Explaining Components of Architectural Aesthetics Based on Humans’ Experience (Case Study: Prominent Cultural Buildings in Tehran)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Problem statement: Aesthetics, an experience that manifests itself in various forms under different conditions, is primarily experimental. What appears pleasant in the built environment has always been contentious and ambiguous. It can vary in geographical, social, and cultural contexts depending on the type of relationship it has with human perceptions. However, aesthetics has been overlooked in terms of users’ experience with an environment due to an overemphasis on its preferential nature, as well as obliviousness to sociocultural commonalities that lay the groundwork for subjective perceptions. As a result, some anomalies in architectural design have come to light. The following questions arise in this regard: What factors influence the development of architectural aesthetic experience from the standpoint of an ordinary user? What factors contribute significantly to the intensity of this experience?
Research objective: The purpose of this paper is to explain aesthetics and its criteria through users’ perceptions and lived experiences to revive their aesthetic feelings by translating them into effective components.
Research method: This descriptive study employed the philosophical phenomenography of people’s lived experiences in buildings. It is also classified as interpretative-inductive research.
Conclusion: Perceptual, motivational, sensorimotor, cognitive, behavioral, and emotional components all play important roles in the process of aesthetic perception from the user’s standpoint, resulting in the architectural aesthetic experience. In fact, the role of each component in this experience is highlighted differently depending on the features of different buildings, which are distinguished by variable component priority and feedback. However, when all components in an experimental process play complementary roles, the experience can be maximized. Moreover, for this experience to be effective, the emotional component must be strong.

Keywords

References

Appleton, J. (1987). Landscape as prospect and refuge. In J. Jackle (Hrsg.), The visual elements of landscape. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, (S. 39- 74).
Berleant, A. (2010). Reconsidering scenic beauty. Environmental Values, 19(3), 335-350.
Berleant, A. (2013). What is aesthetic engagement? Contemporary Aesthetics, 11(1), 5.
Bell, S. (2012). Landscape: pattern, perception and process. London and New York: Routledge.
Bermudez, J., Krizaj, D., Lipschitz, D.L., Bueler, C.E., Rogowska, J., Yurgelun-Todd, D. & Nakamura, Y. (2017). Externally-induced meditative states: an exploratory fMRI study of architects’ responses to contemplative architecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6(2), 123-136.
Bittermann, M.S. & Ciftcioglu, Ö. (2016). Visual perception with color for architectural aesthetics. Presented at the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence - WCCI 2016, Vancouver, Canada, 2016.
Böhme, G. (2018). AtmosphericArchitectures: The Aesthetics of Felt Spaces. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bruce, C., Pham, B. & Stoodley, I. (2002). The Collective Consciousness of Information Technology Research: The Significance and Value of Research Projects A. The views of IT researchers. Final Report. FIT Technical Report Series. Retrieved: http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~bruce/pub/FRep-Res.pdf
Carlson, A. (2009). Nature and landscape: an introduction to environmental aesthetics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chatterjee, A. & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 370-375.
Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (H. Jalili, Trans). Tehran: Ney.
Freedberg, D. & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in aesthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 197-203.
Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Herzog, T.R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237-248.
Herzog, T.R., Ouellette, P., Rolens, J.R. & Koenigs, A.M. (2010). Houses of worship as restorative environments. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 395-419.
Jelić, A. Tieri, G. De Matteis, F. Babiloni, F. & Vecchiato, G. (2016). The inactive approach to architectural experience: A neurophysiological perspective on embodiment, motivation, and affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 481.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ma, Q., Hu, L. & Wang, X. (2015). Emotion and novelty processing in an implicit aesthetic experience of architectures: evidence from an event-related potential study. Neuro Report, 26(5), 279-284.
Marton, F. & Yan Pong, W. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 335-348.
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Schindler, I., Hanich, J., Jacobsen, T. & Koelsch, S. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?. Psychological Review, 126(2), 171.
Nassar, J.L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative quality of building exterior. Environmnet and Behavior, 26, 337-401.
Nassar, J.L. (1997). New developments in aesthetics for urban design. In E. H. Zube and G. T. Moore (eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 4. New York and London: Plenum Press, (pp. 149–193).
Mohammadpour, A. (2018). Qualitative research -- Methodology.Teran: Logos.
Moosavian,S., Aminzadeh Gohar Rizi, B., Shahcheraghi, A. (2021). Typology and Comparative Analysis of Research Approaches to Aesthetics of Architecture. Bagh-e Nazar, 18(95), 85-100.
Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Russell, J.A. & Mehrabian, A. (1978). Approach-avoidance and affiliation as functions of the emotion-eliciting quality of an environment. Environment and Behavior, 10(3), 355-387.
Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (eds.), Human Behavior and Environment. New York: Plenum Press, Vol. 6, Behavior and the Natural Environment, (pp. 85 125).
Vannucci, M., Gori, S. & Kojima, H. (2014). The spatial frequencies influence the aesthetic judgment of buildings transculturally.Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(3-4), 143-149.
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., ... & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 2), 10446-10453.
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J.L., Leder, H., ... & Skov, M. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 10-18.
Vecchiato, G., Jelic, A., Tieri, G., Maglione, A. G., De Matteis, F. & Babiloni, F. (2015a). Neurophysiological correlates of embodiment and motivational factors during the perception of virtual architectural environments. Cognitive Processing, 16(1), 425-429.
Vecchiato, G. Tieri, G. Jelic, A. De Matteis, F. Maglione, A. G. & Babiloni, F. (2015b). Electroencephalographic correlates of sensorimotor integration and embodiment during the appreciation of virtual architectural environments. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1944.
Xenakis, I., Arnellos, A. & Darzentas, J. (2012). The functional role of emotions in aesthetic judgment. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 212-226.
The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar
Volume 19, Issue 113
November 2022
Pages 45-62

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics