Advertisement

Landmark Phenomenology of Sacred Architecture as Cultural Heritage

  • Zorana Sokol GojnikEmail author
  • Igor Gojnik
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

Multisensory experience is an important part of the perception of sacred architecture. It is important to understand that the content of sacred architecture as cultural heritage, in the complex way of understanding, is not only its historical, artistic or cultural value, but also its symbolic value. One of its symbolic aspects is the multisensory experience it creates. This assertion is based on the theoretical framework of the phenomenology of architecture, an aspect of architectural theory that explores the experience of the built. Every experience of architecture is multisensory, and in the case of sacred space this aspect particularly influences the experience of the believer and of the visitor of cultural heritage because architecture relates, mediates and projects meanings anchored in a complex experience of space. Different phenomena such as light, sound, smell and touch directly affect the experience of sacred architecture. They create specific atmospheres that are intrinsic to the experience of the sacred, such as the atmosphere of the transcendent, the atmosphere of eternity, the atmosphere of belonging to the community and the atmosphere of an out-of-the-ordinary character of space. This approach changes the viewpoint on sacred architecture as cultural heritage and highlights numerous aspects of a building that should be considered in the process of the protection of cultural heritage.

Keywords

Sacred architecture Multisensory experience Phenomenology Cultural heritage 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research is a part of the scientific project ‘Heritage Urbanism—Urban and Spatial Planning Models for Revival and Enhancement of Cultural Heritage’. It is financed by the Croatian Science Foundation [HRZZ-2032] and carried out at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture.

References

  1. Ballou G (2015) Handbook for sound engineers. Focal Press, WalthamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrie T (2010) The sacred in-between: the mediating roles of architecture. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloomer KC, Moore CW (1977) Body, memory, and architecture. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  4. Boer W, Göttler C (2012) Religion and the senses in early modern Europe. Brill, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaplin WF, Phillips JB, Brown JD, Clanton NR, Stein JL (2000) Handshaking, gender, personality and first impressions. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(1):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foyle J (2012) Scent of the building. Financial Times, November 30, 2012. https://www.ft.com/content/8db9b640-34c2-11e2-8986-00144feabdc0. Accessed 6 June 2018
  7. Gadamer HG (2004) Truth and method. Crossroad, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardner Rust E (1996) The music and dance of the world’s religions. Greenwood, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  9. Gojnik I, Sokol Gojnik Z, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B, Veršić Z (2015) Dnevno svjetlo u sakralnom prostoru kao doživljajni element naslijeđa. In: Obad Šćitaroci M (ed) Cultural Heritage—possibilities for spatial and economic development. Faculty of Architecture University of Zagreb, Zagreb, pp 262–268. ISBN: 978-953-8042-11-9Google Scholar
  10. Holl S (1996) Intertwining. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Holl S (2000) Parallax. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hale SE (2007) Sacred space, sacred sound: the acoustic mysteries of holy places. Quest Books, WheatonGoogle Scholar
  13. Harries K (1997) The ethical function of architecture. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hedfors P (2008) Site soundscapes: landscape architecture in the light of sound—sonotope design strategies. VDM Verlag, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  15. Heidegger M (1996) Being and time. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Heidegger M (2004) Phenomenology of the religious life. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Henshaw V (2013) Urban smellscapes: understanding and designing city smell environments. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson GA (1994) The Merleau-Ponty aesthetics reader: philosophy and painting. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly A, McCrum S, Sammon P, Stalling D (2018) Memorialising the sacred. Architecture Gallery of the Irish Architectural Archive, DublinGoogle Scholar
  20. Merleau-Ponty M (2013) Phenomenology of perception. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  21. Oberman T, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B, Jambrošić K (2014) Unaprjeđenje zvučnog okoliša gradskih prostora - utjecaj na urbanizam i pejsažnu arhitekturu. Prostor 22(48):200–211. ISSN 1330-0652Google Scholar
  22. Pallasmaa J (2005) The eyes of the skin—architecture and the senses. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  23. Pérez-Gómez A (1985) Architecture and the crisis of modern science. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Reichling P (2010) About odoriferousness and malodorousness in the golden legend. Religion for the senses. Part III: religious meanings of taste, smell and touch in ancient and medieval Asia and Europe. Käte Hamburger Kolleg (KHK), Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 21.04.2010–22.04.2010Google Scholar
  25. Sokol Gojnik Z, Gojnik I, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B (2015) Light as a symbol in sacred architecture. In: ARCHTHEO’15: DAKAM (Eastern Mediterranean Academic Research Center), Istanbul, pp 609–617Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.„Siloueta arhitektura“ZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations