Recent social theory that stresses the ‘nonrepresentational’, the ‘more-than visual’, and the relationship between affect and sensation have tended to assume some kind of break or rupture from historical antecedents. Especially since the contributions of Crary and Jay in the 1990s, when it comes to perceiving the built environment the complexities of sensation have been partially obscured by the dominance of a static model of vision as the principal organizing modality. This article returns to some prior historical articulations of the significance of motility in perception, retracing pathways across art history, architectural theory and the history of neuroscience to argue for an alternative model based on the movement of the eye. Along with subsystems that deal with balance and orientation, I offer parallels between spatial motifs of the interior spaces of the body – labyrinths, vestibules, chambers – and those in artefacts and the built environment that contribute to the heightened physicality of the oculomotor subject.
BerensonB (1907 [1896]) The Florentine Painters of the Renaissance, 3rd edn. London: G.P. Putnam and Sons.
2.
BerensonB (1948) Aesthetics and History in the Visual Arts. New York: Pantheon.
3.
BerthozA (1991) Reference frames for the perception and control of movement. In: PaillardJ (ed.) Brain and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 81–111.
4.
BorchC (ed.) (2014) Architectural Atmospheres: On the Experience and Politics of Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
5.
BurrDCMorroneC (2004) Visual perception during saccades. In: WernerJSChalupaLM (eds) The Visual Neurosciences. London: MIT Press, 1391–1401.
6.
CacheB (1995) Earth Moves: The Furnishing of Territories, trans. BoymanA, edited by SpeaksM. London: MIT Press.
7.
CandlinF (2006) The dubious inheritance of touch: Art history and museum access. Journal of Visual Culture5(2): 137–154.
8.
CandlinF (2010) Art, Museums and Touch. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
9.
Craig AD (‘Bud’) (2002) How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience3: 655–666.
10.
CraryJ (1992) Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
CullenKE (2012) The vestibular system: Multimodal integration and encoding of self-motion for motor control. Trends in Neurosciences35(3): 185–196
12.
DeleuzeGGuattariF (1988) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. MassumiB. London: Athlone.
13.
DijkermanHCde HaanEHF (2007) Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences30: 189–239.
14.
FaganGG (1999) Bathing in Public in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
15.
FingerS (2001) Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Explorations into Brain Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
GallagherS (1986) Body image and body schema: A conceptual clarification. Journal of Mind and Behavior7(4): 541–554.
HartoonianG (2001) The limelight of the house-machine. Journal of Architecture6(1): 53–79.
23.
HauptmannD (ed.) (2006) The Body in Architecture. Delft School of Design Series on Architecture and Urbanism. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
24.
HawkinsJE (2004) Sketches of otohistory, Part 1: Otoprehistory: How it all began. Audiology & Neurotology9(2): 66–71.
25.
HeadHHolmesG (1911) Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain34: 102–254.
26.
Heller-RoazenD (2007) The Inner Touch: Archaeology of a Sensation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
HennVE (1984) Mach on the analysis of motion sensation. Human Neurobiology3:145–148.
28.
HollSPallasmaaJPérez-GómezA (eds) (2006) Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture. San Francisco, CA: William Stout Publishers.
29.
IngoldT (2004) Culture on the ground: The world perceived through the feet. Journal of Material Culture9(3): 315–340.
30.
JayM (1994) Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. London: University of California Press.
31.
KraftlPAdeyP (2008) Architecture/affect/inhabitation: Geographies of being-in buildings. Annals of the Association of American Geographers98(1): 213–231.
32.
LacknerJRDiZioP (2005) Vestibular, proprioceptive, and haptic contributions to spatial orientation. Annual Review of Psychology56: 115–147.
33.
LandesDA (2013) The Merleau-Ponty Dictionary. London: Bloomsbury.
34.
LeahyHR (2012) Museum Bodies: The Politics and Practices of Visiting and Viewing. Farnham: Ashgate.
35.
LeCorbusier (1986 [1923]) Towards a New Architecture. New York: Dover Publications.
36.
MacarthurJ (2008) Movement and tactility: Wölfflin and Benjamin on imitation in architecture. Journal of Architecture12(5): 477–487.
PallasmaaJ (1998) Logic of the image. Journal of Architecture3(1): 289–299.
46.
PallasmaaJ (2005) The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. London: Academy Editions.
47.
PallasmaaJ (2006) An architecture for the seven senses. In: HollS. (eds) Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture. San Francisco, CA: William Stout, 28–37.
48.
PanofskyE (1991 [1927]) Perspective as Symbolic Form. New York: Zone Books.
49.
PatersonM (2007) The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies. Oxford: Berg.
50.
PatersonM (2011) More-than visual approaches to architecture: Vision, touch, technique. Special issue Practiced Architectures: Spaces, Performances, Events, eds JacobsJMerrimanP. Social & Cultural Geography12(3): 263–281.
51.
PatersonM (2013) On ‘inner touch’ and the moving body: Aisthêsis, kinaesthesis, and aesthetics. In: BrandstetterGEgertGZubarikS (eds) Touching and Being Touched. Berlin: De Gruyter, 115–131.
52.
PatersonM (in press) Motricité, physiology, and modernity in Phenomenology of Perception. In: MildenbergA (ed.) Understanding Merleau-Ponty, Understanding Modernism. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
53.
ReadH (1956) The Art of Sculpture. London: Faber.
54.
RieglA (1988 [1902]) Late Roman or Oriental? In: SchiffG (ed.) German Essays on Art History: Winckelmann, Burckhardt, Panofsky and Others. New York: Continuum.
55.
RieglA (1995 [1901]) Late Roman art industry, trans. WinkesR. In:FernieE (ed.) Art History and its Methods: A Critical Anthology. London: Phaidon, 116–126.
56.
SchilderPF (1935) The Image and Appearance of the Human Body. London: Kegan and Paul.
57.
ScottG (1914) The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
58.
SherringtonCS (1906) The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
SherringtonCS (1907) On the proprioceptive system, especially in its reflex aspect. Brain29: 467–485.
60.
ShustermanR (2011) Somatic style. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism69(2): 147–159.
61.
StewartS (1999) Prologue: From the Museum of Touch. In: KwintMBrewardCAynsleyJ (eds) Material Memories. Oxford: Berg, 17–36.
62.
SwansonLW (2014) Neuroanatomical Terminology: A Lexicon of Classical Origins and Historical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
TaussigM (2007) Tactility and distraction. In: LockMFarquharJ (eds) Beyond the Body Proper: Reading the Anthropology of Material Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 259–265.
WadeNJ (2003) The search for a sixth sense: The cases for vestibular, muscle, and temperature senses. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences12(2): 175–202.
66.
WalkerRDoyleM (2003) Multisensory interactions in saccade generation. In: HyönäJRadachRDeubelH (eds) The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 89–102.
67.
WiestGBalohRW (2002) The pioneering work of Josef Breuer on the vestibular system. Archives of Neurology59: 1647–1653.
68.
WölfflinH (1998) Prolegomena to a psychology of architecture [Extract]. In: HarrisonCWoodPGaigerJ (eds) Art in Theory 1815–1900: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Oxford: Blackwell.
69.
WölfflinH (2003) Linear and painterly. In VaccheAD (ed.) The Visual Turn: Classical Film Theory and Art History. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.
