotional, aesthetic, and spatial perception.

The design methodology literature highlights the cognitive and technological transformation of design. Bhatt et al. (2012), De Landa (2002), and Menges et al. (2004) approach form through ontology, algorithms, and morphogenesis. Cash et al. (2023a), Dalsgaard et al. (2023), and Cash et al. (2023b) assess process thinking and co-evolution in design. Topics such as site intuition (Osmólska and Lewis 2023), AI-powered workflows (Kwon et al. 2023; Shi et al. 2024), generative methods (Vissers-Similon et al. 2024), and co-design (Sadek et al. 2023) reflect the integration of computation, collaboration, and human factors.

Finally, Internet-based sources enrich academic discourse by framing cultural relevance. Articles on the Eiffel Tower (2024) and Murakami’s profile of Abloh (Murakami 2018) emphasize the symbolic value of design in public life. The Off-White collection (Abloh 2017), as reported by Vogue, showcases Abloh’s spatial sensibility within fashion contexts—blurring the boundaries between architecture, branding, and cultural storytelling. Finally, webpages of the Illinois Institute of Technology (2019) and Forbes (2019) have been used as a source of figures. Building on these theoretical positions, the next chapter examines how Virgil Abloh’s design principles can be recontextualized within architectural education to explore new modes of engagement and reinterpretation.

3. Virgil Abloh’s “Personal Design Language”: Architectural Interpretations

For the purposes of this study, participants in both workshops were initially introduced to Virgil Abloh’s Harvard Core Studio Public Lecture, along with additional examples of his design philosophy (Figure 1). Particular emphasis was placed on illustrating the “3% approach,” which involves making minimal physical alterations to an original object. While these examples served as pedagogical tools, this study does not merely adopt Abloh’s design language as an idealized model. Instead, it aims to interrogate the extent to which Abloh’s principles, developed within the fashion and product design industries, can meaningfully be translated into the architectural domain. The intent was to assess both the inspirational and the potentially limiting aspects of this transposition, particularly when minimal change is proposed as a sufficient design gesture in a discipline traditionally embedded in material, spatial, and functional complexity. The interpretations of the PDL framework presented below (see also Figure 2) are based on the analysis of data collected following the initial phase of evaluating workshop participants’ intervention proposals. These interpretations also reflect a degree of subjective reasoning informed by the authors’ critical engagement with the material.

3.1. Rule 1—Readymade—New Idea Based on Recognizable Parts—Human Emotion, Irony

The term “readymade” was coined by Marcel Duchamp in 1916 to denote prefabricated and often mass-produced objects that are removed from their original context and elevated to the status of art by the artist’s act of selection and recontextualization (Daniels 2019). While Abloh’s use of the readymade concept clearly echoes the Duchampian tradition, its direct transposition to architecture raises conceptual and practical challenges. In fashion, the appropriation of mass-produced symbols can quickly evoke recognition; in architecture, however, the “aura” of iconic structures resists such facile recontextualization. The workshop explored this issue by engaging participants in architectural “re-representation”. Iconic architectural structures in contemporary society have an “aura” (Benjamin 1969), “symbolic capital” (Bourdieu 1996), and have been as such suitable for re-representation, as a process of appropriation through the application of irony as one of the most important elements of Virgil Abloh’s work (Abloh 2019). While the use of irony and symbolic capital was discussed, this critical question remains: can the transformation of architectural icons through minimal alteration avoid trivialization or aesthetic superficiality?

3.2. Rule 2—“Figures of Speech” or the “Quotes”

While this principle has been extensively applied across Virgil Abloh’s body of work—often in the form of literal word or phrase usage incorporated into design products—its adaptation for this study required adjustments considering the distinct nature of architectural design. The use of words in the work of Virgil Abloh is never an ornament or decoration, at least not “superfluous decoration” (Derrida and Moore 1974). Virgil Abloh, by using “quotes” that cannot be taken literally, creates a connection between reality and perception (Abloh 2019). His use of quotation—often typographic and ironic—functions as both commentary and disruption. Translated into architecture, this principle was applied metaphorically, using visual references rather than textual ones. However, this shift risks diluting the critical potency of Abloh’s original gesture. In fashion, “quotes” foreground a tension between literalism and concept; in architecture, unless paired with spatial or material intervention, they risk becoming decorative or referential rather than genuinely part of the architecture itself. The workshop addressed this through visual analogies, but further critical reflection is needed; do such “quotes” engage with the political or disciplinary context of architecture, or do they merely gesture at artistic legitimacy?

Figure 2. Two illustrative examples of Virgil Abloh’s Personal Design Language (PDL) applied within urban and architectural contexts include (1) an installation on the Mies van der Rohe Campus at the Illinois Institute of Technology, positioned near the south porch of S. R. Crown Hall—an 8-by-12-foot structure filled with sneaker remnants and marked with the phrase “From Chicago to the World,” emphasizing sustainability and local–global narratives and (2) the Louis Vuitton pop-up store located at 100 Rivington Street in New York City’s Lower East Side, which was open from 12 July to 21 July 2019, and conceived as a spatial extension of Abloh’s 2019 menswear collection, integrating fashion, branding, and temporary architectural expression.1

Figure 2. Two illustrative examples of Virgil Abloh’s Personal Design Language (PDL) applied within urban and architectural contexts include (1) an installation on the Mies van der Rohe Campus at the Illinois Institute of Technology, positioned near the south porch of S. R. Crown Hall—an 8-by-12-foot structure filled with sneaker remnants and marked with the phrase “From Chicago to the World,” emphasizing sustainability and local–global narratives and (2) the Louis Vuitton pop-up store located at 100 Rivington Street in New York City’s Lower East Side, which was open from 12 July to 21 July 2019, and conceived as a spatial extension of Abloh’s 2019 menswear collection, integrating fashion, branding, and temporary architectural expression.1

3.3. Rule 3–3% Approach

Upon analyzing Virgil Abloh’s body of work—particularly his collaborations with companies that produce widely recognized products, such as Nike and Converse—this principle, closely aligned with Rule 1, emerged as the most readily adaptable to an architectural context. Abloh’s ability to transform iconic, mass-produced items through minimal yet impactful design interventions provided a clear precedent for applying similar strategies within architectural design. The ease of transcribing this rule to architecture lies in its emphasis on engaging with pre-existing, recognizable forms. In the case of this study, the introduction of a condition requiring the selection of a well-known (iconic) architectural object as the primary subject of intervention further facilitated the application of this rule. By focusing on established architectural landmarks, participants were able to mirror Abloh’s method of reinterpreting iconic products, thus creating a parallel between his work in product design and the recontextualization of architectural forms. This approach highlights how the manipulation of familiar structures, whether in fashion or architecture, can generate new meanings and innovative outcomes while maintaining a connection to the original object’s cultural significance. It is crucial to emphasize that, much like in Abloh’s design practice, the preservation of the architectural object’s fundamental nature, concept, and inherent meaning was of paramount importance. In adapting this approach, the integrity of the original architectural form and its symbolic significance had to remain intact, even as it was reinterpreted to acquire a more contemporary aesthetic. The study stops short of asking whether 3% is ever truly enough in architecture, or whether it oversimplifies architectural problem-solving in favor of conceptual spectacle. A deeper interrogation of the threshold between minimalism and meaningful transformation is necessary.

3.4. Rule 4—A Compromise Between 2 District Similar or Dissimilar Notions

The concept of contrast and continuity is a well-established principle in architectural design, with its origins tracing back to the earliest forms of architectural expression. Over time, this idea has been embodied in various forms across different historical architectural styles, from classical antiquity to modernism. The interplay between contrast—through material, form, or function—and the continuity of underlying ideas or traditions has allowed architects to create a rich dialogue between past and present. This principle is also intricately connected to the symbiosis between artistic and architectural practices, where artistic concepts and visual aesthetics often converge with architectural structures to produce cohesive yet dynamic designs. While the principle of duality—contrast and continuity—is well established in architectural discourse, Abloh’s articulation of this idea invites a more speculative reading. His notion of compromise between “distinct similar or dissimilar notions” reflects a postmodern sensibility, but lacks the rigor expected in architectural synthesis, where the reconciliation of opposites demands more than juxtaposition.

3.5. Rule 5—Signs of “Work in Process”—Again Human Interaction

By its very nature, architecture is inherently a “work in progress,” continuously evolving as it serves its users. Architecture is not static; it embodies and facilitates ongoing existential processes, shaping and responding to the needs of human life and interaction. This dynamic quality of architecture positions it as an active participant in the lived experiences of its users, constantly engaging with the flow of human activity and adapting to changing social, cultural, and environmental conditions. Given this intrinsic relationship between architecture and human interaction, a central focus of the workshops was to further emphasize the concept of engagement—specifically, how contemporary observers and users interact with architectural interventions. Yet the question remains as to whether this emphasis on user interpretation can be sustained beyond visual cues. Can the temporality and openness implied by Abloh’s design language be materially and ethically embedded in architectural practice, or does the application risk reducing user engagement to an aestheticized narrative of participation?

3.6. Rule 6—A Societal Commentary—Has a Reason to Exist Now

Among the most ambitious of Abloh’s principles, this rule aspires to situate design within broader cultural and temporal contexts. Architects must navigate complex design scenarios, from the sensitive restoration of cultural monuments to the innovative adaptation of outdated structures for contemporary use. The principle encompasses a broad spectrum of physical interventions, from the creation of new structures to conservation and restoration of immovable cultural heritage (Stanley-Price 2009)2. Each of these interventions requires a thoughtful balance between preserving the integrity of the original structure and introducing new elements that enhance functionality and respond to current architectural and social narratives. In this way, the principle not only captures the technical and functional aspects of architectural intervention but also aligns with the broader philosophical underpinnings of the field. It promotes an understanding of architecture as a dynamic and evolving discipline that interacts with history, culture, and the present moment, inviting reinterpretation and reinvention while remaining rooted in its contextual surroundings. This holistic perspective is essential for addressing the complexities of architectural design in an increasingly interconnected and rapidly changing world.

However, the analysis fell short in critically examining whether these interventions truly constituted societal commentary or merely appropriated socially charged contexts for conceptual gain. What remains crucial is to assess the depth of engagement; does the work interrogate systemic conditions—economic, racial, environmental—or does it simply reflect them? Architectural commentary, to be meaningful, must move beyond representational gestures toward structural critique.

3.7. Rule 7—Speaking to the Tourist and Purist Simultaneously

To fully grasp the essence of this rule, we drew upon the following definitions of “tourist” and “purist” as articulated by Virgil Abloh himself: “I often use the phrases ‘Tourist’ and ‘Purist’ to describe my approach to work. The purist knows everything about art history, every museum in every country, and what’s going on across the world. And the tourist, in this context, well, they know what a Dookie chain actually is… When an artwork moves effortlessly from the tourist pages of the NY Post to the most purist eyes, then you do have a truly unifying moment. Those moments come only when the stars align.” (Warsh 2021, pp. 83–84).

In light of this, the term “tourist” can be understood as referring to someone who approaches a subject as an outsider, with a more general or peripheral understanding, while the “purist” represents an insider, possessing in-depth knowledge and expertise on the subject at hand. Abloh’s distinction underscores the importance of addressing multiple perspectives in design and art, where the convergence of both outsider and insider viewpoints can create a moment of true cultural unity.

It is important to recognize that architecture is frequently analyzed and critiqued by the general public, due to the genuine nature of the discipline, although the level of education and familiarity with architectural subjects varies widely. However, this research did not involve the broader public, due to the specificity of the methods employed. To assess the influence of this particular Rule 7 on the overall evaluation of the project, we assembled an expert group that can be viewed as an intersection of “tourists” and “purists.” While the group consisted of nine architects and two artists who possess extensive knowledge of architecture and art—classifying them as “purists”—they had not been previously informed about the specific subject matter of the workshop or the Personal Design Language (PDL) rules applied, which positioned them simultaneously as “tourists.”

The findings from this expert group, as will be elaborated in the Discussion of Results, reveal a significant impact on the overall evaluation of the projects, indicating the value of this hybrid perspective. Given these results and the potential for expanding the scope of this research, it is necessary to also consider the insights and responses of the broader public in future studies.

This broader inclusion would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the rule’s influence across different levels of familiarity with architectural discourse. The critical question is whether architectural design can simultaneously satisfy both immediacy and depth, or whether such duality risks diluting architectural intention in favor of universal legibility.

4. Methodology

This research employs a design-based methodology that combines experimental studio practice with qualitative evaluation. The method centers on a structured student workshop in which participants were asked to reinterpret selected architectural icons from the 20th century through minimal yet symbolically charged interventions. The process involved guided design tasks, group discussions, and expert panel evaluations to assess the conceptual, aesthetic, and contextual dimensions of each proposal.

The subject of design methodologies, processes, and behaviors (Wu et al. 2024; Himaki et al. 2024; Sadek et al. 2023; Dalsgaard et al. 2023) constitutes a critical area of inquiry that significantly influences a range of disciplines, including architecture (Cash et al. 2023b; Tan et al. 2023; Osmólska and Lewis 2023). Within architectural discourse, long-standing debates concerning the relationship between form and function (Hendrix 2013; Ching 2023; Bhatt et al. 2012), and the evolving role of these principles within the design process, remain foundational. Furthermore, the integration of computational technologies has increasingly shaped how architectural concepts are translated into material realities (Menges et al. 2004). Recent developments—such as the use of artificial intelligence (AI) not only as a source of creative inspiration (Kwon et al. 2023) but also for the automated generation of floor plans and visualizations—demonstrate the continued transformation of architectural practice (Vissers-Similon et al. 2024; Shi et al. 2024). These methodological advancements not only enable novel design outcomes (Ecet et al. 2024) but also constitute the structural basis for the emergence of diverse architectural styles, thereby reflecting the dynamic interrelation between technological innovation and architectural theory over time (De Landa 2002).

Equally central to architectural design methodology is the system of evaluative criteria used to assess both design approaches (Cash et al. 2023a) and architectural outcomes. The divergence between the preferences of the general public and those of experts or disciplinary insiders (Higuera-Trujillo et al. 2024) becomes particularly pronounced when architectural works depart from established conventions or aesthetic norms. The historical reception of the Eiffel Tower (Eiffel Tower 2024), often cited as a paradigmatic case, exemplifies this disjunction. While architecture, like other specialized disciplines, necessitates a cultivated interpretive framework—often grounded in prior disciplinary knowledge or experiential familiarity—its reception by a broader public is seldom mediated through such critical lenses. This disparity underscores the complex dynamics between architectural expertise and public perception, revealing persistent tensions between professional discourse and popular taste in the evaluation of architectural production.

In light of these considerations, and in an effort to explore not only a novel methodology of architectural design but also the relationship between specialized architectural knowledge and broader architectural aesthetic perception, this study was conceptualized as a pedagogical experiment. It was carried out through two structured workshops conducted at the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, during the 2023/2024 academic year. This research involved a total of 73 participants, spanning two academic levels, thereby providing a cross-sectional perspective on architectural education and evaluative criteria formation within the discipline.

Workshop 1 involved 20 master’s students enrolled in the Studio 01B—Alternative Approach course. All participants held bachelor’s degrees in architecture and had prior exposure to both academic and practical aspects of architectural design and urban planning, equipping them with an advanced level of conceptual and technical competence.

Workshop 2 consisted of 53 fourth-year undergraduate students participating in the Studio 04A—Synthesis course. These students, nearing the completion of their undergraduate education, demonstrated a solid foundation in architectural design, albeit with comparatively less experience in theoretical frameworks and advanced integrative processes. They were organized into 30 project teams, with a maximum of two members per group, fostering collaborative and peer-supported learning environments.

The intentional inclusion of both graduate and undergraduate participants facilitated a comparative examination of how different stages of architectural education influence students’ engagement with complex spatial and conceptual design challenges. To ensure methodological coherence and maintain a manageable level of complexity in this initial implementation of the experimental framework, the two groups were selected and balanced to minimize disparities in skill and experience. Moreover, in recognition of the differing levels of theoretical and technical proficiency, additional artistic input and guidance were provided to the undergraduate participants to support their conceptual development and creative expression. Data collection encompassed a range of qualitative materials, including design outputs (drawings, models, and renderings), observational notes, student reflections, and instructor feedback. The collected data were analyzed using a thematic coding approach to identify recurring patterns in spatial reasoning, conceptual development, and theoretical integration. The overarching methodological framework is illustrated in Figure 3.

The workshops functioned as the central setting for experimental, design-driven inquiry. Beyond the student participants, several support teams were engaged, each assigned to specific roles such as coordination, documentation, content analysis, and technical facilitation (see

Table 1. Roles and contributions of the team engaged in the research study.

Teams Engaged in the Process	Profession of the Team Members	Number of Team Members	Team Input	Team Task	Applied Criteria for Grading
Teaching staff	professors	2		organization of the workshops preparation of workshops assignments introductory explanations grading	7 rules of Virgil Abloh’s “personal design language”(PDA), where all rules are of equal standing
	teaching assistants	2		realization of the workshop dialogues with the participants tutoring grading	the overall impression grading, appraised using the same criteria applied to other subjects regarding architectural design within the study program
Workshop 1	architects enrolled at the Master of Architecture course	20	PDA, iconic architectural design, artistic intervention by choice	Project design	-
Workshop 2	4th year bachelor students	53 students divided into 30 groups of a maximum of 2 members	PDA, iconic architectural design, iconic movie	Project design	-
Expert group	architects and artists with at least 2 years of practice	9 architects and 2 artists	-	Voting	Sum of votes

).

The teams involved in the process are interconnected as illustrated in the accompanying diagram (Figure 4).

The derivation of the seven PDA principles is rooted in a close reading of Abloh’s 2017 Harvard Core Studio lecture, “Insert Complicated Title Here”, as well as his public exhibitions and published interviews, where he consistently emphasized a conceptual approach centered on minimal physical intervention with maximal symbolic effect. Through thematic coding of these sources, we identified recurring motifs and articulated them into a consistent set of seven design rules.

These principles were not merely presented as theoretical constructs but were actively embedded into the workshop structure. In Workshop 1, students were tasked with selecting a canonical 20th-century architectural work and proposing a minimal intervention guided by the PDA rules. Each design proposal had to demonstrate at least three of the seven principles. In Workshop 2, similar logic was applied, but with an added narrative component: students analyzed scenes from selected films and aligned architectural interventions with cinematic mood and message—reflecting Abloh’s own tendency to merge spatial design with storytelling.

To evaluate these design outcomes, we developed a two-tiered system:

• A binary rubric that assessed the presence or absence of each PDA rule (1 = applied, 0 = not applied);
• A weighted coefficient model that considered both the clarity of application and the coherence of the intervention with the original architectural object.

However, it is essential to acknowledge the subjectivity inherent in this two-tiered evaluation system. While the binary rubric provided a simplified structure for assessing rule application and the weighted model introduced an additional layer of nuance, both remained dependent on individual interpretations of abstract design intentions and aesthetic coherence. The varied backgrounds and disciplinary orientations of the evaluators further influenced their assessments, reinforcing the importance of critical reflection when interpreting the data. Recognizing this subjectivity highlights both the complexity of evaluating creative work and the pedagogical value of exposing students to diverse evaluative perspectives.

Both faculty members involved in the workshop and the ones that were not involved, who we considered to be external experts, participated in the assessment, which allowed us to contrast academic and professional interpretations. The results not only illuminated which PDA principles were most intuitively grasped by students but also offered insights into how design thinking can be measured without reducing it to rigid formalism.

Most importantly, we reflected on the pedagogical implications; the exercise demonstrated that abstract design strategies, when distilled and operationalized, can foster creative reinterpretation without undermining the integrity of existing architecture. This approach helped cultivate students’ ability to think conceptually, respect historical context, and engage with design as a communicative act—all values central to both Abloh’s practice and contemporary architectural education.

5. Workshops Results

The input for the workshops varied in the following manner (Figure 4): while both groups of participants were required to conduct a detailed analysis of Virgil Abloh’s Personal Design Language (PDL) and to select an iconic 20th-century architectural object as the subject of their intervention, the participants in Workshop 1 had the freedom to choose their artistic influence from any domain of creative expression.

In contrast, the participants in Workshop 2 were required to base their influence on an iconic film, also chosen by participants themselves. Workshop 2 differed from Workshop 1 in that participants were required to draw artistic influence from an iconic film of their choosing. This approach was rooted in the theoretical connections between architecture and film as complementary modes of expression. The relationship between architecture and film has long been recognized as mutualistic, and scholarly discourse on this intersection continues to evolve. In this particular case, with the idea of contributing to the recent discussions about what can also be done, and by following Abloh’s logic applied to iconic fashion pieces, students were asked about film-assisted intervention (filmic infusion) onto architectural icons. Bearing in mind that film as such usually provides a grounded narrative and a plethora of visual impressions, the main idea was for students to rely on these in order to make the design process and its final results more exciting and compelling, retrospectively. As specified by Michael Tawa, “fundamentally world-forming” categories such as “atmosphere, ambiance and mood have never been vague categories for cinema and need not be for architecture” (Tawa 2017, p. 1), which has occasionally been asserted by other authors, the most prominent of whom are probably Gaston Bachelard (Bachelard 2014) and Georges Perec (Perec 2008). Tawa argues that these aspects “are in fact producible through deliberate organizational strategies—kinematic and narrative in film, tectonic and material in architecture” (Tawa 2017, p. 1). Nevertheless, as François Penz points out, even though films bestead us “to attain something like fragments or moments of atmospheres, pertaining to everyday life situations”, and “while there are many overlaps between a cinematic atmosphere and an architectural atmosphere, there are no easy ways to transfer from one to the other” (Penz 2018, p. 7). With the idea to try and overcome this, students were asked to “shake off” the iconic implications of the building which they have chosen to perform filmic infusion onto, and to focus, as Penz states on the traces of Rem Koolhaas’s approach, on “humble elements… that make the fabric of architecture”, on “architecture with a small ‘a’” and on “an examination of what passes unnoticed in our everyday life” (Penz 2018, p. 127). That is, to make a film-assisted poetic intervention on a building by not “regarding the architectural elements as passive nouns” but viewing them “in the active role… that embodies affect and carries emotions. In that sense, to rethink architecture focusing on basic elements of architecture, door, windows, stairs etc., as Koolhaas proposed, constitutes a tectonic approach” (Penz 2018, pp. 128–30).

Although the input to the participants was different in the aspect discussed in the previous paragraphs, in Workshop 2, the evaluation of 30 students was conducted using the same methodology as in Workshop 1, focusing on the application of Virgil Abloh’s seven Personal Design Language (PDL) rules. Consistent with the approach used in Workshop 1, each rule was assessed based on its frequency of application, with weight coefficients assigned inversely proportional to these frequencies. This means that rules applied less frequently were given higher weights to emphasize their importance in the final assessment.

5.1. Method for Determining Coefficients and Calculating Grades

In both Workshop 1 and Workshop 2, we employed a systematic and quantitative method to objectively evaluate participants’ projects. This method involved several key steps designed to assess the application of the seven design rules introduced during the workshops and to emphasize the importance of less frequently applied rules in the final grading. Initially, we assessed each project for the successful application of each design rule, assigning binary scores accordingly. We then calculated the frequency of application of each rule across all projects to identify which rules were more commonly applied and which were less utilized. To assign greater weight to the less frequently applied rules, we determined initial coefficients inversely proportional to their frequencies. These coefficients were then normalized using a scaling factor to ensure the grading scale remained consistent and fair. Finally, we calculated the participants’ grades using four different grading systems, each incorporating the normalized coefficients in different ways to provide a comprehensive evaluation. This approach combines statistical analysis with mathematical rigor to ensure fairness and consistency, encouraging participants to engage with all aspects of the design principles.

5.1.1. Evaluation Process:

The calculation of grades was conducted as follows (Figure 5):

• Initial Evaluation and Scoring

Each participant’s project was evaluated based on the successful application of each of the seven design rules. For each Rule i (where i = 1, 2, …, 7), we defined a binary variable.

Ri = 1 if the rule was successfully applied, and Ri = 0 if it was not applied.

The initial raw score S for a participant was the sum of applied rules.

S = R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 + R5 + R6 + R7

The maximum possible initial score was 7.

• Calculating the Frequency of Rule Application:

For each Rule i, we calculated the frequency fi, the number of participants who successfully applied rule i.

$$f_i=\sum _{j=1}^N{R}_{i,j}$$

where

• N is the total number of participants.
• $R_{i,j}$ denotes the application (1) or non-application (0) of rule i by participant j.

We determined the maximum frequency among all rules.

$$f_{\max }=\mathrm{maximum\; of\; all} \left(f_i\right)$$

• Determining Initial Coefficients:

To assign greater weight to less frequently applied rules, we calculated the initial coefficient $c_i$ for each rule i as inversely proportional to its frequency.

$$c_i={\displaystyle \frac{f_{\max }}{f_i}}$$

5.1.2. Normalizing Coefficients:

To ensure that the total possible weighted score aligned with the desired maximum (seven points), we computed a scaling factor s.

$$s={\displaystyle \frac{7}{{\sum }_{i=1}^7{c}_i}}$$

The normalized coefficient ki for each rule i was then calculated as

$$k_i=c_i\times s$$

This normalization adjusted the coefficients so that

$$\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^7{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{i}}=7$$

5.1.3. Calculating Grades:

Four different grading systems were utilized:

• Grade A (Equal Weighting of Rules):

Each rule was equally weighted. The grade was calculated using the following formula:

$$\mathrm{Grade} \mathrm{A}=5+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{S}\times 5}{7}}\right)$$

where

• S is the sum of applied rules.
• The grade ranges from 5 (no rules applied) to 10 (all rules applied).

• Grade B (Weighted Rules with Normalized Coefficients):

Each rule contributed to the final grade according to its normalized coefficient ki.

$$\mathrm{Grade} \mathrm{B}=\sum _{i=1}^7\left(R_i\times k_i\right)$$

• Grade C (Expert Group Evaluation):

An expert group provided an external assessment. For each participant, the sum of expert votes V was calculated, and the grade was determined by

$$\mathrm{Grade} \mathrm{C}=5+\left({\displaystyle \frac{V\times 5}{V_{\max }}}\right)$$

where

V is the total number of votes received from the experts.

Vmax is the maximum possible sum of votes (number of experts times maximum vote per expert).

• Grade D (Incorporating Expert Feedback):

We incorporated the normalized expert votes into the calculation for Rule 7.

$$\mathrm{Normalized} \mathrm{Vote}={\displaystyle \frac{V}{V_{\max }}}$$

The grade was then calculated as

$$\mathrm{Grade} \mathrm{D}=\sum _{i=1}^6\left(R_i\times k_i\right)+\left(\mathrm{Normalized} \mathrm{Vote}\times k_7\right)$$

5.2. Results of Workshop 1

5.2.1. Initial Evaluation and Scoring

In Workshop 1, the projects of twenty participants were assessed by two professors employing a structured and consistent methodology. Each of the seven design rules was assigned equal weight in the overall evaluation, with each rule contributing one point to the participants’ final scores. Participants earned one point for each rule that was satisfactorily implemented, resulting in a maximum possible score of seven points (see

Table 2. Frequency of application for each rule, the calculated initial coefficients, and the normalized coefficients after applying the scaling factor.

Rule	Frequency (Times Applied)	Initial Coefficient	Normalized Coefficient
Rule 1	4	4.50	1.37
Rule 2	8	2.25	0.69
Rule 3	18	1.00	0.31
Rule 4	14	1.29	0.42
Rule 5	3	6.00	1.83
Rule 6	10	1.80	0.55
Rule 7	3	6.00	1.83

).

5.2.2. Frequency of Rule Application and Coefficient Calculation

To evaluate the application of each design rule across all projects, the frequency of successful implementation was calculated for each rule. This frequency analysis provided insights into the prevalence of each rule’s application, highlighting which principles were predominantly adhered to and which were less frequently utilized (Figure 6). Based on these frequencies, initial coefficients were assigned inversely proportional to the frequency of application. This approach emphasized the importance of less frequently applied rules in the grading process. Subsequently, these initial coefficients were normalized to ensure that their cumulative sum equaled the target total score of seven points, thereby maintaining fairness and consistency in evaluations.

5.2.3. Summary of Participant Evaluations and Calculated Grades for Workshop 1

The evaluation outcomes for Workshop 1 are detailed in

Table 3. Participant evaluations and calculated grades for Workshop 1.

Participant	Sum Professors	Grade A	Grade B	Sum Expert	Grade C	Grade D	Grade E
1	3	7.1	7.1	8	8.6	6.5	10.0
2	7	10.0	10.0	8	8.6	9.2	10.0
3	3	7.1	7.1	5	7.3	6.7	10.0
4	2	6.4	6.4	7	8.2	5.6	9.1
5	1	5.7	5.7	5	7.3	6.1	10.0
6	3	7.1	7.1	2	5.9	5.7	9.1
7	3	7.1	7.1	9	9.1	8.7	10.0
8	2	6.4	6.4	3	6.4	5.2	9.1
9	3	7.1	7.1	8	8.6	7.4	9.0
10	0	5.0	5.0	7	8.2	5.9	7.1
11	1	5.7	5.7	8	8.6	6.0	7.5
12	2	6.4	6.4	8	8.6	7.1	8.0
13	2	6.4	6.4	5	7.3	5.6	8.0
14	2	6.4	6.4	3	6.4	5.0	7.1
15	4	7.9	7.9	9	9.1	6.6	8.0
16	3	7.1	7.1	2	5.9	8.4	7.0
17	2	6.4	6.4	10	9.5	6.3	7.0
18	7	10.0	10.0	10	9.5	10.0	10.0
19	3	7.1	7.1	9	9.1	5.8	9.0
20	7	10.0	10.0	7	8.2	9.6	10.0

, which presents each participant’s scores from professors, Sum Professors (the complete votes of the two professors are shown in Appendix A—

Table A1. Illustrates the application of Virgil Abloh’s seven Personal Design Language (PDL) rules across various projects within Workshop 1, where ‘+’ signifies the use of a rule, and blank spaces indicate non-usage, highlighting the varying frequency and selective application of each rule in the design process. Each rule is equally weighted in the overall assessment, with each rule contributing 1 point if it is met. The “Sum” row at the bottom of the table represents the total number of ‘+’ for each student, indicating how many rules were applied by each student. This approach is used to evaluate the frequency of rule application, with more frequently applied rules being assigned lower significance in the newly established weighting scale.

	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
Rule1		+														+		+		+
Rule 2		+		+					+						+	+		+	+	+
Rule3	+	+	+	+	+	+	+		+		+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Rule4	+	+	+			+	+	+				+	+	+	+		+	+	+	+
Rule5		+																+		+
Rule6	+	+	+			+	+	+	+						+			+		+
Rule7		+																+		+
Sum	3	7	3	2	1	3	3	2	3	0	1	2	2	2	4	3	2	7	3	7

), and experts, Sum Expert (the complete votes of the expert group are shown in Appendix A—

Table A2. Application of PDL rules among 20 participants in Workshop 1, showing rule usage (‘+’) and total counts per participant, represents the evaluation of an expert group consisting of 9 architects and 2 artists.

	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
1			+	+		+	+					+	+	+			+		+	+
2	+	+	+	+	+	+			+	+	+	+	+		+		+	+		+
3	+	+								+		+	+		+		+	+		+
4	+	+	+	+	+		+	+	+	+	+	+			+		+	+	+
5	+						+		+	+	+	+	+		+		+	+	+
6	+	+	+	+			+		+		+	+	+		+		+	+	+	+
7		+		+	+		+		+	+		+			+		+	+	+
8	+	+		+	+		+	+	+	+	+	+		+	+	+	+	+	+	+
9	+	+		+	+		+	+	+	+	+			+			+	+	+	+
10	+	+					+		+		+				+	+	+	+	+
11			+				+				+				+			+	+
	8	8	5	7	5	2	9	3	8	7	8	8	5	3	9	2	10	10	9	7

). Additionally, the table includes calculated grades using various evaluation methods (Grade A to Grade E). This comprehensive overview highlights each participant’s performance across different assessment criteria, demonstrating the variability in scores between professor evaluations, expert feedback, and the distinct grading calculations.

5.3. Results of Workshop 2

5.3.1. Initial Evaluation and Scoring

Building upon the structured methodology established in Workshop 1, Workshop 2 involved the evaluation of thirty participants’ projects by two professors. Consistent with the previous workshop, each of the seven design rules was equally weighted in the overall assessment, with each rule contributing one point to the participants’ final scores. Participants earned one point for each rule that was satisfactorily implemented, resulting in a maximum possible score of seven points (see

Table 4. Frequency of application for each rule, the calculated initial coefficients, and the normalized coefficients after applying the scaling factor.

Rule	Frequency (Times Applied)	Initial Coefficient	Normalized Coefficient
Rule 1	9	2.11	1.61
Rule 2	17	1.12	0.85
Rule 3	18	1.06	0.81
Rule 4	19	1.00	0.76
Rule 5	16	1.19	0.91
Rule 6	12	1.58	1.21
Rule 7	17	1.12	0.85

).

5.3.2. Frequency of Rule Application and Coefficient Calculation

To analyze the application of each design rule across all projects in Workshop 2, the frequency of successful implementation was calculated for each rule. This frequency analysis provided valuable insights into the areas where participants excelled and those that required further attention (Figure 7). Leveraging these insights, initial coefficients were assigned inversely proportional to each rule’s frequency of application. This method ensures that less frequently applied rules receive appropriate emphasis in the grading process. Subsequently, these initial coefficients were normalized to ensure that their cumulative sum equaled the target total score of seven points, thereby maintaining fairness and consistency in evaluations.

5.3.3. Summary of Participant Evaluations and Calculated Grades for Workshop 2

The evaluation outcomes for Workshop 2 are detailed in

Table 5. Participant evaluations and calculated grades for Workshop 1.

Participant	Sum Professors	Grade A	Grade B	Sum Expert	Grade C	Grade D	Grade E
1	7	10.0	10.0	9	9.1	9.9	10.0
2	6	9.3	8.9	11	10.0	8.9	10.0
3	7	10.0	10.0	2	5.9	9.5	10.0
4	2	6.4	6.2	0	5.0	6.2	9.1
5	0	5.0	5.0	0	5.0	5.0	7.5
6	3	7.1	6.8	7	8.2	6.6	9.1
7	7	10.0	10.0	10	10.0	9.9	10.0
8	1	5.7	5.6	2	6.0	5.7	8.0
9	4	7.9	7.4	3	6.4	7.0	9.0
10	4	7.9	7.9	5	7.3	8.2	7.1
11	0	5.0	5.0	4	5.0	8.6	7.5
12	6	9.3	8.9	6	8.6	8.6	8.0
13	7	10.0	10.0	0	5.0	9.4	8.1
14	4	7.9	7.3	9	9.1	7.2	7.1
15	3	7.1	6.8	2	6.0	6.3	8.0
16	4	7.9	7.4	1	5.0	6.8	7.0
17	0	5.0	5.0	0	5.0	7.4	7.0
18	4	7.9	9.4	8	9.5	9.2	10.0
19	0	5.0	5.6	3	6.4	5.8	9.0
20	0	5.0	5.0	0	5.0	5.0	7.1
21	1	5.7	10.0	0	5.0	10.0	10.0
22	1	5.7	10.0	0	5.0	10.0	10.0
23	7	10.0	6.8	11	10.0	7.4	6.8
24	0	5.0	6.8	1	7.0	6.8	6.8
25	7	10.0	10.0	4	8.0	9.6	10.0
26	6	9.3	10.0	8	9.6	9.8	10.0
27	0	5.0	5.0	7	8.0	5.0	8.0
28	7	10.0	8.9	5	8.0	7.0	10.0
29	7	10.0	10.0	5	8.0	7.0	9.5
30	3	7.1	10.0	8	10.0	10.0	10.0

, which outlines each participant’s scores from professors, Sum Professors (the complete votes of the two professors are shown in Appendix A—

Table A4. Application of PDL rules among participants in Workshop 2, indicating rule usage (‘+’) and total counts per participant.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
Rule 1	+	-	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	-
Rule 2	+	+	+	+	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	+
Rule 3	+	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	+	-	+	+	+	-	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	-
Rule 4	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	+
Rule 5	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	-
Rule 6	+	+	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	+	-		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	+
Rule 7	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	-	+	+	-
Sum	7	6	7	2	0	3	7	1	4	4	0	6	7	4	3	4	0	4	0	0	1	1	7	0	7	6	0	7	7	3

), and experts, Sum Expert (the complete votes of the expert group are shown in Appendix A—

Table A5. Application of PDL rules among 30 participants in Workshop 2, showing rule usage (‘+’) and total counts per participant, represents the evaluation of an expert group consisting of 9 architects and 2 artists.

		01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
1	Stanislav Grgić	-	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	+	-	+
2	Ivana Miškeljin	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	-	-	-	+
3	Igor Maraš	+	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	+	-
4	Marko Mihajlović	-	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	-	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	-	+	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	-	-	+
5	Marko Todorov	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	+	+	-
6	Miljan Janjušević	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	-	+	+
7	Petar Mirković	+	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	+	+	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	+	-	+
8	Radomir Kojić	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	-	-	+	-	-	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+
9	Saša Medić	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	-	-	+
10	Staša Zeković	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	-	+	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	+	-	+	+	-
11	Dimitrije Nikolić	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	+	-	+
Sum		9	11	2	0	0	7	10	2	3	5	4	6	0	9	2	1	0	8	3	0	0	0	11	1	4	8	0	7	5	8

). Additionally, the table includes calculated grades using various evaluation methods (Grade A to Grade E). This comprehensive summary provides a clear overview of each participant’s performance, illustrating the relationship between professor evaluations, expert feedback, and the distinct grading calculations.

6. Discussion of Results

The evaluation of both Workshop 1 and Workshop 2 highlighted the critical role of coefficients (or weightings) in determining the final grades. Each project was evaluated based on the application of Virgil Abloh’s Personal Design Language (PDL) rules, with coefficients assigned according to the frequency of rule application. This approach ensured that less frequently applied rules, which required more innovative design thinking, carried higher weight, rewarding projects that took creative risks.

The coefficient system was designed to give more importance to rules that were less commonly applied, encouraging students to explore the full range of PDL rules. In Workshop 1, rules such as “Signs of Work in Progress” (Rule 5) and “Speaking to the tourist and purist simultaneously” (Rule 7) were applied less frequently, resulting in high coefficients of 1.83 each, while “Readymade” (Rule 1) ended up in the second place as rarely applied. In contrast, more commonly applied rules, like the “3% Approach” (Rule 3), had a lower coefficient of 0.31. This weighting system ensured that projects that integrated these less common, more challenging rules were appropriately rewarded, even if fewer total rules were applied (

Table 6. Coefficients for Workshops 1 and 2.

	k1	k2	k3	k4	k5	k6	k7
Workshop 1	1.37	0.69	0.31	0.42	1.83	0.55	1.83
Workshop 2	1.61	0.85	0.81	0.76	0.91	1.21	0.85

). Similarly, in Workshop 2, Rule 1 had a high coefficient (1.21) while Rule 4 (“A compromise between 2 district similar or dissimilar notions”), which was applied more frequently, had the smallest coefficient of 0.76.

When comparing the results, it becomes clear that Rule 1 consistently exhibits a high coefficient across both workshops, contrary to the expected prominence of Rule 7 (Figure 8). As discussed in earlier chapters, even Virgil Abloh remarked that the convergence of tourist and purist perspectives happens “only when the stars align” (Warsh 2021, pp. 83–84). This discrepancy reveals an unexpected alignment within the evaluation criteria, calling for further reflection on the interpretation of Rule 7. It is important to note, however, that the calculation of coefficients was based solely on the recognition of the rules met by two professors, without input from public opinion or an expert group (which was considered an intersection between tourists and purists). This limitation suggests the need for further investigation into Rule 7, some of which is addressed in this study, while other aspects remain for future research, to be discussed in the Section 7.

The comparison of coefficients between both workshops demonstrates how the evaluation system varied according to the input data provided to the participants. In Workshop 1, where participants were given the freedom to select their own artistic influence or layer, the coefficients exhibited greater variation compared to Workshop 2, where the artistic influence was predetermined, requiring participants to draw from an iconic film. This observation suggests that in real-world professional environments—such as in Workshop 1, where all participants held bachelor’s degrees in architecture—achieving synergy between architecture and art can be more challenging without explicit direction from a manager, investor, or process moderator. Conversely, in the purely academic setting of Workshop 2—comprising only fourth-year bachelor’s students—the structured input facilitated a clearer and more uniform exploration of the relationship between art and architecture, resulting in more consistent coefficient values.

This finding also highlights a potential approach for developing pedagogical methods in which students are guided to implement all rules effectively within a controlled academic framework, facilitating a more systematic integration of architecture and artistic influence.

A very important aspect of this study was also the analysis of different types of grading. The grading process involved several different methods to evaluate projects in both workshops. The grades were calculated using multiple grading systems, including Grade A (equal weighting of rules), Grade B (weighted rules with normalized coefficients), Grade C (expert group evaluation), Grade D (incorporating expert feedback), and Grade E (teaching assistants assigned grades). The diagrams comparing these grading systems provide important insights into how the different methods affected the final scores. For example, Grade B, which applied the normalized coefficients based on the frequency of rule application, often resulted in lower scores then Grade E (Figure 9).

This outcome can likely be attributed to the subjective judgment of the teaching assistants who evaluated Grade E, according to the overall impression of the final project. This reveals a notable discrepancy between grades determined strictly by measurable parameters and those influenced by the overall aesthetic and conceptual perception of the project. Such a disparity underscores a critical area for further exploration, particularly regarding evaluation methods in real-world contexts such as architectural competitions or public procurement processes, where assessment methodologies can significantly alter final outcomes. This is especially evident in the notable differences between Grade E and B in Workshop 1, which more closely mirrored real-world conditions in comparison to Workshop 2. To further illustrate the discrepancies mentioned above, two additional parameters are presented (Figure 9).

• Δ1 represents the difference between the scores assigned by the teaching assistants (Grade E) and the original scores with coefficients (Grade B).

• Δ1 = Grade E—Grade B

• Δ2 captures the difference between the teaching assistants scores (Grade E) and those adjusted based on combination of coefficients and tourist feedback (Grade D).

• Δ2 = Grade E—Grade D

The diagram in Figure 10 illustrates that, when the opinions of the tourist/purist expert group are factored into the calculation (Grade D), the results align more closely with those based on overall impression (Grade E), resulting in a smaller Δ2 compared to Δ1 in the context that more closely resembles a real-world scenario (Workshop 1). However, this pattern is not observed in the purely academic environment of Workshop 2. This discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that students in Workshop 2 have significantly less experience with public critique of their work, whereas participants in Workshop 1 have had varied professional experiences that inform their design processes and evaluations. The complete Δ1 and Δ2 values for Workshop 1 are shown in Appendix A (

Table A3. Presents these scores across different scenarios, illustrating how the application of the formula provides a comprehensive view of student performance.

Participant	GRADE A	GRADE B	GRADE C	GRADE D	GRADE E	Δ1	Δ2
1	7.1	5.9	8.6	7.8	10	4.1	2.2
2	10	10.0	8.6	9.3	10	0	0.7
3	7.1	5.9	7.3	7.3	10	4.1	2.7
4	6.4	5.7	8.2	8.7	9.1	3.4	0.4
5	5.7	5.2	7.3	9.0	10	4.8	1.0
6	7.1	5.9	5.9	7.1	9.1	3.2	2.0
7	7.1	5.9	9.1	9.1	10	4.1	0.9
8	6.4	5.7	6.4	7.0	9.1	3.4	2.1
9	7.1	6.1	8.4	8.8	9	2.9	0.2
10	5	5.0	8.2	8.2	7.1	2.1	−1.1
11	5.7	5.2	8.6	8.9	7.5	2.3	−1.4
12	6.4	5.5	8.6	7.9	8	2.5	0.1
13	6.4	5.5	7.3	7.5	8	2.5	0.5
14	6.4	5.5	6.4	7.0	7.1	1.6	0.1
15	7.9	6.4	9.1	9.4	8	1.6	−1.4
16	7.1	6.7	5.9	6.6	7	0.3	0.4
17	6.4	5.5	9.5	8.6	7	1.5	−1.6
18	10	10.0	9.5	9.6	10	0	0.4
19	7.1	6.0	9.1	7.8	9	3	1.2
20	10	10.0	8.2	8.6	10	0	1.4
Average of Absolute Values						2.37	1.09

) and for Workshop 2 in Appendix A (

Table A6. Presents these scores across different scenarios, illustrating how the application of the formula provides a comprehensive view of student performance.

Participant	GRADE A	GRADE B	GRADE C	GRADE D	GRADE E	Δ1	Δ2
1	10.0	10.0	9.1	9.9	10.0	0	0.1
2	9.3	8.8	10	8.9	10.0	1.2	1.1
3	10.0	10.0	5.9	9.5	10.0	0	0.5
4	6.4	6.2	5	6.2	9.1	2.9	2.9
5	5.0	5.0	5	5	7.1	2.1	2.1
6	7.1	6.8	8.2	6.6	9.1	2.3	2.5
7	10.0	10.0	9.5	9.9	10.0	0	0.1
8	5.7	5.6	5.9	5.7	7.1	1.5	1.4
9	7.9	7.4	6.4	7	9.1	1.7	2.1
10	7.9	7.9	7.3	8.2	9.1	1.2	0.9
11	5.0	5.0	6.8	5.2	6.0	1	0.8
12	9.3	8.8	7.7	8.6	10.0	1.2	1.4
13	10.0	10.0	5	9.4	8.1	−1.9	−1.3
14	7.9	7.3	9.1	7.2	7.1	−0.2	−0.1
15	7.1	6.8	5.9	6.3	9.4	2.6	3.1
16	7.9	7.4	5.5	6.9	8.0	0.6	1.1
17	5.0	5.0	5	5	5.6	0.6	0.6
18	7.9	7.4	8.6	9.2	9.1	1.7	−0.1
19	5.0	5.0	6.4	5.8	6.1	1.1	0.3
20	5.0	5.0	5	5	5.1	0.1	0.1
21	5.7	5.6	5	9.4	6.0	0.4	−3.4
22	5.7	5.6	5	9.4	6.4	0.8	−3
23	10.0	10.0	10.0	7.4	10.0	0	2.6
24	5.0	5.0	5.5	6.8	6.1	1.1	−0.7
25	10.0	10.0	6.8	9.6	10.0	0	0.4
26	9.3	8.8	8.6	9.8	9.1	0.3	−0.7
27	5.0	5.0	5	5	7.1	2.1	2.1
28	10.0	10.0	8.2	8.6	10.0	0	1.4
29	10.0	10.0	7.3	9.7	10.0	0	0.3
30	7.1	7.0	8.6	9.8	8.0	1	−1.8
Average of Absolute Values						0.99	1.54

).

Another significant finding emerged from the comparison between Grade B (original scores with coefficients) and Grade C (based solely on the voting of an expert group). As shown in Figure 11, in the context of Workshop 1, Grade C surpasses Grade B, supporting the earlier conclusion that participants with more extensive professional experience are better equipped to produce projects that resonate with a broader audience. However, in Workshop 2, Grades B and C are much more closely aligned. This alignment likely stems from the fact that the expert group assembled for this research primarily consisted of individuals with academic backgrounds—most of whom are current or former members of teaching staff—indicating their familiarity with the evaluation of student projects.

7. Conclusions—“Nothing New”3 or “Something New”

The findings of this research offer significant insights into the applied design methodology, with potential applications not only in academic instruction but also—perhaps even more critically—in advancing the study of architectural evaluation frameworks based on predefined criteria and calculated weighting coefficients. This approach may be particularly useful for investigating models of architectural competitions or public procurement processes, where the assessment criteria can be adjusted to suit the architectural program, while also incorporating the perspectives of expert panels, organizations, and the general public into the final evaluation.

It is important to note, however, that within the context of this study, student assessments were primarily based on subjective aesthetic judgments made by individual evaluators. While this reflects common practices in architectural critique, it also introduces variability that may influence the consistency and reproducibility of the evaluation outcomes. Recognizing this limitation underscores the need for developing more transparent and balanced assessment frameworks that account for both qualitative and quantitative criteria.

Furthermore, the incorporation of Virgil Abloh’s “personal design language” (PDL) into architectural discourse introduces new possibilities for both design methodologies and more artistic approaches to the sustainable adaptation of existing architectural resources. This approach has the potential to bring architectural practices into closer alignment with contemporary demands and lifestyles, offering the opportunity to create significant impact through minimal physical interventions. Additionally, the methodology presented could potentially evolve into a model of “superarchitecture,” provided that the input conditions are defined appropriately.

However, several inquiries remain unresolved and merit further exploration. It is important to note here that some of the restraints regarding application of Abloh’s PDL have already been discussed in Chapter 3. Furthermore, it can be argued that modifying an existing masterpiece according to a 3% alteration criterion does not represent a groundbreaking approach concerning design outcomes or methodologies. As noted in the introduction to this study, the research is anchored in Viollet-le-Duc’s principles concerning the reestablishment or restoration of historical edifices, wherein he asserts, “To restore an edifice is not to maintain it, repair it or remake it; it is to re-establish it in a complete state that perhaps never existed at any time” (Viollet-le-Duc 1886, pp. 14–34)4. From this perspective, it follows that inspiring change does not require a substantial physical transformation. Nonetheless, there exists a critical need for further research within architectural terminology to effectively articulate this type of modification, as current terms such as adaptation, redesign, or refitting do not adequately encompass the method’s potential. This need for a more precise vocabulary could significantly enhance the methodology itself, potentially fostering a degree of autonomy, albeit one that remains somewhat elusive.

Another significant aspect that merits attention as a potential avenue for future research is the frequent necessity to declare a winner in various contexts, such as identifying the best project of a workshop or semester or determining the victor in an architectural competition. By comparing different grading systems, particularly those established by faculty members versus those determined by an expert panel, it becomes evident that discrepancies arise in the selection of the project deemed the “best” by the various groups involved in the evaluation process.

As depicted in Figure 12, particularly in the first and third columns, there exists a significant inconsistency between the grades assigned by the expert group and those awarded by teaching assistants and professors. This discrepancy indicates that the evaluation criteria employed by each group may vary considerably, potentially reflecting divergent evaluative priorities and perspectives. Given the substantial variability observed in the current grading outcomes, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the inclusion of feedback from a wider public audience could exacerbate these discrepancies in the final assessments.

This observation emphasizes the necessity for further research into the implications of public participation in the grading process and its potential to enhance the evaluation framework. Such research could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of architectural assessment criteria and facilitate the development of a more nuanced and inclusive grading system that acknowledges diverse viewpoints. Ultimately, this approach could enrich the educational and evaluative practices within the discipline of architecture.

Moreover, this inquiry aligns with the direction advocated by Abloh, this time applied to the architectural context. He posits that the traditional boundaries separating high art and high fashion must be reevaluated, stating, “In the past generation of high art and high fashion, it’s like, ‘Put a wall around it. Put a layer of mystique around it. Keep it on a really tall white pedestal. Put a vitrine box under it.’ It’s what a gallery is—a white cube. But what all these kids have figured out is that what’s happening outside the cube and on the street, whether it’s graffiti or real life, is just as valuable as what’s in there, and it’s about zigzagging back and forth between the two” (Warsh 2021, p. 35). This perspective advocates for a more integrated approach to evaluation, recognizing the value of diverse influences and contexts in shaping architectural discourse.