Atmosphere beyond Poetics: Conductive Environments and Fields of Engagement

Defined by German philosopher Gernot Böhme as a ‘fundamental concept of a new aesthetics’ (Böhme 2003), the notion of atmosphere has been widely discussed across many disciplinary fields over the last few decades. It has taken a central stage also in architectural debate, leading to both conceptual and methodological shifts in the production of space and consequently to the proliferation of designs labelled as ‘atmospheric’.

The paper discusses the notoriously ambiguous nature and twofold dimension of atmosphere – meteorological and aesthetical – and embedded in them heterogeneity of meanings. In this context, the notion of atmosphere is presented as parallactic for designing experience in architectural fields, since it transgresses formal and material boundaries of bodies, opening a new gap that exposes the orthodox space-body-environment relationships to questions. It leads to the dissolution of the architectural ‘object’ and its fixity and offers a new understanding of context and space – approached as a field of dynamic relationships. It calls for a re-evaluation of perceptual experience, offering to architecture an expanded domain in which architecture manifests itself, including qualities – besides poetics and beauty – that architecture has long resisted. That is, it defines space as a contingent construction, performative and intensely affective.

Accordingly, the intention is to critically analyse what the term atmosphere entails in architecture, and to expand its notion in terms of affective qualities – often concealed by its poetic potential and far less considered in architectural discourse. In this context, atmosphere is to be presented as a dynamically engaging spatial phenomenon that conjuncturally acts as a detonator of action and interaction in both individual and collective terms. In doing so, analysing the Crystal Palace – recognised as the epitome of controlled immersive experience as well as of atmospheric engineering (Sloterdijk 2008 (2005) – in parallel with other examples and theoretical explorations, will provide a canvas for discerning the means of creation of atmosphere and for defining space as a relational milieu – that is, a conductive environment and field of engagement.

Moreover, since atmospheres are not free floating phenomena, but can be strategically created – ‘staged’ (Böhme 2005, 2013) – this paper invites a critical reflection upon the instrumental and hence potentially dystopian character of atmosphere, that becomes a powerful tool for affecting, for instance, the experience of the cities, for inducing particular behaviors, and, hence, for achieving specific societal and political objectives (Borch 2014).

References:
Borch, Christian, ed. 2014. Architectural Atmospheres. On the Experience and Politics of Architecture. Ba-sel: Birkhäuser.
Böhme, Gernot. 1993. “Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics.” Thesis Eleven 36: 113-26.
⎯. 1995. “Staged materiality,” Magic of Materials, Daidalos n56, June 1995, 36-43
⎯. 2013. “Atmosphere as Mindful Physical Presence in Space.” Oase #91, Building Atmosphere, 21-33
Sloterdijk, Peter. (2005) 2008. “The Crystal Palace.” Translated by Michael Darroch. Public 37: Public?, 12-15. Originally published in Peter Sloterdijk. Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals: Für eine philoso-phische Theorie der Globalisierung, 265-76. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2005)