بازشناسی و تحلیل مدل‌های نظری روانشناسی محیطی با تأکید بر نقش تجربه انسان در ادراک زیبایی‌شناسی محیط زیست
محورهای موضوعی :
معماری و شهرسازی
سمیه موسویان
1
(دکتری معماری. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران)
تاریخ دریافت : 1399/08/24
تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/05/02
تاریخ انتشار : 1401/01/01
کلید واژه:
زیبایی‌شناسی,
روانشناسی محیطی,
ادراک تجسم‌یافته,
تجربه تجسم یافته,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: محیط فیزیکی سبب می‌شود تا انسان واکنش‌های پیچیده‌ای در قالب احساس، برخورد، ارزش، علاقه و تمایل نشان دهد. همین واکنش‌ها به طرز خاصی فرآیندهای شناختی و ادراکی انسان نسبت به محیط را در قالب ارزش‌های زیبایی‌شناسی شکل می‌دهند. مفهوم زیبایی‌شناسی محیطی، مفهومی پیچیده است و این اصطلاح در انواع مطالعات نظری و تجربی، به صورت گسترده‌ای مطرح شده‌اند؛ اما چگونگی تأثیرگذاری محرکهای محیطی بر تجربه خوشآیندی انسان از محیط، همچنان به عنوان موضوعی مبهم به نظر می‌رسد. لذا با توجه به سطوح مختلف ادراک تجربی فضا و احساس مطلوبیت حاصل از آن، تحلیل دقیق نگرش‌های مختلف روانشناسی محیطی از این منظر به عنوان یک ضرورت احساس می‌شود، تا در جهت بازخوانی و همگرایی بیشتر مؤلفه‌های این حوزه نظری در جهت ارتقاء کیفیت محیط زیست به آن پرداخته شود. بر این مبنا این سؤالات مطرح می‌شوند که در مدل‌های نظری روانشناسی محیطی چه ویژگی‌هایی موجب شکل‌گیری ادراک زیبایی‌شناسی محیط از طریق تجربه می‌گردند؟ و چه مؤلفه‌هایی، عناصر اصلی تجربه زیبایی محیط را تشکیل می‌دهند؟روش بررسی: پژوهش حاضر با رویکرد کیفی و به صورت توصیفی-تحلیلی به واکاوی مدل‌های اصلی این حوزه در جهت بازشناسی رویکردهای کلیدی مرتبط با مفهوم تجربه در زیبایی‌شناسی پرداخته است، تا سازوکارهای زیربنایی آن‌ها را شناسایی کند. بحث و نتایج: می‌توان سه مؤلفه اصلی را به عنوان ابعاد ساختاری ادراک زیبایی‌شناسی از طریق تجربه محیط معرفی کرد:1- آگاهی کنشی پیوسته از طریق تعامل و توجه محیطی؛ 2- آگاهی حسی-حرکتی بواسطه انگیختگی و هیجان و 3- آگاهی کالبدی فعال از طریق مشارکت و رفتار محیطی.
چکیده انگلیسی:
Background and Aim: The physical environment causes man to reveal complicated reactions in the form of feelings, feedback, value, interests and desires. These reactions specifically form the human’s cognitive and perceptual process of the environment in the form of aesthetics values such as feeling of environmental desirability. The concept of environmental aesthetics is a complex one and has been widely discussed in different theoretical and empirical studies; however, the effects of environmental stimuli and characteristics on the human’s desirable experience of the environment still looks a vague subject. Thus, in the view of the various levels of experiential perception of the space and resulting feeling of desirability, it is imperative to perform various accurate analyses of environmental psychology, as this will help recognize theoretical components to improve the quality of the environment. Accordingly, the following questions are raised: Which characteristics in theoretical models of environmental psychology do form perception of the environmental aesthetics through experience? Which components do constitute the main elements of experiencing the environmental aesthetics? Methods: The present research has a qualitative approach and uses descriptive-analytical method to review the main models to recognize the key approaches related with the concept of experiential aesthetics so that their underlying mechanisms are determined. In this connection, the process and relationship between the variables of the theoretical models is examined via content analysis.Discussion and Conclusion: Results indicated that three main components can be regarded as the structural dimensions of aesthetics dimensions through experience: 1. Continuous action consciousness through interaction with and attention to the environment; 2. Sensory-motor consciousness by arousal and emotions, and 3. Structural consciousness through participation in the environment and environmental behavior.
منابع و مأخذ:
1- Gifford, R. )1997(. Environmental Psychology. Principles and Practice. London, Boston: Allyn & bacan
2- Uzzell, D.L. (1991). Environmental psychological perspectives on landscape. Landscape Research, 16(1), 3-10.
3- Steg, L. E., Van Den Berg, A. E., & De Groot, J. I. (2013). Environmental psychology: An introduction. BPS Blackwell
4- Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory. The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. John Wiley & Sons Inc
5- Bourassa, S. C. (1990). A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and behavior, 22(6), 787-812.
6- Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Gómez, A. P. (2006). Questions of perception: phenomenology of architecture. William K Stout Pub.
7- Porteous, J. D. (1996). Environmental aesthetics: Ideas, politics and planning. Psychology Press.
8- Carlson, A., & Berleant, A. (Eds.). (2004). The aesthetics of natural environments. Broadview Press.
9- Russell, J. A., & Lanius, U. F. (1984). Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 119-135.Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(5), 197-203.
10- Robinson, S., & Pallasmaa, J. (Eds.). (2015). Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment, and the future of design. MIT Press. (In Persian)
11- Gibson, J. J. )1979(. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Hughtonmiff Lin.
12- Jelić, A., Tieri, G., De Matteis, F., Babiloni, F., & Vecchiato, G. (2016). The enactive approach to architectural experience: A neurophysiological perspective on embodiment, motivation, and affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 48.
13- Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Behavior and the natural environment, 39-84.
14- Appleton, J. (1987). Landscape as prospect and refuge. In The visual elements of landscape, (39-74). Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
15- Saito, Y. (2008). Everyday aesthetics: prosaics, the play of culture and social identities. British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (4), 461-463.
16- Carlson, A. (2009). Nature and landscape: an introduction to environmental aesthetics. Columbia University Press.
17- Carlson, (2010). Contemporary environmental aesthetics and the requirements of environmentalism. Environmental Values, 19(3), 289-314.
18- Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
19- Nassar, J.L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative quality of building exterior. Environmnet and Behavior, 26, 337-401.
20- Brady, E. (1998). Imagination and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, (56), 139-147.
21- Berleant, A. (2013). What is aesthetic engagement? Contemporary aesthetics, 11(1), 5.
22- Berleant, A. (2010). Reconsidering scenic beauty. Environmental Values, 19(3), 335-350.
23- Böhme, G. (2018). Atmospheric Architectures: The Aesthetics of Felt Spaces. Bloomsbury Publishing.
24- Xenakis, I., & Arnellos, A. (2015). Aesthetics as an emotional activity that facilitates sense-making: towards an Inactive approach to aesthetic experience. In Aesthetics and the embodied mind: Beyond art theory and the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy (245-259). Springer, Dordrecht.
25- Böhme, G. (1993). Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis eleven, 36(1), 113-126.
26- Rooney, K.K., Condia, R.J., & Loschky, L.C. (2017). Focal and ambient processing of built environments: intellectual and atmospheric experiences of architecture. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 326.
27- Pallasmaa, J. (2014). Space, place and atmosphere. Emotion and peripherical perception in architectural experience. Lebenswelt. Aesthetics and philosophy of experience, (4).
28- Weinstein, N., Legate, N., & Przybylski, A.K. (2013). Beauty is in the eye of the psychologically fulfilled: How need satisfying experiences shape aesthetic perceptions of spaces. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 245-260.
29- Bermudez, J., & Ro, B. (2013). Memory, Social Interaction, and Communicability in Extraordinary Experiences of Architecture. In ARCC Conference Repository.
30- Bermudez, J. (2011). Empirical aesthetics: the body and emotion in extraordinary architectural experiences. Proceedings of the 2011 Architectural Research Centers Consortium:Considering Research, 369-380.
31- Bermudez, J., & RO, B. (2012). Extraordinary architectural experiences: comparative study of three paradigmatic cases of sacred spaces. 2nd International Congress on Ambiances Network, Montreal. 689-694.
32- Vecchiato, G., Jelic, A., Tieri, G., Maglione, A. G., De Matteis, F., & Babiloni, F. (2015). Neurophysiological correlates of embodiment and motivational factors during the perception of virtual architectural environments. Cognitive processing, 16(1), 425-429.
33- Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., ... & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (110), 10446-10453.
34- Merleau-Ponty, M. (1982). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
35- Xenakis, I., Arnellos, A., & Darzentas, J. (2012). The functional role of emotions in aesthetic judgment. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 212-226.
_||_
1- Gifford, R. )1997(. Environmental Psychology. Principles and Practice. London, Boston: Allyn & bacan
2- Uzzell, D.L. (1991). Environmental psychological perspectives on landscape. Landscape Research, 16(1), 3-10.
3- Steg, L. E., Van Den Berg, A. E., & De Groot, J. I. (2013). Environmental psychology: An introduction. BPS Blackwell
4- Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory. The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. John Wiley & Sons Inc
5- Bourassa, S. C. (1990). A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and behavior, 22(6), 787-812.
6- Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Gómez, A. P. (2006). Questions of perception: phenomenology of architecture. William K Stout Pub.
7- Porteous, J. D. (1996). Environmental aesthetics: Ideas, politics and planning. Psychology Press.
8- Carlson, A., & Berleant, A. (Eds.). (2004). The aesthetics of natural environments. Broadview Press.
9- Russell, J. A., & Lanius, U. F. (1984). Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 119-135.Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(5), 197-203.
10- Robinson, S., & Pallasmaa, J. (Eds.). (2015). Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment, and the future of design. MIT Press. (In Persian)
11- Gibson, J. J. )1979(. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Hughtonmiff Lin.
12- Jelić, A., Tieri, G., De Matteis, F., Babiloni, F., & Vecchiato, G. (2016). The enactive approach to architectural experience: A neurophysiological perspective on embodiment, motivation, and affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 48.
13- Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Behavior and the natural environment, 39-84.
14- Appleton, J. (1987). Landscape as prospect and refuge. In The visual elements of landscape, (39-74). Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
15- Saito, Y. (2008). Everyday aesthetics: prosaics, the play of culture and social identities. British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (4), 461-463.
16- Carlson, A. (2009). Nature and landscape: an introduction to environmental aesthetics. Columbia University Press.
17- Carlson, (2010). Contemporary environmental aesthetics and the requirements of environmentalism. Environmental Values, 19(3), 289-314.
18- Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
19- Nassar, J.L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative quality of building exterior. Environmnet and Behavior, 26, 337-401.
20- Brady, E. (1998). Imagination and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, (56), 139-147.
21- Berleant, A. (2013). What is aesthetic engagement? Contemporary aesthetics, 11(1), 5.
22- Berleant, A. (2010). Reconsidering scenic beauty. Environmental Values, 19(3), 335-350.
23- Böhme, G. (2018). Atmospheric Architectures: The Aesthetics of Felt Spaces. Bloomsbury Publishing.
24- Xenakis, I., & Arnellos, A. (2015). Aesthetics as an emotional activity that facilitates sense-making: towards an Inactive approach to aesthetic experience. In Aesthetics and the embodied mind: Beyond art theory and the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy (245-259). Springer, Dordrecht.
25- Böhme, G. (1993). Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis eleven, 36(1), 113-126.
26- Rooney, K.K., Condia, R.J., & Loschky, L.C. (2017). Focal and ambient processing of built environments: intellectual and atmospheric experiences of architecture. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 326.
27- Pallasmaa, J. (2014). Space, place and atmosphere. Emotion and peripherical perception in architectural experience. Lebenswelt. Aesthetics and philosophy of experience, (4).
28- Weinstein, N., Legate, N., & Przybylski, A.K. (2013). Beauty is in the eye of the psychologically fulfilled: How need satisfying experiences shape aesthetic perceptions of spaces. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 245-260.
29- Bermudez, J., & Ro, B. (2013). Memory, Social Interaction, and Communicability in Extraordinary Experiences of Architecture. In ARCC Conference Repository.
30- Bermudez, J. (2011). Empirical aesthetics: the body and emotion in extraordinary architectural experiences. Proceedings of the 2011 Architectural Research Centers Consortium:Considering Research, 369-380.
31- Bermudez, J., & RO, B. (2012). Extraordinary architectural experiences: comparative study of three paradigmatic cases of sacred spaces. 2nd International Congress on Ambiances Network, Montreal. 689-694.
32- Vecchiato, G., Jelic, A., Tieri, G., Maglione, A. G., De Matteis, F., & Babiloni, F. (2015). Neurophysiological correlates of embodiment and motivational factors during the perception of virtual architectural environments. Cognitive processing, 16(1), 425-429.
33- Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., ... & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (110), 10446-10453.
34- Merleau-Ponty, M. (1982). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
35- Xenakis, I., Arnellos, A., & Darzentas, J. (2012). The functional role of emotions in aesthetic judgment. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 212-226.
