2. Chapter II: Diving into the experiential & creation research: Re-connecting with the senses, expanding the own landscape.
This chapter presents the experimental phase of this research based on the principles of creation reseach and the qualitative social research. According to the research question, the LANDSCAPE SENSORIAL PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT - (LSPE) is designed as the first applied experiment with the objective of recognizing the landscape through the senses and as data collection method during a landscape experience immersion. First, the LANDSCAPE SENSORIAL PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT - (LSPE) is presented. Second, the strategy is applied in multiple scenarios like individual, shared, collective and virtual practice. Third, the used data analysis technique is discussed to finish with some conclusions. The process of this phase of the research is executed in a non-linear form, i.e., there is a constant change and updating in the selection, collection, and analysis of data. It is also highlighted how subjectivity is understood as an important resource during the research process, which in turn allows a space for reflection in each phase of the research.
62
63
2.1 LANDSCAPE SENSORY PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT (LSPE): Analysis, diagnosis, and experimentation The experiential and experimental phase of the research is centered on the design and implementation of the LANDSCAPE SENSORIAL PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT - (LSPE). It is the first analysis and diagnosis instrument designed as an experiment during the landscape experience to be applied in this research. The creation of this tool was conceived from the need to actively apply the process of perception and to understand the functioning of the sensory system during any landscape experience. The tool is also an experiment that seeks to understand how internal and external factors or (inner and outer worlds) interact, determine and influence the experience. For that purpose, the tool is developed as an alternative to collect and consolidate the daily data during a landscape experience in a practical way. The instrument was designed based on landscape perception’s theory and Burckhardt’s methodology reviewed in the previous chapter. It has a special focus on the sensorial system to establish a general diagnosis of the level of use and awareness of each one of the proximity and distance senses during any landscape experience. ‘‘The promenadological walk as an aesthetic psychoanalysis questions first the usual, stereotypical ways of seeing, because one and the same fact or one and the same thing can be seen in very different ways: as something...This pictorial work not only enables a practical gain of knowledge, but through the immediate, attentive being on the spot and in the space enables a new, changed access to the world. The changed form of perception, the new, unknown ‘‘seeing as’’ is fundamental for taking a standpoint in the public and political space or for articulating an experience gained through art.’’ (Stippl, 2013) Through this instrument, the different senses are tested along a route and in this way the hierarchy and/or sensory duality in different types of landscape are identified. At the same time, the process of perception of the landscape is tested by meeting the environment and with personal experience. This tool was designed as an alternative method to record and consolidate the conscious use of each of the senses in contact with the immediate environment and to understand how through the sense’s different sensations, emotions, and memories can be activated. This experiment tries to answer the following questions:
How easily do we connect with the environment? How aware and active are we during a lanscape experience? Which of our sesnses are we using to inhabit/live an experience? To which places am I particularly attracted to? How much does a place evokes? Which feelings are related to the experience? Which memories are coming up? Is the place inviting to stop or to interact with it? Figure 10. Landscape and Sensoriality. (Ruiz, 2021)
64
65
2.1.1 Experiment procedure As presented in the Figure 11. The tool asks for the participant’s basic data such as name, nationality, place where the experiment will take place, day, time and at the end there is a space to fill in the duration of the experience. Immediately after, another box is presented which is divided by types of urban, semi-natural or natural landscapes. The instructions are then presented with a brief text that invites you to take a walk in a place (chosen by the participant, or suggested by the guide of the experience) paying special attention to both the body and each of the senses.
‘‘Let´s have a walk. Let´s put the body out there. Not just the body but all of our senses involved on it. Choose a place of your preference near by or maybe you would like to discover a new one a bit further.’’ The tool is divided by types of urban, semi-natural or natural landscapes. People can choose the location where to do the experiment. Then, the participant is asked if it is a new place of its choice or an everyday landscape. In this way, instructions are presented to the participant with the main objective of be attentive to each one of the senses and to write down and specify the findings, body sensations, emotions and memories founded along the way, as the following description:
a. Findings: refers to everything perceived in the immediate environment through each sense.
Figure 11. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - LSPE (Ruiz, 2021)
The objects or elements available, sounds, smells, textures, colors, and shapes perceived in the environment. b. Body sensations: What these stimuli through elements in the physical environment evoke bodily. c. Emotions: or feelings that eventually showed up during the walk. d. Memories: Relived memories or associations that maid arise during the walk. After this, participants are asked to choose two or three places during the tour to stop and be aware about the surrounding elements of those specific spots. Afterwards there is a space to maps the spots as a route or draw any special element that was important during the walking. Following there is a small diagram of heights is presented to understand if there was a relevant change in the perception of inclination during the walk. Finally, a list of questions is presented as a closing of the exercise that invites reflection on the experience, to compare the physical, emotional state before, during and after the experiment. The participant has also an option to prove how intense was the landscape experience by drawing a line through the elements mentioned above and classifying the experience as high, middle, low or neutral with each one of the senses . The following page is showing a muster of the LANDSCAPE SENSORIAL PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT - (LSPE), which was tested and applied in different scenarios as an individual, shared, collective and virtual practice further described in the next section.
66
67
2.1.2 Development of the Strategy As part of the application of the Landscape Sensory Perception Experiment - (LSPE), a four-level applied strategy is developed. The strategy consists of applying the tool on an individual, shared (two people), collective (more than two people) and virtual level during a daily landscape experience for three 3 weeks. The landscape experience can be defined as an active opportunity to explore the environment through the senses, in this case with the help of the designed tool. The consolidation of the process is presented in Figure 12.
- Individual practice:
Daily walks divided into three weeks to train/ un-train the own perception and to test the experiment outside. A constant practice to discover new sounds, new elements, exploring new touchable surfaces allows to open the senses an arise curiosity and awareness in known and unknown places. With time the body become an active part of the experience and slowly the sense of belonging increases.
- Shared practice:
Two weeks of walking in pairs testing the experiment outside in unknown or known places. Discussions, conversations are important to compare what each one perceives or feel. At the same time to receive feedback to improve the tool and make some corrections about results and priorities of the research.
- Collective practice:
One experience day to test the landscape perception tool along three different walks with a group of students that could be applied with other groups to have different results. Discussions, stories, and conversations enrich and complement the landscape experience through another’s perception, memories, and feelings. The results could vary due to different personal interests and needs. To receive feedback allows to improve the tools and make some corrections about results and priorities of the research.
- Virtual practice:
To develop a marketing strategy to catch up people around the world on the social networks to participate on the experiment. As a free practice it takes long time waiting for the results. To receive videos, sounds and pictures helps to support the participant’s perception. The following graph is presented as a timeline with the strategy and results per week for each of the strategies mentioned above. In the Attachments it is possible to visualize more applied examples with the (LSPE) as individual, share and collective practice.
Figure 12. Development of the Strategy for the LSPE + Results (Ruiz, 2021)
68
- Individual practice: (Example: Walking experience, Lütmarsen, Germany)
Below is an example of the tool applied as an individual practice with some of the photographs of this specific landscape experience. The hike in Lütmarsen, Höxter Germany on 10.11.2021. Being one of the first hikes, the primacy of distance senses over proximity senses is evident, however during the walk the experience is intensified by actively using touch to collect leaves and compare different textures encountered. (See Figure 13) a. Findings: forests sounds, texture of tree bark, texture of moss, sound of leaves when walking on them, touch test with the palm of the hands and the soles of the feet. Collection of some plants (some of them made sounds). b. Body sensations: sense of belonging, curiosity, playfulness. c. Emotions: joy, security, empathy d. Memories: Hiking in Detmold and Dörentrup, comparison with the mountains and forests in Colombia.
Figure 13. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Individual practice (Ruiz, 2021)
In the Attachments it is possible to visualize more of the applied examples with the (LSPE).
70
71
- Shared practice: (Example: Walking experience Rieselfelder Münster, Germany)
As a second example, the tool applied in a shared practice in Rieselfelder, Münster, Germany, on 11.11.2021 is presented. It is a European nature reserve and bird sanctuary in a watery landscape. In this new experience, greater receptivity through the senses of distance is evident. The sounds of the birds in the backgrund are perceived as a constant conversation with the environment. We are only visitors open to listen, feel, perceive, observe the different dynamics in a natural space. The climate influences the opening of the senses of proximity. The company, the discussions consolidate part of the experience. (See Figure 14) a. Findings: birds singing, cold temperature, windy atmosphere, cabins different atmosphere, infomation about birds, woody materials, water surrounding us. b. Body sensations: calm, awareness, belonging, curiosity. c. Emotions: joy, security, empathy d. Memories: biking in winter, participation in the cabin contest.
Figure 14. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Shared practice (Ruiz, 2021)
In the Attachments it is possible to visualize applied examples with the (LSPE).
72
73
- Collective practice: (Walking experience TH-OWL Detmold, Germany)
As a third example we present the tool applied in a collective group practice conducted on 24.11.21. The experiment was conducted with 15 students of the Urban Planning program of the TH-OWL in Detmold as part of the Modul XXX led by Ewa Pawlak and the Prof. Martin Hoelscher. Three different routes were organized in which the students divided into groups would apply the tool (LSPE) on the chosen route. The importance of interaction during the tour, sharing sensations, emotions and memories is emphasized. Likewise, the discussion after the tour strengthens the experience from different points of view or ways of perceiving the landscape. (See Figure 15)
Figure 15. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Collective practice (Ruiz, 2021)
a. Findings: landscape transition: urban-natural, urban sounds, birds singing, cold temperature, windy atmosphere, agriculture landscape, leaves sound, moos texture. b. Body sensations: excitement, awareness, coldness, curiosidad. c. Emotions: seguridad, empatía, vigilance, joy. d. Memories: detmold time, comparison with the forest in Höxter
74
75
- Virtual practice: (individual example)
As a last example, the tool applied in an individual virtual practice and a group virtual practice is presented. For the virtual activity, a communication strategy was designed and shared on social networks for two weeks: #LETSGOFORAWALK. In which the invitation was made to apply the tool in their own daily landscape experiences applying the (LSPE). People with interest on participate, were sent an email with the steps to follow as in the Figure 16. This with the objective of sharing the tool and understanding other ways of perceiving the landscape. Below is one of the formats received as an example of the tool applied in other contexts.
Figure 16. Email with the steps for the LSPE - virtual practice (Ruiz, 2021)
76
77
- Virtual practice: (individual example)
Below is one of the formats received as an example of the tool applied in other contexts. The participant’s intention to implement and improve the tool to explain her landscape experience is highlighted. It includes photographs and color palette, locates your route on google maps and represents your route graphically.
Figure 17. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Virtual practice (Ruiz, 2021)
2.1.3 Evaluation of results: discussion, first conclusions and research priorities
with some other networks that already practice this kind of initiatives and inviting them to participate. Creating community with lead to strength the interest to participate on the coming ‘’virtual walking tours’’ or immersive experiences.
As shown in Figure 11, by the individual practice, it is evident that in the first walks the senses of distance are perceived more with the senses of distance than with those of proximity. In the first weeks it is difficult to connect with emotions since there is no clear definition of these. During the following weeks, despite the different routes, some groups of plants are recognized along the way and the change of disposition and openness with respect to the previous weeks is evident. There is a difference in the level of attention and emotion in known and unknown places. During the last weeks of the experiment, it was necessary to stop to reflect on the emotions that a stimulus or a space in the tour unleashes, while memories or associations come more immediately and usually generate emotions. The development of curiosity to explore new sounds and textures increases as the weeks of the experiment progress.
2.2 Conclusions
Compared to shared practice, the importance of sharing different perceptions during the walk establishes another state of mind or a common state of mind which would be defined as a or shared or a collective landscape perception. There is constant confusion between emotions and sensations but spaces for discussion and reflection are opened to define them. The feedback has an impact on the constant modification of the tool. As the weeks progress, an openness to exploration with different surfaces and elements of the landscape is experienced, proving an active role in the production of different sounds with the landscape elements and the body. This is evidence that the level of awareness and interaction with the environment has changed. However, it is still important to make some stops to feel, listen, exchange, discuss and play an ‘’active role’’ with the environment. It is also evident that the experience of the landscape is not a linear process, and the tool is constantly changing. For example, it is recommended to attach an additional list to describe and differentiate emotions, sensations which would help to identify the in a specific moment along the way. Regarding collective practice: The importance of having previously tested the tool is highlighted due the level of openness and disposition of the body and senses which is ready to be shared and applied with a larger number of people. The strategy of the collective practice was applied with a group of urban planning students from the TH-OWL in Detmold. Different routes were traced, and the participants chose one of their preferences to make a walk with a specific time. After that, we met to share and discuss the results of each landscape experience. At the end each group shared an interesting discussion around the importance of the connection with the senses, the awareness while walking, the differences between the individual and the collective landscape perception. Finally, in the virtual practice it was interesting to see people’s reactions on social networks: curiosity, skepticism, and amazement. The constant motivation through images and videos are important to capture interest and increase the level of participation. Normally people in the social networks need constant visual motivation to activate and reactivate their curiosity to participate. Out of a large group there are a few with a sense of commitment, different timing, and priorities to send the results soon. Unfortunately, this situation delays the results and the comparison between them. It is important to send constant information and mailings as part of the strategy to obtain results. It is suggested to rethink and reorganize the strategy starting with a small group of people, connecting 80
The Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - (LSPE) was designed to systematize, organize, and understand one’s own way of perceiving the immediate environment through the senses and the body. It is a practice of attention and a way to bring awareness to the present moment during a specific path and time. It is a way of discovering what calls the attention of the environment and learning to engage in internal dialogues with sensations, emotions, and memories, as well as associations with the place, the elements, beings, and people that inhabit it. As the days go by, it is recognized how different elements of the landscape activate the senses and sensations to a greater or lesser degree. Also, the interest or curiosity to discover how to integrate the senses of proximity during the tour increases. The following are the conclusions of the Landscape sensorial perception experiment. -In the four scenarios (individual, couple, collective and virtual practice), most of the routes were chosen in mixed urban-natural landscapes, which in turn were more familiar than unfamiliar places. During the tours, there is evidence of the primacy of the visual followed by the auditory, the sense of smell accompanies these first two senses, leaving touch and taste in last place at a neutral and almost null level. In other words, the senses of distance are used to a greater extent than those of proximity. -It is also evident that the openness and body disposition in each route varies depending on external factors such as the weather and internal factors such as emotion or mood. However, it is also important to note that the type of landscape influences the openness of the senses: in a totally natural environment the senses are more open than in an urban environment where the awareness of the senses diminishes and human beings’ function in automatic mode. For example, in the nature reserve, as a specific place for observation and constant interaction with the natural elements of the landscape, the sensory experience is more intense, active, and conscious than for example in short walk in the city. -Regardless of place, nationality or external factors, there is a constant confusion between emotions and bodily sensations. For example: “relaxation, hunger, fatigue, security” are understood as an emotion rather than a bodily sensation. Very few of the participants were able to describe the emotionality that a bodily sensation triggers in reaction to environmental qualities: ‘’irritated, calm, disturbed, annoyed’’. This is evidence in part of little connection to emotions, disinterest, or lack of knowledge regarding the own emotions and feelings. -Within the urban landscape, there is a constant annoyance with the sounds of traffic, which several described as ‘’a more intense effect’’. Similarly, in the city there are fewer surfaces, colors that attract or invite to touch. Beyond the traffic light buttons, the materiality is cold, not stimulating exploration, participation, and interaction. -Despite the difference in textures, colors and surfaces that exist between the urban and natural en81
vironment, there is a low level of interaction through the sense of touch in the natural environment. The behavior of the urban environment is replicated here despite the number of stimuli offered by the natural environment. The interaction does not go beyond the visual-auditory, i.e., a passive role is assumed in the landscape experience. Regardless of whether it is a familiar or unfamiliar place, urban or rural, the experience is automated unless the body and senses are consciously called or impulse to be involved. -Regardless of the type of landscape, the sense of taste is the least used during a walking tour despite the number of stimuli in a natural environment. For example, this is due to the lack of knowledge of the ‘’natural world’’ and of the elements that can be touched or tasted. -In general, it is evident that the change of pace during the walk, i.e., stopping to perceive the space and the landscape elements influences the bodily sensation and emotions: ‘’it became calmer and calmer’’. However, during the pauses of the walking tour it is evident that the existing furniture invites to sit and observe, it is normally focused on the perspective outside, on the primacy of the visual. It rarely offers other elements of closeness or interaction with the environment through the senses. On the other hand, as described above, a change of mood, attention and renewal is also evident in comparison with before and after the tour. -There is also a difference between experiences in a familiar or everyday places than in a new place. Specifically in the bodily disposition and sensory openness increases in an exclusive experience, more than in an everyday one. Familiar places are experienced with less sensory intensity than unfamiliar ones. -The discussion or dialogue during and after the walking tour strengthens the experience as a component of interaction and reflection that allows understanding different forms of perception and knowledge. The Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - (LSPE) as a first experiment allowed to establish a general diagnosis from the individual and collective landscape experience of how a place is perceived by considering the role of the senses during a tour. It is also an experimental tool to understand what happens outside and inside each individual or a group of people and allows to identify the level of awareness, attention, and interaction during a specific landscape experience. Finally, the role of the senses as windows to the outside world and to the inner world is highlighted. For this reason, it is considered important to integrate the senses of proximity in everyday or special experiences to strengthen the landscape experience. The implementation of pauses to feel and interact with the qualities of space invite reflection and strengthen the connection of the environment with reactions, bodily sensations, emotions, and individual and collective memories. Likewise, materiality plays an essential role as a stimulus that invites us to explore the proximity with the elements of the environment. However, in an urban landscape the senses are negatively overloaded in an unconscious way. Whereas in natural or semi-natural landscapes the senses are also positively overloaded in an unconscious way. Human beings are unaware of or have forgotten the benefits of this active interaction with the environment. Therefore, The LSPE during the walking tour is recognized as an opportunity to learn from the interaction with the elements and beings that inhabit the landscape and in turn to unlearn the conditioning or behavioral patterns that from the urban strengthen the visual primacy and prevent having an active role in the landscape experience. 82
Some modifications or points to keep in mind for a next experiment or implementation: - It is necessary to evaluate the implementation in the tool an extra table with the list of emotions. - It is necessary to evaluate the implementation of guided actions or specific tasks that involve the senses of proximity. -As an extra tool could be implemented a guided tour centered on a specific sense system: (proximity senses or distance senses) - Parallel to the experimental process it is necessary to deepen in concepts, practices, strategies, scenarios that have applied the integration or strengthening of the senses of proximity in the experience of the landscape.
Identification of main interests:
- Integration of proximity senses (smell, touch, taste). - Pauses, spaces for discussion and reflection along the way. - Materiality, difference of surfaces. - Benefits of active interaction with the environment during the landscape experience. - Identification of sensations, emotions, associations - Types of landscape: Types of experiences: different scales of application (urban routes, mixed routes, routes in natural protected areas, routes in gardens, parks).
83
3. Chapter III: Conceptual theoretical framework: Contributions towards a new narrative of landscape perception & landscape experience This chapter presents research findings in themes that arose from the theories of landscape perception and the user research data based on the Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - (LSPE) during the study. The section presents the Conceptual Theoretical Framework of the thesis that allows to contribute to the construction of a new narrative oriented to an Integral Landscape Experience. First, five variables which play an important role in the sensory integration for an Integral Landscape Experience are presented: (Spatial qualities, Materiality, Bodily experience, activity determination, and intensity level.) These variables are grouped into three major factors: Physical-spatial; Sensory interaction; Subjective and emotional, which are linked to the phases involved in the landscape perception process reviewed in the first chapter. Second, these variables consolidate the design of the LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE VALUATION TOOL - (LEVT), as the second applied tool of this experiential-creation research. This tool aims to evaluate the quality and intensity of the landscape experience in any context. For this research, the LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE VALUATION TOOL (LEVT) was applied in ten different scenarios or urban interventions. Finally, some conclusions of the implementation of this tool are presented as an opportunity to show an alternative to complement planning processes and to re-focus the design on an Integral Landscape Experience which involves and understands the body, the senses, and the environment as part of a whole, a dynamic system in constant interaction and reciprocity.
84
85
3.1 Immersion in the Integral landscape experience Based on the results of the Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - (LSPE) were consolidated five variables which play an important role in the sensory integration of the landscape experience: (Materiality; sensory integration; active bodily interaction; identification of emotions and sensations; and finally, spaces for reflection). These variables are grouped into three major factors: Physical-spatial; Sensory interaction; Subjective and emotional, which correspond to the phases involved in the process of landscape perception reviewed in the previous chapter (reception of the stimulus and information, interpretation and valuation) as shown in Figure 18.
instruments are an alternative to complement planning processes with a special focus on involving and understanding the body, the senses, and the environment as part of a whole, a dynamic system in constant interaction and reciprocity. In his Book The eyes of the Skin, Pallasma mentions Merleau Ponty as a reference of the need to understand this body-environment interrelation in the sensorial integration. ‘’Our body is both an object among objects and the one that sees and touches them’’ there is an osmotic relationship between the self and the world - both interpenetrate and define each other. The simultaneity and interaction of the senses is further emphasized: ‘’‘‘My perception is therefore not a sum of known visual, tactile, and auditory data. I perceive wholly, with my whole being: I grasp a single structure of the thing, a single way of being that speaks to all the senses at once.’’ (Merlau-Ponty, 2000).
3.1.1 Relevant factors to create an Integral Landscape Experience As explained in the previous chapter, the process of perception can be understood in three basic phases. The phase of reception of the stimulus perceived in the physical environment through the senses, which gives way to the phase of interpretation of the stimulus through individual or cultural preferences to create the experience. Likewise, these two phases are connected through the body that receives information and reacts to the stimuli provided in the physical environment. Finally, the collected information is consciously or unconsciously valuated depending on the context, culture, preferences, or mood of the users. Thus, these phases correspond at the same time to the above-mentioned factors that affect the experience itself:
Figure 18. Percepton process + Variables involved into an Integral landscape experience (Ruiz, 2021)
As presented in the conclusions, a transversal deficit is evident in these three main factors: For example, from the physical-spatial factor, the materiality as external stimuli in an urban landscape normally are not centered on stimulate the senses of proximity. That leads directly to avoid body interaction with the environment and the possibility to integrate and activate the sensory system. All that finally influences the deficit of the subjective and emotional intensity in the landscape experience. ‘‘By not feeling the space, we automate the experience…The largely automatized perception, which aims at the conceptual identification of objects and properties, ultimately leads to the disappearance of the world and its sensual perceptions.’’ (Stippl, 2013) For this reason, this chapter presents a depth study of each one of the phases of the landscape perception process linked to the three main factors mentioned above. The main objective is to understand the function, the relationship between them and their influence on the integral landscape experience. After that, the conceptual-theoretical framework from this experiential research is presented. It is based on Multisensoriality and corporeality as applied concepts in different contexts, scenarios and interdisciplinary practices that focus on re-signifying perception beyond the visual. This framework allows to contribute to the construction of a new narrative oriented to an integral landscape experience by designing and applying new instruments based on the revised theory above. Those 86
a.
The physical-spatial: the physical environment
It refers to the information available in the physical environment as a stimulus and the arrangement of elements in the environment. Seen from the perspective of landscape ecology it can be defined as ‘‘A mosaic of interacting natural elements’’ ‘‘the total character of a given territory, meaning both the perceptive and the natural aspects.’’ (Humboldt, 1986). ‘‘…an area characterized by dynamic geographical elements (geophysical, biological, anthropic) which makes a geographical system able to evolve.’’ (Bertrand, 1968). According to this view the physical environment is characterized by three main elements which are structure, function, and transformation. ‘‘Structure: the spatial relationships among the distinctive ecosystems or elements forming the landscape; Function: the interactions among the component ecosystems and the intrinsic behaviors of its complex mosaic; and Transformations: the evolution an alteration in the structure and function of the complex mosaic over time’’ (Ingegnoli, 2002) For its part, classical geography according to Schulze (1955) ‘‘represents a three-dimensional section of the earth’s surface, whose uniform characteristic appearance is created by the influence of formative factors’’ also mentions factors that make up the physical environment and classifies them as inorganic factors (surface forms, soil atmosphere, climate, waters), organic factors (fauna and flora); finally, mind and spirit (man and his tools). 87
From the human geography perspective, it can be understood as the stimuli available in the environment linked to the individual perception and valuation of the human being. ‘‘Environment provides the sensory stimuli, which as perceived images lend shape to our joys an ideals. Sensory stimuli are potentially infinite: that we choose to attend (value or love) is an accident of individual temperament, purpose and of the cultural forces at work at particular time.’’ (TUAN, 1974)
b.
Sensory integration: The body as mediator
It refers to the body as the center of experience and the senses as windows to the physical environment and at the same time to the sensations, bodily and emotional reactions that respond to the stimulus received. ‘‘The world is reflected in the body and the body is reflected in the world. We remember through our bodies as much as through our nervous system and our brain’’. (Pallasma, 2005). The environment directly influences the body, and the senses are responsible for deciphering the messages from the environment. In this way, it is shown how the physical body and the environment are in constant dialogue and reciprocity. ‘‘The body as a center of integration. Our bodies and movements are in constant interaction with the environment; the world and the self are constantly redefining each other.’’ (Pallasma, 2005). From this interaction results experience itself. ‘‘Sensory experience is unstable and alien to the natural perception, we achieve with our whole body at once which opens up a world of interrelated senses...Sensory experiences become integrated through the body, or rather in the very construction of the body and the human way of being.’’ (Pallasma, 2005). ‘‘The human body is therefore not only a natural object, but as a body in general it represents the requirement of all experience and understanding and thus opens a horizon of possibilities’’. (Hahn, 2012) ‘‘The body is of central importance here. Every process of perception is related to the body of the perceiver. The body-boundness of every perception result in an ineluctable, individual perspective. Aesthetic experience draws its energies from a certain way of body-relatedness of experience, which brings the immediate prevalence of the given into the center of attention, which includes all senses.’’ (Stippl, 2013) In the theory of architecture, the body is also a field of exploration that presents, for example, an important difference between body and corporeality. ‘‘The body (Körper) is what one sees or feels in front of oneself, while the corporeal body or corporeality (Leib) is what one senses in front of oneself, without any single sense.’’ (Schmitz, 1998). The factual human relation in all the emotional and reflexive diversity of its world to architecture as living, designing, building describes the task of architectural theory. This can then be understood as ‘‘two bodies’’ the physical-perceptual body composed of the senses and the sensory-emotional body that internally also receives and responds to the stimulus. Misch contrasts this material conception with man’s primary experience of his own body. He further arrives at an important distinction between feeling and perception which are at the same time intimately related. ‘‘The sensations associated with a bodily feeling are unique in comparison with all sensations experienced in the external world, such as the eye, the ear.’’ (Misch, 1994) ‘‘On the one hand, a necessary distinction between body and corporeality. The body signifies a delimitation of us completely different from corporeality, which is also limited. On the other hand, corporeality related to sensations not only closes us to the outside, but also opens us to the world.’’ (Misch, 1994). Through this distinction between body and corporeality a correspondence between corporeal interiority and exteriority and its role as a mediator of experience is evident. The author presents the following example of this interrelation. ‘‘We see the eyes shining with joy and do not conclude from 88
the outer sight of the shining eyes to an inner feeling’’ (the joy) (Misch, 1994). From this perspective, the theory of Architecture highlights the importance of recognizing the senses and sensations in the process of perception, which in turn are part of an integrated whole in the body. Taking this into account, it does not only implies designing and planning for the body but also for the forgotten and devalued corporeality.
c. The subjective and emotional: Affective-subjective perception of the landscape This phase of Interpretation refers to affective and emotional preferences according to individual, cultural and social values, which in turn evoke memories and associations within the process of perception. In relation to Misch’s position from the Theory of Architecture, regarding the differentiation between body and corporeality, he states that there is therefore a difference between ‘‘perceiving’’ and ‘‘feeling’’. ‘‘The natural position of our knowledge in relation to things is not the pure perception of things, to which the character of value and finality is subsequently attributed. ’’ i.e., meaning. We not only perceive, but we also give meaning. ‘‘as for example when we do not merely look at a thing (but take it as an object of use), but that total grasping in the understanding of significance’’. (Misch, 1994). Here the element or space is hardly perceived in a neutral way, since it is loaded with meaning depending on who perceives it, since it is in turn influenced by individual and collective preferences. According to Misch, the meaning of something and the preference or attraction to something are closely related.’’ Perception is double-sided: I perceive something, I find it appealing, at the same time I am seized by something, something perceives me.’’ (Misch, 1994). In the case of that which appeals to us, its significance stands in the center. Something can have a character of grace for us, insofar as it confronts us… ‘‘Primarily it is about the water in its typical habitus, as a living whole, a being, which is not only a thing with material qualities, but a living form with a character of grace, which has a significance in life. The water to which we have a life relationship’’. (Misch, 1994) On the other hand, the philosopher Hermann Schmitz describes the subjective affective perception in experience in his theory of Atmospheres when he mentions the interpretation of feelings as atmosphere. ‘‘In almost every experience of our senses there is a more, which remains unexpressed. This more, which lies beyond the real factual, but which we feel in unity with it, we can call the atmospheric’’. (Misch, 1994). ‘‘Feelings are “no more subjective than country roads, only they are less repairable. They are not within us, but are out there in the world, atmospherically poured out in an indefinite expanse.” (Schmitz, 1981) In psychoanalytic literature, the emotional and symbolic representation of the human environment is also valid for spatial dimensions. ‘‘The constitution of symbols is based on the framework of human relationships of past childhood experiences that are repeated in different life cycles.’’ (Jüngst, 1984). On the other hand, the symbolic also has to do with the construction of collective representations. ‘‘or archetypes: Motif images often differ in detail, but their basic structure is always the same’’ In other words, landscape images are nothing more than “metaphors for inherent dynamic structures.’’ (Leuner, 1980) The pre-definition of standard landscape motifs as an element of association, whose symbolic mean89
ing seems to be intersubjectively anchored in the sense of archetypes and assignments of meaning acquired through life history, thus possessing both collective and individual significance.’’ (Jung, 1980). Here, Leuner mentions some examples as‚ basic motif ‘: the meadow: ‚it stands out for its predominantly pleasant qualities: the fertility, the possibility to rest, to meet people and to experience together’. The brook: can be traced as a flowing body of water from the source to the sea...and is considered guidelines of emotional development and unfolding of the person. The forest and forest edge as a symbol of the unconscious. The forest and the edge of the forest as a symbol of the unconscious. It can be experienced as a sheltering place of safety but also as a place of threatening danger, the mountain in general the male-fatherly world and thus also the problem of authority and rivalry..., The volcano is based on the idea that eruptive processes come from the earth, which are the expression of conscious and strongly urging aggressive impulses.‘‘The scientific discussion of the meaning of landscape symbolism is scarce’’ Landscape is experienced as an everyday thing in such a way that it has not seemed worthwhile to pursue its metaphors further.’’ (Hard, 1970) This is how it can be understood that the interpretation of subjective-emotional perception within the process of perception has to do with a dialogue and a reflection between the perceiver and the perceived; between what attracts and is attracted; and the symbolic charge that each individual or human group gives to an element or to a specific place. Gernot Böhme in his Essays for a New Aesthetics sums it up as ‘‘Something that things can radiate and that we, as human beings, can feel, that can overwhelm us’’. ‘‘Co-presence’’: shared reality of the perceiver and the perceived. ’’ ‘‘wodurch die Natur in ihrem schönen Formen figürlich zu uns spricht.‘‘ ‘‘whereby nature speaks to us figuratively in her beautiful forms.’’ (Böhme, 1995) The interrelation of those three factors (the physical environment, the senses and the body, and the affective-subjective dimension) group variables that compose and influence the experience of the landscape as shown in graph XXX. It is through the body that the experience is activated and vivified. ‘‘The body of the human being between its corporeality and its consciousness opens possibilities of experiencing.’’ (Hahn, 2012) For this reason, it highlights the importance of understanding the interdependence of these three factors during the planning process to open the possibility to activate, to strength, or to improve the landscape experience in any context. This interdependence between the three factors that are part of the perceptual process makes evident how space has a tangible or experiential co-responsibility for the state of mind. ‘‘Every environment, insofar as it presents itself to us in experience, seems to radiate a certain mood peculiar to it, which we feel and evaluate as pleasant or unpleasant.’’ (Hahn, 2012). With his postulate demonstrates that the arrangement of the elements of the environment as stimuli play an important role in the activation of the body and embodiment. ‘‘The experiencer is always immersed in his lifeworld when he is ready to be awakened by the impressions of an environment...Things are real in a present and speaking way, so that in this present space of experience both: ‘‘effect and reality, merge into one.’’ (Hahn, 2012) According to Cramer describes in his article for the Dictionary of Philosophy that experience can be understood as ‘’…still being alive when something happens.’’…’‘An experience becomes an experience if it was not simply experienced, but if it’s being experienced had a special emphasis that ensures it lasting significance. In the experience, the thing experienced is lifted out of the trivial context of its other experience and at the same time significantly related to the whole of existence.’’ (Cramer, 1998) 90
Therefore, it is possible to influence these variables to integrate and to intensify the landscape experience. For example: The level of intensity experience is strengthened or intensified according to the level of emotionality that it can evokes. : For the architect Peter Zumthor this is evident in design practice when the space contains ‘‘Stimmungsqualitäten’’, ‘‘mood qualities, ‘‘a specific character’’, ‘‘that atmospheres respond to emotional perception, that moods touch the experiencer and that he very quickly has ‘‘a feeling for what is’’ in spaces.’’ (Zumthor, 2006)
3.1.2 Everyday experiences & special experiences Parallel to the understanding of the importance of the interrelation of the variables for an integral landscape experience, it is important to review the two types of experiences that are presented as a result of the Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - (LSPE). For example, in places previously visited landscapes: ‘‘everyday experiences’’ and in a totally new landscapes: ‘‘special experiences’’. It is precisely this difference in experience that is defined by Hekkert & Schifferstein ‘’Experiences can be divided into “special or memorable” experiences in german (“Erlebnis”) and “day-to-day” experiences (in German “Erfahrung”) (Hekkert, P., & Schiferstein, 2008). From his perspective as an expert in experiential design Hassenzahl describes the experiences as “meaningful, personally encountered events (“Erlebnis”) and not so much knowledge gained through these events (“Erfahrung”)”. He also argues that the meaningful experiences are more practical “because most of our waking time, we are feasting on vivid memories of the past (or anticipations) rather than on immediate pleasures.” (Hassenzahl, 2011) Other authors also interested in the design from the user experience perspective describe that is particularly challenging the design of meaningful experiences due the experiences are continuously occurring and it is cognitively and individually decided what is meaningful and what is not. ‘‘According to a pragmatic approach, experiences are continually happening, but some of them become more meaningful than others, which implies that the meaningful experiences might be challenging to design because the cognition has a remarkable role in deciding what is meaningful’’. (Battarbee, & Koskinen, 2005) In accordance with the above the holistic nature of experience is difficult to handle. ‘‘the experiences cannot be directly designed; it is possible to create the most optimal conditions to evoke a certain experience.’’ (Preece, Rogers, & Sharp, 2015). The creation or arrangement of these ‘‘most optimal conditions’’ are relevant for both the meaningful and the every-day experiences, which at the same time are deeply related to the context. According to the results of the diagnosis presented in the previous chapter, there is a deficit in both daily and special experiences, regardless of the type of landscape (urban, natural, or semi-natural). This deficit is evidenced in the disconnection of the senses of proximity. That means that the environment does not offer the ‘‘most optimal conditions’’ to enter in direct contact with the elements of the environment which directly affects the level of bodily sensations and emotions. For this reason, this experiential research focuses on the search for practices, scenarios that already implement the inclusion of the senses of proximity that involve the senses and the body in the landscape experience. 91
3.2 LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE VALUATION TOOL - (LEVT): From the landscape perception theory to an applied practice
pleasure and a greater sense of control than someone who simply surrenders passively to a process. He also must be ready for the experience, he has to trust and put himself into it. There is a tension between bodily emotions, which generate resistance to participation also in physical symptoms, and the understanding of the safety of such an undertaking. Previous experiences also play a role here. However, an inner struggle does not always have to take place.
To measure or to evaluate the intensity of the landscape experience, it is necessary to apply specific variables to each of the three factors that influence it. In this way, theories are taken up to understand the physical qualities of the space, the availability to activate the corporeal and sensory, as well as the affective qualities of the place. In general, Hahn (2012) recognizes the importance of this analysis and proposes that both the external experience factors as well as the willingness of people to experience must be considered. For this reason, he suggests five groups that correspond to the three factors that make up the landscape experience. (Physical space, sensory-interaction and subjective-emotional) that contribute to a crystallization of experiences from the stream of experience:
• Need determination: The horizon of what has been experienced so far determines what can be experienced as having an experience.The need-determination means that experiences depends on the socio-cultural background (age, gender, education, diversity of wishes, ideas and needs) of the users. The experience is understood as need-determined, strongly user-dependent and presupposes readiness for experience on the part of the users. (Need for rest, movement, relaxation)
Figure 19. Experience external factors by Hahn (Ruiz, 2021)
• Technology determination: The technical style of installations shapes the experience through its sensual, haptic as well as audiovisual qualities and influences the having of experiences. (High-tech or Low-tech: Risk factors, safety measures). The space must be reliable and convey a feeling of controllability and safety. The experienced quality, its sensual aesthetic impression. Style, materials. Visual and haptic impressions of coherence and factors influencing the atmosphere: sounds, colors, smells etc. • Bodily experience: The stronger the bodily experience is, the more likely this will be called an experience. Impressive bodily experiences stick in the memory and are more likely to emerge as experiential moments when reconstructed in stories and can be attributed the status of an experience in retrospect. Distance to habit and everyday life and in the strength of the bodily sensation. The way in which the space and the atmosphere are experienced physically is quite decisive because the body is the medium in which all other factors such as the sensory qualities, the actions and the needs are concentrated. • Activity determination: The involvement of the participants in the event in their activity or passivity affects the experience. A high level of the user’s own activity or involvement is promoting the experience. A ‘’weaker’’ automation of the artifacts or a higher degree of own activity could increase the experience feeling due to the involvement. The user who can influence the events and the movements may have more 92
• Unavailability determination: An atmosphere on site as well as unexpected things and events lead to experiences in an unavailable way. The randomness of the experience in the sense of its unavailability. All attempts to bring about all experiences in a controlled way underestimate the dimension of randomness and the inability to control them. The experience cannot be explained mechanistically by the addition of components but remains in its occurrence or non-occurrence in a space of indeterminacy. It is firstly the extraordinariness of the experienced in the sense of everyday remoteness and secondly the fulfillment of needs by means of thirdly technical fifthly within a ‘’tuned atmosphere’’ that can lead to an experience without being able to completely dispose of it. According to that, to complement the spatial physical component and the corresponding variables described by Hahn, the objective variables of Kaplan’s perception methodology reviewed in Chapter 1 are also used to evaluate the physical qualities of space: (Legibility, Coherence, Mystery, and Complexity) and are directly related to the basic purposes of human interaction with the environment: MAKING SENSE. to have a clear structure and to be easy to characterize, And INVOLVEMENT purposes that enable an environment of interaction, learning and stimulation. As a proposal, Kaplan’s ‘’Predictors of environmental preference’’ are regrouped to complement and expand the sensory interaction or bodily and activity experience variables. To his theory two new variables are added resulting from the Landscape sensory perception experiment in the previous chapter: the level of use of proximity senses and the level of use of distance senses. The importance to implement variables that evaluate the level of activity, participation and involvement of body and senses are indispensable to identify if the landscape elements influence the usability of the senses and therefore the level of intensity of the landscape experience. Finally, to determine and complement the variables of the subjective-emotional factor, it is proposed to apply the ‘‘affective quality’’ methodology from the perspective of Environmental Psychology. ‘’From which the level of attraction to a place or its recreational effect is measured.’’ (Flade, 2010). To measure the mood of a place, experts resort to different adjectives accompanied by scales. For example, (Russel, Ward, Pratt, 1981) present a two-dimensional structure of the affective evaluation of the environment based on different adjectives as shown in Figure 16. The Figure 17 represents the interpretative abstraction of the previous one which completes the affective evaluation of the environment from (horizontal axis: ‘’pleasant-unpleasant’’ and vertical axis: high-low arousal. 93
Figure 20. Adjectives to environmental description by Russel, Ward, Pratt,(Ruiz, 2021)
Figure 21. Affective environment evaluation by Russel, Ward, Pratt, (Ruiz, 2021)
Based on the above, these pairs of adjectives: sleepy, Arousing; pleasant-unpleasant; exciting; relaxing; gloomy- distressing are associated with specific situations in the interaction with the place are taken up again to evaluate the subjective-emotional factor in the landscape experience that is directly related to the level of affectivity on a specific place. To put theory into practice, the following figure 18 presents the LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE VALUATION TOOL - (LEVT). It is the second tool from this experiential research, which is designed to evaluate, to measure the intensity of the landscape experience in different urban landscape projects according to the resulting variables:
•
A. PHYSICAL-SPATIAL FACTOR: Centered on the first phase of the landscape per-
ception process with the main function to MAKE SENSE. -Variable 1. Spatial qualities: The following components are being evaluated: well defined area, repeated elements, diversity of elements, organized patterns, textures, regions, landmarks, openness/ exposure. -Variable 2. Materiality: The following components are being evaluated: appropriate materials, haptic qualities, safety measures. • B. SENSORY INTERACTION FACTOR: Centered on the second phase of the landscape perception process with the main function to generate INVOLVEMENT. -Variable 3. Bodily experience: The following components are being evaluated: Use of distance senses, use of proximity senses, safety feeling, sense of anticipation, sense of control, embodied attraction. -Variable 4. Activity Determination: The following components are being evaluated: Physical movement, Embodied practice/ get involved, interaction/ reflection spots, participation processes, possibility to learn. • C. SUBJECTIVE-EMOTIONAL FACTOR: Centered on the second phase of the landscape perception process with the main function to generate AFFECTIVE CONNECTION. -Variable 5. Intensity level: The following components are being evaluated: Unpleasant, arousing, sleepy, pleasant, relaxing, distressing. 94
Figure 22.Variables used in the Landscape Experience Valuation Tool (Ruiz, 2021)
The LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE VALUATION TOOL - (LEVT) (See Figure 22) aims to prove how the variables described above can be applied as a methodology for the analysis of the landscape experience in different everyday landscapes at different scales. These landscape typologies (garden, park, parkway, boardwalk, meadow, open field, cemetery, lake, plaza, forest) are the result of the individual and collective tours carried out with the Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment (LSPE), as part of the diagnosis in the previous chapter. However, it should be noted that these variables are valuated from the subjectivity of the experiencer or the person in charge of the analysis. For this reason, it is suggested that this tool should be applied at the individual level and the results can be proved by groups. It is also important to mention that the Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - (LEVT), can be applied also to evaluate the landscape experience of a single typology, i.e. after a field visit or in a single situation; also to analyze and compare different landscape experiences of the same typology, for example, two or more parks, gardens, promenades, cemeteries; or also to analyze and compare the landscape experience between different landscape typologies in a city and the relationship between them, for example, park-plaza; meadow-lake; meadow-promenade. In general, it could be applied when grouping multiple possible landscape combinations.
95
3.2.1 Case scenarios: examples of the applied tool The Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - (LEVT), and its variables will be applied in some landscape architecture projects, scenarios or interventions in different cities to understand how the interrelation of the variables affects the quality and intensity of the landscape from a personal perception. As a result of The Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - (LSPE) in chapter one, two types of experiences were suggested to valuate: everyday landscape experiences and special landscape experiences such as a visit to a nature reserve or protected areas, i.e., when the human being is willing to witness this unique experience different from his everyday life. Without neglecting the importance of these unique landscape experiences, this part of the study is centered on presenting project examples of small everyday landscape experiences in the wake of the constant and growing desensitization of urban city planning to human needs. Those interventions were visited for this reseach phase with the main objective to test the (LEVT). Following are presented ten case scenarios. Seven of them are urban daily landscape experiences; most of them are examples of reactivated urban areas. The last three examples are daily natural landscape experiences as an alternative to test and to compare the intensity of the landscape experience in a non-urban context but are at the same time part of the daily human experiences.
Figure 24. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Nordsee, Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
The following figure shows the experiences where the tool was applied:
Figure 23. Case scenarios, experiences, interventions where the LEVT was applied. (Ruiz, 2021)
96
97
98 99 Figure 26. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Grieschicherplatz, Berlin Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
Figure 25. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Prinzessingarten, Berlin Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
100 101 Figure 28. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Barcelona, Spain (Ruiz, 2021)
Figure 27. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Martinistrasse. Bremen, Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
102 103 Figure 30. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Market square. Paderborn, Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
Figure 29. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Middle Pader River. Paderborn, Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
104 105 Figure 32. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Forestwalk. Höxter, Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
Figure 31. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Tiger and Turtle. Duisburg, Germany (Ruiz, 2021)
3.3 Conclusions Based on the Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - (LEVT) some of the conclusions are presented as a result of the analysis and the understanding of different landscape experiences. Within the physical-spatial variable, a constant among the different projects analyzed is the focus on supplying and highlighting spatial qualities. A defined area is perceived, with a clear and structured design; the use of different textures and elements such as furniture and lighting are present. The elements that are highlighted within the space are also part of the spatiality. From the physical-spatial point of view, the experience is legible and coherent: that is, it “makes sense” to the observer. However, within the component of materiality, only a few projects consider the haptic qualities of the materials used. It opens the question, whether haptic qualities can be considered an indicator for choosing appropriate materials for the space and its function. Several of the projects use barrier-free plaster within the space as the only element focused on haptics. - From the physical-spatial component, it is evident that spatial qualities and materiality directly influence the second sensory-interaction variable. Most of the projects are focused on the use of the senses of distance and the relationship that this generates with the sense of security, anticipation and control over space is evident. According to this statement, this corresponds to a basic landscape experience where the spatial qualities, the elements used, and the materials do not invite further interaction. This is also evident for example in the projects where the senses of proximity are implemented, as there is a bodily attraction towards the different materials and elements arranged in the space. Beyond just the physical movement of the body moving through the place, there is an opportunity to get involved.
- The two previous components in turn influence the third one, which has to do with the level of emotional intensity that the observer experiences within the space. According to the projects analyzed, a coherent and legible space can offer pleasant and relaxing experiences. However, the materiality, the elements, the structures can intensify the experience and make it arousing, i.e. these elements have the capacity to awake and activate the emotions of the observer within the space. As well as the combination of materiality, elements, textures, and colors affect the experience to be flat, boring, unpleasant and this directly affects the affective connection that one has with the place. - In general, the Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - (LEVT) has the function to analyze and to identify the intensity of the landscape experience in different contexts, scenarios and urban and natural landscape projects that questions the methods, materials, conventional requirements in city planning processes. At the same time this tool focuses to understand how the spatial physical qualities in the landscape experience act as stimulus to evoke an active interaction between body, senses, and the environment and how this process influences emotions, sensations and the human need for interaction, growth, and constant learning. For this reason, it is an opportunity to question and evaluate if the spaces that we inhabit every day are really thought and designed for an integral human experience. This is an invitation to rethink the spaces we daily interact with. be lived or simply extend the materiality of the city to cover requirements and basic spatial qualities that have structure and sense, but do not influence curiosity, mystery, involvement and therefore the affective interaction with the place. Through this tool it is possible to identify whether the spaces where the daily landscape experiences take place are really planned and designed to strengthen the interaction between humans and its environment. This is an invitation to ask how the planners are planning the city.
Is a place really inhabited, appropriated, experienced? Or is it simply an extension of the materiality of the city to cover requirements and basic spatial qualities? How a place can invite to Wcreate interactions? Does a place influence curiosity, mystery, involvement? How can a place evoke or increment the affective interaction with it for an integral landscape experience?
This sensation is offered by projects focused on participation, or that offer spaces for interaction between the observer and the space, between the observer and the elements, sounds, textures, smells, colors. This component is also strengthened when the projects offer spaces for reflection or provide elements for learning. In this way, the importance of the integration of the sensorial and corporal experience is highlighted through elements that invite the integration of different activities that strengthen the landscape experience. Figure 33. Microlandscapes as daily experiences. (Ruiz, 2021)
106
107