The Role of Aesthetic Experience in the Audience's Behavioral Reaction to Architectural Landscapes from the Perspective of Philosophy

Mahdi Aliyari

doi:10.63053/ijset.120

Authors

Mahdi Aliyari Department of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Shabestar Branch, Shabestar, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63053/ijset.120

Keywords:

Aesthetics, Architectural landscapes, Philosophy, Behavioral reaction

Abstract

A large part of our everyday aesthetic experience involves behavioral reactions to architectural landscapes. The authors focus on the perception of landscapes as a feature of evolutionary aesthetics, emphasizing that human aesthetic values are rooted in social and environmental components. They discuss theories related to architectural space and compare them¬with empirical data from studies conducted over the past twenty years, with a strong emphasis on the most recent studies. The articles discussed include the fields of perception, architectural landscapes, behavioral response to the perceptual environment, and individual differences in terms of architectural space. An overview of the important aesthetic theories will be presented in this article and various theories will be examined, which were the basis of studies in the first place and claim that when all findings are compared on a larger scale, they are not fixed and permanent. However, as a result, we will discuss the current state of aesthetic research in behavioral response to architectural landscapes, and conclude the research with comments and guidelines for future research to fill the gap we have in understanding the perception of architectural landscapes.

References

 Vaezi. (1397). Investigating the methods of evaluating and analyzing the quality and aesthetics of the urban environment and landscape. Human and Environment, 16(2), 131-142.‎

 Aflatoni, K., M. (2020). (1401). John McDowell and Moral Sensibility. Philosophical Reflections.‎

 Taghavi. (1388). A Discussion on the Relationship between Religious, Mystical and Artistic Experiences. Journal of Mystical Literature Researches, 2(1), 113-134.‎

 Rahimi, S., Saber. (1397). The Effect of Climate on Citizens' Mental Schemas in Perception of Urban Space Case Study: Elgoli Park of Tabriz. Geography and Environmental Planning, 29(3), 91-110.‎

 Goldavi, M., Marjan, M., Mirkarimi, S. H., Abdolrasoul. (1396). Management of Recreational Areas Using Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Approach. Human and Environment, 14(4), 37-52.‎

 Sadati, N., Source, Spring. A Critique on the Possibility of Developing a Theory of Brain-Based Beauty (Neuro-Axed) with an Emphasis on Samir Zaki's Opinions and Empirical Achievements. Journal of Wisdom and Art, 5-14.‎

 Bell, Simon (2007), Perspective, Perception, Pattern, Process, Translated by Behnaz Aminzadeh, University of Tehran Press, Second Edition, 276-14.

 Symons, D. (1990). Adaptiveness and adaptation. Ethology and sociobiology, 11(4-5), 427-444.Ulrich RS (1986) Human response to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29-44.

 Hagerhall CM (2000) Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swed ish cultural landscape: prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. J Environ Psy cho! 20:83-90

 Groat L, Despres C (1990) The significance of architectural theory for environmental design research. In: Zube EH, Moore GT (eds) Advances in environment, behavior and design, vol 4. Plenum Press, New York, pp 3-53.

 Aghaie, A., & Piravi Vanak, M. (2015). The Metaphysic of Encounter of Space at the Meet of Persian Miniature with Renaissance Painting. Metaphysics, 6(18), 33-48.

 Blum GS, Barbour JS (1979) Selective inattention to anxiety-linked stimuli. J Exp Psycho! 108:182-224.

 Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking. Am Psycho! 35(2):151-175

 Syneck E (1998) Evolutionary aesthetics: visual complexity and the development of human landscape preferences. Diss, University of Vienna.

 Sadeghimanesh, A. (2022). Investigating the impact of mythological narratives on urban resilience. The Journal of Epicliterature, 18(1), 197-222.

 Anderson LM, Mulligan BE, Goodman LS, Regen HZ (1983) Effects of sounds on prefer- ence for outdoor settings. Environ Behav 15:539-566

 Nasar JL (1994) Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environ Behav 3(26):377-401.

 Kuo FE, Bacaicoa M, Sullivan WC (1998) Transforming inner city landscapes. Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environ Behav 30:28-59.

 Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420-421.

 Fjortoft I, Sageie J (2000) The natural environment as a playground for children. Landscape description and analyses of a natural landscape. Landscape Urban Planning 48:83-97.

 Grahn P (1996) Wild nature makes children healthy. Swed Building Res 4:16-18.

 Taylor A, Wiley A, Kuo F, Sullivan W (1998) Growing up in the inner city: green spaces as places to grow. Environ Behav 30(1):3-27

 Heft H (1988) Affordances of children's environments: a functional approach to environmental description. Children's Environ Q 5(3):29-37.

 Lyons E (1983) Demographic correlates oflandscape preference. Environ Behav 15:487-511

 Symons D (2012) A critique of darwinian anthropology. Ethol Sociobiol 10:131-144

 Yang B, Brown TJ (2008) A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environ Behav 24:471-507.

 Relph E (1981) Rational landscapes. Croomhelm, London.