Our awareness of the characteristics of the natural or man-made environment and all the features within it depends on the information received by our senses; a combination of touch, smell, tastes, sound and vision. The degree to which different individuals are able to use their senses to collect information is not identical and can vary from a level of basic recognition to perception of extremely complex and subtle nuances, depending on their ability to recognise and understand the information available to them.

The most perceptive of the human senses is sight, which is how most people are able to comprehend their situation and all that is going on around them. For much of the time, visual information helps with activities associated with selection, movement and avoidance of risks. For example, it is useful to be able to see and recognise a door, to understand how to open it and to be able to see through and beyond it in order to avoid walking into an obstacle or tripping down a step. For those with poor eyesight, elements of buildings can be designed to enable them to use other senses like a change in the surface texture of the floor before reaching a step, which they can sense through touch, or the voice recording informing them that a lift door is closing, which they can hear.

Basic recognition of features within the environment is generally based on the information available to the senses, but the individuals understanding or interpretation is influenced by memory gained through learning or experience. Consequently, as well as the straightforward practicalities of life, the information received by the senses is used to perceive complexity and will determine individual ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’, assessed objectively or enjoyed subjectively, creating feelings about what is attractive or unattractive, ugly or beautiful. ‘Seeing is believing’, ‘seeing eye to eye’ and ‘see what I mean’ are common phrases linking mind and eye.

Everyone can recognise a piece of music, a glass of wine and a building, but reaching any universal consensus about the merits of the composition of the music, the taste of the wine or the appearance of the building is unlikely, because for every person praising their qualities there will be numerous others who for many reasons are unable to agree with them. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that it is this very diversification of opinion that has developed and continues to maintain the variety and richness of the content of the environment. For some people, enjoyment comes from simplicity, harmony and balance creating a state of tranquillity andpeacefulness, whereas others prefer complexity, discord and vitality stimulating them with contrasting dynamism and excitement.

The factors concerning visual perception are often referred to collectively as ‘aesthetics’, a word which has its origins in the Greek language, formally defined in the dictionary as: ‘the theory or philosophy of the perception of the beautiful in nature and art in accordance with the laws of the beautiful or with principles of taste’.

‘The laws of the beautiful’ and ‘principles of taste’ are difficult concepts. Even assuming that they actually exist and designers were able to fully implement them, the results of their work largely reflect the values and attitudes prevalent in their own time, and enjoyment and criticism are clearly subject to personal interpretation, about which there is little common agreement. Consider for example the highly decorative and ornate buildings created in the Victorian era, followed by the simple, austere concrete buildings of the mid-twentieth century, followed by a return to elaboration and complexity evident in many new buildings today. Each generation ofdesigners adhered to their own set of principles to create buildings with a completely different appearance. ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ is an overused clich? defending individual taste, and it may be impossible to explain every visual image in an entirely rational manner in accordance with ‘laws’ and ‘principles’. However, to say that a flower or a building are aesthetically pleasing implies a favourable response to the visual qualities of the images received by the eye which either exist in nature, or have been deliberately composed by the designer.

It is interesting that the dictionary definition of an ‘aesthete’ is given as ‘one who professes a special appreciation of the beautiful and endeavours to carry his or her ideas into practice’, which could be interpreted as either suggesting a little scepticism on the part of the compiler or that the subject of beauty is surrounded with mystique which only the aesthete can understand. It is regrettable that the latter proposition is evident in the writings of some architects and the critics of their work which could reasonably be described as the expression of a superiority complex. For example, in his book ‘An outline of European Architecture’, Nikolaus Pevsner starts the introduction as follows:

“A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture. Nearly everything that encloses space on a scale sufficient for a human being to move in is a building; the term architecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal.”

As a definition of architecture, this is surely fatally flawed because if a ‘bicycle shed’ is ‘designed with a view to aesthetic appeal’, then by Pevsner’s own definition, it must be architecture. Perhaps in Pevsner’s time, bicycle sheds really had no merit worth discussing, but the use of the term ‘bicycle shed’ could be read as an analogy for the more ordinary, practical every day buildings which make up the majority of the built environment, like for example a car-dealership. Lincoln Cathedral is undoubtedly a magnificent building, specifically designed to be visually impressive and constructed to last for a long time. The car-dealership may not last quite so long, but its visual appearance is no less important in its own context, within the built environment around it. The fact that the appearance of some buildings is more attractive and interesting than others is surely reflected in the quality of design demanded or offered at the time, creating buildings which arebrilliant, good, average or poor. Consequently, those involved with the design of a ‘bicycle shed’ or a car-dealership should not feel that their work is in principle any less significant than the work of the designer of Lincoln Cathedral, or that they are therefore, allowed to pay any less attention to their work because it may be regarded as being of little importance.

The functional elements described in the previous chapters are the basis for creating the layout of the building and for determining its relationship to the site in 2D. Decisions about function are dependent on the examination of activity and flow, establishing how the building is going to be used, but as a building is a 3D object, decisions about the layout cannot be separated from its appearance. Both the insides and outsides of the building can be seen from a variety of different positions and it is their appearance which defines the spaces, enabling the building’s users to recognise and understand them, to a much greater extent than the simple 2D plans. Although the building may function admirably, an unattractive appearance can detract from the pleasure of using it. Conversely, a visually ‘beautiful’ building which does not provide for the physical, practical needs of its users will rapidly engender feelings of dissatisfaction and displeasure.