This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

VKK 757: Archiving UP's Piazza

Louise Photo Elicitation

This page has tags:

Contents of this tag:

Contents of this reply:

This page is referenced by:

JP Multisensory experiences of Spaces

The experience people perceive of the spaces they inhabit is highly mediated by the design and interaction of these spaces. Degen and Rose in The sensory experience of urban design: the role of walking and perceptual memory (2012: 1) offers a justification of this avowal by stating that “experience is conceptualised in both academic and policy circles as a more-or-less direct effect of the design of the built environment”. The multisensory experience of spaces by individuals were clearly observed in the manner in which a group experienced the Piazza of the University of Pretoria. The interaction resulting from the experience hinted at the manners in which individuals mediate the space in mention and clearly ties to shared experiences (especially in participants that closely relate in milieu and background) through the considerations of the patterns that was perceived from the conversations. It also deserves mentioning that although there were reoccurring patterns, the individual experiences were not exactly alike and many of the participants experienced the space, again mediated through individual interactions.

The most perceivable patterns that were visible in this engagement was first and foremost filth. There were many discussions on how dirty certain parts of the Piazza was, specific reference was made to an area of benches where smokers gathered. The group was in agreement that this space heavily mediated their opinion of the space in a very negative fashion. In Chloe’s recording a contributor is quoted in saying “There is a disgusting smell of cigarette smoke mixed with food that will prevent me from eating there”. Another contributor in this recording mentions that the smell makes the whole place “feel dirty and disgusting”. In Jane’s recording the rhetoric is furthered regarding the corner when contributors to the discussion comments on the people occupying this space saying “the people there seems unwelcoming and engaged in their own groups” and “to me this seems like the slackers corner”. Although the comments in Jane’s recording are visually based there is an argument to be made that the contributors made use of multisensory modalities to draw these conclusions. The specific mention of the smell of smoke and food links to one of the three features neglected in most accounts of sensory urban experiences as outlined by Degen and Rose (2012: 4-5).

The specific area referred to here, being the multi-sensory modalities individuals make use of when experiencing urban spaces (the second feature (Degen and Rose 2012:5)).The contributors in this recording uses their multi-sensory experience of the dirty visual as well as bad smell to draw conclusions regarding the individuals that utilised the space, thus a mediation of contributors opinion of other individuals through the use and design of the space. There are many more of these occurrences that can be picked up from the patterns referring to the feeling of surveillance (as mentioned in the recordings of Calliope, Adaline and JP). In the discussion on surveillance a contributors states “I don’t walk through the middle of the Piazza because I feel that people are looking at me” another contributor stated that “people are looking by trying not to look” in the explanation of people sitting in the Piazza. The conversation of surveillance engages the topic of “the Importance of Walking” (Degen and Rose 2012: 12, 29) where the authors makes mention of the influence that the way of walking has on the experience of the areas, as well as the effect the experience of the areas had on the manner in which people walk. Another pattern was the reference to the movement in the piazza that featured in the recordings of JP and the images of Savanna, Poppy and Diversity.

Degen and Rose (2012: 7-9, 20) describes the opposing experiences that individuals reported when making mention of the same spaces. The same occurrence took place in the Piazza experience where individuals with less or no past interactions with this space like Calliope and Louise had experiences mediated with what they perceived from their visit, where the experience of individuals like Chloe was mediated more with their past experiences of the Piazza. Chloe shares an experience of her interaction when she stated “we sat on the grass to relax on study breaks or between classes in first year”. A notable element here is the memories that had an influence on the experience. Degen and Rose (2012: 19-22) substantiates the influence of memories on the experience of Bedford and Milton Keynes. This principle is observed within the Piazza experience where Chloe, through her positive memories of the space can be perceived to have a more neutral, even positive experience of the Piazza (this is clear when listening to the engagement where Chloe takes part as well as the images shared by her in many of the questions) compared to the more negative inclinations of Jane and specifically Calliope throughout the discussions.

The multi-sensory experience of a space is clearly apparent to thus far. The distinct engagement of the space with specific senses however still deserves mentioning. Although the space was engaged with a combination of senses, the discussions in particular through question 9’s photo elicitation discussions clearly brought forth that the group engaging with the Piazza experienced the space more with certain senses than others. Above clear notes the effect of vision through the consideration of “people looking at you” and mention is made of smell, from the cigarette smell to the “smell of tomato sauces” as described by one of the contributors of the photo elicitation discussions mediated the experience of the Piazza. Other senses than seeing was also significantly involved.

The sense of taste was engaged in describing the environment. In Poppy’s recording mention is made of the “smell of the Piazza effecting the taste of food” consumed there, this is furthered in a contributor stating that “I can’t stand the taste of food when someone smokes around me”. A more explicit consideration of the influence of taste in experiencing the environment comes from Louise’s image and the discussion of the taste of the coffee that was incited when discussing the initial experience of the Piazza by some of the contributors. From Molly’s image and the discussion the most notable discussion of taste is made. This discussion was based in the taste of the doughnuts in the image and how it is mediated by the visual display and surrounding smells. The discussion however cantered around the manner in which the presentation “made even chocolate not look good” and was furthered in to how the perception of display differs in consideration of the space in which something was presented.

The above mentioned discussion on taste led to the perceived health effects of food that comes from the a specific environment and finally led to a comparison of the taste of food and the perception formed by the environment when the Piazza was compared with other restaurants on campus in a different (better perceived) area. Degen and Rose (2012: 24) makes mention of this comparison in the influence expectation has on the individual’s experience. This is further strengthened with Borer’s statement in Being in the city: The sociology of Urban experiences that “the nuances of urban experienced has significantly been altered by the understanding of sensory scholarship” (2013: 965).

In conclusion the embodies mediation of individuals through a multi-sensory experience has an absolute impact on the experience of an environment. Individuals will consider many aspects other than the visual in the engagement of their world, thus significantly empowering the effect designer can have on a population through the spaces they engage with. This Piazza experience will therefore stand to prove the statement by Degen and Rose (2012: 1) “experience is conceptualised in both academic and policy circles as a more-or-less direct effect of the design of the built environment”.

Reflection:
In a world that is so heavily concerned with perception and mediated with persona it stands to reason that it is exceptionally difficult to navigate the visual overload that we experience on a daily basis to make sense of the world we live in. Through understanding the effect that the design of the environment can have on us, it positions the individual in a better space to understand him/herself in connection with the world they live in. Acknowledging the multisensory perception of our world in a very practical manner considering a space that is so integral to my direct environment I am provided with a diverse array of tools to make sense of my world. I have thus strengthened the understanding that it is easier to make sense of the world and to verbalise my understanding of such if I maintain an understanding that it is not only what I see that creates the effect of the environment on me, but also what I smell, hear taste and feel. This provides significant value to me as this allows a more encompassing way of articulating experiences, strengthening my ability to assist others and myself in considering the world we live in.

Sources consulted:

Borer, Michael Ian (2013). Being in the city: The Sociology of Urban Experiences. Social Compass, 7(11) pp. 965-983.

Degen, Monica Montserrat and Rose, Gillian (2012). The sensory experience of urban design: the role of walking and perceptual memory. Urban studies, 49(15) pp.3271-3287.