Home/Outcomes

This first course introduces students to the fundamentals of architectonics, framed within the crisis of meaning that dominated architectural thought in the second half of the 20th century. Surprisingly, the same concerns surfaced across the sciences, leading to the so-called cognitive crisis—a profound questioning of how meaning is constructed yet largely ignored in architecture. By drawing from these parallel intellectual movements, the course will provoke a deeper exploration of how things come to sense, connecting these vast ideas back to architecture. As a point of departure, the question leading the reflection from a human-centred perspective will be how architecture can now deal with and make sense of the world. The journey begins with a striking lesson drawn from a baroque masterpiece of the 17th century, opening new perspectives on architectural meaning and its reticulations.

This course session delves into the concept of architectural surroundings as proposed by the architect/artist duo Madeline Gins and Arakawa, and seen from the lens of contemporary interactive and immersive media arts. Their radical approach reimagines architecture as a dynamic, interactive force that must actively stimulate and engage its occupants, rather than merely providing a static, passive environment. The duo’s vision, which grew out of 20th-century experimental architecture, emphasizes the need for continuous interaction between humans and their surroundings, proposing that architecture can shape consciousness by surrounding individuals with sensory-rich stimuli that encourage participation and immersion. This session explores how architecture can afford such interaction and questions its capacity to foster an immersive environment that enhances spatial awareness and sensory engagement. Through the lens of Gins and Arakawa’s work, students will critically assess the degree to which architecture is responsible for actively surrounding and involving human beings in sensory experiences that enrich environmental understanding. The discussion leads to a broader inquiry: what is the necessary reciprocal involvement of humans and their architectural surroundings in establishing meaningful immersion? By considering these ideas, students will explore the limits and potential of architecture as an active agent in shaping both individual perception and collective experience within the built environment.

In this presentation, Emily Cross explores the research field of neuroaesthetics, focusing on the embodied and empirical aspects of how humans appreciate built forms. Drawing from related research, she highlights the neurophysiological dimensions that underpin aesthetic experiences, offering insights into how our brains and bodies engage with architectural environments and objects. Cross delves into the interplay between aesthetic adoption and the innate human desire for variation and renewal, examining how perceptions of typicality and novelty shape our responses to design. An emerging question from the presentation might be: do aesthetic features reside exclusively within the object, or are they constructed in the mind? Cross explains on how cognitive and sensory processes interact with architectural elements, revealing the reciprocal relationship between the built environment and the observer’s neurophysiology. The presentation challenges conventional notions of aesthetic appreciation, advocating for a more integrated understanding of how humans experience design. Cross’s perspective provides valuable insights for designers and architects, emphasizing the importance of considering not only the visual but also the cognitive and embodied responses to architectural spaces, ultimately enriching our understanding of the dynamic interplay between form, perception, and meaning.

Zakaria Djebbara’s video presentation surveys his research bridging human cognition with spatial design. The lecture revisits the origins of neuroarchitecture and some historical points, focusing on how environmental features and sensorimotor responses underpin cognitive and behavioural processes. By tracing developments in neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology, he highlights the transformative role of neuroimaging technologies in deepening our understanding of how the brain interacts with designed spaces. Key theoretical frameworks, including psychophysics and ecological psychology, are introduced to explain human perception and environmental engagement. These concepts provide a foundation for examining cutting-edge research on rhythmic design, spatial configurations, and their influence on behavioural patterns. Looking toward the future, Djebbara poses critical questions about designing for cognitive functions like working memory and explores the potential integration of augmented reality in architectural practice. This engaging presentation underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, inviting further inquiry into the complex interplay between neuroscience, architecture, and the lived human experience. Reticulating beyond the presented content, one might wonder about the evolving roles of semantics in designed objects and the relative independence of affordances, emphasizing their dynamic impact on human interaction.

This session challenges students to critically examine the relationship between design intent and the lived experience of navigating built environments. Through an extensive survey of cognitive science research, the course investigates how humans navigate complex informational landscapes, highlighting the processes of orientation, wayfinding, and the potential for disorientation within architectural spaces. Students will engage with theoretical frameworks that juxtapose the abstract nature of design with the tangible realities of physical experience, fostering a nuanced understanding of architectural rhetoric versus empirical observations. It encourages a reflective distance between the virtual constructs of design and their actual use, prompting students to consider the implications of this dichotomy on architectural practice. Central to the discourse is the inquiry: to what extent can architectural design incorporate scientific insights and empirical findings into its conceptual frameworks?

This session explores the frontiers of generative AI in architecture, introducing students to some of the latest research trends in machine learning’s creative applications. Immanuel Koh delves into the evolving role of AI models, examining their potential to both complement and challenge human creativity in the architectural design process. By showcasing recent advancements, he highlights AI’s ability to generate, evaluate, and adapt complex forms and spatial concepts, inviting an investigation into how these technologies might expand architects’ creative boundaries. Central to this discussion is a probing question: how might human intelligence and AI’s capacities intersect, interact, and even emulate one another? It suggests a future where AI not only assists in repetitive or technical tasks but actively participates in creative ideation, bringing a collaborative intelligence to architectural design. By combining human intuition with machine precision, the presentation hints at a transformative shift, one that holds the promise of discovering new architectural vocabularies and exploring spaces previously unimagined, all while remaining critically aware of each entity’s unique capabilities and constraints.

Julie Milovanevic, an architect and researcher at UNCC specializing in design cognition, education, and sustainable design, presents her findings on biophilic design’s impact on well-being. Rooted in our innate biological and genetic connections to nature, her research investigates the psychophysiological effects of exposure to natural elements within the built environment. The presentation explores two experimental studies assessing cognitive and neurophysiological responses to biophilic design. In one study, design students worked in a space featuring an algae façade, allowing for analysis of their performance and engagement. The second study measured participants’ reactions to images containing biophilic elements, using tools such as eye trackers and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). These methods provided objective data on how natural elements in spaces affect perception, cognition, and emotional well-being. By blending subjective evaluations with empirical measurements, Milovanevic sheds light on the challenges of quantifying which biophilic features most effectively support health and productivity. Her research underscores the importance of integrating nature into architectural design to create environments that foster physical and mental wellness, offering new pathways for sustainable and health-conscious design practices. Extrapolating from this body of work, one might raise critical questions: To what extent does conceptual biophilic content influence the mind? And is biophilia a feature-wise or object-wise principle?

Pierre Cutellic’s lecture explores the intricate interplay between architectural composition and cognitive science, posing profound questions about the origins of signification in built form. The lecture begins by interrogating whether architecture’s primary aim is to produce meaning through articulating parts, and if so, where does this signification emerge? Drawing on advances in cognitive science, Cutellic illustrates how our understanding of the mind has evolved to encompass a broader, more nuanced view of how we interact with and model our world. He argues that a balanced perspective is essential, while architectural practices can sometimes become myopically focused or overly expansive in incorporating humanities and science. The discussion traces the evolution of architectonics from Greek antiquity through the late Renaissance, noting that early theories often relied on analogies with language to justify communication and universal claims. Despite cognitive science’s establishment as a rigorous discipline, debates about language as an innate formative structure persist. Nonetheless, there is a growing consensus that the mind inherently operates through compositionality. This realization leads to a critical inquiry: if compositionality is intrinsic to cognition, what additional role does composition play in creative expression?