“Shifts in Perception through Tactile Sensations”

Brandon Stone 

The bias that vision holds over the profession of architecture suppresses all of the other senses. In Greek antiquity, optical refinements were implemented to create the illusion that a structure was visually “perfect”. The hegemonic eye, with its ability to absorb information faster than any other sense, has allowed designers to create buildings that “look” good, but might not necessarily “feel” good. Pallasmaa once stated that “touch is a parent of our eyes, ears, nose and mouth.” Tactile sensations can affect a person’s social behavior, self-perception, enjoyment and comfort within a building. Tactility does not only refer to one’s sense of touch through material contact, but also touch through atmospheric conditions. Three dimensional space can be deceiving through our lens of vision. However, the tactile and haptic sensations that we experience do not misguide us. It is important to explore how tactility can be leveraged to enhance our perception of space, while diminishing the ocular-centric bias that we hold today.

Providing a context is important when determining how tactility plays an integral role to a user’s experience within a space. A thermae bath or natatorium leverages materiality to alter atmospheric and tactile conditions as a means of affecting one’s comfort. This provokes us to ask questions such as; “how does the foot interact with the ground?” and “how does the body react to changes in temperature?” Can edge and surface conditions become altered at multiple scales to potentially change one’s perception of space? Atmospheric conditions within a thermae vary greatly. Some spaces may be hot, while some are cold. Some may be humid while others dry. The advantage of a space like this is that the method by which one “touches” space is in solid, liquid and gas form. These three states of matter provide us with an opportunity to alter certain functions within a building to serve new purposes.

One approach might be to implement materials at different scales to suggest different programmatic functions. Could a material at one scale suggest a boundary condition around the edge of the bath, while a different but similarly scaled material invite one to sit upon it? Could a material at a certain scale provide stability for the foot when walking on a slippery surface, whereas at a different scale that material might serve as a warm entity for one to lay upon, assisting in drying off? The extrapolation of this idea demands that studies be done both at the material and programmatic level. The exploration of a material through different shifts in scale would allow one to experiment and allocate a certain programmatic function to each object being scaled.

The goal/result of this research is to ultimately create a space that does not rely on ones sense of sight as a major sensory component. The thermal bath is a program of pure function. It is focused on touch and one’s skin coming into direct contact with very warm or very cold elements. By transmuting materials and their scale, I hope to learn how one’s perception of space could become enhanced, or even completely changed purely through tactile sensations.

“Shifts in Perception through Tactile Sensations” 

The bias that vision holds over the profession of architecture suppresses all of the other senses. In Greece, optical refinements were implemented to create the illusion that a structure was visually “perfect”. The hegemonic eye, with its ability to absorb information faster than any other sense, has allowed designers to create buildings that “look” good, but might not necessarily “feel” good. Pallasmaa once stated that “touch is a parent of our eyes, ears, nose and mouth.” Tactile sensations can affect a person’s social behavior, self-perception, enjoyment and comfort within a building. Three dimensional space can be deceiving through our lens of vision. However, the tactile and haptic sensations that we experience do not misguide us. Tactility does not only mean ones sense of touch through material contact, but also touch through atmospheric conditions. It is important to explore how tactility can be leveraged to enhance our perception of space, while diminishing the ocular-centric bias that we hold today.

Providing a context is important when determining how tactility plays an integral role to a user’s experience within a space. A thermae bath or natatorium leverages materiality to alter atmospheric and tactile conditions as a means of affecting one’s comfort. This provokes us to ask questions such as; “how does the foot interact with the ground?” and “how does the body react to changes in temperature?” Can edge and surface conditions become altered at multiple scales to potentially change ones perception of space? There are many directions one could move towards when thinking about these questions.

One approach might be to implement materials at different scales to suggest different programmatic functions. Could a material at one scale suggest a boundary condition around the edge of the bath, while a different but similarly scaled material invite one to sit upon it? Could a material at a certain scale provide stability for the foot when walking on a slippery surface, whereas at a different scale that material might serve as a warm entity for one to lay upon, assisting in drying off? The extrapolation of this idea demands that studies be done both at the material and programmatic level. The exploration of a material through different shifts in scale would allow one to experiment and allocate a certain programmatic function to each object being scaled.

The goal/result of this research is to ultimately create a space that does not rely on ones sense of sight as a major sensory component. The thermal bath is a program of pure function. It is focused on touch and one’s skin coming into direct contact with very warm or very cold elements. By transmuting materials and their scale, I hope to learn how one’s perception of space could become enhanced, or even completely changed purely through tactile sensations.

An “Artificial Science” of Architecture

Philip Steadman

Question 1: Steadman States, “One might venture the proposition that more can be learned about the process of design of artifacts by studying those objects directly, than by studying the designer’s actions.” He goes on to relate this to the study of composition in literature and critiques of paintings. Can one truly understand how an architect designed a structure by purely analyzing the finished product? There are many different factors involved within the design process. One could analyze and critique the structure on a “surface” level, but could they really understand the design at a deeper level than that?

Question 2: “Spacemate” is an interesting tool developed for the analysis of structure. Was it ever adopted by anybody other than Berghauser Pont and Haupt?

Question 3: Morphospace could be implemented into the design process at the conceptual level to allow one to find new forms that were not yet thought of. At the time of this research paper, were there any other generative models that architects were using to find form? Or was this the first “form finding” tool?

“Even More Than Architecture”

Richard Coyne

Question 1: Coyne discusses how he would give his students texts by Kafka, Calvino, Hegel, Poe, Joyce, etc. but he would never give them texts about microclimate, servicing, planning, structures etc… Is this a problem within architecture?… That students are learning to become designers but the other elements that shape architecture are de-emphasized? Is this because institutions know that once entering the professional field, students will learn the more specific or technical aspects of architecture. Or is it more so that institutions are more interested in creating designers?

Question 2: It is interesting when Coyne starts to talk about what needs to be researched and if it needs to be problem-solving. Does architectural research need to solve a problem?

Question 3: I’ve written in previous posts about architects and their role as a multi-faceted designer. Somebody who needs to be disciplined in many fields of study. Are architects masters of design and amateurs in other fields? Or are architects diverse in that one may be a master of design but mediocre at environmental analysis, whereas another architect might be a master of environmental analysis but not design.

“Shifts in Perception through Tactile Sensations”

“Touch is the sensory mode which integrates our experiences of the world and ourselves.” – Juhani Pallasmaa

The bias that vision holds over the profession of architecture suppresses all of the other senses. In Greece, optical refinements were implemented to create the illusion that a structure was visually “perfect”. The hegemonic eye, with its ability to absorb information faster than any other sense, has allowed designers to create buildings that “look” good, but might not necessarily “feel” good. Pallasmaa once stated that “touch is a parent of our eyes, ears, nose and mouth.” Tactile sensations can affect a person’s social behavior, self-perception, enjoyment and comfort within a building. Three dimensional space can be deceiving through our lens of vision. However, the tactile and haptic sensations that we experience do not misguide us. It is important to explore how tactility can be leveraged to enhance our perception of space, while diminishing the ocular-centric bias that we hold today. How do these tactile sensations affect the way we behave in space? Does the materiality of objects within space evoke tactile responses that affect our behavior? The provocation of these questions would be produced by creating an environment where tactility is the driving force of design. The measurement of the users reactions would be documented via. video and audio recording. These responses (good or bad) could then influence how the space is reacting tactilly or haptically to new users in real time.

Reading 1

Fraser, “A Two Fold Movement”

Question 1:

“Design research in architecture thus needs to see itself as being entirely framed by socio-economic and cultural factors, with, as noted, these largely located within urban practices and processes.” Is Fraser stating that all design research needs to do this? Or is he saying this in response to what the Architectural ideology is in the previous paragraph?

Question 2:

Is the example of Rem Koolhas looking at history in reverse an new way of looking at how research is done? When looking at design research, don’t we generally find precedents that relate to what we are trying to do and then research the history of the particular type of design we wish to research?

Question 3:

The idea of “research toward design” is an interesting way at looking how one might conduct research. But is it practical? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to design while researching? This method would allow one to gather information and put it to use simultaneously rather then collect all of their information and then react to it afterwards.

Reading 2

Rendell, “A Way With Words”

Question 1:

Does design provide the best avenue to work in an interdisciplinary way? It is true that many other professions, especially the sciences, only focus on their own sector of research. Does design include so many fields that it is inevitable that almost all design research will require one to work on a diagonal axis? From the aspect of gaining new knowledge, interdisciplinary research makes sense, but does it then make you a “jack of all trades” and a “master of none”?

Question 2:

Is feminist architecture a new form of practice? Does it help further architectural design, or is it being used as a statement against the norms of it?

Question 3:

The design by writing approach is an interesting idea when thinking about conceptualizations of positionality, subjectivity and textuality, but is it enough to just write about design? Should there be a physical act of making besides writing pen on paper?

“Shifts in Perception through Tactile Sensations”

“Touch is the sensory mode which integrates our experiences of the world and ourselves.” – Juhani Pallasmaa

The bias that vision holds over the profession of architecture suppresses all of the other senses. In Greece, optical refinements were implemented to create the illusion that a structure was visually “perfect”. The hegemonic eye, with its ability to absorb information faster than any other sense, has allowed designers to create buildings that “look” good, but might not necessarily “feel” good. Pallasmaa once stated that “touch is a parent of our eyes, ears, nose and mouth.” Tactile sensations can affect a person’s social behavior, self-perception, enjoyment and comfort within a building. Three dimensional space can be deceiving through our lens of vision. However, the tactile and haptic sensations that we experience do not misguide us. It is important to explore how tactility can be leveraged to enhance our perception of space, while diminishing the ocular-centric bias that we hold today.

The questions that I would like to explore involve;

• How do tactile sensations affect the way we behave in space?
• What type of materials evoke tactile responses that affect our perception and behavior in space?
• Is it possible to move away from the ocular-centric culture of design and move towards one of tactility and hapticity?
• Is it more important to create architecture that “looks” good? What if we design for what “feels” good?