Mind In Architecture

Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment ad the Future of Design

In the first paragraph of the book it is explained that the house’s agency is dependant on the body that inhabits it. For example, in a storm the house transforms into a space of protection whereas else wise it may be a dormant object with no use. It is explained that it is import to understand the emotions that buildings evoke, in order to understand the relationship between the dwelling and the inhabitant. This is the subject which enables the box to be a breathing entity which experiences and influences in a life time.

In the text it is spoken about that Wright’s pedagogy for architecture was one of practical learning. This ethos was continued into there theory of full embodiment in space and architecture. Rather than reading texts that explained the work they were looking to express, they used an apprenticeship method to pass the information on to their students, hoping that their learning through doing would enable a better understanding of the work they were doing. On this basis that favoured the mind and body in these habitats, their architecture was built. They focus on the social, cultural and ecological aspects of the mind and acknowledge the impact that these spaces have on the mind and vice versa. Pallassma explains that this role of architecture in the shaping cultural, social and ecological wellbeing and behaviour of our societies is crucial to architectural education and practice. This explains the importance of neuroscience and architecture working together in the creation of urban spaces. Architects who imagine the implications of buildings in the context of their site are more likely to have happy and well inhabitants.

The whole fist chapter essentially explains the important link between space and phycology and the relationship between the two.

In architecture there is a mix of science and art. The two are intertwined and make top the practice in itself. He explains how modernism had the opportunity to shape he say that we perceived the walls around us and the way we moved with in them. He explains that for a long time in architecture the initial response to the buildings are its ambience. The natural light quality, the furnishings, the finish of the interiors and the general feel it gives off. It can be problematic here, where students are interested more in the creation of renders and screen based images than the lived experience. I feel however that Virtual Reality bridges this gap and potential links the screen to a in body experience.

People are flesh in a space where we build for our shape. We move through spaces which are both physical and cultural. The decisions we make as designers are loosely geared towards the objectives we plan to perform in these spaces. Some of which are nessicary e.g. shelter , however many aspects f our designs are made to enrich our experience and lives. We make alterations to our spaces in order to crete dwellings that help us to strive physically and mentally. Architecture is located in between the desire and the nessecity of space. Both aspects should be reflected on because they equally make up the way we communicate with a space. Our identity is partially made out of our experiences and the images that we are subjected to. With many of the spaces we communicate with being the setting for our perception of feelings, emotions, thoughts, valuations and actions. (Pallasmaa) Our capacity to shape our surroundings makes for an interesting discussion about Virtual Reality. Our experience in the physical world, the way that we create, communicate and share is not only because of genetic make up, it is also the way our environment appears.

Pallasmaa urges that the term “meaning” has to be opened up from the original miscontruded context that has precontextualised it around language and text. Cognitive research has explained that meaning is the the conception of intellectual significance. This alludes to the fact that the meaning of an object holds the same weight as a word may because of the association and links made after the interaction with it. The term “perceptual symbols” was coined by the psychologist Lawrence Barsalou.. It explained the recognition-motor-affect that representions of physical objects hold in an environment. Perceptual symbols are analogical because they are represented in the same forms as they are learned to eg a water bottle will often look like a water bottle.

Pallasmaa believes that neuroscience can reinstate the links between architecture, objects and embodiment.

Pallasmaa explains the architecture is not only an aesthetic, performance, physical need or representation of economy, its rooted in our existential reality and relates highly to our mentality. He says that buildings shape the situations of life and memory and in his terms ‘internalise the world and externalise the mind. I think he means here that when we as humans are indoors we might be more likely to reflect or use our brains more towards institutional learning.

Pallasmaa speaks about Perez-Gomez’s opinion on instrumental process of building architecture which rely on mathematical formulations. He explains that with the amount of work being used in these softwares, it may be effecting our understanding of spatial awareness and the imagination of actual spaces which link us to identity. He talks about the relationship to space and what the space requires or demand.

I would argue this point maybe because with architecture without these techniques, there may be more room to experience the space in real life terms and fully understand the experience, their could still be mistakes made without the technical properties of testing aesthetics, light qualities and ambience first.

I agree with him when he explains that concrete environments that we experience and learn in however have a lot more power than ones of computer programs where the mind is disembodied and there is a inability to match the experience of a human.

Pallassmaa explains that immersion in a space is a connection and meaning to the objects in your space, making up your perception of what is happening. This explains that the objects that have connotations to your memory or experience project the interpretation of the space you have. This is inherently connected also to our physical attributes e.g. walking, climbing, holding - the things we do as humans. Pallaamaa explains that his hypothesis is that architecture gives us both presenting us with sensory reflection and signals to reference our history. He explains that this always starts with a sense of place - in the world - and continues to a understanding of an environment e.g. light quality, patterns, structures, flow and rhythms.

Pallasmaa, Juhani and Sarah Robinson. Mind in Architecture : Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design. The MIT Press, 2015. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=980748&site=eds-live&scope=site.