If architecture is indeed a sensory experience as has been determined in previous blog entries, then the aspect of sound is another detail that calls for attention as well, especially when discussing the relationship between the built environment and people. Past blogs, in particular the one covering the South African Constitutional Court, refer to the visual interpretations of architecture and to an extent touch, as a consequence of materiality. The Constitutional Court entry highlighted the importance of architectural elements that appeal to the senses and consciousness of the user; in particular, the “privileged sociable senses” of hearing and vision, as Pallasmaa puts it. These two senses have advanced through today’s technological culture, whilst the other three have remained distinctly private functions, not to mention less relevant to architecture. To become an object that is truly incorporates the senses then a building must to deal with issues of sound as a culturally specific design factor.Pallasmaa asserts that ours is primarily an ocular culture, and this affects our interpretation of architecture. However, this may be because it is the first thing, and maybe only thing we consider when analyzing architecture. In this sense, architecture may be losing some connection with an important cultural component. It has been /said/ that music is one of the most profitable of commodities, for the simple fact that it is the most accessible and broadly reaching forms of art; this may give some insight into the importance of the aural recognition of the built environment.
The article in the Saturday edition of Brisbane’s Courier Mail that prompted this blog entry describes the impact of sound on a city, and its relationship to the people who live there. Invariably, the article describes the sounds that emanate from Brisbane in particular, from the constant low-end drone noticeable in any city, to the noise of breeze passing through a creaky Queenslander and cheers of a football stadium. The sound described here is not ‘designed’ it just comes about through circumstance, but is referred to with fondness by the people in the article. Here is where an opportunity is commonly lost in architecture. In /this/ blog about sound and design, Joel Sanders contends that many people believe "architecture is about being quiet", whereas there's a rich history of sound and architecture; especially in pre-literate societies. Sander’s ‘Mix House’ is an attempt to integrate spaces sonically, placing a renewed importance on sound.
Architecture and music is an area of study that is related to this. There is /much/ /writing/ about the similarities between the processes of the two ‘arts’, exemplified by /Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s quote/ that “architecture is music frozen” (at least in my view) as some sort of emotional attachment between composed sound and space. But this steers away from the point at hand. The issue is not to see the musical influence of architecture, nor music at all, but the audible interpretations of architecture. Many parallels can be drawn between the acts of making music and architecture as well as the possible links in emotional response to architecture and music, but these are extremely personal things. If I were to experience the city of Brisbane whilst listening to the new M83, it would be different to someone else’s experience under the same circumstance. Music remains to be appreciated at an individual level, but the sound of the city is created by the masses, for the masses.Pallasmaa claims that the dominance of visuals in today’s culture through consumer culture is to the detriment of other sensory experiences in architecture [see: Wallpaper person]. This obsession with sight is causing a feeling of “detachment and alienation” and is effectively denying an aspect of architecture that has long been culturally important.
Pallasmaa, J (1996). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses; Wiley-Academy, New York.
: Click to enlarge
No comments:
Post a Comment