Architectural Awe: using GEN-AI and Virtual Reality to Reintegrate Principles of Architectural Praxis and Test Subjective Features of Accommodation in Extraordinary Architectural Experience.
Author: Chris Mewburn
Project: Creative Practice PhD, part-time.
Primary Supervisor: A.Prof Stuart Bender, Co -Supervisor: Prof. Francesco Mancini
Link to view interactive research journal: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVKG15bJo=/?share_link_id=674440763691
Abstract:
This PhD thesis examines architectural awe using generative artificial intelligence (GEN-AI) to reintegrate principles of architectural praxis and test subjective features of Keltner & Haidt’s (2003) accommodation Awe research specific to architecture is sparse (Yan 2019; Hoffman 2023), is yet to study the required awe feature of accommodation (Negami & Ellard 2023), and simulations used in the experiments lack realism (Joye & Dewitte 2016). Some results in these experiments, and in related studies (Tabb 2023), also appear at odds with commonly accepted truths of architectural praxis. This thesis argues that both the lack of realism and the incongruent results are caused by ignoring decades of accepted principles of architectural praxis in search of something more scientific (Bermudez 2016), and by the strictness to which these experiments conform to the scientific method (Sadia 2019). This project proposes a more empirical method and addresses these issues by using codified language with GEN-AI to design more realistic architectural awe simulations that integrate principles of architectural praxis A new model for architectural awe is proposed with four required conditions. Features of vastness, accommodation, civic function and context are derived from the literature and will be expanded on in the literature review and tested in the experiment. Targeting architectural awe may bring the positive effects of awe to the built environment including, homeostasis, pain disruption, prosocial behaviour, community mindedness, and stress reduction (Keltner 2023; Chen and Mongrain 2021; Shiota et al. 2007; Stell 2017).
Research Question:
To what extent can the subjective features of accommodation in an architectural awe experience –as generated by AI tools with prompts derived by hermeneutic methods and principles of architectural praxis – be validated by participants’ responses to an immersive experience?
Aims/Objectives:
1. To better understand architectural awe by identifying and combining common patterns of experience with principles of praxis to derive “features” of architectural awe for testing.
2. To design more-authentic architectural awe experiences that visualise these features with high levels of detail using GEN-AI tools.
3. To produce creative practice artefacts – architectural awe experiences – that manifest the research outcomes in a tangible manner for others to experience in an immersive exhibition
4. To build on the author’s understanding of designing architectural awe experiences, so that others in the community might benefit from the positive effects of awe in their future works.
Background 1: What is awe and why is it important?
Dacher Keltner identifies two central themes at play in the experience of awe (2023). First, what we experience must be something vast, and second, it must “transcend our current understanding of the world” (23). Keltner and Haidt (2003) label these themes as “vastness” and “accommodation” respectively and assert that they are the required conditions of awe.
Vastness and accommodation are the two central themes of the awe family. Emotional experience that lacks one or both of these features are best called by some other name. For example ‘surprise’ involves accommodation without vastness. Feelings of ‘deference’ involve vastness without accommodation (304).
While vastness refers to the experience of something much larger than the self, Keltner (2023) maintains that vastness can be physical, temporal or semantic. This means that architecture does not have to be physically vast to stimulate its inhabitants to awe and that there are multiple avenues to extraordinary architectural experience. Shiota et al. confirm this stating that “although the term ‘vastness’ implies great physical size, in this usage ‘vast’ describes any stimulus that challenges one’s accustomed frame of reference in some dimension” (2007, 945). On the second condition of awe, Keltner & Haidt define accommodation as the “…Piagetian process of adjusting mental structures that cannot assimilate a new experience” (2003, 304) and assert that “the extent that an object or scene is not easily assimilated, awe becomes more likely” (310). Arguably, therefore, vastness is the stimuli of the experience, and accommodation is the degree to which the experience is outside the subject’s existing understanding. The vaster the stimuli and the greater the distance from the expected or ordinary, the more awe will be experienced.
Beneath vastness and accommodation, there are further sub -categories of awe. Keltner & Haidt (2003) introduced their five ‘flavours’ of awe as Threat, Beauty, Ability, Virtue and Supernatural Causality. Twenty years on, as research into the science of emotion expanded, so too did Keltner’s categorisation. Keltner (2023) identified eight types of awe: Moral, Collective Effervescence, Nature, Music, Visual Design, Spiritual Encounters, Stories of Life and Death, and Epiphanies. The clear difference between the two sets is the removal of ‘threat’ as a type of awe. This aligns with the gradual shift in the word’s etymology. In contrast to the original definition, which was more associated with reverence under threat or terror, awe in contemporary society is almost always considered positive (Keltner 2023). Shiota et al support this assumption noting that “100% of participants in a 2007 study linked awe with positive experiences” (2007, 950). 1 The proposed study is interested in positive awe (hereafter ‘awe’) that has a lasting positive impact for its subject.
In 2003, Keltner and Haidt acknowledged that “experiences of awe can change the course of a life in profound and permanent ways” (297). Since then, scientific research into the neuroscience, physiology and psychology of awe has expanded and identified several important benefits. Awe has been positively linked to parasympathetic activation, responsible for energy conservation and decreased heart rate (Chen and Mongrain 2021). Stellar et al (2018) concluded that awe experienced in nature improved wellbeing in people exposed to trauma including veterans and at-risk youth. Hoffman (2023) acknowledged awe as a pain disruptor, including architectural awe. Nelson-Coffey et al, (2019) links awe to a cascade of positive post- experience emotions including compassion, gratitude and optimism. Among others, Stell (2017) cited the links between awe and prosocial
1 It is critical to note that negative-awe, or ‘threat-based’ awe still exists and is a valid research topic. Similarly, many architectural theorists equate architectural awe or extraordinary architectural experience to the 16th century philosophy of the Sublime a la (Burke & Boulton 2008) and (Kant & Goldthwait 1960) which includes ‘threat’ as a condition of the experience. This research, however, will focus on positive awe.
behaviour, noting that when compared to other positive emotions, awe was associated to lower levels of prejudice toward others. Shiota et al (2007) finds that “awe tends to direct attention away from the self and toward the environment” (961). Keltner (2023) ties these positive benefits together with the idea of transcendence where, because the stimulus of awe is so vast, we momentarily transcend ourselves to make room for new mental structures Keltner (2023) discusses this as a ‘diminishing sense of self’ that results in a feeling of connection to something greater. Neuroscience confirms this as deactivation of the Default Mode Network or “regions of the cortex that are engaged when we process information from an egocentric point of view” (Keltner 2023, 45). Perhaps counterintuitively, we can conclude that self-transcendence, or to stop thinking about ourselves, is key to improving ourselves and our own wellbeing. Keltner (2023) suggests that “this transformation of the self, brought about by awe is a powerful antidote to the isolation and loneliness that is epidemic today” (46). This is the critical point that underpins the present research. It has been empirically proven through scientific research that awe can positively impact people through homeostasis, pain disruption, encouraging prosocial behaviour and community mindedness, and decreasing prejudice and stress in our increasingly stressful world. The objective of this thesis is to better understand architectural awe so that one might target awe in the design process and bring the benefits of awe to inhabitants of the built environment.
Awe is commonly measured either through participant surveys (Joye & Dewitte 2016; Negami & Ellard 2023), using the AWE-S Scale (Yaden et al. 2019), virtual reality experience (Chirico et al 2016), or through biometric analysis including EEG and brain scanning (Gallagher et al 2015), and goosebump tracking (Quesnel & Riecke 2018). Sadia (2019) contends, however, that some biometric tools are obtrusive to the participant’s experience, influence responses, and make results less transferrable to real architectural experience The experiment of this PhD thesis, therefore, will utilise surveys as the primary method of data collection, complimented by undetectable and unobtrusive biometric tools to validate the presence of awe Examples include audio recording to collect involuntary verbal awe responses (“whoa”, “wow” and “ah!”) and undetectable face and retina tracking embedded in the virtual reality headset.
Preface to Background 2: Awe is subjective
This thesis acknowledges the subjective nature of awe and phenomenological study, and that spatial intelligence, architectural training, cultural background and other complex psycho -social variables will impact the emotional reception of an aesthetic experience. The author proposes, however, that there are also contingent universals and consistent patterns of human behaviour in relation to extraordinary architectural experiences that are worthy of investigation. The latter will be explored in this thesis to better understand architectural awe experiences and to expand on the author’s approach to architectural practice.
Background 2: What is architectural awe?
This study focuses on the two required conditions of awe (Keltner & Haidt 2003) in architecture: vastness, and especially, accommodation. The author defines vastness and accommodation in architecture in the following ways:
Vastness features include physical conditions of architecture that contribute to the sense of immensity experienced by the inhabitant. Such features include literal translations like immense scale, proportion, repetition, material, and voids; or tangible and sensory features like light, order,
geometry, water, natural elements, sound, and temperature; or intangible but equally important characteristics like a sense of infinity, obscurity, mystery, directed inertia, leading lines and the perception of age or history.
Accommodation features include more conceptual features, either intellectualised by the inhabitant or engrained by the architect and felt in the design. Such features include inferred traits of the architecture like its aura, atmosphere, character, and power; or features of emotion, feeling, intent, memory, and ambition; or qualitative traits like, gravity, sensuality, spirituality, timelessness, speechlessness, silence, and the slowing of time
To begin setting the boundaries of architectural awe for this project, following is an interpretive description cataloguing first-hand architectural awe experiences including: Tadao Ando’s Chichu Art Museum, James Turrell’s Aten Reign, Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, Santiago Calatrava’s Milwaukee Art Museum, Zaha Hadid’s DDP, Rafael Moneo’s Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels, as well as the Pantheon in Rome and the Sayuwon Arboretum outside Daegu (see figures 1.2-1.9). The description draws upon auto -hermeneutic methods (Gorichanaz 2017) of self- observation and interpretive phenomenological analysis to gain insight from first-hand architectural awe experiences, and is structured as a sequential pattern of the author’s response
I arrive at/in the space and suddenly I am consumed by awe. In an instant, everything is forced from my mind. I am not thinking, just experiencing, just being. I am speechless and so is the world. There could be sound around me, but in this moment, I hear only silence My senses are overwhelmed, the only thing that I can think of, see, hear, or touch, is the space around me My body acts involuntarily, saying ‘whoa!’ and ‘wow!’ I gasp and have goosebumps. I look for confirmation, as though I don’t believe my own eyes. I look to others and share equally wide- eyed inaudible agreements of ‘wow’, ‘amazing ’ and ‘incredible’. I walk around, but I have no destination, nor do I look where I’m going, my eyes are transfixed. I study the light, the shadow, the materials, the forms, the lines, the details, and I drink it all in. I find a seat, then breath in the space and engage it in silent conversation Even in my mind I whisper. I show deference and reverence for I feel here and now there is a vast power at play. By comparison, the experience is colossal and I, myself am tiny. All things important to me are utterly meaningless. I am a single cell in an infinite universe. All the problems and stresses of life are insignificant, and everything is going to be okay. For now, I just sit, I stare, and I breathe. When I feel like it would be impolite to linger any longer, I peel myself away. I leave the space, but part of it will never leave me. Later, I try to describe the experience to others; the majesty, the immensity, the awe, but my words are hollow. In the end I close with “words and photos just can’t do it justice; you have to go and see it for yourself !”
Through analysis of the description above, a series of conditions can be discerned. Awe-inspiring architecture uses vastness and accommodation to deliver all-consuming stimuli which leads to: speechlessness, silence, sensor y overload, involuntary bodily reactions, connection with others, connection to the space, reverence, transcendence, ego death, communal thinking, memory marking, and finally ineffability. These subjective outcomes correlate directly with the bodily responses of awe outlined by (Keltner & Haidt 2003) and (Keltner 2023) Quacchia’s (2016) five conditions of awe in aesthetic experience are also met by the case studies in that they are significantly extraordinary, impressively exciting, and captivatingly remarkable, as well as mysteriously inexplicable and dauntingly inexpressible – sub- categories of Keltner & Haidt’s (2003) vastness and accommodation respectively. The identified case studies led to an awe-response in the author and the observed bodily reactions and qualities of the architectural experience met the outlined conditions of awe and aesthetic awe
To further clarify the boundaries of architectural awe, 35 spatial experiences that led to awe in the author were analysed (see figures 2.0-5.4). Comparative analysis of the 35 case studies determined that it is not extraordinary architecture that generates awe, but extraordinary architectural experience Common to all case studies was a clear prioritisation of the inhabitant’s experience in the design of the architecture. As opposed to designing economically, pragmatically or structurally first, in these instances, the experience was the priority, and architectural features were employed as tools to evoke an intended experience for the inhabitant All works except one were civic 2 , and all facilitated experience either as the function (see Chichu Art Museum by Tadao Ando, figure 4.1) or to enhance the function (see Milwaukee Art Museum, by Santiago Calatrava, figure 5.0) The case studies were grouped into four categories of spatial typology; religious, interactive 3 , journey, and pause. All experiences met Keltner & Haidt’s (2003) conditions of awe and employed features of vastness and accommodation to curate an extraordinary architectural experience for the inhabitants. In summary, this research is concerned with the design of extraordinary architectural experiences that lead to awe in civic spaces, forms and structures. These spaces are intentionally designed for a transcendent religious experience, a contemplative and ritualistic journey, or a climactic and overwhelming moment of pause. The architectural features used to generate awe in these experiences will be expanded on and defined during the literature review in the next phase of the research.
Knowledge Gap in the Current Research:
As acknowledged by Keltner (2023), it is only in the last 20 years that researchers have begun investigating the emotion of awe in earnest Awe research specific to architecture remains sparse to the present day, as confirmed by Yan (2019) and Hoffman’s (2023) call for further studies As evidenced by Table 1.1 below, however, there is much writing on extraordinary architectural experience.
Architectural Practitioners:
Ando, Tado (2014)
Calatrava, Santiago (2024)
Eisenman, Peter (2007)
Hadid, Zaha (2013)
Kahn, Louis (1969)
Architectural Theorists:
Bermudez (2016) on Extraordinary Architectural Experience
Bohme (2017) on Felt or Tuned Spaces
Matteis (2021) on Affective Space
Tabb (2023) on Thin Place
Pallasmaa (2007) on the Sacred Le Corbusier (1965)
Libeskind, Daniel (2000)
Turrell, James (2013)
Zumthor, Peter (2006)
Ro (2022) on Beauty and Transcendence
Barrie (1996) on Spirituality and Meaning
Table 1.1 While many of the architectural practitioners and theorists of Table 1.1 do not specifically discuss awe, their writing discusses extraordinary architectural experience and shares significant overlap with Keltner’s (2023) conditions of awe
Bermudez (2016) noted that from the 17th to the 20th century, writing on extraordinary architectural experience – including many of the works listed in Table 1.1 – has been explored as a field of phenomenology. The author contends that phenomenology is often dismissed as overly subjective or untransferable by traditional science. As demonstrated below, however, favouring the scientific method alone, and ignoring commonly accepted architectural principles because they’re labelled as
2 While Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute is not technically civic in function, it is so popular in the public sphere that “Salk Architecture Tours” are held three days a week, (see https://www.salk.edu/about/visiting-salk/).
3 Interactive awe experiences, while spatial, predominantly included art installations rather than architecture. To focus the field of research, this category will not be included in the next phase of this thesis.
phenomenology, might lead to equally questionable outcomes. Bermudez (2016) calls for a “mutually beneficial dialogue” between the two (52). In response to this call, the science of awe shall be mapped to principles of extraordinary architectural experience to provide a lens through which to appreciate the current research The mapping of these two fields proposes four categoric conditions of architectural-awe experiences. Vastness (category one) and Accommodation (category two), are central conditions of awe (Keltner & Haidt 2003) and are mapped to objective and subjective conditions of architecture respectively using Ro & Bermudez’s (2015) approach 4 Civic Function (category three) is a common trait among awe-eliciting architecture (Tabb 2023) and is supported by the analysed case studies (see figures 2.0-5.4). Finally, the importance of Context (category four) in extraordinary architectural experience is argued by many architectural theorists including (Borch 2014; Bohme 2017; Zumthor 2006). These four categories are unified by the proposed condition of Totality. As asserted by Bermudez (2016) and Zumthor (2006), extraordinary architectural experience is achieved when there is a harmony between its elements, and it is “impossible to remove a single thing without destroying the whole” (69). The mapped categories of Vastness, Accommodation, Civic Function, and Context, and the unifying condition of Totality is proposed as a new model of architectural awe. This model shall provide a lens through which to review the existing research and will form the basis of the proposed methodology
Proposed model of architectural awe: derived from the literature, to be expanded in the literature review and tested in the experiment.
Joye and Dewitte’s (2016) paper confirmed that awe- evoking monumental buildings trigger behavioural and perceived freezing in participants, as well as the transcendent pattern of a reduced sense of self or feeling of smallness. The paper also confirmed positive relationships between vast architecture and awe including the proclaimed benefits of increased humility, prosociality and generosity (ibid). While confirming the relationships and benefits of awe in architecture, the authors also acknowledged a series of limitations in the research. Of particular concern was that only vastness was tested and not accommodation, the tested buildings were not integrated in any context, and the buildings themselves were low fidelity digital surrogates. These concerns also contradict the conditions of architectural awe outlined above Vastness and accommodation are required components of awe, awe cannot be present without both (Keltner & Haidt 2003); architecture must have context and function as lenses through which to be viewed (Borch 2014; Bohme 2017; Zumthor 2006); and architecture cannot be broken down into discrete components without “destroying the whole” (Zumthor 2003, 69). Finally, vastness and accommodation in architecture is experienced as tangible, visceral sensations, therefore, the simulation must be as realistic as possible.
Negami and Ellard (2023) sought to identify objective architectural features and measure their relationship to awe in building interiors. The paper adapted a version of The Architectural Coding System (TACS), as developed by (Gifford et al 2000), where they measured 24 architectural properties in 60 different interior spaces. Negami & Ellard’s (2023) study positively confirmed the presence of awe for participants viewing the spaces and that qualities of immensity, adornment and sanctity “significantly predicted awe” (2023, 8). The authors acknowledge several limitations in the
4 Previously, collected objective and subjective qualities of extraordinary architectural experiences from architectural theory would appear at odds and bear little consensus. Mapping them to categories of awe research, however, provides a supporting logic and confirms the overlap between extraordinary architectural experience and the emotion of awe.
research, however, including; photographs are not true architectural experiences, nor do they communicate height; the 24 stimuli tested are not the only stimuli to architectural experience; the stimuli tested were only concerned with Vastness, not Accommodation; and the transferability of the results is questionable given the limited demographics Negami & Ellard (2023) continue their first point by suggesting that future research should consider the use of virtual reality for a more realistic simulation. These limitations again contradict the conditions of the proposed architectural awe model including the lack of totality and realistic simulation, and the omitted conditions of Accommodation and Context The results of this paper confirm the concerns of the limitations and clearly testifies to the need to address these issues. These results place the quality of ‘light’ as the 12th most important feature of architecture that leads to awe, and ‘furniture or seating’ as third most important after ‘presence of water’ and ‘religious symbology’. This is a noteworthy, and surprising, byproduct of the methodology’s lack of ecological validity. While (Bermudez 2016) acknowledges that theorists and practitioners find little consensus when discussing extraordinary architecture, one thing they agree on is the importance of light – (Kahn 1969; Zumthor 2006; Le Corbusier 1965; Pallasmaa 2005; Ando 2014; Calatrava 2024; Turrell 2013). In contrast, it would be difficult to find the same consensus arguing the importance of furniture and seating as critical conditions of extraordinary architectural experience Even in an anecdotal, folk-understanding of architecture, one would consider this conclusion, that the importance of furniture and seating far outweighs that of light and shadow to be difficult to rationalise. This demonstrates the significant contribution to knowledge of the proposed PhD research by reintegrating commonly understood principles of architectural praxis with the scientific methods of architectural awe research.
Acknowledging the need for realistic architectural experience, Tabb (2023)’s study on Thin Places took students to important architectural sites, including the oft- discussed in both awe and architectural theory circles, Ronchamp Chapel by Le Corbusier - see (Ando 2012; Bermudez & Ro 2012). Tabb (2023) tasked students with grading 20 prescribed qualities using the Likert Scale, under two categories: “Presence,” which was quantitative, and “Expression,” qualitative. While many of the chosen sites of awe are suitable, the results of the experiment again arrived at questionable outcomes when viewed against the accepted understandings of architectural praxis Tabb (2023)’s results purport that ‘geometric order ’ and ‘light’, among others, are equally ranked as sixth most important features of extraordinary architecture; far below ‘differentiated bounding,’ ’centre and centering,’ and ‘ceremonial participation,’ ranked first to third respectively. The logic of this result is unclear, but it also leads to another concern, participant priming Tabb (2023) acknowledges training the participants of the study in each of the 20 prescribed qualities before they were measured at the architectural sites. The type and timing of participant training, however, may have contributed to the incongruent results. The role and timing of training used in this research, therefore, shall be carefully considered.
In Bermudez & Ro’s (2013) immense survey on Extraordinary Architectural Experiences (EAEs), nearly 2900 participants spanning various countries and two languages (Spanish and English), described and scored their personal awe experiences in architecture The survey participants nominated their own architectural awe experience and testified to the long-term positive impacts on their life and memory. A critical feature of this highly successful study is that each participant was able to choose their own architectural experience to draw from. Pre-validation of awe in the experience shall also be carefully considered in the methodology of this research.
In summary, the existing research on awe in architecture is scarce and, as acknowledged by the authors, has limitations that may have impacted the transferability of the results. Analysis of these limitations reveals a direct correlation between the gaps in the current research and omitted conditions of the proposed model of architectural awe. Totality, Context, realistic simulation, and the inclusion of Accommodation features are noteworthy omissions and opportunities for further research In search of credibility, and to distinguish themselves from the phenomenologists, current researchers have tried to distort architectural experience, breaking it into discrete parts for testing to conform to the scientific method. The results, however, have led to questionable conclusions
misaligned with commonly accepted principles of architectural praxis. Bermudez (2016) contends that the answer lies in a “mutually beneficial dialogue between science and phenomenology” (52). This research proposes to collect accepted principles of architectural praxis and reintegrate them with a more empirical method of architectural-awe research. This will be achieved by deriving architectural features of Accommodation via the writing of architectural theorists and practitioners in Table 1.1 during the literature review and through further case study analysis. Following the proposed model of architectural awe, accommodation features can then be combined with features of Vastness, Civic Function, and Context to design more authentic and robust architectural experiences for testing with participants
Creative Practice Objectives:
The creative practice of this PhD will begin with a self-reflective exercise of auto-ethnographic and auto -hermeneutic methods to identify patterns of human experience in case studies of architectural awe. These patterns will be analysed alongside the literature review to derive the subjective features of Keltner & Haidt’s (2003) accommodation, along with features of vastness, civic function and context. The features will then be combined and used in GEN-AI tools like Midjourney to design a series of architectural awe experiences The iterative and reflective process of designing these experiences, and the experiences themselves, will make up the artefacts of the research and will be presented via formal exhibition. How these experiences will be tested, and what will be tested, will be outlined below. This PhD proposes to use the theoretical practice-based research model (Skains 2018), resulting in a 40,000-word exegesis addressing the above research gaps and opportunities, and an exhibition of the creative practice artefacts produced through the research.
Methodology:
Vastness and accommodation must be achieved for awe to occur (Keltner & Haidt 2003) Current architectural awe research, however, focuses on physical features of architecture – vastness –whereas more subjective features – accommodation – are yet to be studied (Joye & Dewitte 2016; Negami & Ellard 2023). Further concern surrounds the lack of realism in the simulation of architecture used in research experiments (Ibid). Arguably, the lack of realism stems from low levels of architectural detail on the tested forms, no integration of function or context, and image-based testing rather than three- dimensional spatial immersion. Furthermore, the architecture is often broken into discrete parts for ease of scientific testing and experiment delivery. In summary, the architectural simulations used in the experiments of existing research lack totality.
This thesis proposes to address the knowledge gaps in current research by returning totality to the architectural awe experiences used in the experiment. All conditions of the proposed model of architectural awe will be included, with particular focus on previously omitted features of accommodation. The transferability of the results will be improved by designing authentic and robust architectural simulations that integrate principles of praxis using GEN-AI. Participants will be immersed in the experiences to test the impact of changing features of accommodation. For example, assessing the degree to which awe is felt when qualitative conditions – like the aura, atmosphere, sensuality, or spirituality – are changed against consistent conditions of vastness, civic function and context. All features will be expanded on during the literature review in the next phase of research, with specific emphasis on the architectural qualities of accommodation and how these can be tested and validated by participants’ responses during immersive experience.
GEN-AI tools and virtual reality will be used to return totality and realism to the simulations of architectural-awe experience within an achievable timeframe. Ro & Bermudez (2015) codified language used by surveyed participants describing extraordinary architectural experiences (EAEs) to better understand architecture that "fundamentally alters one's normal state of being" (2015, 18).
Their process of codifying language determined categories of architectural features commonly present in powerful architectural experience. This thesis proposes to expand on Ro & Bermudez’s (2015) methodology by codifying the architectural features derived from the literature review and auto -hermeneutic case study analysis as outlined above The derived traits will be codified into the four conditions of the proposed model for architectural awe; vastness, accommodation, civic function, and context. Codified terms will then be utilised as a four-part prompt in GEN-AI tools (IE: Midjourney) to generate awe- eliciting architectural experiences (or to pay homage to Ro & Bermudez 2015, “A-EAEs”) 5 See example visual outputs of the GEN-AI four-part prompt in the appendix.
Adaptation of the proposed model of architectural awe as a four-part GEN-AI prompt: features derived from the literature review and case study analysis will be categorised and combined to design A-EAEs with GEN-AI tools.
50 awe- eliciting architectural experiences (A-EAEs) will be generated using the four-part prompt. The 50 A-EAEs will be ranked during a pre-selection process using informed viewers with architectural training to validate the presence of architectural-awe. The top 10 A-EAEs with the highest presence of awe will then be tested with a diverse group of 30 non-architect participants. All participants will be guided through the same sequence of 10 A-EAEs via immersion in virtual reality. This will result in 300 simulated architectural-awe experiences, 30 experiences of each of the 10 A-EAEs.
Unobtrusive biometric data will be gathered during the experiment including retina tracking and audio recording to capture involuntary awe-signifiers (“whoas”, “wows” and “ahs”). The primary method of measuring the impact of accommodation features in the architectural-awe experiences, however, will be through participant surveys. Participants will be surveyed during and after the experiment. The first survey will be open- ended questions to allow the participant to give unprimed and immediate responses Participants will then be given the “tasting notes” of what features were used to develop the A-EAE. As in wine tasting, providing tasting notes before drinking can influence the participant’s experience and response. In this case, tasting notes will be provided after the first survey to allow participants to give their personal response first before ranking each of the architectural accommodation features used according to the AWE-S scale ( Yaden et al 2019). Finally, participants will be asked to relay any additional comments in an open- ended format as per Ro & Bermudez (2015) to allow room for unforeseen results and opportunities. Participants will be rested, including being seated and removing the VR headset during this open question – minimum 60 seconds. The combined surveys and biometric data sets are intended to validate each participant’s awe response and measure the impact of the accommodation features present in each A-EAE. See Figure 1.0 Methodology Experiment Diagram in the appendix for further details of the experiment.
5 A-EAE Generative-AI Four-Part Prompt example: “A museum stands majestically at the water’s edge during the golden hour of a warm summer evening. Its reflection shimmers in the glowing water, contrasting against the distant, radiant lights of a nameless city. The architecture is vast, with sharp edges and towering, strong lines that draw the eye upwards. Crafted from impressive white stone and adorned with delicate brass details, the building evokes a sense of both ancient grandeur and modern innovation. A massive circular feature dominates the design, creating a focal point. The shrine-like space feels both inviting and overwhelming, exuding immense power and spiritual significance. The scale of the structure dwarfs the viewer, evoking awe and speechless reverence.”
Significance:
The significance of this project is found in responding to the scarcity of existing awe-in-architecture research (Yan 2019; Hoffman 2023), as well as in addressing the critical gaps in the existing research identified in the Knowledge Gap section above. As outlined, the existing research is yet to study the awe features of accommodation, and the architectural simulations used in the experiments lack realism; which may impact transferability (Negami & Ellard 2023; Joye & Dewitte 2016). Some results in these experiments, and in related studies (Tabb 2023), also appear at odds with commonly accepted truths of architectural praxis This research argues that both the lack of realism and the incongruent results are caused by ignoring decades of accepted phenomenological principles of architectural praxis in search of something more scientific (Bermudez 2016), and by the strictness to which these experiments conform to the scientific method (Sadia 2019). Dissecting architecture into discrete parts of minimal detail for controlled study breaks down the essence of architectural experience, one of completeness or totality. This research addresses these issues via the novel methodology of using GEN-AI and Virtual Reality to study accommodation features while maintaining totality for a more authentic and robust architectural awe simulation. Furthermore, the features used in the four-part-prompt for generating the A-EAEs will be sourced from principle of praxis derived from the literature review and case study analysis of confirmed architectural awe experiences. Layering these principles into a more empirical method may help to avoid incongruent results and improve transferability (Bermudez 2016). Finally, by targeting awe in architecture, architects may be able to engender some of the positive effects of awe in the built environment including, homeostasis, pain disruption, prosocial behaviour, community mindedness, and stress reduction (Keltner 2023; Chen and Mongrain 2021; Shiota et al. 2007; Stell 2017).
Limitations:
As (Negami & Ellard 2023) and (Joye & Dewitte 2016) acknowledge, there are limitations to the simulation of architecture for the purpose of a controlled experiment which may impact the transferability of results The tested experiences of this research will be highly detailed GEN-AIproduced 360- degree immersive 3D environments shown in virtual reality. As suggested by the authors above, however, while the proposed experiences may be more detailed and realistic, they will be surrogates, nonetheless. Other factors that may influence the generalisability of the results of this research include its narrow research focus, small sample size, and constrained budget and timeline This research project will explore positive awe in the experience of civic architecture that is designed for a transcendent religious experience, a contemplative and ritualistic journey, or a climactic and overwhelming moment of pause. The specific function, site, contextual relationships, and vastness features will be derived from further case study analysis in the next phase and will be set as the constants in the experiment. Accommodation features will be derived from case study analysis and the literature review, and will form the objective of the experiment. The creative practice of this study is the design and testing of architectural awe experiences; therefore, architectural drawings and more-pragmatic considerations will not feature in the experiment. Scope for further work includes expanded testing of each of the four parts of the proposed awe model, analysis of specific spatial typologies, application to film and game industries, as well as teaching-led-research opportunities and other opportunities that may arise from the use of GEN-AI in creative practice.
Ethics Requirements:
This project will require ethics approval for human participants engaged in the experiment. This is scheduled to occur in preparation for Milestone 2, where the necessary images and questions will be prepared to submit the HREC documentation. It is expected that this will be a ‘low-risk’ project.
Reference List
Awe:
Chen, Susan K., and Myriam Mongrain. 2021. “Awe and the Interconnected Self.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 16 (6): 770–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1818808. Hoffman, Miriam. 2023. “Exploring the Role of Awe in Architecture as a Pain Disruptor- A Call for New Research.” The Centre for Conscious Design. https://doi.org/10.33797/SIDE.19.0003
Joye, Yannick, and Siegfried Dewitte. 2016. “Up Speeds You down. Awe-Evoking Monumental Buildings Trigger Behavioral and Perceived Freezing.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 47 (September):112–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.001
Keltner, Dacher, and Jonathan Haidt. 2003. “Approaching Awe, a Moral, Spiritual, and Aesthetic Emotion.” Cognition and Emotion 17 (2): 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297.
Keltner, Dacher. 2023. Awe: The Transformative Power of Everyday Wonder. London, United Kingdom: Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books.
Negami, Hanna R., and Colin G. Ellard. 2023. “How Architecture Evokes Awe: Predicting Awe through Architectural Features of Building Interiors.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 17 (1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000394.
Nelson-Coffey, S. Katherine, Peter M. Ruberton, Joseph Chancellor, Jessica E. Cornick, Jim Blascovich, and Sonja Lyubomirsky. 2019. “The Proximal Experience of Awe.” Edited by Brock Bastian. PLOS ONE 14 (5): e0216780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216780
Quacchia, Russell. 2016. "The Aesthetic Experiences of Aura, Awe, and Wonder: Reflections on Their Nature and Relationships," Contemporary Aesthetics (Journal Archive): Vol. 14 , Article 10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/liberalarts_contempaesthetics/vol14/iss1/10
Shiota, Michelle N., Dacher Keltner, and Amanda Mossman. 2007. “The Nature of Awe: Elicitors, Appraisals, and Effects on Self-Concept.” Cognition and Emotion 21 (5): 944–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600923668
Stell, Alexander J. 2017. Awe as a Self-Transcending Emotion. PhD Dissertation, University of Sussex. Stellar, Jennifer E., Amie M. Gordon, Craig L. Anderson, Paul K. Piff, Galen D. McNeil, and Dacher Keltner. “Awe and Humility. ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114, no. 2 (2018): 258–69. Tabb, Phillip James. 2023. Thin Place Design: Architecture of the Numinous. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003354888.
Yaden, David B., Scott Barry Kaufman, Elizabeth Hyde, Alice Chirico, Andrea Gaggioli, Jia Wei Zhang, and Dacher Keltner. 2019. “The Development of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A Multifactorial Measure for a Complex Emotion.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 14 (4): 474–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1484940.
Yan, Wendi. 2019. “Neuroscience Informs Design, Now What? Towards an Awe -Inspiring Spatial Design.” Conscious Cities Anthology 2019 (1). https://doi.org/10.33797/CCA19.01.19.
Architectural Praxis:
Ando, Tadao. 2012. Tadao Ando: Conversations with Students, edited and translated by Matthew Hunter. Princeton Architectural Press.
Ando, Tadao and Philip Jodidio. 2014. Ando: Complete Works 1975-2014. Germany: Taschen. Barrie, Thomas. 1996. Spiritual Path, Sacred Place: Myth, Ritual and Meaning in Architecture. Boston: Shambala.
Bermudez, Julio and Brandon Ro. 2012. “Extraordinary architectural experiences: comparative study of three paradigmatic cases of sacred spaces - The Pantheon, the Chartres Cathedral and the Chapel of Ronchamp.” Ambiances in action / Ambiances en acte(s) - International Congress on Ambiances, Montreal 2012, Sep 2012, Montreal, Canada. pp.689-694. halshs-00745545.
Bermudez, Julio, and Brandon Ro. 2013. “Memory, Social Interaction, and Communicability in Extraordinary Experiences of Architecture.” ARCC Conference.
Bermudez, Julio. 2016. “Phenomenology of the Architectural Extraordinary and Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy.” In Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality, edited by Thomas Barrie, Julio Bermudez, and Phillip James Tabb. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315567778.
Böhme, Gernot. 2017. Atmospheric Architectures: The Aesthetics of Felt Spaces. Edited by A.-CHR. Engles-Schwarzpaul. Bloomsbury Academic.
Borch, Christian. 2014. Architectural Atmospheres: On the Experience and Politics of Architecture, edited by Christian Borch. Birkhauser. Burke, Edmund, and James T Boulton. 2008. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful. [2nd ed.]. London ; Routledge Classics.
Calatrava, Santiago and Philip Jodidio 2024 Calatrava: Complete Works 1979-today . Germany: Taschen. Eisenman, Peter. 2007. Written into the Void: Selected Writings 1990-2004. Norway: Yale University Press. Hadid, Zaha. 2013. The Complete Zaha Hadid. United Kingdom: Thames & Hudson Kant, Immanuel and John T. Goldthwait ed. 1960. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. United States: University of California Press. Kahn, L. 1969. Silence and Light. Zurich: Park Books. Le Corbusier., Gargiani, Roberto., Rosellini, Anna 2011 Le Corbusier: Béton Brut and Ineffable Space, 1940-1965 : Surface Materials and Psychophysiology of Vision. Switzerland: EFPL Press.
Libeskind, Daniel. 2000. Daniel Libeskind: The Space of Encounter. United States: Universe Matteis, Federico De. 2021. Affective Spaces: Architecture and the Living Body. 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087656 McCarter, Robert. 2005. Louis I Kahn. London: Phaidon Press.
Pallasmaa, Juhani. 2005. The Eyes of the Skin : Architecture and the Senses. 2nd ed. Chichester: WileyAcademy.
Pallasmaa, Juhani. 2007. “The Aura of the Sacred: Architecture, Art and Existential Sacredness.” In Encounters 2: Juhani Pallasmaa, Architectural Essays, edited by Peter MacKeith. Rakennustieto. Ro, Brandon and Julio Bermudez. 2015. “Understanding Extraordinary Architectural Experiences through Content Analysis of Written Narratives.” Enquiry The ARCC Journal for Architectural Research 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.17831/enq:arcc.v12i1.390
Ro, Brandon. 2022. Beauty and Transcendence: Four Ideals for the Secular Age. Proceedings of the 2022 California Baptist University Architecture Symposium
Tabb, Phillip James. 2023. Thin Place Design: Architecture of the Numinous. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003354888
Zumthor, Peter. 2006. Atmospheres : Architectural Environments ; Surrounding Objects. Basel: Boston.
Methodology:
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, D. J., & Shaw, K. T. (2000). Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163-187. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972487
Gorichanaz, Tim. 2017. ‘Auto -Hermeneutics: A Phenomenological Approach to Information Experience’. Library & Information Science Research 39, no. 1: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.001. Sadia, Sadia. 2019. “The Sacred Ground: Enhancing and Constructing the Transcendent State in the Immersive Installation Environment”. RMIT University. doi:10.25439/rmt.27589296.
Skains, R. Lyle. 2018. ‘Creative Practice as Research: Discourse on Methodology’. Media Practice and Education 19, no. 1: 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2017.1362175.
Extended Bibliography:
Bachelard, Gaston. 1994. The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon Press. Baek, Jin. 2009. Nothingness Tadao Ando’s Christian Sacred Space. Abingdon [England] ; Routledge. Govan, M. and C.Y. Kim. 2013. James Turrell: A Retrospective. California: LACMA. Jodidio, P. 2007. Calatrava. New York: Taschen. Otto, Rudolf. 1958. The Idea of the Holy. United Kingdom: OUP USA. Vitruvius. 1960. Ten Books on Architecture: Volume 1. Translated by Morris Hick Morgan. Harvard University Press. Wogenscky, André. 2006. Le Corbusier’s Hands. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Appendix First-hand architectural-awe experiences.
Appendix
Awe in Extraordinary Architectural Experience: 35 case studies used in comparative analysis
Appendix
Awe in Extraordinary Architectural Experience: 35 case studies used for comparative analysis continued.
Appendix
A-EAE Generative AI Four-Part Prompt Examples in three spatial typologies (pause, religious, journey). This collection was made using Midjourney v6, 2024.
Image Credits
Page 13
Figure 1.1 Methodology Experiment Diagram, By Author
Page 14
Figure 1.2 By Author and https://benesse-artsite.jp/en/art/chichu.html
Figure 1.3 By Author.
Figure 1.4 https://www.salk.edu/about/ and https://www.archdaily.com/61288/ad- classics-salk-institute-louis-kahn
Figure 1.5 By Author and https://www.milwaukeemag.com/an-architects-guide-to -the-milwaukee-art-museum/
Figure 1.6 By Author and https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/dongdaemun-design-park-plaza/
Figure 1.7 https://www.frommers.com/blogs/arthur-frommer- online/blog_posts/do -you-need-tickets-for-thepantheon-navigating-rome-s- confusing-new-fee-rollout and https://www.archeoroma.org/sites/pantheon/ Figure 1.8 By Author, https://www.kkday.com/en-au/product/181585 and https://www.instagram.com/kungphotographs/p/CyvWEZGvxIh/ Figure 1.9 https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/case-studies/a4652- cathedral- of- our-lady- of-the-angels-by-rafaelmoneo -a-series- of-acute-and- obtuse-angles/ and https://lacatholics.org/cathedral/
Page 15
Figure 2.0 https://pantheonrometickets.com/opening-hours/ Figure 2.1 https://www.britannica.com/place/Basilica- of-St-John-Lantern
Figure 2.2 https://www.highrisephoto.com/blog/2017/9/5/cathedral- of- our-lady- of-the-angels
Figure 2.3 https://archeyes.com/the- church- on-the-water-by-tadao -ando -nature-and-the-sacred/ Figure 2.4 https://divisare.com/projects/499694- eberhard-wimmer-architekten-bryn- donkersloot-kirche-st-josef
Figure 2.5 https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/05/thorncrown- chapel-under-threat/ Figure 2.6 https://www.niallmclaughlin.com/?attachment_id=2269 Figure 2.7 https://daily.jstor.org/the-taj-mahal-today/ Figure 2.8 https://sagradafamilia.org/en/-/missa-a-la-basilica-amb -motiu- de-l-any-internacional- de-la-familia
Figure 2.9 https://www.flickr.com/photos/cathedraljack/14287903110
Figure 3.0 https://exploringworldsoldandnew.com/march-29-2020-mysterious-meteora/
Figure 3.1 https://www.amazon.com.au/Louis-I-Kahn-Robert-McCarter/dp/0714849715
Figure 3.2 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/the- express/punchbowl-mosque-ranked-alongsideaustralian-icons/news-story/cf30a1b1c0efdc092cbba34264cc0cae
Figure 3.3 https://www.archdaily.com/380911/light-matters-seeing-the-light-with-jamesturrell/51a7b5e7b3fc4b90270003a7-light-matters-seeing-the-light-with-james-turrell-image
Figure 3.4 https://archello.com/project/rain-room
Figure 3.5 https://www.archpaper.com/2018/05/teamlab -to- open-immersive- digital-museum-tokyo/
Figure 3.6 https://tournhatban.net/category/dia- diem- du-lich-nhat-ban/page/16/
Figure 3.7 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Shows-the-immersive-landscape-provided-by-thebuilding_fig3_378834558
Figure 3.8 https://olafureliasson.net/artwork/the-weather-project-2003/
Figure 3.9 https://www.archdaily.com/560974/the- color-inside- overland-partners-james-turrellskyspace/5449f325e58ecebb810002b0-the- color-inside- overland-partners-james-turrell-skyspace-photo
Page 16
Figure 4.0
https://inhabitat.com/roden- crater-is-a-magic-space-for- observing- cycles- of-geologic-and- celestialtime/james-turrell-rodan- crater-08/
Figure 4.1 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/chichu-art-museum-naoshima-tadao -ando 335658978494246509/
Figure 4.2 https://ph.trip.com/travel-guide/attraction/gunwi-gun/sayuwon-136897218?curr=PHP
Figure 4.3 https://ployslittleatlas.com/en/travel- en/seosomun-shrine-history-museum/
Figure 4.4 http://www.camilacaiza.com/inspiration-and-referents/2016/6/7/peter-zumthor
Figure 4.5 https://divisare.com/projects/396431-louis-kahn- cemal- emden-national-parliament- of-bangladesh
Figure 4.6 https://www.jmberlin.de/en/libeskind-building
Figure 4.7 https://benesse-artsite.jp/en/art/
Figure 4.8 https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/architectural- community/a6073-archeoastronomy-inspiringmodern-architecture/
Figure 4.9 https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Hotel_Review-g14129477- d7371377-Reviews-Aman_TokyoOtemachi_Chiyoda_Tokyo_Tokyo_Prefecture_Kanto.html
Figure 5.0 https://www.reddit.com/t/milwaukee_art_museum/
Figure 5.1 https://parametric-architecture.com/deconstructivism-in-architecture/
Figure 5.2 https://www.zaha-hadid.com/2014/03/24/dongdaemun-design-plaza- opens-21-march/
Figure 5.3 https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/g9qtcm/the_battle_of_sutjeska_memorial_ monument_complex/
Figure 5.4 By Author
Page 17 A-EAE GEN AI Prompt Examples, By Author using Midjourney v6, 2024.
Table 1.3 – Project Budget
