290
ings, between above and below via ceilings and floors, as well
as through the transmission of structure-borne sound through
the permeability to sound of spatial delimitations. Whether
such connections are interpreted as deliberate communication
(calls, admission), as tolerated noises, as a welcome sharing of
the lives of others, or as a disturbance, depends upon cultural
and social framing conditions. Such disturbances can be mini-
mized by means of homogenizing noise-masking.
Alongside the concrete spatiality that we perceive via
sonic phenomena, it is in particular the > atmospheres that are
generated by sound that result in intensive experiences of ar-
chitecture. Through sound, then, we do not perceive some-
thing definite at a distance that is really present; instead, we
are enveloped, permeated by sound, whose identifying traits
retreat now behind its primarily subliminal and atmospheric
impact. Despite the influence sound has on us, we are often
completely unaware of its existence, noting its presence only
retrospectively, or when our attention is called towards it.
The dominance of vision makes it difficult for us to as-
sess or evaluate the role of sound for situative effects (this
parallels the subliminal effect of > odour); it affects mood
surreptitiously. The enumerated indicators of concrete spa-
tiality too play an unconscious role in creating atmosphere.
The hard sound of steps on a stone floor not only conveys
information about its materiality; the regular resounding of
the sharp tones seep into the unconscious, colouring and per-
meating the entire situation and stealthily enveloping us in a
mood that is all the more inescapable because the force re-
mains mysterious. These moods too can be shaped through
architectural resources. Our lack of control over the emo-
tional effects of such perceptions, however, renders us vulner-
able to the manipulation of emotion through subtle streams
of sound.
Literature: Schafer 1988