As human subjects build relationships through their interactions and memories, the concept of kyorikan – distances and boundaries between them – can be understood as a crucial factor for interaction the question arises of how this idea could be used to investigate how objects, likewise, can build relationships through certain interactions. What is considered an object? What kinds of interaction can be expected to be exhibited and created by objects? Can kyorikan between objects be visualised in order to further understand and consider these boundaries and distances, the objects’ existence and interactions?

“A post-humanist, realist ontology is not an anti-human ontology, but is rather, as we will later see, an ontology where humans are no longer monarchs of being but are instead among beings, entangled in beings, and implicated in other beings.” (Bryant, L.R.,2011)

Kyorikan

While in Japan, Kazuhiko Nishide suggested the following distances for comfortable, human interaction: personal <50cm; conversation 50cm-1.5m; close relationship 1.5m-3m; acquaintance 3-20m, recognizable >20m. The range may be due to different measuring systems, or more likely because of differing cultures.

My Japanese friend Akiyama once told me that when you move into a new apartment in Japan, the gifts you present to neighbours should adhere to a fixed price-range (I find it changes with time and according to your economic situation). The gifts you send next door should be more expensive than the ones you give to those neighbours who live above and below, as next door neighbours are considered closer to you. If someone gets this wrong, it would be considered rude. Also in Japanese gardens, we can easily find the existence of kyorikan.

Figure 1 Japanese use and arrangement of space is beautifully illustrated by the fifteenth-century Zen monastery garden of Ryoanji outside the old capital of Kyoto. The placement of fifteen rocks rising from a sea of crushed gravel suggests the Japanese employment of all the senses in the perception of space and the tendency to lead the individual to a spot where he can discover something for himself, a tendency reflected in other areas of Japanese life as well (Edward, 1969).

Figure 2 “Please do it at home” illustration for Tokyo metro, Yorifuji, 2009

In Introduction to communication studies (2010), John Fiske defined code as “a system into which signs are organized”. And mentioned that the study of codes highlights the social dimension of communication.

The Tokyo Metro courtesy advertisement is a good example about how kyorikan is depicted in certain culture and certain circumstance. By illustrating a young boy playing music for too loud on metro, and humorously illustrating an old man next to him need to cover his ears in totally different moods, Yorifuji managed to convey the message of how to keep noise low in metro in order to not disturb other’s personal space. Similarly, the second illustration has got the title “Please do it in the yard!”, depicting the idea that playing around with umbrella and snow will interfere other’s existing. This is to say, just like codes are not only languages, Kyorikan is also something more sophisticated than distance.

 

Objects and Categories

What is an object? What is not?

In Greek philosophy, objects are broken down into the basic physical elements of water, air, fire and earth. These are the “undermining philosophies”. In contrast, the “overmining philosophies” define what is real, based on whether they are “the contents of consciousness, the constructions made by society, the workings of language or relations, effects, and events more generally” (Graham, 2010). But they all fail to explain why things or qualities of objects could change.

To define an object

“To be an object is to possess a boundary or to be distinguished from other things…” (Levi,2011). This is about the being of objects. “The point then, is not only that we must refer back to epistemology or perceptual conventions to distinguish, but that also, while there is something other than perception…… there is no reason to suggest that being-in-itself is composed of objects or that this something is anything like our perception of the world.” (Levi, 2011) A further discussion emerges about how to access the being of objects.  In an interview with Lucy Kimbell by Graham Harmer, Lucy mentioned that objects “kick back” at human beings (Graham Harman, 2011). As with all materials, tools, drawings and prototypes that designers come up with may “do stuff” to the world. This comes from our exertion or our perception, and is not talked about by Heidegger. This notion became the starting point for our design; to make things that “do stuff” to the world, kicking back at human society so that we can be more aware of what is surrounding us and to provide another option for interaction, not only within human society, but towards the whole world.

Figure 3 Giving birth to objects

The sound devices in our design project were similar to cutting an optical communication cable into pieces, to give birth to new, smaller objects. Each division of the whole functions differently on its own, and all are encompassed in the word “holon” (Greek: ὅλον) which was used by Arthur Koestler in his book The Ghost in the Machine (1967), which describes something that is simultaneously a whole and a part. In this sense, an absolute whole or parts do not exist, instead each part could function as a whole or part at one particular time when we perceive it in a certain way. Trees and seeds are an example of the “holon” because both contain all, and both could be whole or part. A human being can also be called an individual holon, as when we are making one slight movement, our bodies move as one unit, but our hearts and lungs etc. work as single units as well.

Figure 4 Giving birth to objects

Through studies for our design, one thing we noted, was that the different angles of the cut were used in the project to distinguish each part for the allocation of functions and “personalities” in the future. In a series of objects, the initial object works as a sender which is facilitated using a microcontroller (Arduino Nano) to communicate with the outside world, and a speaker; the second object has both a speaker and a mic and thus works as a sender and a receiver; the third object has only a mic and a display composed of a matrix of LEDs, so only works as a receiver.

Figure 5 Objects “kick back”

In their methods of transmitting and distorting information from and to the outside world, now the objects start to “kick back” at the world, as somehow, we can perceive consciousness within them. Through the process of cutting, new objects were born, and parts started to have a different sense of distance towards each other, thus producing different types and amount of noise, which will be discussed later in this paper.

The lives start to emerge.

 

The halo- real objects& real qualities vs sensual objects& sensual qualities

“The being of the mug is not the sum of its qualities, but rather qualities are unique events that a substance produces” (Bryant, L.R. 2011) In The Quadruple Objects (Graham, H., 2011), Graham argued that “the reality of objects is never fully deployed in their relations”, upon which he suggested the idea of real / sensual objects and real / sensual qualities. For example, the cat has its own properties which may consist of its reality; but the cat sitting on a couch in a situation that can be described, the sensual object has its property of fluffiness for me but is perilously scary to a mouse and thus has completely different sensual qualities. Without me or the mouse nearby, there is a whole realm of sensual properties it can possess. This might not be a new concept: when we look at the halo on portraits of the Buddha, the feeling it gives us differs in time or according to our beliefs; what we look for when we are blowing bubbles into the snow is not only the distortion of light it produces.

Figure 6 AR layer depicting the communication between objects which could not be seen or measured in daily life

In this design project, sound and light are transmitted and distorted among objects, but they are just another layer of real objects upon which they could interact or communicate. However, to depict the sensual objects or qualities, we may add an AR layer to the design, referring to the energy flow or “Qi” in Taoism which exists in every single thing in nature, to give an idea of how light and sound are transmitted or distorted.

 

Interaction and relationships between objects

For Heidegger, Kant or probably all the greatest philosophers, philosophy only deals in the human-world correlate. The relationship of object-object is not discussed and may never be known, but from the OOO point of view, human-object interaction is just a special case of object-object interactions. (Graham Harman, 2010)

Kyorikan in objects interaction

Case study M Sony “toio papercraft creatures”, 2017

Figure 7 How to make “papercraft creatures”

Figure 8 Different distances between objects define the functions

Toio Papercraft Creatures is a project designed by Sato Masahiko’s lab in Keio University and produced by Sony in recent years. This project provides a view into how human and object interaction can be depicted, through their association and sense of proximity to the objects’ functions. Toio cubes are small robotic cubes on wheels that communicate via Bluetooth. The aim is to “generate lives” with the two Toio cubes and some pre-designed programs that Sony has provided. The cubes can be connected with strips of paper and it is easy to accomplish, even for children. Two Toio cubes, instead of one object, play the main role with these papercraft creatures because, through cooperating over variable distances, they function in totally different ways. For example, connected by a strip of paper, with a distance of 4.5cm to 12cm between the cubes, they can act as a caterpillar. This function can even be used for measurement. If the distance between two Toio cubes is 2cm, they can work like walking humans that can also sometimes tire. If the distance is kept at around 5cm, they can work like a scorpion that can also catch things from your table. When one of the cubes is used alone as an observer, the object that Toio is watching stays further away than 12cm, which again shows the idea of Kyorikan because humans can also only perceive things when they keep enough distance. Among humans, people who have different relationships with, for example, friends, colleagues, family or strangers stay in different proximity to each other. Here this sense of proximity is projected into the world of objects.

The sound device of our experimental design project works in a similar manner, since each division of the whole works in different roles during the process of communication. A sense of Kyorikan is changed by objects. For instance the component which works both as a sender and a receiver needs to keep in close relationship with both the beginning and the end of the communication; while the display part does not necessarily keep to an “intimate” distance from others, in further experiments we also found that the display object could monitor information correctly even when we played the recorded sound on a camera or laptop.

Figure 9 Noise and angles

Communication and Noise (Chinese whisper)

“A sign…….. is something which stands to somebody for something in some aspect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. The sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object.” (In Zeman, 1977)

Figure 10 Pierce’s elements of meaning

This, as shown in the diagram below, is the model of “Pierce’s elements of meaning”. John Fiske further argued in his book Introduction to Communication Studies that the word (sign) SCHOOL does not only have the meaning as defined in a dictionary, but the meaning to different users is always related to their personal experience to ‘school’, the object.

Figure 11 Saussure’s elements of meaning

Similarly but differently, Saussure as a linguist is more focused on the way signs relate to other signs than to the ‘objects’ and sees the relationship of the signifier, the reality, and the signified, as the concept of ‘signification’. It is not hard to imagine that the signifier changes from language to language, but the signified could be universal. The process of signification however, differs from culture to culture. He also argues that meaning is not absolute, but rather an active process. Similarly, the signified component of a sign is not determined by nature / experience, but is related to the boundaries of other signified components of a sign within the same system. Meaning is not absolute but negotiable. And this way of understanding one concept is deeply related with the studies of proxemics, or specifically, the theme of Kyorikan. In the same way, when Edward Hall tries to find words to define the sense of distance in a pocket Oxford Dictionary, he can find more than 5000 lexical words similar to “over”, “under”, “away from”, “together”, “adjacent”, etc. The boundaries between those words, differ however for each people and culture. In the Japanese language there are three commonly used words to describe distance, “これ”,”kore”;”ãã‚Œ”,”sore”/”ã‚ã‚Œ”,”are”. It is generally understood among Japanese people, that by only referring to them, all speakers and listeners would imagine an area in their minds that refers to a particular distance from the speaker. Or, if another person or object is involved, then from both of the two people in a conversation. Researchers in Japan once tried to specify “kore”, “sore”, and “are”, and came to the conclusion that “kore” is a distance of between 90cm and 240cm from the speaker, facing towards the front of the speaker. “Are” is always more than 3m. So, if there are two apples at different distances from the two-people conversing, one within reach but the other 1m away from the speaker, only by using specific words, but not pointing at any direction, both subjects having this conversation would understand what the speaker is referring to. I will further explain this idea in the following chapters

.

Figure 12 Model of communication between objects

 

And this is the model of our device, similar but different from Gerbner’s model of a telephone conversation. We can imagine that different objects in this design lives under different ‘culture’, they use various ‘languages’, hence the processing or the signification parts stay different. And we imagine we can add noise source to the process of communication, in sound channel it could be the different distance, in light channel it could be another source of light, but still we can change the differences between the noise source and the communicators, or the communicators themselves. After the whole process of emitting and transmitting information for several times, the end information should be noticeably different from the source information, and the distortion is related with the distances between objects or angles. Which could be interpreted as, through interaction with the sense of distance between objects, information that is being transferred would be modified accordingly; but the signification process within objects has some sort of algorithm that is predictable and reliable, just like the meaning we put for one word does not change so frequently.

Figure 13 Light device showing information on its display screen

By changing the order of objects that have got different roles in the process of communication, or by playing with the distance or angles between them, the distortion we can get is different. It is similar when we play the game of Chinese whispers if we have a Brazilian and a Chilean taking part who do not understand Chinese. Transferring the lyrics of a Chinese song, the result we would get in the end would be totally different to the case where we have just Chinese people communicating.

 

Kyorikan – sense of proximity in different types of interaction and relations (as a way of projecting life for example)

“Nature is generally composed of analogues: in trying to understand or categorize nature, we impose digital differences upon it: like intimate, personal, semi-public and public distance between people.” (John, F., 2010) The studies about how to define those boundaries within human or other species, and how people or animals react within different distance ranges is proxemics.

Proxemics Studies

This word was first coined by Edward Hall in 1963 in his book the hidden dimension. Proxemics is “one among several subcategories in the study of nonverbal communication, including haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and chronemics (structure of time)” (Moore, Nina, 2010).

In Wild animals in captivity (Hedgier, 1950), the sense of distance had been categorized into flight distance (run boundary), critical distance (attack boundary), personal distance (distance separating members of non-contact species, as a pair of swans), social distance (interspecies communication distance). The critical distance for a deer is about 500m, while for the gecko it is 2.1m. Some rabbits or rats may even commit suicide if the area is too packed which would no longer provide them enough distance in between.

 

                         Figure 14 Sense of distance between contact (seal) and non-contact (swan) species

Territoriality Personal space

The term personal space was not published until 1937 by David Katz. He described it as “the shell of snail” first (Shibuya, S., 1985). Before that, similar ideas were described as personal nearness by Stern (1935), and life space by Lewin (1935). After Personal space: the behavioural basis of design by Robert Sommer was published in 1969, the concept personal space started to be widely discussed and researched. According to Edward Hall it is as if people are living in “personal bubbles”.

Figure 15 Left: cave as a basic living unit; right: medieval saints found similar aedicule homes (Body, memory and architecture, Bloomer, K. C., 1977)

Since proxemics is a crucial factor among human or non-human non-linguistic relationships, it is possible that we project or generate such relationships within objects, including human involved situations. Edward Hall once asked Americans and Arabs to manipulate coins and pencils, to depict the relationship of “far apart”, “close”, “side by side”. While Americans saw the relationship only to each other, Arab subjects were unwilling to make judgements if the surroundings were not given. In further design studies, we may also investigate into different Kyorikan because of the observers have got different cultural background.

Figure 16 From top left: Horowitz’s personal space(1970); Kirizel’s personal space(1970); Hayduk’s 3 dimensional personal space diagram( 1978); Nishide and Takahashi’s personal space(1981)

In 1970, Horowitz experimented with female subjects the shape of personal space. As shown above in the figure, when female is approaching female, the subjects’ personal space is a bit smaller than when male is approaching. But in the case when people who was schizophrenia was approaching, and female to female, the personal space became asymmetry. Another thing to note and could also be similarly observed in related experiments is, how the personal space behind one is either shallower than front or has got concave. As further investment, Kirizel investigated about male subjects in the same year. Hayduk would focus more on the vertical differences or personal space which is not seen in other experiments.

“Shoes Or” Project

Figure 17 Diagram of interaction between system and human being

Figure 18 Shoes receiving signal through mic from a cello sound

In the interview, Takashi Ikegami (University of Tokyo) explains that he wants to depict artificial life through the vibration of a daily object– shoes. Shoes are connected with DC motors and mics, human interaction is generating the vibration of the shoes, and the sound of shoes or their movements give feedback to the human on the platform. Shoes are arranged in certain distances, as a way to show their territoriality, which might be the basic element of lives. Through vibrating, and the changing of the distance, human observer may perceive the change of their relationships, as a way how this project generates artificial life.

 

Project K

Figure 19 Project K (2016), “anti-social”, boundaries and kyorikan

figure 20 Project K (2016), diagram of project k

Project K, (Meyer, A., Peng, S., Akiyama, K.,2016) is a speculative design about social network and personal spaces. Once the person with the mask meets strangers, the mask will be open for 10min; after 5min of talking, it would be half shut; after the time reaches the limit, the mask would be fully closed for reminding the person to go for next acquaintance. It could be perceived as a good example of depicting Kyorikan: human under the mask is as if living in a bubble, that he can neither get too close nor get too far from another person.

 

Noise hence Kyorikan

Figure 21 Personal territories of objects, and the relationships between noise that is created by different distances

 

Figure 22 Noise and distance

In the setting for this experiment, first we set the unit for basic “personal territories” for the objects, that is 10cm. The origin emits information in sound of Morse code, the receiver decodes the sound and displays on a matrix of led. By moving the object further to the origin, we measure the noise that occurs during the communication process by reading what the receiver has received as sound of Morse code on the console monitor on the laptop. Later we calculated the percentage of accuracy, and it is as listed on the table above. This is as if, only ourselves can capture and understand almost all the information on consciousness; and we select information that we emit to others; even those who have good relationships with us cannot fully get all the information that is being sent. But this experiment may lack another level of such human relationships, which is those information that others know about us but we do not know by ourselves.

 

Genders in Personal Space

Relatively, Masami S. as a psychologist researched about both the subject is female or male, and the person who approaches the subject is female or male, and whether they know about each other or not.

Figure 23 About the shape of personal space, Shibuya M., 1985

In an experimental situation, a person was approached from four different directions by another person, who in half the cases, was a stranger, and in half, an acquaintance. Males and females showed a different sense of distance, depending on which of the four directions the person was approaching from, the gender of the person and whether they were acquainted or not. In the unknown situation, the personal space is larger than known. And when a male acquaintance is approaching a male subject, the personal space reaches the minimum. This research gives us an idea that gender is a parameter to consider about the sense of distance.

Figure 24 Female/ male, input/output designs of the light device

In application, the design of the light device of our design project involves female and male parts for input and output. We put concave and convex on different sides, foe lights to focus or spread. In our experiments, we use three pairs of concave and convex, which is of different focal length. Hence different light objects are supposed to have got different “kyorikan” through the setting.

Figure 25 Percentage of accuracy when light objects are using 50mm focal length

– time and angle

Architects Nishide and Takahashi further leveled the personal space instead of simply set boundaries: 2-3 is comfortable for a short period, below is satisfying for chatting, above is almost not acceptable.

In a research in 1981, Kazuhiko Nishide investigated and visualised the personal space and how this could affect human interactions in the order of time. The space was enclosed with 1.2m x2.4m white panel, and the whole space is 3.6m x 3.6m. The entrance is 1.2m wide, and covered with white curtain, that the researcher will open for the subjects. In the first experiment, he asked 9 subjects to enter the space separately, and to choose a place that is the most comfortable for them to stand (all the subjects are female, that was the limitation of the experiment).

Figure 26 Experiment 1 of personal space, Nishide (1981)

In a room of a reasonable area, people would choose to take the corners first, and the centre is the last to be taken. Personal space is drawn in an irregular circle as shown in the figure, and this is drawn according to Nishide’s previous researches. But the second person took the middle of edge instead of the furthest corner, this is as if people would feel more secured when stay within a distance that they are still able to talk to each other.

Figure 27 Experiment 2a-c of personal space, Nishide (1981)

In the second experiment, he first asked two subjects to stand in the places the researchers had decided, then asked 4 more subjects to take a place according to their wills. In 2a they were back to back; in 2b they were next to each other but facing towards different directions; while in 2c, because they were asked to stand around the corner, so in the end that corner was not taken by anyone although this caused the room to be crowded.

Figure 28 Diagram of angle experiment

Figure 29 Noise and angles

Similarly, in design of experiments, we noticed that the device has got front and back as well. Thus, while changing the angles of the way the objects are facing each other, noise is generated. This may further be developed into experiments to draw the shape of the personal territory. And in the light case, using a mirror to generate noise is another option.

Humphry Osmond coined and Sommer suggested sociopetal space and sociofugal space when doing research at Weyburn Mental Hospital in 1951. Sociopetal spaces can be seen in street cafes on streets where people can interact surrounding a table; while sociofugal spaces are like waiting rooms in train station, where seats are parrallel thus encouraging people tend to stay solitary.

 

Figure 30 Sociopetal space and sociofugal space

Later, Sommer found out through research that when 6 people sit around one table, there are six types of interaction. The conversation between F and A, which is considered the corner relationship, happens two times more often, than between C and B (side by side); and that between C and B is three times more likely than between C and D (across the table), etc. When there were magazines on the table, it would bring people closer. Similar results were found in Japanese research which will be discussed in a later chapter.

Figure 31 Robert Sommer, Conversation and 6 types of distance

Figure 32 Arrangement of sound devices

In application to the design project, we aimed to distinguish between the order of arranging the objects and the noise percentage. Shown in the figures, now the primitive sender is the centre of this sociopetal arrangement.

 

Future development

Figure 33 Final Installation (Nakia Hao, Keisuke Akiyama, Interactive Architecture Lab, London2017)

After a series of experiments, now the arrangement stays within a small range, and mostly linear. In the       future exhibition, the objects may sit in rails that is around 1.2m, which is more than the reach of human to display that the objects could also be the centre of interaction. While sound and light is transmitted according to their different algorithms, maybe there will be AR to depict the process of information transmission.

 

Conclusion

(Nakia Hao, Keisuke Akiyama, Interactive Architecture Lab, London2017)

The moment when we can sense life in an object is when we generate the cause, it gives back effects. Like if we believe in Deity in mountains and seas, sometimes they “kick back” in the ways of growing plenty of plants or bringing about endless storms. But since we could first communicate to others, we used signs and codes to communicate; from which cultures were formed. In this speculative design, we picked up the concept of Kyorikan as a centre for us to depict lives within objects, and for the human-centred interaction to glance at or wonder about what would be the culture or folklore within the world that is full of objects? As Shakespeare questioned through the role of Hamlet, “Who’s there?” (Shakespeare, 1602)

 

Bibliography

 

1.Bogost, I. (2012) Alien phenomenology, or, what it is like to be a thing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

2.Braitenberg, V. (1984) Vehicles, experiments in synthetic psychology. 5th edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

3.Bryant, L.R. (2011) The democracy of objects. Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press.

4.Gershenfeld, N. (1999) When things start to think. London: Coronet Books.

5.Harman, G. (2016) Immaterialism: Objects and social theory. United Kingdom: Polity Press.

6.Morton, T.(2013) Realist magic, objects,ontology, causality. Michigan:Open humanities press.

7.Sense of Distance, Brunet, Roger Sustainable Geography, Geographical Space Production: Systems and Laws, Chapter 5, p.59-71, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2013

8. Matsubara, T., Usuki, M., Sugiyama, K. and Nishimoto, K. (2003). Raison D’etre Object: A Cybber-hearth that catalyzes face- to-face informal communication. Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.
9. Gao, Y. (2009). Discussion about “The hidden dimension”-Proxemics’ influences on architecture. Tongji University, Shanghai.
10. Shibuya, M. (1985). A study of the shape of personal space. Bulletin of Yamanashi Medical College, pp.41-49.
11. Kimbell, L. (2013). The Object Strikes Back: An Interview with Graham Harman. [online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175470813X13491105785703.
12. Fiske, J. and Jenkins, H. (2011). Introduction to communication studies. London [England]: Routledge.
13. Harman, G. (2011). The Quadruple Object. Lanham: O-Books.
14. Hall, E. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, [online] Vol. 9, pp.83-108. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740724.
15. Hall, E. (1990). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor Books.
16. Bloomer, K., Moore, C. and Yudell, R. (1977). Body, memory and architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
17. Nishide Kazuhiko (1981). Research on crowds in a space. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

 

Web References

1.Vimeo. (2011). SHOES OR – Experimental approach artificial life create with shoes -. [online] Available at: https://vimeo.com/207891326?ref=fb-.

2. Nuwton.com. (2017). オンライン上で無機物に憑依できるアート作品『Avatars』がすごい | ヌートン 新たな情報未発見メディア. [online] Available at: http://nuwton.com/other/10512/.
3. Neloakamatsu.jp. (2013). NELO AKAMATSU ART PORTFOLIO　赤松ネロ ポートフォリオ. [online] Available at: http://www.neloakamatsu.jp/chijikinkutsu-eng.html .
4. Yorifuji, B. (2009). Please do it at home, posters for Tokyo metro. Tokyo: Tokyo metro.
5. Meyer, A., Peng, S., Akiyama, K. (2016). Project K. London: Bartlett School of Architecture.
6. toio Papercraft creatures. (2017). [robot] Tokyo: sony. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SphUHrlj1Tk&t=70s.
7. YouTube. (2010). Enchanted Objects: Design, Human Desire, and the Internet of Things | David Rose | TEDxBeaconStreet. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_AhhhcceXk.
8. Chandler, D. and Munday, R. (2011). A dictionary of media and communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Figures

 

 

Figure 1: Ryoanji. Edward T. Hall. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books (1966) Figure 16

Figure 2: Please do it at home. Yorifuji, B. (2009). Available at: http://www.spoon-tamago.com/2008/10/01/mottainai/

Figure 3: Giving Birth to Objects. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 4: Giving Birth to Objects2. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 5: Objects “kick back”. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 6: AR layer to depict transmission of information. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 7: How to make papercraft creatures. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SphUHrlj1Tk&t=70s

Figure 8: Different distance between objects define functions. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SphUHrlj1Tk&t=70s

Figure 9: Noise and angles. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 10: Pierce’s elements of meaning. Fiske, J. and Jenkins, H. (2011). Introduction to communication studies. London [England]: Routledge. Figure 12.

Figure 11: Saussure’s elements of meaning.  Fiske, J. and Jenkins, H. (2011). Introduction to communication studies. London [England]: Routledge. Figure 14.

Figure 12: Model of communication between objects. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 13: Light device showing information on its display screen. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 14: Sense of distance between contact (seal) and non-contact (swan) species. Edward T. Hall. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books (1966) Figure 2.

Figure 15: Cave as a basic living unit; and medieval saints found similar aedicule homes. Bloomer, K., Moore, C. and Yudell, R. (1977). Body, memory and architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Figure 16: Horowitz, Kirizel, Hayduk and Takahashi’s personal space. Hu Zhengfan 胡正凡, Lin Yulian 林玉莲. Huan Jing Xin Li Xue 环境心理学. Beijing: China: China Architecture & Building Press.

Figure 17: Diagram of interaction between system and human being. Available at https://vimeo.com/207891326?ref=fb-.

Figure 18: Shoes receiving signal through mic from a cello sound. Available at https://vimeo.com/207891326?ref=fb-.

Figure 19: Project K, “anti-social”, boundaries and Kyorikan. Meyer, A., Peng, S., Akiyama, K. (2016). Project K. London: Bartlett School of Architecture.

Figure 20: Diagram of the mask. Meyer, A., Peng, S., Akiyama, K. (2016). Project K. London: Bartlett School of Architecture.

Figure 21: Personal territories of objects, and the relationships between noise that is created by different distances. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 22: Noise and distance. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 23: About the shape of personal space. Shibuya, M. (1985). A study of the shape of personal space. Bulletin of Yamanashi Medical College, pp.41-49.

Figure 24: Female/ male, input/output designs of the light device. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 25: Percentage of accuracy when light objects are using 50mm focal length. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 26: Experiment 1 of personal space. Nishide Kazuhiko (1981). Research on crowds in a space. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

Figure 27: Experiment 2a-c of personal space. Nishide Kazuhiko (1981). Research on crowds in a space. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

Figure 28: Diagram of angle experiment. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 29: Noise and angles. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 30: Sociopetal space and sociofugal space. Edward T. Hall. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books (1966) Figure 15

Figure 31: Robert Sommer, Conversation and 6 types of distance. Edward T. Hall. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books (1966) Figure 9

Figure 32: Arrangement of sound devices. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)

Figure 33: Future Arrangement. Shuhong Hao and Keisuke Akiyama (2017)