A neuroarchitectural perspective to immersive architectural environments

References

1. Ahmadi, Mosleh (2019), ‘The experience of movement in the built form and space: A framework for movement evaluation in architecture’, Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6:1, pp. 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1588090.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Anadol, Refik (2017), Archive Dreaming, SALT Research, San Francisco, 3 February–10 April, https://refikanadol.com/works/archive-dreaming/. Accessed 5 May 2023.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Anadol, Refik (2017), Wind of Shenzhen: Data Paintings, 40 Years of Humanizing Technology Art, Technology and Society, 2 November 2019–16 February 2020, Shenzhen: Sea World Culture and Arts Center, https://www.flickr.com/photos/arselectronica/48858519046/. Accessed 20 June 2022.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Anadol, Refik (2018), Melting Memories, Istanbul, Pilevneli Gallery, 7 February–17 March, https://refikanadol.com/works/melting-memories/. Accessed 5 May 2023.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Anadol, Refik (2020), ‘Synaesthetic architecture: A building dreams’, AA, Architectural Design, 90:3, pp. 76–85, https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2572.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Ball, Philip (2013), ‘Neuroaesthetics is killing your soul’, Nature, 22 March, pp. 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2013.12640. Accessed 20 June 2022.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Chiba, Ryosuke, Takakusaki, Kaoru, Ota, Jun, Yozu, Arito, Haga, Nobuhiko (2016), ‘Human upright posture control models based on multisensory inputs; in fast and slow dynamics’, Neuroscience Research, 104, pp. 96–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2015.12.002.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Chong, Gordon (2009), ‘Foreword’, in J. P. Eberhard (ed.), Brain Landscape: The Coexistence of Neuroscience and Architecture, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. ix–xi.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Coburn, Alex, Vartanian, Oshin and Chatterjee, Anjan (2017), ‘Buildings, beauty, and the brain: A neuroscience of architectural experience’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29:9, pp. 1521–31, https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01146.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Crowther, Paul (2009), Phenomenology of the Visual Arts (Even the Frame), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Damasio, Antonio (1999), The Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness, London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
12. De Paiva, Andréa (2018), ‘Neuroscience for architecture: How building design can influence behaviors and performance’, Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 12, pp. 132–38, https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2018.02.007.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Double Negatives Architecture (dNA) (2007), (Sota Ichikawa, Max Rheiner, Ákos Maróy, Kaoru Kobata), Corpora in Si(gh)te, Yamaguchi Center for Arts and Media.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Dougherty, Betsey Olenick and Arbib, Michael (2013), ‘The evolution of neuroscience for architecture: Introducing the Special Issue’, Intelligent Buildings International, 5, pp. 4–9, https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.818763.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Eberhard, John P. (2009a), ‘Applying neuroscience to architecture’, Neuron, 62:6, pp. 753–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.001.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Eberhard, John P. (2009b), Brain Landscape: The Coexistence of Neuroscience and Architecture, New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Eco, Umberto (1989), Open Work (trans. A.Cancogni), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Franzini, Elio (2015), ‘Phenomenology and neuroaesthetics’, Aisthesis: Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi dell’estetico, 8:1, pp. 135–45, https://doi.org/10.13128/Aisthesis-16212.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Fried, Michael (1967), ‘Art and objecthood’, Artforum, 5:10, pp. 12–23, https://www.artforum.com/print/196706/art-and-objecthood-36708. Accessed 22 January 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Gablik, Susan (1992), ‘Connective aesthetics’, American Art, 6:2, pp. 2–7, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3109088. Accessed 17 July 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gage, Fred (2003), Neuroscience and Architecture, AIA 2003, National Convention and Expo, San Diego, CA: ANFA.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Hansen, Mark B. N. (2004), New Philosophy for New Media, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Hemeida, Fahd Abd El Aziz and Mostafa, Hamad Hassan (2017), ‘Neuro architectural design’, International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems, 32:supp1, pp. S173–S179, https://doi.org/10.1080/17445760.2017.1390106.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Husserl, Edmund (1997), Thing and Space: Lectures of 1907 (trans. R.Rojcewicz), Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
    [Google Scholar]
25. İlhan Koman Artworks (n.d.), ‘Koman Foundation’, İlhan Koman Artworks, https://ilhankoman.blogspot.com/. Accessed 26 March 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Kossak, Florian (2009), ‘Exhibiting architecture: The installation as laboratory for emerging architecture’ in S. Chaplin and A. Stara (eds), Curating Architecture and the City, Critiques: Critical Studies in Architectural Humanities, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 117–28.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Kuspit, Donald (2004), The End of Art, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Magsamen, Susan (2019), ‘Your brain on art: The case for neuroaesthetics’, Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, 2019, July & August, pp. cer-07–19, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7075503/. Accessed 05 May 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Mallgrave, Harry Francis (2011), The Architect’s Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Mastria, Serena, Agnoli, Sergio, Zanon, Marco, Lubart, Todd and Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele (2018), ‘Creative brain, creative mind, creative person’, in Z. Kapoula, E. Volle, J. Renoult and M. Andreatta (eds), Exploring Transdisciplinarity in Art and Sciences, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 3–29.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice ([1945] 2005), Phenomenology of Perception (trans. C.Smith), London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1964), ‘Eye and mind’, in J. E. Edie (ed.), The Primacy of Perception (trans. C.Daller), Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, pp. 159–90.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Mondloch, Kate (2010), Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art, Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Özdamar, Esen Gökçe (2021), ‘To enter or not to enter: Architectural installations’, Revista de arquitectura, 14:32, pp. 122–29, https://doi.org/10.4995/eb.2022.16960.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Özdamar, Esen Gökçe (2022), ‘Architectural installations as spatial experiments’, Revista de Arquitectura, 27:43, pp. 46–63, https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-5427.2022.68224.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Pallasmaa, Juhani (2000), ‘Hapticity and time: Notes on fragile architecture’, Architectural Review, 207, pp. 78–84.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Pallasmaa, Juhani (2005), The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses, Hoboken, NJ: Academy Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Pallasmaa, Juhani (2013), ‘Towards a neuroscience of architecture: Embodied mind and imagination’, in J. Pallasmaa, H. F. Mallgrave, M. Arbib and P. Tidwell (eds), Architecture and Neuroscience, Espoo: Tapio Wirkkala-Rut Bryk Foundation, pp. 4–22.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Pallasmaa, Juhani (2017), ‘Embodied and existential wisdom in architecture: The thinking hand’, Body & Society, 23:1, pp. 96–111, https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X16681443.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Papale, Paolo, Chiesi, Leonardo, Rampinini, Alessandra Cecilia, Pietrini, Pietro and Ricciardi, Emiliano (2016), ‘When neuroscience “touches” architecture: From hapticity to a supramodal functioning of the human brain’, Frontiers in Psychology, 7, pp. 1–8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00866.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Parisi, Luciana (2013), Contagious Architecture Computation, Aesthetics, and Space, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Phillips, Lisa (1989), Frederick Kiesler, New York: Whitney Museum of American Art.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Rasmussen, Steen Eiler (1964), Experiencing Architecture, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Reiss, Julie H. (1999), From Margin to Center: The Spaces of Installation Art, Cambridge, MA and Chicago, IL: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Ritchie, Ian (2020), ‘Disembodied worlds-body, Brain and architecture in the digital age: A conversation with psychobiologist Vittorio Gallese’, Architectural Design, 90:6, pp. 72–79, https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2634.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Robinson, Sarah (2015), ‘Introduction: Survival through design’, in S. Robinson and J. Pallasmaa (eds), Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, pp. 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Şişman, Candaş (n.d.), Flux, Candaş Şişman and Plato Art Space, https://csismn.com/F-L-U-X. Accessed 11 May 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
48. TeamLab (n.d.), ‘Biography’, TeamLab, https://www.teamlab.art/about/. Accessed 17 February 2021.
49. TeamLab Borderless (n.d.), ‘Borderless World’, https://www.teamlab.art/concept/borderlessworld_shanghai/. Accessed 5 May 2023.
50. Universal Everything (n.d.), ‘Home page’, Universal Everything, https://www.universaleverything.com/. Accessed 23 March 2021.
51. Vernet, Marine, Morize, Aurélien and Kapoula, Zoï (2018), ‘Postural and emotional impact of Carsten Höller’s artwork Light Corner’, in Z. Kapoula, E. Volle, J. Renoult and M. Andreatta (eds), Exploring Transdisciplinarity in Art and Sciences, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 165–75.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Whistance-Smith, Gregory (2022), ‘Expressive space: Embodying meaning in video game environments’, Berlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Zečević, Marija (2017), ‘Installation: Between the artistic and architectural project’, AM Journal, 12, pp. 55–70, https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i12.167.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Zeki, Samir (1999), Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]