The provisional conclusions of the study are that the brain behaves differently when exposed to contemplative and non-contemplative buildings, contemplative states elicited through “architectural aesthetics” are similar to the contemplation of traditional meditation in some ways, and different in other ways, and, finally, that “architectural design matters.” — theatlantic.com
Related: AfterShock #4: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Neuroscientific Architecture Research
2 Comments
This study seems so vaguely focused as to be meaningless. My summary is that they asked a dozen architects if looking at pictures of famous monuments made them feel good and they said yes. And then asked people to describe locations where they had "Extraordinary Architectural Experiences" and got answers listing Extraordinary Architectural Spaces.
I think everyone here and probably 100% of the general public accept that beautiful places are good, and worthwhile building. The hard part is defining what that kind of place is, and how to achieve it given real constraints.
The authors of the study ought to read a bit of Popper. If I can't refute your argument, you don't have one.
I was wondering what makes architects so uncomfortable with all this neuroscience and I think it's the idea that they are meddling onto architecture's turf. Not only that but having to submit to a system of values that they have no control over.
"His team operates with the goal of using the scientific method to transform something opaque—the qualitative “phenomenologies of our built environment”—into neuroscientific observations that architects and city planners can deliberately design for. "
If every architect agreed that beautiful places are good, then these pages would look very different, regardless of our differing aesthetics.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.