Abstract
An all-embracing experience of a three-dimensional spatial text requires movement through various articulated spaces. Part of this experience is the emotional effect that the volume of the spaces has on its users. Since contiguous spaces may be of different dimensions, there is the potential for users moving through those spaces to experience fluctuations in feelings. This article develops Stenglin’s notion of Binding, a semiotic analytical tool which helps to understand the relationship between affect and space, by modeling, in a dynamic way, how spatial texts unfolds logogenetically as people move through, and are affected by, them. This article suggests a method of gathering dynamic data for analysis. Using a filmic representation of the experience of movement through, interaction with, and perception of, the foyers of two high-rise apartment complexes in Sydney, Australia, the article formalizes the fluctuations in Binding into diagrammatic representations referred to as Binding Contours, which explicitly demonstrate that space is felt dynamically.
Keywords
1. Introduction
Buildings can be viewed from a stationary position as if they were two-dimensional images (Ravelli, 2008: 19); however, their interiors are normally experienced dynamically as we move through them. During the course of this movement, we are affected by what we see – the material content within the space; but we are also affected by the invisible – the space itself. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the transitional spaces of two high-rise apartment complexes in Sydney, Australia, investigating the ways in which the various dimensions of the spaces affect users as they move from the street to the elevator shaft.
Buildings may be social constructs that are given to us; however, their understanding is dependent on the perceiver, highlighting ‘our capacity to influence what influences us’ (Grynsztejn, 2007: 15). Meanings of spatial texts, including affect, are negotiable. Considering this negotiability, this article foregrounds the control that users have over their relationship to the space due to the choices in body movement and focal orientation, and suggests a method of capturing dynamic data. The analysis is primarily based on a video recording of a typical experience of the transitional spaces, which was captured through the eyes of the user, so to speak, by means of a microcamera attached to a participant’s forehead. In order to account for the affect that the spaces have on users, the article uses, but also develops, the analytical tool of Binding (Stenglin 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011; also Martin and Stenglin, 2007).
Binding is a semiotic principle which describes the ways in which differently proportioned spaces affect users’ sense of (in)security. It stems in part from appraisal theory, in particular from the system 1 of affect (for example, Martin and White, 2005). The dimension of a space is determined by how far apart the overhead, vertical and base planes are situated from each other. A large open space will have vertical planes with plenty of space between them and a high ceiling, whereas a small space has walls that are close to each other and a low ceiling.
Binding, however, is not simply concerned with the dimension of space; rather, it is the co-articulation between choices from the systems of permeability (fixed structures such as walls and columns) and ambience (changeable elements such as light, texture, reflectivity and colour) (Stenglin, 2004: 210 ff). A space is potentially Bound when the planes close in on users in conjunction with the use of opaque materials, which restrict vision, as well as floor coverings such as carpet, which hamper movement. In contrast, a space is potentially Unbound when the planes open up around users in conjunction with the use of glass, which does not restrict vision, as well as level floors that are free of coverings, which do not restrict movement. The concept of Binding is not delimited to internal spaces; rather, it includes spaces such as parks. In the latter case, the ground, a row of trees and treetops can act as base, vertical and overhead planes, respectively.
Despite having only two terms, Bound and Unbound, Binding cannot be represented as a binary system as the choices of Binding are not clearly defined (Stenglin, 2004: 131). Spaces can be minimally, moderately or strongly Bound or Unbound. Binding is gradable due to the cultural location and psychological state of individual users. People who prefer to be unfettered would feel more comfortable in Unbound spaces, whereas people who like to feel cradled would feel more secure in places that are Bound. In the same Bound space, the unencumbered type of person might feel smothered, while the reserved type person might feel vulnerable in the same Unbound space. Furthermore, a space can be felt as Too Bound, inducing claustrophobia, or Too Unbound, inducing agoraphobia (see Stenglin, 2004: 121). Therefore, Binding is best represented on a continuum (Figure 1).
Space can become Too Bound or Too Unbound, causing insecurity (see Stenglin, 2004).
Although Stenglin’s (2004) original research on Binding focuses on vision (p. 130), it is much broader in scope than this article, which is concerned primarily with describing the fluctuations in the amount of open space which enters and exits a user’s visual field during movement, which is, if space permits, at the discretion of the user. The article also suggests a way of formalizing the fluctuations in Binding in diagrammatic representations which I refer to as Binding Contours in order to explicitly demonstrate that space is felt dynamically.
The article contributes further to the development of Binding, and spatial discourse analysis (SpDA) in general, by proposing a way of deconstructing large, complex multimodal spatial texts into smaller spans of text in order to facilitate analysis. Since the article records an architectural experience on film, it follows Le Corbusier and Jeanneret’s (1967[1964]: 24) promenade architecturale and Tschumi’s (1987: 12) cinematic promenade, calling the span of text a Promenade. A Promenade is not the same as the concretized pathway such as a garden path; it does not exist until users of a spatial text create one by moving through space. The Promenade, however, is partly constrained by the structural elements of the spatial text, as its boundaries are demarcated by various framing devices such as walls (Van Leeuwen, 2005).
The article is divided into a number of sections. Section 2 introduces the spatial texts under analysis and describes the method of capturing dynamic data. Section 3 problematizes the representation of three-dimensional spatial texts in a two-dimensional format (i.e. photographs) in terms of Binding. It also describes Binding in relation to user movement, to the material elements in the space and to the organization of the Promenade, before illustrating the procedure of constructing a Binding Contour. Section 4 undertakes a comparative descriptive analysis of the transitional spaces of the two high-rise apartment complexes, by applying the theory proposed in the previous sections. Section 5 demonstrates that despite a Promenade having its idiosyncratic Binding Contour, a comparison of similar Promenades in similar text types helps to elucidate some of the semiotic differences between the buildings in terms of affect.
2. Texts and Methodology
This section describes the spatial texts under analysis as well as the method of capturing a filmic representation of a typical Promenade of a high-rise apartment complex.
2.1 The spatial texts
This article analyses the transitional spaces of two high-rise apartment complexes in Sydney, Australia: the Horizon (Figure 2) and Matavai (Figure 3). A high-rise building may be defined in Dolkartian terms. In his article ‘The architecture and development in New York City: The birth of the skyscraper’, Dolkart (2003) explains that the first skyscraper was the Equitable Life Assurance Company on Broadway and Cedar St, New York, built in 1868 and designed by Gilman and Kendell, as it was the first building to have a ‘passenger elevator’. Thus, this article considers high-rises to be those buildings whose primary mode of accessing floors is the elevator, which is usually located within a foyer. Thus, the principal Promenade of a conventional Western high-rise apartment complex runs from the street to the elevator shaft via a penetrable opening of the outside vertical wall.
The Horizon (left); its preface (top right); its foyer (bottom right).
The towers (left); the preface (top right); and Matavai’s foyer (bottom right).
The principal Promenade of the two buildings under analysis runs between the street and the main opening, referred to in this article as the preface; it then passes through a small space which bridges the preface and the foyer proper, the threshold; it then passes through the foyer to the area around the elevator shaft, the experiential hub (Stenglin, 2004: 459), which demarcates the end of the Promenade. In addition to these transitional spaces, there is also a transition point, the demarcation line between the outside and the inside of a building, marked by a security door.
The Horizon, located at 184 Forbes Street, Darlinghurst, is renowned for its famous architect, the late Harry Seidler and its Pop art designed by the late Sol LeWitt; the building is privately owned. Matavai, designed by Stafford, Moor and Farrington Architects and Town Planners in 1976, is located at 1 Phillip Street, Waterloo; it and its twin tower, Turanga, are project housing owned by Housing New South Wales. Matavai was named after the bay in Tahiti where Captain Cook anchored, symbolically represented by a large anchor located in parkland between the two towers.
The Horizon and Matavai are perceived as the socio-economic antithesis of each other. The Horizon houses some of Sydney’s most affluent professionals, whereas the towers currently house the economically marginalized and the infirm. The towers are known for domestic violence and alcohol abuse. Despite their contrasts, the Horizon and the towers often have a negative reading, being referred to as ‘the Horror Zone’ and ‘Pillars of Despair’, respectively. The buildings are, therefore, two of Sydney’s significant socio-cultural constructs. Representing the Binding contour of each should help to elucidate whether such socially opposed texts affect people in different ways.
Small changes in the built space, according to environment psychologist Rui Olds (1990, cited in Stenglin, 2004: 191), can have significant interpersonal ramifications. These changes in the structure of space produce what Rui Olds calls ‘rhythmic pattern’. He states that we need small shifts in organization patterns, which includes spatial volume, as they help us to ‘maintain optimal levels of responsivity and [to] make us feel “comfortable” [and that] moderate variations … prevent boredom or withdrawal by introducing a change that catches the attention and reawakens the nervous system’. It is important to note here the phrase ‘catches the attention’, as it highlights that perception plays an integral role in the way users are affected by space; after all, architecture is ‘a practice that engages seeing in relation to movement’ (Bruno, 2002: 58 ).
2.2 Capturing the experience
One of the aims of this article is to present a method of capturing dynamic data of the experience of a spatial text in addition to formalizing the data into a diagrammatic format. Moving through and perceiving space has been compared to a camera filming the architectural event (see Bruno, 2002, 2007; Eisenstein, 1938; Hill, 2003; Tschumi, 1987; Zevi, 1957). Modernist architect Zevi (1957: 59) states that ‘if you go through a building photographing it with a motion picture camera and then project your film, you will be able to recapture, to a large extent, the spatial experience of walking through the building.’ However, he concedes that a film can only represent one of an infinite number of experiences.
Although the camera can record the experience, a discrepancy between what the eye sees and what the camera captures is manifest (see Vertov and Michelson, 1984: 16). A camera cannot mimic the eye. Eyes do not remain stationary like a camera lens does; they are constantly in flux. Notwithstanding these discrepancies, in order to have a filmic representation of the architectural experience, I attached a video camera to my head and walked through the transitional spaces of the two high-rises under consideration.
3. Binding Considerations
3.1 Binding in images
The theorization of the relationship between affect and space using two-dimensional images could be potentially problematic. For example, readers may be presented with an image in which a participant stands in a strongly Unbound space. As viewers, we can see the space that envelops the participant; however, if we were the participant in the image, we would have a delimited field of vision, and our retinal image (Gibson, 1950: 48) might indicate a space which is only minimally Unbound. Even when the image is from the point of view of the participant, as is the case in this article, we cannot feel the represented three-dimensional spatial text in the same way as we might if we were immersed in the actual space; rather, we merely perceive a representation of the degree of Binding. In many cases, the dimension of the whole spatial text in which the user is immersed is not represented in the image. Therefore, dimension cannot be used as an indicator of the degree of Binding in this instance.
As users move through the spatial text, their interaction with it continuously changes, especially in regard to the distance of the vertical plane in front of them. The vertical plane is of particular importance when accounting for degrees of Binding as ‘vertical forms have a greater presence in our visual field than horizontal planes’ (Ching, 2007: 124). Therefore, the distance between users’ eyes, i.e. the camera, and the vertical plane in front of them, as well as the amount of open space that this vertical plane obstructs, contributes to the degree of Binding in images.
The actual three-dimensional space and the two-dimensional visual representation of the space are two different semiotic modes, but they are both used as resources in order to illustrate the principle of Binding. To differentiate between the amount of Binding that is felt in the original three-dimensional space and the degree of Binding that is represented in the two-dimensional visual, I use the term visual Binding when referring to images. To illustrate, Figure 4 shows two images of Matavai, representing the retinal image of a user. The photograph on the left depicts the preface, perceived as a strongly Unbound space, as part of the vertical plane is the overhead sky, suggesting an open, expansive space, while the photograph on the right shows the closed elevator doors inside the foyer, perceived as a strongly Bound space, as the vertical plane obstructs other elements entering the visual field. The latter image in particular clearly demonstrates that there is no way of knowing the degree of Binding of the entire space in which the user is immersed.
Visual Binding.
3.2 Binding in relation to movement
The spatial texts unfold logogenetically as users move through space (Stenglin, 2004: 447); therefore, users play a significant role in the theorization of Binding. As regards the spatial text, Binding depends on choices from PERMEABILTIY and AMBIENCE, but as regards the user, the degree of Binding depends on the choices that the user makes whilst actualizing the Promenade in terms of focal orientation and corporal movement. Users can choose to move their head or their body, each choice affecting the retinal image, and the degree of Binding, differently. Head turning produces dramatic fluctuations in the degree of Binding in spaces that are diverse in content and dimensions. During movement forward, in contrast, little change is perceived except in the peripheral vision, from which parts of the environment fall behind whilst users maintain contact with the destination (Penn, 2003: 57–58). Fluctuations in Binding would therefore be more gradual.
The choice of movement enables users to control, to a certain extent, what enters the visual field and, therefore, the degree of Binding. To exemplify, users standing in the middle of a strongly Unbound space might feel vulnerable. If they turn their head in an empty room, there would be no change in Binding as the vertical planes are equidistantly remote. However, they may have the option to move to the wall. They may be able to turn their back on the open space and face the vertical plane, thereby creating their own sense of security and Binding. It is argued that a person standing in the middle of an empty room, being surrounded by open space, might feel the space as being strongly Unbound, whereas a person in the same room who is facing a solid wall might feel it as moderately Bound. However, if the wall were made of glass and overlooked a two-storey void, the opposite may be true.
3.3 Binding and the materiality of the vertical plane
Readers may think that because users must pass through a vertical plane to enter a building that they must feel the space as strongly Bound at this point in the Promenade. However, the openness in the visual field also depends on the choices in the opacity of the material of the entrance of the building: opaque, translucent or transparent. Opaque material, such as brick, is a strong choice for Binding (Stenglin, 2004: 248) as users cannot see through it, thus obstructing their visual field; translucent material is a moderate choice for Unbinding as it allows light to penetrate, and, although users might not be able to see clearly through a translucent wall, the penetrating light gives them a sense of space beyond the plane. Transparent material, such as glass, is a strong choice for Unbinding as users can see through it, thus extending their field of vision. When the façade is opaque, there is the potential for users to change from feeling the space as strongly Unbound at a public distance from the wall to feeling space as strongly Bound as they near the main entrance. In contrast, if the vertical wall is made of glass, the fluctuation will not be as pronounced.
3.4 Binding and the organization of the Promenade
The fluctuations in Binding are also related to the organization of the Promenade. The principal Promenade is constituted of smaller spans of text, referred to, in this article, as Phrases and sub-Phrases (see Baldry and Thibault’s [2006] deconstruction of filmic texts). Firstly, a Phrase is a span of text whose boundaries are demarcated by an interruption in the movement of users, generally caused by some type of strong framing device (see Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006: 183; Van Leeuwen, 2005: 18) such as security doors, which require users to stop and swipe their security card to enter. In the visual mode, this is realized by a repetition of a transitivity frame. 2 Secondly, a Phrase is constituted of sub-Phrases, whose boundaries are demarcated by weak framing devices such as a change in the dimension of the space or a change in direction, usually realized by a blurry transitivity frame or an abrupt change in the content of the frame. These changes usually do not impede movement temporally. Although framing is an organizing principle, framing devices which demarcate the boundaries of the constituent parts of the Promenade are experienced both visually and viscerally. They, therefore, also demarcate changes in the Binding Contour.
3.4.1 Deconstructing the principal Promenade
The principal Promenade through the Horizon is constituted of two Phrases demarcated by a security door. The first Phrase through the preface is constituted of two sub-Phrases, demarcated by a change in height between the driveway and the portico. The second Phrase is constituted of three sub-Phrases: (a) through the threshold zone; (b) to the concierge desk; and (c) to the elevator. Although approaching the concierge desk is not an obligatory stage of the Promenade (see McMurtrie’s [2011a] work on the genre of foyers), many users do; it is, therefore, considered part of the most generalized Promenade.
The principal Promenade through Matavai is more complex. The Promenade through the preface is constituted of six sub-Phrases, demarcated by changes in direction, material on the base plane, height of the base plane, height of the overhead plane, the width and material of the vertical plane as well as a change in room, the threshold zone. The second Phrase, through the foyer, has two sub-Phrases, demarcated by a change in direction. In Matavai, there is no concierge desk.
While the deconstruction of the Promenade in such a manner is textually driven, it is nonetheless used in order to overlay the Binding Contours, whose peaks and troughs may, or may not, coincide with the framing devices, for explicatory purposes.
Having discussed the potential problems of using a video recording to develop Binding contours, I now turn to explicate how to construct them. The recording was uploaded to the computer using Windows Movie Maker®. During playback, a transitivity frame was created every second. The transitivity frames are placed along the x-axis. Along the y-axis, the degree of Binding is represented. Above each frame, a dot corresponding to the degree Binding of the particular space, now resemioticized into a two-dimensional visual format, is placed. Once all frames have been accounted for, the dots are connected, thus creating the Binding Contour. Figure 5 exemplifies this process, using the preface of the Horizon; however, each transitivity frame is 3 seconds apart.
How to create Binding Contours.
It should be noted that this article is not a user study per se, as this would require additional methodologies. The findings are based on the filmic representation of one instantiation of the principal Promenade of the Horizon and of Matavai. All users may walk through the same physical space, yet the visual representation of their experience could be different depending on the amount of body and head movement. As Matthews (2006: 92) states: ‘my experience of the world is always from a certain perspective within it, and is limited to what I can perceive from that perspective’. However, the recording is representative of a typical Promenade, or instance type, and my instantiation is used as an exemplification in order to highlight the potential of the system. If the recording of this one instantiation were compared to others, it would lie somewhere on a cline closer to ‘having everything in common’ than to ‘having nothing in common’ (see Halliday, 2002b: 46) with the other recordings. In other words, if 30 Promenades were recorded using the same methodology, for example, while each may be unique, it would be noted that all would have some things in common and most would have a lot in common. Furthermore, as Gibson (1950: 161) points out, users move and scan the environment simultaneously, stating that the combination [of which] yields a range of images in two dimensions which corresponds to the whole of a three-dimensional environment, independent of any given point of view. It will not only be stable, panoramic, and unbounded, but it will approximate the range of images possessed by another man [sic] who lives in that environment in the degree to which they have been in the same places. It will be something very much like objective space. (emphasis added)
Therefore, while the results are based on the analysis of the video which is a representation of one instantiation of the principal Promenade, they can be considered indicative of many users. In the subsequent analysis, therefore, the term user refers to the generalized user.
4. Application and Analysis
The article now provides a descriptive analysis of the transitional spaces, Phrase by Phrase, using the tool of Binding. While the analysis is primarily based on the visual information in the transitivity frames, other aspects of the transitional spaces are described to show the difference between system and instantiation. In each sub section, the Horizon will be analyzed before Matavai.
4.1 The prefaces
To enter the preface of the Horizon, users must walk under arches above the drive-way (Figure 6). The archway acts as a metonymical Binding device, creating a false overhead plane, the height of the arch extending from the street to the entrance. Therefore, despite being outside with no physical overhead plane, the preface of the Horizon is felt as being only moderately Unbound. This degree of Unbinding is mitigated due to the Sol LeWitt artwork in the foyer, whose highly saturated colours ‘penetrate’ the transparent fenestration and attract the users’ gaze, giving users a sense of already being in the foyer, and thus, a premature sense of security. Users experience a transition from feeling the preface as moderately Unbound at the arches to minimally Bound as they approach the entrance. This sensation of becoming closed-in is intensified when users enter the second sub-Phrase (Figure 7). As they step up onto the portico, the base plane, the overhead plane and the vertical plane ahead simultaneously close-in.
The arches act as a metonymical Binding device.
The overhead soffit and the raised base plane make a minimally Unbound space.
In contrast, the preface of Matavai may be experienced as strongly Unbound (Figure 3). The parkland has no overhead plane and its vertical plane is constituted of a few scattered trees and an anchor. The entrance to the preface is situated on the highest point of the site, which has the potential to intensify the feeling of being exposed and vulnerable. Users feel a moderately Bound space as they enter the portico as it has a low overhead plane supported by vertical pillars (Figure 8), which intensify the sense of enclosure (Ching, 2007: 127). The transition between the strongly Unbound parkland and the moderately Bound portico creates a sharp drop in the Binding Contour.
Matavai’s moderately Bound portico.
4.2 The threshold zones
Before entering the foyer of the Horizon, users pass through a triangular-shaped granite ‘tunnel’ that penetrates the building’s glass façade. This zone has the potential to be strongly Bound for a number of reasons. The thick granite walls slope inwards, creating a smaller volume of space overhead than at the base plane, thus encasing the users’ visual field. Furthermore, the depth of the material of the ‘tunnel’ and its opacity has the potential to intensify the feeling of enclosure. Thickness is associated with permanence and stability, solidity and endurance. The threshold zone is reminiscent of structures such as mausoleums and the Egyptian pyramids, which connote impenetrability and security. However, although these choices may contribute to a strongly Bound space, the threshold zone is felt as a moderately Bound space due to choices form the system of ambience. The abundance of light opens up the space and the highly reflective walls amplify the amount of light as well as mirror the co-text.
To enter the foyer of Matavai, users must pass through a small, square room. Despite its small dimension, there is the potential for this space to be experienced as moderately Unbound as there is the option of looking through a ceiling-to-floor glass wall on the left that overlooks the complex’s Polynesian gardens. The space may seem enclosed due to the variations in textures, colours and shapes of the floor coverings and base plane. Whilst users stand and wait for the electronic security door to open, the space may be felt as moderately Bound for reasons explained below (Section 4.5, The transition point).
4.3 The foyers
Users moving through the Horizon’s foyer may feel the space as strongly Unbound. The foyer’s north-west facing glass skin allows direct sun penetration for most of the day. Too much sunlight can be alleviated by lowering the blinds. However, there is a corollary. When the blinds are lowered below eye-level, interaction with the outside environment is thwarted, and a moderately Bound space is created. When the blinds are fully raised, a strongly Unbound space which affords users a dialogue with the outside world is created (Figure 9). The two-storey plate glass fenestration of the Horizon, whilst protecting users from the outside elements, does not obstruct interaction with the environment, creating freedom and security at the same time (see McMurtrie, 2011a).
The foyer in the Horizon with blinds: strongly Unbound (left); moderately Bound (right).
The amount of light that enters the foyer of the Horizon is augmented due to the highly reflective materials, which increases the depth of field. The black glass of the concierge desk and letter boxes, as well as the highly polished granite floor, act like mirrors. The reflective surfaces give the illusion of a space more than twice its actual dimension; in addition, they create more illumination, which intensifies the feeling of the space being strongly Unbound. However, the potential of the foyer feeling Too Unbound is countered by the use of soft, thick carpet in the waiting area. The carpet is the only moderately Bound, stationary area in an otherwise strongly Unbound, transient space.
The base plane in Matavai’s foyer is parquetry flooring, which, when originally laid, would have been highly polished. Its reflective surface would have opened up the room in much the same way as the polished granite in the Horizon, contributing to a moderately Unbound space. However, floor boards are susceptible to wear and tear. In front of the elevators and immediately inside the foyer, the flooring has been scuffed, thus reducing illumination and consequently contributing to a minimally Unbound space.
In addition, in contrast to the light-filled spaces of the Horizon, some spaces in Matavai’s foyer are quite dark as they face the south. The darkness is exacerbated by the many drawn blinds the partial wooden wall which has been erected around the letterbox areas (Figure 10). Although these devices may offer some privacy, the obstruction of light contributes to a minimally Unbound space, a space which might otherwise have been moderately Unbound. The foyer feels more enclosed due to the number of posters that are adhered to the walls near the letterboxes as well as the choice of material for the vertical planes. Most of the walls are made of wood, which, in collaboration with the wooden floors, contribute to a more enclosed space reminiscent of the galley on Captain Cook’s Endeavour. The vertical wall near the elevator shaft consists of pinky-brown square ceramic tiles, raffia as well as wood. The different textures, patterns and colours seem to clutter the space, thus diminishing any sense of openness.
A partial wall near the letterboxes in Matavai.
4.4 The experiential hub
Horizon’s experiential hub is located in its own enclosed area behind the wall of the main foyer, on which the art is mounted. Whilst waiting for the elevators, users may feel this space as moderately Bound. The vertical planes of this space are much closer together than those of the main foyer and the overhead plane is half the height of that of the foyer. This degree of Binding conditions users to the confined space of the moderately Bound elevators so that the transition between the foyer and the elevator is not jarring.
In contrast, the experiential hub in Matavai is situated in the most exposed area of the foyer. From the hub, the outdoor gardens can be seen through the floor-to-ceiling sliding glass doors directly opposite the elevator doors. The space may be felt as moderately Unbound due to the dimension of the space and because users waiting for the elevator can be seen by all other users who are engaged in various social activities in different areas of the foyer; this exposure may make the waiting users feel intimidated. The change from the Unboundedness of the foyer to the strongly Bound space of the elevator could create a disturbance in the Binding contour.
However, people have the option of controlling their own degree of Binding through movement, if space permits. In the Horizon, users have the option of looking either side of the elevator shaft to see shards of incoming light which penetrate deep into the foyer in order to feel the space as visually minimally Bound, or they can face the elevator doors to feel strongly Bound as in the example instantiation. Shards of light only penetrate the experiential hub during the day, highlighting the hypothesis that buildings are felt differently during the night. In Matavai, users have the option of facing the elevator doors, thereby turning their backs on the outside gardens and foyer in order to feel strongly Bound.
Having described the potential Binding Contours of each part of the Promenade, I turn to describe the potential effect that entering a space may have on users.
4.5 The transition point
At points of entrance, Stenglin’s system of binding intersects with O’Toole’s (2004: 23) system of options: opacity, reflectivity and transparency. To iterate, there is the potential for users to feel strongly Bound as they approach an opaque exterior wall, whereas they may feel minimally Bound if the exterior wall were a transparent sheet of glass that permits a preview of the upcoming Phrase of the Promenade, or if the wall reflects the surrounding environment.
The entrance to the Horizon is glass, a particularly interesting material as its transparency and reflexivity set up an oscillation of focus between two elements, constructing ‘a paradoxical space’ (Berrizbeitia and Pollak 1999: 139–140). It creates, what I refer to as, a ‘spatial dissolve’, similar to a dissolve in film, whereby one part of the text is superimposed on another. Users are able to see the subsequent space in the foyer through the glass as well as the reflection of the antecedent space of the preface in the glass (Figure 11). The coalescing of the two parts has an ambiguous corollary in terms of Binding. On the one hand, it gives the illusion of an open, extended space, thus making the space feel moderately Unbound; on the other hand, a ‘spatial dissolve’ has the potential to gently ease users from one space into another as they can be simultaneously visually attached to the previous space yet can see what is ahead, thus making them feel comfortable and secure as they pass from one Phrase to the next.
The ‘spatial dissolve’ in the Horizon.
Matavai’s transition point is quite complex. Despite the security doors being made of glass, the transition between outside and inside is not similar to a dissolve as it is in the Horizon. On the contrary, the transition is similar to a disjunctive jump-cut transition in film. The reason for this is that the glass of Matavai’s doors is hyper-reflective, mirroring the parkland and the surrounding buildings. Thus, it prevents users from clearly seeing into the foyer. While waiting at the security doors, users may focus on the reflection of the open parkland in the glass. The reflection creates a minimally Bound space. It does not create a moderately Unbound space as would be expected because the doors have aluminum frames which block part of, and bifurcate, the reflected image. This reflection, though, should have created only a small change in the degree of Binding between the outside and the inside, which should have produced a smooth undulating Binding Contour from the minimally Unbound threshold to the minimally Unbound foyer. As the security doors slide open, the green parkland disappears, and users’ visual attention is quickly replaced by the yellow and brown interior of the foyer. The sharp transition created by the colour contrast (see Pun, 2005) and the difference in the content in the visual field between the parkland and the foyer induces a visual shock, as it were, which has the potential to momentarily disconnect and disorientate users, thus making them feel vulnerable and insecure (Figure 12). Therefore, the interior of the foyer may feel strongly Unbound for a split second before users become adjusted to the minimally Unbound space. There is the potential for users, therefore, to experience a larger fluctuation in the Binding Contour of the Promenade through the entrance than would have been predicted were the volume of space only taken into consideration.
Difference in colour between the reflection of the park and the foyer (Matavai).
Hitherto, I have described each constituent part of the principal Promenade individually for each apartment complex as well as the fluctuations in Binding that would most likely be felt by the majority of users as they move through the transitional spaces. I now join the parts together in order to obtain a diagrammatic representation of the Binding Contour for the Promenades (Figures 13 and 14).
The Binding Contours of the Horizon.
The Binding Contours of Matavai.
5. Findings
The Binding Contour for the Promenade through the Horizon demonstrates that typical users are likely to experience a moderately Unbound space which becomes minimally Bound at the entrance to the foyer. When passing through the threshold zone, they may feel a moderately Bound space, which opens into a moderately Unbound space. As they head for the elevator, the space in their visual field begins to become moderately Bound and ends strongly Bound.
The Binding Contour for the Promenade through Matavai shows that users may experience a prolonged period of strongly Unbound space in the preface which becomes quickly moderately Bound at the portico. Waiting for the security doors to open, users are likely to feel the threshold zone as moderately Bound. When the doors open, there is the potential for the space to be momentarily felt as strongly Unbound, which is felt as minimally Unbound after users recover from the ‘visual shock’ that is occasioned due to the unforeseen change of colour and content between the reflection of outside and the perception of the inside. Moving towards the elevator, the visitors feel the space becoming strongly Bound as their visual attention is directed to the elevator doors.
The findings indicate that the Horizon has smaller fluctuations in the Binding Contour than Matavai. A smoother, less erratic Binding Contour perhaps creates more inviting spatial texts, such as the Horizon, whereas greater changes or abrupt changes in the Binding Contour create uninviting, uncomfortable spatial texts such as Matavai. However, because spatial texts are experienced temporally, the dimension of time should also be taken into consideration. The Phrase between the street and the entrance of Matavai, for example, takes approximately one minute to complete. If the open space of the parkland is felt as strongly Unbound without considering the dimension of time, then it may become Too Unbound when time is considered, as there is the potential for users to be exposed to feelings of insecurity for an extended period. In the case of Matavai, which, as stated, is located in a dangerous part of Sydney, the fear and vulnerability created by the strongly Unbound space could be augmented by the fact that users are also exposed to socially frightening elements, such as assault and anti-social behaviour. Alternatively, it might mean that users experience a prolonged sense of freedom, taking the opportunity to leisurely stroll through the open communal green parkland in order to release the stress of the day before entering their strongly Bound units. As regards the Horizon, the gentle, rhythmic Binding Contour may indicate a more welcoming and calming environment; however, it could equally be said that gentle rhythms create complacency and ennui.
5.1 Further considerations
The methods of collecting data and the diagrams used to formalize the fluctuations in Binding may have wider applications. Firstly, the fluctuations in the Binding Contour create a rhythm that may be described as analogous to the rise and fall of a spoken clause in language. As such, the notion of Binding in its general sense can be extended to account for the intonation and tone, or pitch contours of Promenades (see Matthiessen, 1992: 44; and Matthiessen’s [2007] account of hue being the ‘intonation’ of an image). In spoken English, variations in intonation and tone in a clause create meaning. For example, a rising intonation at the end of a clause can indicate either an interrogative or that the speaker has not finished giving information. A falling intonation at the end of a clause, in contrast, can indicate a declarative and that all the information in that clause has been given (see Eggins, 2004: 120; Halliday 2002a: 127; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 141; Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006: 181).
Analogously, if the vertical wall at the end of preface, for example, is opaque, there is the potential for users to become strongly Bound as they approach the main entrance to the building. This could be described as a semiotic principle similar to that of a falling intonation in language. That is, the (visual) information of the preface is finished, and a new piece of information will start on the other side of the wall. In contrast, if the same vertical wall were made of glass, there is the potential for users to remain Unbound as the subsequent part of the spatial text can be seen through the glass. This would be analogous to other intonation patterns in language. That is, the visual information of the span of text through which users have moved is not finished, and the visual information on the other side of the glass wall is directly related to the previous information. The term pitch is used analogously, and in reference to spatial texts, refers to gradations of Binding, not to intonation. The term pitch contours, therefore, is rephrased as Binding Contours.
Secondly, the findings herein were based on one Promenade, the recording of which was captured by a constantly forward-looking mobile camera. However, with further research, the users’ diverting gaze needs to be considered when accounting for the degree of Binding of a particular space through which users pass; head movement could possibly create greater fluctuations in the Binding Contour depending on heterogeneity or homogeneity of the spatial text. Another consideration is users with their heads hung low will experience a different text, from those people who have their heads held high, and the contour for exiting will be different from that of entering (McMurtrie, 2011b). The method of collecting data, although originally implemented in order to record an instantiation of a Promenade in a building, may have wider applications, perhaps in the field of mental health. It was stated that subtle changes in spatial dimension perceived in the visual field have significant positive psychological ramifications; by implication, an absence of changes in one’s Binding Contour, in contradistinction, might signify negative psychological states. A recording of a patient’s daily visual field and fluctuations in Binding Contours, therefore, may help psychologists in the diagnosis of depression or withdrawal inter alia.
6. Conclusion
This article has contributed to spatial discourse analysis (SpDA) by enhancing the analytical tool of Binding as developed by Stenglin (2004, 2009, 2011) insofar as it foregrounded the users’ ability to control the degree of Binding through choices in corporal movement and focal orientations. It suggested a way of collecting dynamic data by means of a microcamera being attached to a participant’s forehead. Although rather unsophisticated, this technique of capturing a visual representation of a person’s experience of transitional spaces in a contemporary high-rise apartment complex suffices for explicatory and analytical purposes. The article also suggested a method of representing the fluctuations in Binding that users may experience as they move through spatial texts in diagrams called Binding Contours. It was suggested that the fluctuations are not only experienced because of the varying dimensions of contiguous spaces but also because of the amount of open space that enters into the users’ field of vision established by the distance between users and the vertical plane ahead. In addition, visual shocks created because of abrupt changes in colour, light or material between adjoining spaces contribute to the degree of insecurity, whereas ‘spatial dissolves’, a phenomenon that allows users to see the preceding and forthcoming parts of a potential Promenade simultaneously in reflective and transparent surfaces, contribute to the degree of security.
To conclude, the analysis of the transitional spaces of two contemporary high-rise apartment complexes in Sydney, Australia, showed that the Binding Contour of the more affluent complex, the Horizon, is rhythmic, whereas that of the economically marginalized complex, Matavai, is slightly arrhythmic. However, it was pointed out that these two types of rhythm can have a compliant or a resistant reading. Therefore, rather than stating that one type of Binding Contour is better than the other, I merely suggest that the choice between a person’s organizing space into Promenades that have sharp changes in the Binding Contour and Promenades that have gentle changes in the Binding Contour is a semiotic choice, which potentially may have psychological ramifications. While this choice, it has been argued, can be made by the individual, it is nonetheless inextricably linked to the contexts in which it is made. That is, choices are constrained not only by the physical structure of the spatial text but also by the social and cultural locations of the individual as well as any political motivations of the institution. Housing New South Wales, for example, has changed the design of Matavai by padlocking a gate, disallowing an original, alternative approach to the foyer. As a result, users are effectively forced to move through the same space in a particular way, forced to attend to the same content and, consequently, are restricted in the ways in which they may feel space dynamically.
Footnotes
Notes
Biographical Note
ROBERT JAMES MCMURTRIE is a PhD candidate, supervised by Associate Professor Ravelli, at University of New South Wales, Sydney. His thesis investigates the ways in which people’s movement through, and interaction in, the exhibition spaces of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Australia contribute to the meaning potential of the space. His publications, based on the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics, develop grammars for non-linguistic semiotic resources such as hair, architecture and movement, by foregrounding the users and perceivers of the resources as playing integral roles in the semiotic process. His publications include: ‘Bobbing for power: An exploration into the modality of hair’, Visual Communication (2010); ‘The meaning of [exiting]: Towards a grammaticalization of architecture’, Text and Talk (2011); ‘The genre of foyers in the contemporary high-rise: A study of Harry Seidler’s work, Linguistics and the Human Sciences (2011); and ‘Spatial engagement: Grammaticalising “voice” in exhibition space’ (2012). Email: