goulding - experience is everything

7/27/2019 Goulding - Experience is Everything

1/6

assemblage 10 (2009): 1-6

Rupert Goulding [email protected] Goulding 2009University of Reading assemblage 2009

Experience is Everything: Getting to Grips with a SensoryBuildings Analysis

by RUPERT GOULDING

This paper questions the validity of approaches to architectural analysis that depend upon visualmethods and materials; and champions an experiential buildings analysis built upon the concept ofthe multi-sensory encounter. In part one the dominance and problems of two-dimensional buildingstudy is critiqued, and the limitations of formal spatial analysis are discussed. These problematicapproaches are explored in relation to the modernist ideology of todays western world. Part twooffers an analysis methodology that explores human agents engaging with a multi-sensory buildingencounter. The framework for analysis offered invites a broad, meaningful and innovativeapproach to building study.

Keywords: archaeology, architecture, experience, multi-sensory, vision

Introduction

Juhani Pallasmaa in his engaging and poeticbook, The Eyes of the Skin (2005), investigatesand critiques the deficiencies in contemporaryarchitecture. For Pallasmaa our society is evermore fragmented and people are increasinglyisolated socially, and responsibility for thisprocess, though broad, is partly architectural.In our desire for buildings that look good, wefail to demand structures that feel good; and itis this feeling that is critical. Pallasmaacontemplates how contemporary buildings arethe product of our age of visual supremacy; weare only interested in building image, even ifthe deficient buildings we demand onlyalienate us further from society. His book is acall to arms for architects to think about all thesenses when designing - to create buildingsthat envelop and engage with the multi-sensory individual - this would quite literallybuild a more cohesive society. What might thishave to do with archaeology? The ideasPallasmaa explores in todays architecture arepertinent to how we consider the buildings ofthe past. I am not offering a rose-tinted view ofthe past, as some long lost and golden age ofsocial cohesion engendered by architecturalexcellence. Instead, I suggest that our culturalobsessions with the visual have flavoured howwe consider past architecture. If we want tobetter consider the structures we study, weneed to consider them as multi-sensory spaces,and then maybe we can understand them morefully.

This paper is divided into two parts. In thefirst section I shall explore how the visualobsessions of our culture are played out in

archaeological approaches to building study,including a consideration of access analysis as

the apogee of such interests. In the secondsection I shall outline what a sensory buildingsanalysis could be, what it engages with and forwhat purpose. I outline the methodology I use:an attempt to connect with the sensory realmin architectural study. The ideas presented inthis paper form a key component of my PhDresearch, as such this is very much work inprogress, however the core theories are firmlyheld. I apply these ideas to my work on thepalaces of Henry VIII, though a detailedexposition of this is beyond the scope of thispaper. Further, I have tried to adopt a more

engaging writing style than we see in mosttraditional archaeological papers. My projecthas been influenced by those in archaeologywho have sought in their writings to expresssome of the excitement and richness of thepast we study along different lines (Deetz1996; Johnson 1999, 2002; Joyce 2002).

Part One

If you are in any doubts over my (andPallasmaas) claim that we live in the age of theimage then consider some of todays populardebates. Magazines illustrated with photos ofultra-skinny models have increasingly takenthe blame for perpetrating increasing cases ofanorexia and bulimia; this is no longer atheory and instead is the popular assertion.But the process continues: millions of poundsare spent on gym membership to lose weightand gain fitness; fad diet books are bestsellers;we take morbid fascination in obesity; lowcalorie convenience snacks and meals abound.Cosmetic surgery is ever cheaper and readilyavailable. These are all part of the wider issueof body politics, yet at the core of this issue is

the visual image of the body. The body, themulti-sensory organism, is increasingly in the


2/6

GOULDING

- 2 -

West becoming moulded by the eyes of othersand ourselves. To give another example, therise of political spin can be traced through anover interest in the visual. The political soundbite, the modus operandi of modern politics, isa visualisation of something we cant see: a

short ear catching statement, adopting thequick fire techniques seen in MTV. MTVlaunched in 1981 with the Buggles VideoKilled the Radio Star, the aim was clear to allwho tuned in, seeing music was preferable tomerely hearing it, and these videos were oftenshorter versions than that on the album oreven the radio. MTV clearly proved in itssuccess that our society wanted things snappyand exciting, or was that just short and visuallycommunicated? Other examples are that we alljudge books by their covers; green cars have alower second hand value than red ones, and

lastly that economy products in supermarketsare often indistinguishable to their moreexpensive alternatives once they areunwrapped. In these examples I dont want tooffer any judgment. Im not advocating thateconomy products are no different to brandedversions, or that a red car is as desirable as agreen one just that our society is increasinglydriven by visual characteristics over othersensory considerations.

Now to archaeology, and how the hegemony ofthe visual in our society has limited how we

practise the discipline. Im suggesting this hasbeen done in two broad ways, through afundamental consideration of architecturalspace in two-dimensional terms, and byexplaining standing buildings through stylisticcategories. Before I go into some detail onthese points, I should first explain theproblems I see in the relationship between theworld today and the past we endeavour toexplore. This argument is something of afoundation for many of the ideas andarguments this paper covers. As has beenillustrated above, the practices of our society

have consequential results beyond theintended magazine photos not justinfluencing fashion but the body politic forexample. The same is true for the relationshipbetween archaeology and the world today; it ismore critically entwined than we may care tothink. Julian Thomas (2004: 2) inArchaeology and Modernity has eloquentlyargued that the discipline of archaeology is adistillation of a modern sensibility. In essence,the modern western world we live in hascreated the very practice of archaeology for itsown ideological ends. Thomas (2004: 199)echoes Pallasmaa when he suggests that weisolate vision from the other senses because weconceive ourselves as observing subjects, for

whom nature no longer governs our life; menand women are extra-nature, we operateindependent of it, and as such can gaze uponnature at our whim. Archaeology affirms thisbelief by being a practice that utilises visualmethodologies to ascertain knowledge and

understanding. Excavation is a process ofvisualisation, as we dig into the past we can seewith our eyes what has happened. Archaeologyis a method totally bound to the premise thatsight is knowledge; archaeology uses visualmethods to find facts and develop ideas. Thisprocess then reiterates and strengthens themodernist position that we see therefore weare.

The two-dimensionality of archaeologicalpractice is best understood in terms of what wecreate and remove from site, be it an

excavation or assessment of a standingbuilding. Projects are written up off-site,though notebooks are filled with on-siteobservations and theories. The detailedinterpretations happen back at the ranch. Wereach our conclusions by the careful study ofthose notebooks as well as other documentsspecifically produced for desk based analysis.In particular we draw plans, sections andelevations. These then become the immutablerecord of what is either excavated or observed.These graphical documents become the studysubject; our drawings transubstantiate solid

material to paper and ink. But the charts weproduce are problematic, somethingarchitectural theory has started to considerrecently, but archaeology has not (Borden1995: 214; King 1996: 248). I suggest thatthese graphical documents, be they plans,sections or elevations, are at best a graphicalrepresentation of distance, material andposition, achieved through a distillation,filtration and reduction of that we happen toobserve. If I have laboured this point, thenforgive me, but I feel it important to emphasisthat the two-dimensional documents we make

are problematic in their entirety, and theseproblems have implications for how we thenuse them to make assertions about the past.We tend to base our conclusions on the lineson the paper. Unfortunately life operates in theareas we tend to leave un-inked, or as BrunoZevi put it the void itself (1993: 23).

Access analysis of space-syntax modelling isincreasingly popular in archaeology, and Isuggest it is problematic in ways previouslyunder considered, because archaeologists usethose abstracted plans mentioned above as thecore of this method and the resultinginterpretations. I want to suggest that accessanalysis for the archaeologist is a double


3/6

assemblage

- 3 -

distillation of understanding. It may produce amore intense singular interpretation, but itstrips away the subtleties, harmonies andvariances of how people use a builtenvironment. Hillier and Hansons (1984)Social Logic of Space has been quite keenly

adopted by archaeologists, and one can seewhy. The book offers a method to analyse andassess spatial arrangements that actively useand glorify the research material we have - theplan! It also offers a methodology that is asadept to use in either a Roman villa or anElizabethan manor house. In the spaceavailable a full critique of the method is notpossible, but I want to offer one considerationas food for thought: it certainly challenged myviews of formal spatial analysis. Hillier andHanson developed their methodology with theaim to understand why the socially progressive

housing developments of the 1960-70s failedso catastrophically in their utopian aims. Thegeographer Doreen Massey (2001) wrote aboutone such estate, her childhood home ofWythenshawe on the edge of Manchester. Theestate aimed to give inner city families a moregreen and open spatial environment, whichwas intended to emancipate. Massey writespoetically about how this aim, though initiallysuccessful, has now failed. Neglect has beenthe affliction, and though nothing has changedsignificantly, it is the small details that makethe biggest impacts. Little that Massey

discusses could be picked up by a formalspatial analysis, yet these are absolutely thetype of spatial understandings we strive tofind. Massey wrote how the proliferation ofdog muck and the un-repaired cracked pavingnecessitate constant looking down when onemoves along the paths of the estate. Onesspatiality has been closed down which onlyemphasises the social restrictions that do thesame, through crime and vandalism.Constraint is not to be found in the walls andceilings of Wythenshawe, but on hazardouspaving under an open sky.

The second problem in archaeologys approachto buildings is the convergence of stylisticcategorisation and meaning. The way abuilding looks is fundamental tounderstanding, but we should be careful not toprioritise the image of a building over otherconsiderations, or conflate image withmeaning. Too often a building is analysed fromits visual characteristics, categorised by how itlooks, interpreted through its visual natureand then understood in stylistic terms. Thereis a cycle at work that serves to perpetrate thevisual qualities of a building, excluding otherconsiderations. For example EnglishRomanesque or neo-classical churches are

essentially understood by their decorativedifferences, although they reflect changes indoctrine, ecclesiastical structure, secularauthority and many other issues moresignificant than their building style. Part of theproblem with the easy alliance of image and

interpretation is that it strips out the mostfundamental part of a building or space, andthat the greatest level of meaning comesthrough encounter. Being inside, outside ornear a building is to engage with the totality ofwhat those spaces offer, and not just the waythey look. Pallasmaa (2005: 12) summates thisissue well an architectural work is notexperienced as a series of isolated retinalpictures, but in its fully integrated material,embodied and spiritual essence. One canextrapolate from Pallasmaas ideas an insightinto how archaeologists approach buildings

analysis. It is as if we take photographs ofdifferent elevations and stick them to a plan ofthe layout, and call this architecture. It is as ifwe study the architects models and not thebuildings themselves.

Part Two

In this section I outline what a sensorybuildings analysis could be, and how I am atpresent moving in this direction.Fundamentally Im interested in experience.Im interested in what it was like to visit,

occupy or use the buildings of the past. Isuggest that by starting at this premise, it isimpossible to limit oneself to considering howa building looked, or to use analyses thatdevelop from two-dimensional beginnings. Inthe pages afforded I will limit my discussion tothis issue. In my methodology, there are a widerange of additional theoretical considerationswhich should also be considered such as thevalidity of phenomenology, or the dangers ofbeing both selective and casually subjective.There is insufficient space for such theoreticalframeworks, but I can at least briefly explain

the critical heart of my work. In part one Iexplained how the over-visualisation of societyis a by-product of our modern world, howarchaeology is a wholesale product of themodern condition, and how the union of visionand knowledge in our society hasimpoverished our understandings. Taking thison board, my methodology shifts thisperception by turning these modernobsessions on their head. If I am accused ofbeing un-archaeological by not playing byarchaeologies rules, then this may mean I amon the right path!

My research deals with the palaces of HenryVIII, and as such my range of data is fairly


4/6

GOULDING

- 4 -

broad and deep. I do not suggest the methods Iuse are suitable for any era, but I hope that thebroader themes may spark ideas for others. Acentral tenet of my project is to get to gripswith a method for a phenomenologicalapproach to building study that can assert its

validity more clearly. Critics ofphenomenology cite the fragility of theprocess; the lack of evidence, and the fact thatthe process of making conclusions is non-transparent. This method attempts to counterthese accusations and provide a potentialprocess or initial framework for an embodied,sensory and dynamic building analysis.

Stage one is to assemble the data range, and Ichampion a full and rich data set. Anythingthat existed in, on or near a building is equallyvalid for inclusion; hence textiles, brick

composition, crockery, dress, paintings andletters are all in my data range. This is thendelineated along three lines: material culture,architectural and documentary evidence. Theterms are broad and encourage a wide andvaried data set. Stage two is the practical wayto draw together the huge array of evidenceconsidered above, into a meaningfulexploration of a building. I use four analyticalthemes to consider specific issues, but alongwide lines. They are as follows: CorporealPositioning, Visual Impact, Codified Actionand the Intangible. Each theme is described

below.

Corporeal Positioning

This theme considers the body and space: howa person was framed or contained byarchitectural works. This theme considersissues such as movement or restriction,enclosure and exposure - though not to becouched in binary polarities, it can help toconsider the opposites of themes of interest tospark dialogue. This theme considers how ahuman agent engaged with a building on a

human scale; how the spatial environment metwith the proportions of corporeal identity. Wecan consider how a space controlledindividuals, guided them around, framed themor even liberated them. This theme enables themeaningful interaction between space and thebody to be explored.

Visual Impact

This theme is not a contradiction of thispapers argument. The visual quality ofarchitectural cannot be ignored because it has

dominated previous analyses. The key here isdialogue we must integrate our study ofbuilding image, our understanding of

buildings as visual commodities and ourinvestigations of how architecturecommunicates visually, with all otherconsiderations. Humans are creatures that relyupon sight to a disproportionate cognisantextent, but it is always in conjunction with

other senses, whether we articulate it or not.

By way of an example and caveat, I want topause to consider recent research on medievalsociety that has explored how visual modes ofcommunication dominated culturally. Take therelationships between society at large and theChurch. The processes of education, doctrinalinteraction and spiritual satisfaction wereplayed out through visual communication:wall paintings and sculpture told stories andallegories, seeing the host provided a path tospiritual nourishment. Indeed Michael Camille

(1994: 62) has written how the bodies of thelaity were controlled by the Churchs intensevisual scrutiny and surveillance. This mayseem contrary to the above arguments fordownplaying the visual in our interpretations.However, it actually illustrates the potential inopening a dialogue with the other senses asargued for above. Medieval religiosity wasinherently visual, but it also engaged with theother senses in ways that were subsequentlychallenged by the Protestant reformations(Aston 2003). The use of incense, processions,singing, kissing relics and ringing bells all

contributed to a multi-sensory experience, onethat uses visual communication in dialoguewith the other senses.

Codified Action

The activities of encounter, and their rules andprocedures contribute considerably to how weunderstand architecture. This theme addressesthe specifics of experience, providing anopportunity to integrate the practices ofencounter with the experience of space. In thehistoric context of my project I research

rituals, routines and special events, but alsoconsider dress codes, etiquette anddeportment. A lot of the material in thissection is usually the preserve of the historian,but I suggest we need to claim these areas, tobetter appreciate our spaces as the stages ofsuch activities.

The Intangible

This is a term borrowed from the debates inglobal heritage management. In places such asAustralia, the heritage industry has had to face

the very real issue of preserving and explaininga cultural heritage that has no solid or materialremains to display and curate. Incidentally


5/6

assemblage

- 5 -

many believe we do not have intangibleheritage in Britain, our heritage is the stuff ofcastles, burial mounds and churches. But Isuggest the intangible is equally relevant here.We may not have an aboriginal population, butwe have heritage that is not in solid form:

food, drink, dance, accent, language, storiesand legend for example. So the term intangiblecovers those issues not easily defined inarchitectural terms, but which clearly affectedthe way buildings were understood. In thissection we can consider leftfield, alternativeand innovative considerations with impunity. Ihave considered the issues of memory, climateand cultural mood regarding the palaces ofHenry VIII.

Once these four themes have been workedthrough in relation to a certain building or a

built landscape or any space, we can thenconsider interpretations along the broaderthemes of culture and identity. We can engagewith issues including gender, ethnicity,religion, society, status, politics and manyother categories of interest.

Conclusion

In this short paper I have opened a debate asto what a sensory buildings analysis could be.If it is anything, it is a concerted attempt to getnearer to what it was like to experience a

building in the past. Walk into a room todayand you will instantly, maybe unconsciously,but certainly tangibly, meet with differentsensory stimuli. You will feel the change intemperature; your eyes will adjust to thelighting; you will identify the smell and locatethe various sounds. These are the types ofissues that weave through the four themes ofenquiry offered. Imagine a space, how are youcorporeally positioned did you duck under alow beam or tip your head up at the highceiling? What was the visual impact did youread a sign or choose the door with a bright

paint job? Are you observing any codifiedaction - have you taken your shoes off orknocked at the door? Anything intangible have you sensed a tense atmosphere;remember how bad your last meal was here; isit a bit damp? These are the processes ofeveryday life, and these are the understandingswe need to grasp in our studies of pastbuildings. When we engage with these types ofissues, situated in a considered historicalcontext, we may get somewhere nearer thereality of our buildings pasts. It is not easy todo sensory buildings analysis. There are many

problems and pitfalls along the way, but Isuggest this method could improve and

expand our historical understandings if wetried.


6/6

GOULDING

- 6 -

Bibliography

Aston, M. 2003. Public Worship andIconoclasm. In: Gaimster, D. and Gilchrist, R.(eds.). The Archaeology of Reformation 1480-1580: Papers Given at the Archaeology of

Reformation Conference, February 2001.Leeds: Maney, 9-28.

Borden, I. 1995. The Politics of the Plan:Representations of Space in ModernistHousing. In: Borden, I. and Dunster, D. (eds.).Architecture and the Sites of History:Interpretations of Buildings and Cities.Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 214-26.

Camille, M. 1994. The Image and the Self:Unwriting Late Medieval Bodies. In Kay, S.and Rubin, M. (eds.). Framing Medieval

Bodies. Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 62-99.

Deetz, J. 1996.In Small Things Forgotten: AnArchaeology of Early American Life. NewYork: Anchor Books.

Hillier, B., and Hanson, J. 1984. The SocialLogic of Space. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Theory: AnIntroduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Johnson, M. 2002. Behind the Castle Gate:From Medieval to Renaissance. London:Routledge.

Joyce, R. 2002. The Languages ofArchaeology: Dialogue, Narrative, andWriting. Oxford: Blackwell.

King, R. 1996. Emancipating Space:Geography, Architecture and Urban Design.New York: Guildford Press.

Massey, D. 2001. Living in Wythenshawe. In:Borden, I. and Kerr, J. and Rendell, J. andPivaro, A. (eds.). The Unknown City:Contesting Architecture and Social Space.Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Press, 458-75.

Pallasmaa, J. 2005. The Eyes of the Skin:Architecture and the Senses. Chichester:Wiley-Academy.

Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology andModernity. London: Routledge.

Zevi, B. 1993. Architecture as Space: How toLook at Architecture. New York: Da CapoPress.

goulding - experience is everything

Documents