Comment

Comment by 陳老頭 17 minutes ago

文本轉譯知覺：策劃空間的多向度異變

策劃視野的引導、路徑的假設、空間的分隔等皆基於形式組織的理性規劃與感性體悟，而游牧理論下對展覽空間的邊界設定在當代極高效信息傳播的語境下不斷受到碰撞，物質與觀念雙重維度上的界限被打破。

（一）邊界重置：桎梏流變的感官空間

1.視覺延展

策劃空間的呈現一貫致力於側重視覺作用於體驗的表達，而負責紐約現代藝術博物館殘疾人長期項目的卡裡·麥吉質疑了視覺中心主義，博物館自20世紀70年代開始邀請盲人參觀展覽，後拓展至可直接觸摸畫作，展覽對視障的關懷並不同於傳統美術館以展覽預錄制聲音描述的形式呈現展覽，而是以藝術家向導描述現場聲音為對應人群提供強連接、逼近現實的體驗。展覽中藝術作品的概念框架在更探索性、試驗性的多感官體驗間來回游走，偏袒視覺的感官等級制度崩塌，展覽不僅傳達了一種策展需要破開視覺空間屏障的觀念與邏輯導向，同時探索了無障礙行動的闡釋和轉譯方式，拓展了策展實踐思考無障礙的方式。

2.聽覺解碼

聲音是聯結人與世界的基本交流媒介之一，當代聲景設計以人的聲音機能為核心，創造性地將聲環境、聲信息和聲技術融合成新的媒介。當代策展性手法通過新興媒介對體驗的引導探索聲音可超越的維度，2021年於於木木美術館由難波祐子主策劃的「阪本龍一：觀音·聽時」展覽以敏銳的情緒洞察力打磨聽覺的呈現，其中的《你的時間》將空曠場所兩側並排放置音響與LED面板，鋼琴跟隨地震數據彈奏其因為海浪沖擊而異變的音律，人類定義的鋼琴原音所謂符號定義因自然活動被消除，聲音意味的游離與搖擺在被刻意打造的沉浸場域中被感知。

3.嗅覺祛魅

長期以來，受到嗅覺本身複雜性質的局限，以視聽為主要內容的藝術史中很少出現嗅覺的身影，嗅覺的表達潛能處於被忽視的狀態。當代嗅覺策展正以大量的實踐作品中累積而逐步形成自身的話語場域，但嗅覺藝術的豐碩成果並非是一蹴而就的，它經歷了長久的冷落和漸進的嘗試。2012年策展人Chandler Burr受紐約藝術與設計博物館所委托策劃的「The art of scent香氛藝術」消除了視覺材料的所有參考而僅留下承載氣味的香龕、被懸掛的容器，並給予體驗者比較與討論的嗅覺體驗的游牧場所，以一向被忽視的、私人的嗅覺體驗借由公開交流的主動權調動想象，擺脫被規訓的參展體驗形式而以反向的知覺路徑對當代策展的可能性進行突破。

中心隱匿：多維重塑的觀念敘事——能動的策展性突破展覽的邊界、挑戰規范式空間、超越媒介與感官體驗，使得展覽能夠作為發聲、社交、賦權場拋出問題、催生意義。

（盧錦程·德勒茲「游牧空間」理論下當代策展性手法與觀展空間的關係；[原載：中國民族博覽2023年6期]）

Comment by 陳老頭 on April 11, 2024 at 7:30am

說回来，還是綠皮火車親

在成都的一個寧靜的咖啡館裡，陽光透過窗戶灑在木質地板上，營造出一種溫馨而舒適的氛圍。趙明，一個對火車充滿熱情的銀行職員，正和朋友熱烈討論著最近的一個話題——綠皮火車的回歸。

「你知道嗎？最近很多地方都在討論綠皮火車的回歸。」趙明的眼睛裡閃爍著興奮的光芒，仿佛這個話題對他來說有著無盡的魅力。


「綠皮火車？那不是很久以前的交通工具了嗎？」朋友有些不解地問道。

「沒錯，綠皮火車的確有著悠久的歷史，但它所代表的不僅僅是一種交通工具，更是一種情懷和記憶。」趙明解釋道，「而現在，隨著社會的發展和人們環保意識的提高，綠皮火車的回歸也許正是一種新的趨勢。」

幾天後，趙明親自體驗了一次綠皮火車之旅。他早早地來到了成都火車站，等待著那趟熟悉而又陌生的綠皮火車的到來。當火車緩緩駛入站台時，趙明不禁感嘆歲月的流逝和時代的變遷。

車廂裡，趙明觀察和記錄下了旅客們的反應和火車的運行情況。他發現，雖然綠皮火車的速度不如高鐵快捷，但它卻有著獨特的魅力。旅客們在車廂裡聊天、打牌、看書，享受著旅途中的悠閒和愜意。而火車在鐵軌上緩緩行駛，仿佛在訴說著一段段歷史的故事。

通過這次實地考察，趙明對綠皮火車回歸現象有了更深入的理解。他認為，綠皮火車的回歸不僅僅是一種懷舊情懷的體現，更是對當前社會可持續發展和環境保護的積極響應。相比高鐵等現代交通工具，綠皮火車在能源消耗和成本方面有著明顯的優勢，這符合當前社會對環保和經濟的雙重需求。

此外，綠皮火車還能夠到達一些高鐵無法覆蓋的偏遠地區，為當地居民提供更加經濟實惠的交通選擇。這不僅促進了區域經濟的平衡發展，也讓更多的人能夠享受到便捷的交通服務。

對於普通消費者來說，選擇綠皮火車作為出行方式，不僅可以欣賞沿途的風景、體驗慢生活的樂趣，還能為環境保護做出貢獻。這種交通方式讓人們重新審視自己的生活方式和價值觀，提醒我們在追求快速便捷的同時，不要忽視了對環境的保護和對可持續發展的追求。

在未來，隨著環保意識的不斷提高和技術的不斷進步，我們或許會看到更多類似綠皮火車這樣的環保和經濟兼顧的交通方式出現。它們將為我們的生活帶來新的可能性和選擇，讓我們在享受現代科技帶來的便利的同時，也能更好地保護我們的地球家園。

在綠皮火車的轟鳴聲中，趙明結束了他的旅程。他站在站台上，目送著火車漸行漸遠，心中充滿了對未來的期待和希望。他知道，這個世界正在發生變化，而他和他的朋友們將繼續關注這些變化，並為推動社會的可持續發展貢獻自己的力量。（本文作者：常高俊；原題：高鐵將不再是首選？綠皮火車回歸大眾視野，聽聽內行人怎麼說；2024-04-05 搜狐）

延續閱讀：

丹南怀旧火车之旅

北婆罗洲蒸汽火车

Comment by 陳老頭 on April 5, 2024 at 5:52pm

Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind

Abstract

Traditionally, architectural practice has been dominated by the eye/sight. In recent decades, though, architects and designers have increasingly started to consider the other senses, namely sound, touch (including proprioception,  kinesthesis, and the vestibular sense), smell, and on rare occasions, even taste in their work.

As yet, there has been little  recognition of the growing understanding of the multisensory nature of the human mind that has emerged from the field of cognitive neuroscience research. This review therefore provides a summary of the role of the human senses in architectural design practice, both when considered individually and, more importantly, when studied collectively.

For it is only by recognizing the fundamentally multisensory nature of perception that one can really hope to explain a number of surprising crossmodal environmental or atmospheric interactions, such as between lighting colour and thermal  comfort and between sound and the perceived safety of public space.

At the same time, however, the contemporary focus on synaesthetic design needs to be reframed in terms of the crossmodal correspondences and multisensory  integration, at least if the most is to be made of multisensory interactions and synergies that have been uncovered in  recent years. （Con't Below）


(Source: Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind by Charles Spence; in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2020) 5:46 Keywords: Multisensory perception, Architecture, The senses, Crossmodal correspondences)

Comment by 陳老頭 on March 31, 2024 at 5:41pm

Looking to the future, the hope is that architectural design practice will increasingly incorporate our growing  understanding of the human senses, and how they influence one another. Such a multisensory approach will hopefully lead to the development of buildings and urban spaces that do a better job of promoting our social, cognitive, and  emotional development, rather than hindering it, as has too often been the case previously.

Significance statement

Architecture exerts a profound influence over our well being, given that the majority of the world’s population liv ing in urban areas spend something like 95% of their time indoors. However, the majority of architecture is designed for the eye of the beholder, and tends to neglect the non visual senses of hearing, smell, touch, and even taste.

This neglect may be partially to blame for a number of problems faced by many in society today including everything from sick-building syndrome (SBS) to seasonal affective disorder (SAD), not to mention the growing problem of noise pollution.

However, in order to design buildings and environ ments that promote our health and well-being, it is necessary not only to consider the impact of the various senses on a building’s inhabitants, but also to be aware of the way in which sensory atmospheric/environmental cues interact. Multisensory perception research provides relevant insights concerning the rules governing sensory integration in the perception of objects and events.

This review extends that approach to the understanding of how multisensory environments and atmospheres affect us, in part depending on how we cognitively interpret, and/or attribute, their sources. It is argued that the confusing notion of synaes thetic design should be replaced by an approach to multi sensory congruency that is based on the emerging literature on crossmodal correspondences instead.

Ultimately, the hope is that such a multisensory approach, in transitioning from the laboratory to the real world application domain of architectural design practice, will lead on to the development of buildings and urban spaces that do a better job of promoting our social, cognitive, and emotional development, rather than hindering it, as has too often been the case previously.


(Source: Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind by  Charles Spence;  in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2020) 5:46 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00243-4 Keywords: Multisensory perception, Architecture, The senses, Crossmodal correspondences；Correspondence: charles.spence@psy.ox.ac.uk Department of Experimental Psychology, Crossmodal Research Laboratory, University of Oxford, Anna Watts Building, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK )

Comment by 陳老頭 on March 30, 2024 at 5:26pm

Introduction

We are visually dominant creatures (Hutmacher, 2019; Levin, 1993; Posner,Nissen, & Klein,1976).
That is, we all mostly tend to think, reason, and imagine visually.

As Finnish architect Pallasmaa (1996) noted almost a quarter of a century ago in his influential work The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the Senses, architects have traditionally been no different in this regard, designing primarily for the eye of the beholder (Bille & Sørensen, 2018; Pallasmaa, 1996, 2011; Rybczynski, 2001; Williams, 1980).

Elsewhere, Pallasmaa (1994, p. 29) writes that: “Thearchitectureofour time is turning into the retinal art of the eye. Architecture at large has become an art of the printed image fixed by the hurried eye of the camera.”

The famous Swiss architect Le Corbusier (1991, p. 83) went even further in terms of his unapologetically oculocentric outlook, writing that: “Iexist in life only if I can see”, going on to state that: “IamandI remain an impenitent visual—everything is in the visual” and “one needs to see clearly in order to understand”.

Commenting on the current situation, Canadian designer Bruce Mau put it thus: “We have allowed two of our sensory domains—sight and sound—to dominate our design imagination. In fact, when it comes to the culture of architecture and design, we create and produce almost exclusively for one sense—the visual.” (Mau, 2018, p. 20; see also Blesser & Salter, 2007).

Such visual dominance makes sense or, at the very least, can be explained or accounted for neuroscientifi cally (Hutmacher, 2019; Meijer, Veselič, Calafiore, & Noppeney, 2019). After all, it turns out that far more of our brains are given over to the processing of what we see than to dealing with the information from any of our other senses (Gallace, Ngo, Sulaitis, & Spence, 2012).

For instance, according to Felleman and Van Essen (1991), more than half of the cortex is engaged in the processing of visual information (see also Eberhard, 2007, p. 49; Palmer, 1999, p. 24; though note that others believe that the figure is closer to one third). This figure compares to something like just 12% of the cortex primarily dedicated to touch, around 3% to hearing, and less than 1% given over to the processing of the chemical senses of smell and taste Information 1.


1 It is, though, worth highlighting the fact that the denigration of the sense of smell in humans, something that is, for example, also found in older volumes on advertising (Lucas & Britt, 1950), turns out to be based on somewhat questionable foundations.


For, as noted by McGann (2017) in the pages of Science, the downplaying of olfaction can actually be traced back to early French neuroanatomist Paul Broca wanting to make more space in the frontal parts of the brain (i.e., the frontal lobes) for free will in the 1880s. In order to do so, he apparently needed to reduce the size of the olfactory cortex accordingly. theoris ts such as Zimmerman (1989) arrived at a similar hierarchy, albeit with a somewhat different weighting for each of the five main senses.

In particular, Zimmermann estimated a channel capacity (in bits/s) of 107 for vision, 106 for touch, 105 for hearing and olfaction, and 103 for taste (gustation).

Comment by 陳老頭 on March 29, 2024 at 3:20pm

Figure 1 schematically illustrates the hierarchy of attentional capture by each of the senses as envisioned by Morton Heilig, the inventor of the Sensorama, the world’s first multisensory virtual reality apparatus (Hei lig, 1962), when writing about the multisensory future of cinema in an article first published in 1955 (see Heilig, 1992).

Nevertheless, while commentators from many different disciplines would seem to agree on vision’s current pre-eminence, one cannot help but wonder what has been lost as a result of the visual dominance that one sees wherever one looks in the world of architecture (“see” and “look” being especially apposite terms here). While the hegemony of the visual (see Levin, 1993) is a phenomenon that appears across most aspects of our daily lives, the very ubiquity of this phenomenon cer tainly does not mean that the dominance of the visual should not be questioned (e.g., Dunn, 2017; Hutmacher, 2019).

For, as Finnish architect and theoretician Pallas maa (2011, p. 595) notes: “Spaces, places, and buildings are undoubtedly encountered as multisensory lived experiences. Instead of registering architecture merely as visual images, we scan our settings by the ears, skin, nose, and tongue.”

Elsewhere, he writes that: “Architecture is the art of reconciliation between ourselves and the world, and this mediation takes place through the senses” (Pallasmaa, 1996, p. 50; see also Böhme, 2013). We will return later to question the visual dominance

account, highlighting how our experience of space, as of anything else, is much more multisensory than most people realize. Review outline While architectural practice has traditionally been domi nated by the eye/sight, a growing number of architects and designers have, in recent decades, started to con sider the role played by the other senses, namely sound, touch (including proprioception, kinesthesis, and the vestibular sense), smell, and, on rare occasions, even taste.

It is, then, clearly important that we move beyond the merely visual (not to mention modular) focus in architecture that has been identified in the writings of Juhani Pallasmaa and others, to consider the contribu tion that is made by each of the other senses (e.g., Eber hard, 2007; Malnar & Vodvarka, 2004). Reviewing this literature constitutes the subject matter of the next sec tion.

However, beyond that, it is also crucial to consider the ways in which the senses interact too. As will be stressed later, to date there has been relatively little recognition of the growing understanding of the multisen sory nature of the human mind that has emerged from the field of cognitive neuroscience research in recent de cades (e.g., Calvert, Spence, & Stein, 2004; Stein, 2012).

The principal aim of this review is therefore to provide a summary of the role of the human senses in architec tural design practice, both when considered individually and, more importantly, when the senses are studied col lectively.

For it is only by recognizing the fundamentally multisensory nature of perception that one can really hope to explain a number of surprising crossmodal environ mental or atmospheric interactions, such as between light ing colour and thermal comfort (Spence, 2020a) or between sound and the perceived safety of public spaces (Sayin, Krishna, Ardelet, Decré, & Goudey, 2015), that have been reported in recent years.

Comment by 陳老頭 on March 28, 2024 at 4:48am

At the same time, however, this review also highlights how the contemporary focus on synaesthetic design in architecture (see Pérez-Gómez, 2016) needs to be reframed in terms of the crossmodal correspondences (see Spence, 2011, for a review), at least if the most is to be made of multisensory interactions and synergies that affect us all. Later, I want to highlight how accounts of multisensory interactions in architecture in terms of synaesthesia tend to confuse matters, rather than to clarify them.

Accounting for our growing understanding of crossmodal interactions (specifically the emerging field of crossmodal correspondences research) and multisen sory integration will help to explain how it is that our senses conjointly contribute to delivering our multisen sory (and not just visual) experience of space. One other important issue that will be discussed later is the role played by our awareness of the multisensory atmosphere of the indoor environments in which we spend so much of our time.

Looking to the future, the hope is that architectural design practice will increasingly incorporate our growing understanding of the human senses, and how they influence one another. Such a multisensory approach will hopefully lead to the development of buildings and urban spaces that do a better job of promoting our so cial, cognitive, and emotional development, rather than hindering it, as has too often been the case previously.

Before going any further, though, it is worth highlighting a number of the negative outcomes for our well-being that have been linked to the sensory aspects of the environments in which we spend so much of our time.

Negative health consequences of neglecting multisensory stimulation

It has been suggested that the rise in sick building syndrome (SBS) in recent decades (Love, 2018) can be put down to neglect of the olfactory aspect of the interior environments where city dwellers have been estimated to spend 95% of their lives (e.g., Ott & Roberts, 1998; Velux YouGov Report, 2018; Wargocki, 2001).

Indeed, as of 2010, more people around the globe lived in cities than lived in rural areas (see UN-Habitat, 2010 and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Af fairs, 2018).

One might also be tempted to ask what responsibility, if any, architects bear for the high incidence of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) that has been documented in northern latitudes (Cox, 2017; Heerwagen, 1990; Rosenthal, 2019; Rosenthal et al., 1984).

To give a sense of the problem of “light hunger” (as Heerwagen, 1990, refers to it), Terman (1989) claimed that as many as 2 million people in Manhattan alone experience seasonal affective and behavioural changes severe enough to require some form of additional light stimulation during the winter months.

According to Pallasmaa (1994, p. 34), Luis Barragán, the self-taught Mexican architect famed for his geometric use of bright colour (Gregory, 2016) felt that most contemporary houses would be more pleasant with only half their window surface.

编註：联觉（英语：Synesthesia），又译为共感觉、通感或联感，是一种感觉现象，指其中一种感觉或认知途径的刺激，导致第二种感觉或认知途径的非自愿经历。 联觉感知的意识因人而异。 在一种普遍的联觉形式中，被称为“字位→颜色联觉”或“颜色-字素联觉”，当中字母及数字被认为具固有颜色。

Comment by 陳老頭 on March 21, 2024 at 6:50am

However, while such a suggestion might well be appropriate in Mexico, where Barragán’s work is to be found, many of us (especially those living in northern latitudes in the dark winter months) need as much natural light as we can obtain to maintain our psychological well-being. That said, Barragán is not alone in his appreciation of darkness and shadow. Some years ago, Japanese writer Junichirō Tanizaki also praised the aesthetic appeal of shadow and dark ness inthenativearchitectureof hishomecountry in his extended essay on aesthetics, In praise of shadows (Tanizaki, 2001).

One of the problems with the extensive use of win dows in northern climates is related to poor heat reten tion, an issue that is becoming all the more prominent in the era of sustainable design and global warming. One solution to this particular problem that has been put for ward by a number of technology-minded researchers is simply to replace windows by the use of large screens that relay a view of nature for those who, for whatever reason, have to work in windowless offices (Kahn Jr. et al., 2008).

However, the limited research that has been conducted on this topic to date suggests that the benefi cial effects of being seated near to the window in an of fice building cannot easily be captured by seating workers next to such video-screens instead. Similarly, the failure to fully consider the auditory as pects of architectural design may help to explain some part of the global health crisis associated with noise pol lution interfering with our sleep, health, and well-being (Owen, 2019).

The neglect of architecture’s fundamental role in helping to maintain our well-being is a central theme in Pérez-Gómez’s (2016) influential book Attunement: Architectural meaning after the crisis of modern science. Pérez-Gómez is the director of the History and Theory of Architecture Program at McGill University in Canada. Along similar lines, geographer J. Douglas Por teous had already noted some years earlier that: “Not withstanding the holistic nature of environmental experience, few researchers have attempted to interpret it in a very holistic [or multisensory] manner.” (Porteous, 1990, p. 201).

Finally, here, it is perhaps also worth noting that there are even some researchers who have wanted to make a connection between the global obesity crisis and the obesogenic environments that so many of us inhabit (Lieberman, 2006). The poor diet of multisensory stimulation that we experience living a primary in door life has also been linked to the growing sleep crisis apparently facing so many people in society today (Walker, 2018).

Designing for the modular mind Researchers working in the field of environmental psychology have long stressed the impact that the sensory features of the built environment have on us (e.g., Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, for an influential early volume detailing this approach).

Comment by 陳老頭 on March 18, 2024 at 9:29pm

Indeed, many years ago, the famous modernist Swiss architect Le Corbusier (1948) made the intriguing suggestion that architectural forms “work physiologically upon our senses.” Inspired by early work with the semantic differential technique, researchers would often attempt to assess the approach avoidance, active-passive, and dominant-submissive qualities of a building or urban space. This approach was based on the pleasure, arousal, and dominance (PAD) model that has long been dominant in the field. However, it is important to stress that in much of their research, the environmental psychologists took a separ ate sense-by-sense approach (e.g., Zardini, 2005).

The majority of researchers have tended to focus their empirical investigations on studying the impact of changing the stimulation presented to just one sense at a time. More often than not, in fact, they would focus on a single sensory attribute, such as, for example, investi gating the consequences of changing the colour (hue) of the lighting or walls (e.g., Bellizzi, et al., 1983; Bellizzi & Hite, 1992; Costa, Frumento, Nese, & Predieri, 2018; Crowley, 1993), or else just modulating the brightness of the ambient lighting (e.g., Gal, Wheeler, & Shiv, 2007; Xu & LaBroo, 2014).

Such a unisensory (and, in some cases, unidimensional) approach undoubtedly makes sense inasmuch as it may help to simplify the problem of studying how design affects us (Malnar & Vodvarka, 2004). What is more, such an approach is also entirely in tune with the modular approach to mind that was so popular in the fields of psychology and cognitive neuro science in the closing decades of the twentieth century (e.g., Barlow & Mollon, 1982; Fodor, 1983). At the same time, however, it can be argued that this sense-by-sense approach neglects the fundamentally multisensory na ture of mind, and the many interactions that have been shown to take place between the senses.

The visually dominant approach to research in the field of environmental psychology also means that far less attention has been given over to studying the impact of the auditory (e.g., Blesser & Salter, 2007; Kang et al., 2016; Schafer, 1977; Southworth, 1969; Thompson, 1999), tactile, somatosensory or embodied (e.g., Heschong, 1979; Pallasmaa, 1996; Pérez-Gómez, 2016), or even the olfactory qualities of the built environment (e.g., Bucknell, 2018; Drobnick, 2002, 2005; Henshaw, McLean, Medway, Perkins, & Warnaby, 2018) than on the impact of the visual. Furthermore, until very re cently, little consideration has been given by the envir onmental psychologists to the question of how the senses interact, one with another, in terms of their influ ence on an individual.

This neglect is particularly striking given that the natural environment, the built environment, and the atmosphere of a space are nothing if not multisensory (e.g., Bille & Sørensen, 2018). In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that our response to the environments, in which we find ourselves, be they built or natural, is always going to be the result of the combined influence of all the senses that are being stimulated, no matter whether we are aware of their influence or not (this is a point to which we will return later).

Comment by 陳老頭 on March 13, 2024 at 10:06pm

Given that those of us living in urban environments, which as we have seen is now the majority of us, spend more than 95% of our lives indoors (Ott & Roberts, 1998), architects would therefore seem to bear at least some responsibility for ensuring that the multisensory attributes of the built environment work together to de liver an experience that positively stimulates the senses, and, by so doing, facilitates our well-being, rather than hinders it (see also Pérez-Gómez, 2016, on this theme).

Crucially, however, a growing body of cognitive neuro science research now demonstrates that while we are often unaware of, or at least pay little conscious attention to the subtle sensory cues that may be conveyed by a space (e.g., Forster & Spence, 2018), that certainly does not mean that they do not affect us.

In fact, the sensory qualities or attributes of the environment have long been known to affect our health and well-being in environments as diverse as the hospital and the home, and from the office to the gym (e.g., Spence, 2002, 2003, 2021; Spence & Keller, 2019). What is more, according to the research that has been published to date, environmental multisensory stimulation can potentially affect us at the social, emotional, and cognitive levels.

It can be argued, therefore, that we all need to pay rather more attention to our senses and the way in which they are being stimulated than we do at present (see also Pérez-Gómez, 2016, on this theme). You can call it a mindful approach to the senses (Kabat-Zinn, 2005),2 though my preferred terminology, coined in an industry report published almost 20years ago, is “sensism” (see Spence, 2002).

Sensism provides a key to greater well being by considering the senses holistically, as well as how they interact, and incorporating that understanding into our everyday lives. The approach also builds on the growing evidence of the nature effect (Williams, 2017) and the fact that we appear to benefit from, not to men tion actually desire, the kinds of environments in which our species evolved.

As support for the latter claim, consider only how it has recently emerged that most people set their central heating to a fairly uniform 17–23°C, meaning that the average indoor temperature and humidity most closely matches the mild outdoor conditions of west central Kenya or the Ethiopian highlands (i.e., the place where human life is first thought to have evolved), better than anywhere else (Just, Nichols, & Dunn, 2019; Whipple, 2019).

Architectural design for each of the senses It is certainly not the case that architects have uniformly ignored the non-visual senses (e.g., see Howes, 2005, 2014; McLuhan, 1961; Pallasmaa, 1994, 2011; Ragaven dira, 2017).

For instance, in their 2004 book on Sensory design, Malnar and Vodvarka talk about challenging
visual dominance in architectural design practice by giving a more equal weighting to all of the senses (Malnar & Vodvarka, 2004; see also Mau, 2019). 

2 Or, as Tuan (1977, p. 18) once put it: “an object or place achieves concrete reality when our experience of it is total, that is, through all the senses as well as with the active and reflective mind” a more equal weighting to all of the senses (Malnar & Vodvarka, 2004; see also Mau, 2019).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page