The notion of atmosphere has taken prominence in contemporary architecture discourse, in which it is used mainly to denote the affective characteristic of inhabitable spaces. In this paper, we employ the ecological-enactive approach to cognition to explain how atmospheres are perceived and created. According to that approach, cognitive systems actively explore meaningful possibilities for action in their environments. We thereby construe the perception of atmospheres as the possibilities for being in certain moods by exploring what the place affords. The perception of atmospheres is, therefore, a meaningful activity that is ultimately related to the organism’s biological interests, which we argue, is a type of meaning that cannot be fully conveyed descriptively. From this, it seems to follow that architects cannot foresee the atmospheres of a place during the designing phase of their projects. We avoid this undesirable conclusion by evoking the material engagement theory and the situated aspect of cognitive performances. Accordingly, skillful architects can imagine the intended atmospheres of a place by creating what we call proto-atmospheres, which involves creatively thinking through and with their tools.
AndersonM. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000853
2.
AndersonM. L. (2014). After phrenology. MIT Press.
BruinebergJ.ChemeroA.RietveldE. (2019). General ecological information supports engagement with affordances for ‘higher’ cognition. Synthese, 196(12), 5231–5251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1716-9
10.
BruinebergJ.RietveldE. (2014). Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 599. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00599
11.
CanepaE. (2022). Architecture is atmosphere: Notes on empathy, emotions, body, brain, and space. Mimesis International.
12.
CanepaE.ScelsiV.FassioA.AvanzinoL.LagravineseG.ChiorriC. (2019). Atmospheres: Feeling architecture by emotions: Preliminary Neuroscientific Insights on atmospheric perception in architecture. Ambiances, 5, 2907. https://doi.org/10.4000/ambiances.2907
13.
CaraccioloM. (2013). Blind reading: Toward an enactivist theory of the reader’s imagination. In BernaertsL.GeestD. D.HermanL.VervaeckB. (Eds.), Stories and minds: Cognitive approaches to literary narrative. University of Nebraska Press.
14.
CarvalhoE. deRollaG. (2020). An enactive-ecological approach to information and uncertainty. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00588
15.
ChemeroA. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. The MIT Press.
De MatteisF.BilleM.GrifferoT.JelićA. (2019). Phenomenographies: Describing the plurality of atmospheric worlds. Ambiances, 5, 2526. https://doi.org/10.4000/ambiances.2526
21.
Di PaoloE.CuffariE. C.De JaegherH. (2018). Linguistic bodies: The continuity between life and language. MIT Press.
22.
EngelA. K.MayeA.KurthenM.KönigP. (2013). Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.006
23.
GallagherS. (2017). The past, present and future of time-consciousness: From Husserl to Varela and beyond. Constructivist Foundations, 13(1), 91–97
24.
GibsonE. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. Appleton- Century-Crofts.
25.
GibsonJ. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin.
26.
GibsonJ. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.
27.
GrifferoT. (2018). Something more. Atmospheres and pathic aesthetics. In GrifferoT.MorettiG. (Eds.), Atmosphere/Atmospheres: Testing a new paradigm. Mimesis International.
GrifferoT.TedeschiniM. (2019). Chapter 1: Introduction. In GrifferoT.TedeschiniM. (Eds.), Atmosphere and aesthetics: A plural perspective. Palgrave Macmillan US.
30.
HasseJ. (2019). Atmospheres and moods: Two modes of being-with. In GrifferoT.TedeschiniM. (Eds.), Atmosphere and aesthetics: A plural perspective. Palgrave Macmillan US.
HejdukJ. (1985). Mask of medusa: Works, 1947-1983. Rizzoli International Publication.
33.
Heras-EscribanoM. (2019). Pragmatism, enactivism, and ecological psychology: Towards a unified approach to post-cognitivism. Synthese, 198(S1), 337–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02111-1
34.
Heras-EscribanoM. (2020). The evolutionary role of affordances: Ecological psychology, niche construction, and natural selection. Biology & Philosophy, 35(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09747-1
35.
HuttoD. D. (2015). Overly enactive imagination? Radically Re-imagining. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(S.I), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12122
36.
HuttoD. D.MyinE. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. MIT Press.
37.
IhdeD.MalafourisL. (2019). Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0321-7
38.
ImrieR. (2003). Architects’ conceptions of the human body. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1068/d271t
39.
JelićA.StaničićA. (2020). The memory in bodily and architectural making: Reflections from embodied cognitive science. In Micieli-VoutsinasJ.PersonA. M. (Eds.), Affective architectures: More-Than-Representational geographies of heritage (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429055737
40.
JelićA.TieriG.De MatteisF.BabiloniF.VecchiatoG. (2016). The enactive approach to architectural experience: A neurophysiological perspective on embodiment, motivation, and affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 481. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00481
41.
JohnsonM. (2015). The embodied meaning of architecture. In RobinsonS.PallasmaaJ. (Eds.), Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment and the future of design. MIT Press.
42.
JohnsonM. (2017). Embodied mind, meaning and reason. University of Chicago Press.
MedinaJ. (2013). An enactivist approach to the imagination: Embodied enactments and “fictional emotions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 50(3), 317–335
49.
MézièresN. L. C. (1992). The Genius of Architecture; or the analogy of that art with our sensations (BrittD., Trans.). The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities.
50.
MichaelianK. (2016). Mental time travel: Episodic memory and our knowledge of the personal past. The MIT Press.
51.
MojicaL.Gastelum VargasM. (2021). The affective and normative intentionality of skilled performance: A radical embodied approach. Synthese, 199(3–4), 8205–8230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03159-8
52.
NoëA. (2004). Action in perception. MIT Press.
53.
Odling-SmeeJ.LalandK. N.FeldmanM. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press.
54.
PallasmaaJ. (2015). Body, mind and imagination: The mental essence of architecture. In RobinsonS.PallasmaaJ. (Eds.), Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment and the future of design. MIT Press.
55.
Pérez LiebergesellN.VermeerschP.-W.HeylighenA. (2018). Designing from a Disabled body: The case of architect Marta Bordas Eddy. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2010004
Pérez-GómezA. (2019). Architecture as musical atmosphere. In GrifferoT.TedeschiniM. (Eds.), Atmosphere and aesthetics: A plural perspective. Palgrave Macmillan US.
58.
Pérez-GómezA. (2022). Some reflections on atmosphere and memory from the perspective of enactive cognition and neurophenomenology. The Journal of Architecture, 27(4), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2022.2122067
RowlandsM. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. The MIT Press.
63.
RucińskaZ. (2021). Enactive planning in rock climbing: Recalibration, visualization and nested affordances. Synthese, 199(1–2), 5285–5310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03025-7
64.
RucińskaZ.GallagherS. (2021). Making imagination even more embodied: Imagination, constraint and epistemic relevance. Synthese, 199(3-4), 8143–8170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03156-x
65.
Sanchez-GarciaR.FeleG.LibermanK. (2019). Ethnomethodological respectifications of cognition in sport. In Handbook of embodied cognition and sport psychology. MIT Press.
66.
SchacterD. L.AddisD. R.HassabisD.MartinV. C.SprengR. N.SzpunarK. K. (2012). The future of memory: Remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron, 76(4), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.001
67.
Sepúlveda-PedroM. A. (2023). Enactive cognition in place: Sense-making as the development of ecological norms. Palgrave Macmillan.
68.
ThibaudJ.-P. (2014). A Conversation on atmosphere. In ThibaudP. (Ed.), Atmosphere and architecture. Tapio Wirkkala Rut Bryk Foundation.
69.
ThompsonE. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology and the sciences of the mind. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
70.
TraviesoD.LoboL.de PazC.LangelaarT. E.Ibáñez-GijónJ.JacobsD. M. (2020). Dynamic Touch as common ground for enactivism and ecological psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(June), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01257
71.
TvedebrinkT. D. O.JelićA. (2018). Getting under the(ir) skin: Applying personas and scenarios with body-environment research for improved understanding of user’s perspective in architectural design. Persona Studies, 4(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.21153/psj2018vol4no2art746
WernerK. (2020). Enactment and construction of the cognitive niche: Toward an ontology of the mind-world connection. Synthese, 197(3), 1313–1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1756-1
78.
WigleyM. (1998). The architecture of atmosphere. Daidalos, 68, 18–28
