Sensory Design Biblio 1

Sensory Design Biblio 1


Notes to Chapter 3

66. Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space, trans. Maria Jolas

(Boston: Beacon Pres,

1969), 6.

3. Sensory Response

that the viewer will,when con-

1. Put differently, there seems to exist an assumption

fronting architectural paradigms, see what ideologically ought to be seen

Hugh Lawson- Tancred (New York:

2. Aristotle, De Anima (On the Soul), trans.

Viking Penguin, 1986), 218, “While the other senses, smell, sight,

and hearing. perceive

but things and anything acquirc that others. makes In contact which will, case it ifit will have be no perception, for the be

through other things;

unable to avoid some


Scott, The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste

animal be preserved.”


3. Geoffrey

(1914; Gloucester, Mass.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 95.

4. Ibid. 173.

5. James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston:


Miflin, 1966), 53.

6 This sounds, though one hesitates to say SO, very much like a kind of “physical

gestalt” that is, Gestalt principles applied to the mechanical aspects of the


7. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, 33.

8. Eugene V. Walter, Placeways (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,

I988), 135.

9. Paul Zucker, Town and Square (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970), 6.

10. Arthur I. Rubin and Jacqueline Elder, Building for People: Behavioral Research

Approaches and Directions, special publication 474 (Washington, D.C. National

‘Ston, D.C .: National Bureau

of Standards, 1980), 143.

11. Kurt Kofika, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935),

Io. In this case, the term “good” is taken to mean regular, concise, symmetrical, unified,

harmonious, and simple.

12. David Canter, Psychology for Architects (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974).

34. As will become clear later in the chapter, other psychologists (Segall et al.) adhere

to precisely the opposite position: that the (cultural) environment actively structures


13. David Katz, Gestalt Psychology: Its Nature and Signifcance (New York: Ronald

Press, 1950), SI.

14. Wolfgang Köhler, Gestalt Psychology (New York: Liveright, 1947), 103. He goes on

tO argue that this viewpoint would explain why, given a constant local stimulus, local

experience varies when the ambient stimulation is altered. This position contrasts with

that of both the empiricists and S-R theorists, who maintain that sensation is fundamen-

tally a mosaic of information.

15. Ibid., 214. Köhler believes, furthermore, that all these phenomena have a direct

relationship to visual facts. Perhaps so; but it might as wellindicate the degree to which

Gestalt depends on sight factors to infer broader principles.

16. David Levi, “The Gestalt Psychology of Expression in Architecture, .eire in Design-

ing for Hauman Behavion ed. Jon Lang, Charles Burnette, walter Moleski, and David

the could Vachon 17. Deutscher In this (Stroudsburg, the standard Werkbund Bauhaus Pa.: for that mass is, Dowden (under the production notion Gropius) Hutchinson of The was design and visible in continuing Ross, the result service 1974), an that older 112. thrust of normative types position can be taken seen that by

serve as

Notes to Chapter 3

Model Factory Pavilion designed in 1914 by Walter Gropius Adolf


in the Werkbund

The Interior Dimension: A Theoretical Approach Enclosed and Space,

Meyer. See chapter 9 of

Monice Malnar and Frank Vodvarka,

C Bloomer and Charles W Moore, Body Memory. Arcbitecture (New



for a fuller explication of this development.

Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 32 The authors speculate that the tendency

18. Kent

architectural position based on

based visual phenomena (especially that of gcometric


accept an

simplicity) might simply reflect the

Powerful influence of Platonic thought in Europe.

to quickly

That tendency was reinforced,

moreover, by the strong presence of two-c dimensional

artists on the Bauhaus faculty

Julian Hochberg in the early years.

Visual Perception In. Architecture, Via: Architecture and Visual


Perception 6 (1983): 37.

20. Gestalt has maintained

that direct sensation IS insufficient

Gestalt theory nervous of system perception, iS or really the moreover, actual, whether also and that relies often on inference complex, visual is to innate appearance organization explain and of either whole, through the or

workings of the



spatial inference; the question

learned and constructed.

21. Hochberg. Visual Perception in Architecture, 43.

22. A major weakness this theory, acknowledged by J.J. Gibson, iS that there must

be ble for 23. certain the James little- J. imagerys -known Gibson, integration. neural The Perception processes” These of at processes the the last Visual are stage not, World of however, (Boston: perception defined that Houghton are responsi- Miffin,

1950), 3.

24. Ibid., 76. It is, of course, the visual world the very area Gibson has the most

dificuly with- that Gestalt theory claims to represent.

25, Ibid, 2u1. This last item – the virtual ignoring of local social norms- is precisely

what endears this theory to the developers of our own age. Perhaps of equal value is the

theory’s preoccupation with purely visual phenomena.

26. Hochberg, Visual Perception in Architecture,” 40

27. This is perhaps recognized by Gibson himself when he notes that the visual world

‘is flld with things that have meaning.” Meaning, at least as usually understood, is the

direct product of acculturated learning. This results in an understanding of perception as

interpreted sensation, whatever the mechanism.

28. Gibson, The Perception of the Visual World, 23.

29. Köhler, Gestalt Psychology, 82.

30. Ibid., 93. Such a distinction – that stimuli can be thus separated into a distinct

ategory- should make it clear why Köhler considers empiricism (in a limited sense) a

Child’s Conception Space, trans. FJ.

derivation ofS-R theory.

Langdon 32. 31.. Jean and J. 4. L. and Lunzer (1948; if London: The Routledge and held true, Kegan a Paul, baby of as its 1956), should, sIze

Barbel Inhelder,



at any age,

rccognize the of notes that independent Gestalt of principles perspective, as

apart from


Ibid., Piaget

in the field.

shape an object

33. Ibid., 13. Piaget notes that despite the differences in these twO constructions

ITS distance. This is not, however, supported by research

motor activity. Thus there is both continu-


space the common factor linking them is

lty of perceptual and representational space, as and well as Inhelder conceive chat process to be


connected with the Physical maturation of the subject. Moreover, they understand

attributes of particular points in that

34. It can be seen, however, that Piaget


phenomena as clear and distinctive

the Gestalt






Notes to Chapter 3

The Mechanisms of Perception, trans.G.N.Seagrim (196t;

35. Jean Piaget, he

New York

Basic Books, 1969), xxv.


eafers to his theory as a third

36. lbid., xxvi. It should be noted here that Piaget refers to his

sibility (rather than a fourth), in an a priori dismissal of S-R theory.

ird pos-

37. After all, even Gestalt concedes this phenomenon.

and Perception Robert in. J. Architecture,” Stimson, 35. Spatial Bebavior: A Geographie

38. Hochberg, “Visual

39. Reginald G. Golledge

phte Per.

spective (New York: Guilford Press, 1997), 191.

40. Ibid,

41. Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/”


1977), 42. Hall goes on to note that such controls usually so well hidden that they





experienced as innate.

42. Marshall H. Segall, Donald T. Campbell, and Melville J. Herskovits, The Influ-

ence of Culture on Visual Perception: An Advanced Study in Psychology and Anthropology

(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), 73. ‘The authors go on to note that this view seems

to be shared by most contemporary perceptual theorists, even J. J. Gibson. It assumes that

the past experence of the organısm plays an important part in the construction of certain

assumptions about the world in which it lives- assumptions that remain, however, largely


43. Ibid. 49. Simply stated, the question here is whether our cultural experience pre-

disposes us to look for, and respond to, certain features of our environment more readily

than others.

44. perception Ibid., in 5O. which Bagwell Perceptual interpreted differences his findings result as from supporting differences a in past transactional culcural theory differ- of

ence. See also William H. Ittelson, Visual Space Perception (New York: Springer, 1960).

45. Segall, Campbel, and Herskovits do point out that the data are not as clear as

they might have wished in all instances, but that the evidence nonetheless points in che

direction they hypothesized it would. And, of course, they call for more study in tche area.

46. David Howes, “To Summon All the Senses,” in Varieties of Sensory Experience: A

Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses, ed. David Howes (Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 1991), 3.

. r.

cuee Fenerience: A

47. David Howes, “Sensorial Anthropology,” in Varieties of Sensory Experienee:

Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses, ed. David Howes (Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 1991), 173. One of the references cited by Howes is an article by Rosaleen

A. McCarthy and E. K. Warrington, “Evidence for Modality-Specific Meaning Systems

S the Brain” (1988). In their tests on a subject with progressive deterioration in his use of

language and comprehension ot the spoken word, the researchers found that his degra

dation deficit was confined to one modality and to one category within that modality,

thereby refuting the notion of an “all-purpose meaning store and providing positive


dence for multiple meaning representations

49. Anthony J Marsella and Walter Y. Quijano, A Comparıson of Vividness of Men-

48. Ibid.

tal Imagery across Different Sensory Modalities in Filipinos and Caucasian-Americans,

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 5, no. 4 (December 1974): 451. The three hypotheses

tested with the two groups were first, that Filipinos would manifest greater vividnes of

imagery; second, the order of preferences and capabilities in vividness of imagery across

sensory modalities would differ; and third, the interrelationships in vividness of imagery

among the different sensory modalities would differ.

50. Ibid., 460. The third hypothesis failed to find any support


Leave a comment