Aesthetic Evaluation of the Atmosphere in Everyday Environments-A Case Study in Ashiyahama Seaside Town, Japan
Le résumé fourni par la source
Since the emergence of environmental aesthetics, this field has been expanding its focus into various objects and environments including human-made objects. But still, it seems that we prefer aesthetically good environments and experiences because the word ‘aesthetic’ often automatically implicates some kind of positive value. However, as Timothy Morton suggests with the concept of dark ecology, we have to find a way to love “the disgusting, inert, and meaningless” that we have created and rely on as well, instead of dreaming a romantic and idealized world. In this interdisciplinary research with aesthetics and environmental science, we will investigate the aesthetic value of the atmosphere in our everyday environments, especially the areas that have developed during the high economic growth period between the 1960s and 1980s in Japan. Such artificial suburban areas, in general, have been given aesthetically negative evaluations because of the lack of diverse natural conditions and human historicity. However, what, why, and how have not yet been elaborated enough. From this perspective, we carried out fieldwork using the “caption evaluation method.” By collecting hundreds of pieces of data from the participants, we aim to figure out how people perceive the various factors in the environment and experience, not a mere visual landscape, but the whole atmosphere.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Aesthetic Evaluation of the Atmosphere in Everyday Environments-A Case Study in Ashiyahama Seaside Town, Japan
- Date Crossref
- 10/12/2024
- Éditeur
- Contemporary Aesthetics Inc.
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.