Recently, security issues have been dominating the headlines and policy makers’ lists of promises. Although the notion of security has long been integral to interior design, the current reliance of security measures on surveillance systems that use cameras and video monitors warrants revisiting the role of interior designers. With an overview of the literature on how electronic surveillance has been conceived, perceived, and practiced, this paper aims to set the stage for a dialogue about the opportunities that arise through greater involvement from interior designers. The analysis points to a disconnect between the systems’ application and the fusion of the physical, social, and technological dimensions of electronic surveillance into a holistic scheme. Current debates raise concerns over its aesthetic integration into the overall building design as well as its associations with feelings of fear and control, loss of privacy, discrimination, inequality, and cultural/gender insensitivity. Directions from academicians, designers, artists, and educators help frame the paper’s thesis that electronic surveillance can act as a connecting mechanism that connects people to people as well as people to the environment. Pedagogical implications of this premise suggest that by including the term “surveillance” in the terminology used in the interior design field and positioning security and surveillance in the conceptual stages of the design process, the potential for creative solutions and opportunities to challenge perceptions of fear and threat are increased.

No abstract

A critical question in interior design is how multisensory information is integrated into occupant perception and interpretation of the environmental contexts and meanings. Although there have been efforts to identify and theorize visual perception of interior factors or features (e.g., colors, fixtures, and signs), the hidden meanings behind visual attention and behaviors have been neglected in interior design research. This experimental phenomenological study investigates the impact of auditory stimuli on the gaze behaviors of individuals and the hidden meanings of their audio-visual perceptions of commercial interiors. Implementing eye-tracking and open-ended interviews, this study explored how the neurophysiological and phenomenological methods in complementary can serve for interior design research on the meaning of gaze behaviors. The study used a convenience sample of 26 participants, three coffee shop interior images, and two musical stimuli. Essential to this study is the interpretive analysis of corresponding eye-tracking and interview data. The results show that visual perception is affected by auditory stimuli and other interior elements and factors associated with personal experiences; however, no distinct gaze pattern is identified by the type of auditory stimuli. The fixation patterns showed mixed reflections of the participants' perceptions, e.g., a single fixation pattern reflecting participants' likes and dislikes. Findings included six essential meanings of participants' gaze behaviors. This study suggested that auditory and visual stimuli are reciprocal in individuals' perceptions. Rather than one affects the other, the interaction between sensory stimuli contributes to the complexity and intensity of multisensory stimuli people associate with their experiences and conceptualize with meanings they establish.

Human perception has long been a critical subject of design thinking. While various studies have stressed the link between thinking and acting, particularly in spatial experience, the term “design thinking” seems to disconnect conceptual thinking from physical expression or process. Spatial perception is multimodal and fundamentally bound to the body that is not a mere receptor of sensory stimuli but an active agent engaged with the perceivable environment. The body apprehends the experience in which one’s kinesthetic engagement and knowledge play an essential role. Although design disciplines have integrated the abstract, metaphoric, and visual aspects of the body and its movement into conceptual thinking, studies have pointed out that design disciplines have emphasized visuality above the other sensory domains and heavily engaged with the perception of visual configurations, relying on the Gestalt principles. Gestalt psychology must be valued for its attention to a whole. However, the theories of design elements and principles over-empathizing such visuality posit the aesthetics of design mainly as visual value and understate other sensorial and perceptual aspects. Although the visual approach may provide a practical means to represent and communicate ideas, a design process heavily driven by visuality can exhibit weaknesses undermining certain aspects of spatial experience despite the complexity. Grounded in Merleau-Ponty’s notion of multisensory perception, this article discusses the relationship between body awareness and spatial perception and its implication for design disciplines concerning built environments. Special attention is given to the concepts of kinesthetic and synesthetic phenomena known as multisensory and cross-sensory, respectively. This discussion integrates the corporeal and spatiotemporal realms of human experience into the discourse of kinesthetic and synesthetic perceptions. Based on the conceptual, theoretical, and precedent analyses, this article proposes three models for design thinking: Synesthetic Translation, Kinesthetic Resonance, and Kinesthetic Engagement. To discuss the concepts rooted in action-based perception and embodied cognition, this study borrows the neurological interpretation of haptic perception, interoception, and proprioception of space. This article suggests how consideration of the kinesthetic or synesthetic body can deepen and challenge the existing models of the perceptual aspects of environmental psychology adopted in design disciplines.

No abstract