This page has annotations:

1. 1 2017-10-17T01:56:12-07:00 Laura Miller 487e24db162f53ac6fb7007bbee5f505b5fa0497 ODOUR Laura Miller 2 plain 2017-10-17T01:56:25-07:00 Laura Miller 487e24db162f53ac6fb7007bbee5f505b5fa0497

This page has tags:

1. 1 2017-09-18T04:22:19-07:00 Karli Brittz 26501e3c34311bed727f8938a040fb83cf19c4c7 QUESTION 4: Do you like this part of campus? Karli Brittz 3 structured_gallery 2017-10-31T03:40:31-07:00 Karli Brittz 26501e3c34311bed727f8938a040fb83cf19c4c7

This page is referenced by:

• 1 2017-09-18T04:42:36-07:00 Jessica McLaren 37 plain 2017-10-31T10:18:14-07:00 The following essay deals with the way in which a group of students experience the Piazza at the University of Pretoria. The sensory element that this essay focuses on is smell. This will be followed by the role of memory in the way the participants experience the space. Additionally the participants walking practices will be examined. Key patterns and themes will be discussed using visuals, voice recordings and photo-elicitations. Lastly the essay will provide a short reflection on the nature and value of this project.
   
  According to Simmel smell is a “dissociating sense” used to divide class, racial, gender and ethnic groups (cited by Boer 2013:972). As stated by Tan in recent times the smell of smoke has been stigmatised (cited by Boer 2013:972). Majority of the participants mentioned their aversion to the smoke as evident in this no smoking sign selected by Chloe. Calliope said she found the smoke to be "overwhelming". The benches in the Piazza are known for being the smoking hub of the university. The participants agreed that the group of students who sit and smoke on those benches are viewed  as “lazy” and as individuals who do " not go to class" (Savanna, 2017). The smell of smoke is a “dissociating sense” which creates divisions and distinctions between groups of students at the university.
   
  According to Porteous stigmatisation is not only a result of biological and psychological influences but also a cultural and social sensation (cited by Boer 2013:972). Thus the dissociation concerning the smell of smoke may be due to the decline of social acceptance towards smoking.  The health risks of smoking is widely known which leads to the negative stigma attached to the practice. This is evident in the many photographs the participants took of cigarettes and hubs. These cigarettes were photographed to demonstrate the parts of the Piazza the participants dislike. Thus, how individuals interpret smells is an outcome of cultural values which are influenced by society.  According to Classen this is a mean for how individuals define and interact with their environment (cited by Boer 2013:973). As a result of this knowledge and the stigma of the smoking students, some of the participants avoid the bench area.  
   
  Another area the participants aim to avoid is the cafeteria. Majority of the participants find the smell of all the different foods "overwhelming" (Chloe, 2017) .  According to Waskul and Vannini  the meaning individuals endow smells become context dependent and place based (cited by Boer 2013:973) .This is evident in the Piazza where the distinct stench of food is directly associated with the Cafeteria. This is apparent where Molly and Savanna have chosen these photographs of the cafeteria and they have categorised them under odour. Revealing they associated the cafateria with food smells.   Odours can also manipulate the meaning and experience of a place (Boer 2013:973). As indicated by many participants that the smell puts them "off of the area" (Chloe,2017). Perhaps is the cafeteria was ventilated it would be more attractive to the students.
   
  Many of the participates had spent time in the Piazza in first year due to its centrality and convenience. However many of the participants no longer visit the space due to negative past experience with odours being a key influnce. As when Jane was asked why she does not enter the Piazza anymore she answered "it smells". Evidently smell plays an important role in recollections of a place as said by Porteous, Rodaway 1994, Waskul (cited by Boer 2013:974). When asked about a place she dislike on campus Adeline mentioned the food court and the smell played a key role in her recollection. She recalls how she would "quickly buy something and leave" due to " the food smells".  
  
  Thus the participants did not only engage with the existing space , they also engaged with their previous memories of how the Piazza looked , smelt  and sounded (Degen, Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian 2012:). Louise and JP reflected on how the place had since changed. JP discussed the change in the appearance of the building and Louise discussed what the space used to look like before the Piazza was built. She also commented on where the previous social hub was in the university before the existence of the Piazza.
   
  Furthermore the participants discussed their presence memories with memories overlaid from the past of the same space. This is evident where Chloe, Adeline and Molly discussed how they used to enjoy the Fego which closed two years prior. Sensory memories of a place are often due to what it used to be like( Degen,Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian 2012:) . They recalled their memories of the Fego which played a central role of how they experienced the Piazza. They used to walk to the Piazza to get food from Fego as the taste of the food was of a high quality.
   
  Many of the respondents compared the eating areas in the Piazza to other cafes on campus. These juxtapositions were often comments of judgement (Degen, Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian 2012:). Memories of other cafes on campus prompted judgement about the spaces sensory element. The cafes were seen seen as "less claustrophobic" and the taste of the food was rated as "higher quality" (Adeline,2017). As a result majority of the students disengage from visiting the Piazzas eating areas and would rather go to other cafes of campus.
   
  Memory also plays a role in routine walking patterns. Participants who have walked through and around the Piazza regularly are almost on ‘autopilot’: “the implication here is that [they] do not have to think about the way [they] move through” the space(Degen, Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian 2012:).As noted by Savanna she "just follow[s] the path"  and so it is not a conscious decision. Most of the participants have a clearly mapped route of the Piazza which they usually following when entering the space. This is evident where Adeline, Chole and Savanna agreed that they it is “easier to follow the path” in the undercover section (Savanna,2017).  They usually take the same path in the Piazza as they had classes in the "Humanities" ( Chloe, 2017).
   
  Additionally the notion of voyeurism is highlighted here where Adeline says that she feels “everyone is watching” when she walks through the centre of the Piazza and so she prefers following the path. Both Molly and Louise also commented on how they “are the subject of observation” (Louise, 2017). Molly feels "surveyed" in the Piazza which is evident in the photograph.This indicates that some higher power is always watching.   However JP and Ophelia usually walk through the centre of the Piazza to reach their destinations. Thus individuals interact with the space differently depending on their perspectives of the area.
   
  Furthermore the sensory environment produces patterns of how people walk (Degen, Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian 2012:). This is evident in Savannas walking pattern where she avoids the inside area of the Piazza as it is visually unappealing, odorous and “claustrophobic”. She “finds it to be quite dirty” and she dislikes the smell “of food and cigarettes” that surrounds that area. She experiences a negative cross-sensory reaction and so she avoids this space. The Piazzas’ physical and sensory environment produces a multiplicity of patterns of walk (Degen, Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian 2012:). This is apparent in Adeline’s walking patterns as she is willing to walk inside the Piazza. However she avoids “the dark and dingy area” such as the tunnel by the bathroom. She prefers to walk on the path way next to the FNB “as it is spacious and light”. This reveals the connection of the the building’s design and her sensory experience (Degen, Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian 2012:). 
  
  Adeline, Savanna, Poppy and Louise are all drawn to the grass area as they prefer to be in nature because it is “spacious” (Adeline,2017), “relaxing” (Savanna,2017), “calm” (Poppy, 2017) and “light” (Louise, 2017). JP, Louise and Savanna comment on the contrast of the outside area which “is [a] clean and comfortable space” ( JP, 2017) compared to the inside area which “is all over the place (Savanna,2017).
   
   Whereas Ophelia’s interaction with the Piazza is only when she is “passing through” to get to her destination. Similarly Loretta calls the Piazza her “fly through” as she gets what she needs from the Piazza and then exits the space. She only visits the area if she needs “something to eat”, to “go to the ATM” or to use “the bathroom” (Loretta,2017).  Otherwise she does not use the place for recreational use.
   
  The urban walker can experience the city beyond its planned logic, yet within its emergent social order, to create personalized experiences of public places and public interaction between other pedestrians (see Demerath and Levinger, 2003; Wolfinger 1995).
   
  In a final conclusion it is evident that senses influences how participants interact and engage with the Piazza.