VIDEOECOLOGY.
GOOD AND BAD FOR EYE
INTRODUCTION
In many countries of the
world the problem of ecology has merged as a real matter of economic and social
importance. At present, this matter attracts close attention of scientific,
public and parliamentary circles. However, when speaking about ecological
problems it usually relates only to sufficiency of polluted air and water,
extremely high noise and radiation level but the constant visual environment and
its condition are never mentioned as an ecological factor which is not of the
least importance. Moreover, it is a common thing to consider that all we need is
fresh air, clear water and silent life and we care nothing about what we look at.
Being governed by such an attitude, one often handles urban environment design,
new labor vacancies creation, industrial and living areas interior development.
And meanwhile, as it was discovered by the science, the constant visual
environment full of visual elements exerts an immense influence upon the human
being especially affecting its organ of sight, i.e. it acts the same way other
ecological factors of inhabited environment do. This new scientific trend
developing visual perception of environment was named videoecology by us [103].
This is a high-priority scientific trend being of great interest for experts in
ecology, psychology, physiology, medicine, architecture and art.
The problem of videoecology has
particularly aggravated in recent 50 years due to the total urbanization which
isolated the human being from its natural visual environment. This isolation was
made possible mostly due to the use of new materials in urban development. As a
result we have a lot of cities with drastically changed visual environment, i.e.
prevailing dark-gray color, straight lines and right angles, urban buildings
being mostly static with a great number of vast surfaces. Homogeneous and "aggressive"
zones are especially disturbing for a man. In case of homogeneity these are bare
walls made of concrete and glass, solid fences, subway crossing and asphalted
surfaces, whereas in case of "aggression" we are facing standards
elements predominance, e.g. rows of windows on the flat walls of many-storeyed
buildings.
Visual environment has been
transformed for city population due to the nature of urban labor. People work in
rooms, i.e. in closed space - at plant and factory workshops, at schools and
colleges. The interior is full of new materials of artificial nature, such as
polished furniture, plastics, linoleum, tiles, films, glass, corrugated aluminum,
net screens, grills and bars, design structures, etc. Visual environment in
private apartments is made up with same kind of materials.
Television rushed into our life
to aggravate the problem of videoecology. One watches TV up to 4 hours a day,
which reasonably makes one call a television set a "vision-chewing gum".
Video level of TV broadcasting hardly meets standards of vision. Apart from
frame and line frequency and unnatural range of colors, the same straight lines,
right angles and displayed bars attack us from the screen. Dangerous visual
effects are also produced by massive use of computers in everyday life - in fact,
every tenth person operates PC during working hours.
New lighting technologies, i.e.
fluorescent lamps, flash tubes, lasers should be considered
as other visual environment transforming factors. Illumination devices of
theaters and concert halls are more expensive and sophisticated compared with
sound engineering. Lighting is controlled by a complex of PCs and advanced
software. The similar lighting technologies are everywhere in urban areas full
of advertising boards with running text and fast frame shifting.
Massive implementation of various
transport facilities into man's life has enormously transformed the modern
visual environment of people. A car driver gets extra visual stress while
watching objects in movement, highway that runs ahead, trees, poles and
buildings appearing for a moment, cars rushing in the opposite direction,
traffic lights. Same view is experienced by a passenger traveling by bus,
trolley-bus, train, ship or aircraft. People have become more dynamic thus
catching more moving objects in their field of vision.
Objects in movement are often
faced by a man dealing with manufacture process, e.g. assembly lines, escalators,
running wheels, packing, grinding, weaving and printing machines, etc. Besides,
during a working day a man is being surrounded by monotonous things, such as
newspapers, books, fabrics of the same color, milk and eggs packs, bottles,
machinery parts and components, electronic chips, decorative tiles, etc.
Dwelling upon importance of the
problem of videoecology, we should mention man's progressing exploration of
extraordinary areas, such as the North Polar region, the Arctic and the
Antarctic as well as sea depths and underground spaces. Population of the
Norilsk city, for instance, always remain within unusual visual environment with
a short daylight period in winter and a long one in summer. Not always favorable
visual environment exists in the newly settled areas, e.g. the Navoi city in
arid deserts, oil fields in the Caspian Sea, etc.
The problem of videoecology is
still urging due to the lack of scientifically invented basic laws on visual
environment formation and requirements as per permissible allowances,
particularly for reasonable size limits of
homogeneous and aggressive zones in urban architecture. Visual environment swift
transformation contradicts the capabilities of vision. The human being still
remains the same with its amount of needs and so do the basics of vision methods
while the visual environment in populated areas is getting worse.
According to the World Health
Organization, urbanization process leads to steady rise of mental diseases.
Unnatural visual environment totally surrounds us and together with other
factors also adds to the problems mentioned, and as we see, it really does. The
spontaneous scientific and technical progress nowadays has demonstrated its
contradictions in a mighty and inevitable way. Thus, if human survival process
goes in a wrong way, it is immediately followed by negative consequences at the
global level.
In 1992 the First World Ecology
Conference was held in Rio de Janeiro. The Rio forum of 179 delegated nations
stated the most important aspects of the world's mankind harmonious development.
The Rio summit resulted in adopting the following five documents: the
declaration on environment and development; the 21st century's agenda - steady
development program from social ecological and economic points of view; the
declaration on principles of woods preservation; the United Nations convention
on climate transformation and on biological variety. The Rio forum demonstrated
the mankind's concept of the global ecological problems which are a
threat to all living on the Earth. But in spite of the human factor considered
to be important by the forum, no one touched upon the problem of visual
environment which concerns practically everyone. This might lead to fatal
results as it is well known that every ecological correction needs enormous
expenditures.
There are a lot of problems
accumulated in the field of videoecology, not a bit fewer than in other fields
of ecology, and many of them demand for urgent solution. While water and air
condition as well as radiation level are monitored and studied by quite a number
of research institutes and big
departments, the problem of videoecology is just a few people's concern so far.
That is why this problem is unknown for both city folk and experts in
architecture, design, art, modeling, medicine. This book, as it seems to us,
will be of use for specialists and every interested reader. Its purpose is to
provide architects, artists and designers with information for a motivated
solution of the problems of videoecology in the course of designing buildings,
installations, machinery, instruments, consumer goods and clothes.
I am bound to appreciate the efforts by reviewers - V.B. Valtsev, and A.V. Stepanov for their valuable remarks, and also by the scientific workers of the Moscow Videoecology Center - Ye.V. Sartakova and I.A. Kanidiyeva for their invaluable assistance in the manuscript preparation.
CONCLUSION
Visual environment is one of the
principal components of life-support of a human being. Up to the moment a human
being stayed in natural environment for a greater part of his time, there were
practically no problems in the field of videoecology. Moreover, using the words
of poet A. Beliy, "around the soul is drinking a diamond current from the
eyes". Urbanization processes completely ruled out the possibility to enjoy
surrounding environment, and instead of "diamond current around" a
human being has got homogeneous and aggressive environment which, being
unnatural one, not only fails to afford aesthetic delight but brings forth a
great number of social problems. Videoecology which studies interaction of a
human being with surrounding environment constitutes an actual problem among the
problems of human ecology.
From our point of view, creation
of unnatural visual environment was caused by the following reasons:
revolutionary approach in solving urban development issues, erroneous aesthetic
positions of specialists whose viewpoints were based on industrial methods and
necessity of fighting against extravagances, rapid growth of cities when there
was a practical lack of creative potential from the part of architects, rapid
growth of construction industry with its automated production lines of similar
construction materials, separation of a human being from the nature, and finally,
a lag of videoecology as a science. We would like to speak in detail about the
latter one. That is associated with the fact that if architects had been guided
by the laws of visual perception in their creative work, we may say for sure
that such serious blunders in forming urban visual environment could have been
avoided.
We can hear objections that there
have been reproaches against modern architecture before as well. Yes, it is true.
However, in general these reproaches were subjective: "faceless boxes",
"monstrous geometry", "technocracy", "environment is
injured with inexplicable and alien forms" [24,37], etc. With little
exception [16], there were practically no attempts to analyze visual environment,
where townsmen found themselves, in its integrative form. On the other hand,
those researchers who touched the mechanism of visual perception of modern
architecture had grounds based on dated conceptions. They did not take into
account the fact that the eye is working in the active mode, it is searching for
what it can "seize" in urban environment, what "to catch",
what "to go at". Speaking scientific language, the eye is scanning
surrounding environment. Such activity of the eye is achieved owing to the
nature of its rapid movements - saccades. Saccades are performed constantly and
involuntarily, both with open and closed eyes, when we are awake, and when we
sleep [100, 104, 108]. The total number of saccades under different conditions
have comparable values. On the basis of these data we have laid down a concept
about saccadic automation [100]. It means that in most cases a saccade is
primary. And that fact that the eye will see after the saccade is secondary. In
this case, after saccade the eye must "catch" something. As soon as
that happens, the eye calms down, and the amplitude of its saccades is decreased
up to minimum values, the number of saccades, in this case, remains the same. In
2-3 seconds the eye scans surrounding environment another time by several
saccades and again stops on a detail minimizing saccadic amplitude.
There are individual cases when a
saccade is secondary, for instance, as a response to light flash. In order to
fix a look on an object which appears in the vision field, saccadic center
selects a saccade of corresponding amplitude and orientation, that is their
modulation is performed, and the interval is given in a previous form.
The concept on saccadic
automation is a new idea on visual perception of surrounding environment. That
is what allowed us to study the problem of videoecology. From the position of
new experience we have analyzed urban visual environment: we have found fields
not complying with saccadic automation and other vision mechanisms.
Thus, we may say that
videoecology is based not only on subjective statements but on regularities of
visual perception. That is the principal difference of our analysis of modern
architecture from previous reproaches to its address.
Homogeneous and aggressive fields
bring a lot of trouble s to townsmen. A homogeneous field is a surface with
visible elements, or their number is minimum. Blind fences, plain doors, large
size panels, one-piece glass, underground passages, asphalt coat and roofs of
houses are examples of homogeneous fields in urban environment. In apartments
homogeneous fields begin from the entrance door, continue with polished
furniture sections and cabinets, and finish with plain plastic items in the
kitchen.
Aggressive visible field is a
field with concentration of a great number of similar elements. Such environment
is created by multistory buildings with a great number of windows on the wall,
attached vertical rustics, panels of houses coated with glass "toffees",
walls coated with tiles, brickwork with concealed joint, doors padded with
"lining" as well as various bars, meshes, perforated boards,
corrugated aluminum, asbestos-cement board, etc. Under urban conditions one
aggressive field is often applied over the another one, for instance, a house
wall with attached rustics behind a metallic bar.
Fundamental vision mechanisms
such as saccadic automation, binocular apparatus, conversion, on- and off-
systems and vision centers cannot operate in aggressive and homogeneous
environment to the full extent. In particular, in homogeneous environment
impaired is the feedback between sensor and motor systems since after successive
saccade illumination difference on eye photoreceptors is insufficient.
Accordingly, after the saccade the brain receives a minimum pulse insufficient
for reliable feedback actuation. In other words, an action has taken place -
saccade, but there is no confirmation to this action. As a result vision centers
and the nerve system as a whole are confused. That in turn causes a perception
of discomfort. Durable stay of a human being in such environment leads to
disturbance of saccadic automation.
Decor of buildings does not mean
"architectural extravagances" which our literature has written a lot
about. These are essential functional elements comprising the basis of visual
environment. Without them the eyes cannot operate to the full extent. As in the
air there must be a sufficient quantity of oxygen, in visible environment there
must be a sufficient number of elements. Abundance of same elements in visible
environment - windows on the wall of a big house, tiles or rods - we may say,
completely "switches off" such a powerful sensor channel as a vision
analyzer since the eye simply "does not know" what particular element
it is fixing. In natural environment no such things can happen. In the nature,
if the eye looks at something, it "knows" that. The vision apparatus,
in this case, correctly evaluates reality, and easily and rapidly orients in it
accordingly.
In all big cities the number of
mental diseases has recently increased. Specialists called this disease "a
syndrome of a big city" which often shows itself in human aggressiveness.
Among many factors unnatural visible environment greatly contributes, in our
opinion, to the growth of mental diseases. The statement made by Avicenna:
"All that the nature managed to accumulate invisibly enters the nature of
the body". If we intend to further build cities as we do it nowadays,
lunatic asylums in cities should be built dozen times as quicker.
The problem of videoecology does
not relate only to medical aspects. The point is that aggressive environment
makes a human being perform aggressive actions. As a rule, in new communities
with unnatural visual environment the number of breaches of law is more as
compared with a central part of a city. This means that not only lunatic asylums
should be built dozen of times as quicker, but it is also necessary to increase
the staff of militia. It is quite obvious that errors committed in evaluation of
human ecology become global every time.
Architecture is a durable,
expensive and raw material intensive layer of culture where giant physical and
intellectual efforts of the civilized society are materialized. These efforts
should not be made in vain. Above all, architectural objects should please the
eye. They should positively affect, in emotional and ethic respect, a human
being who stays under their influence all life long, and of course, they should
not damage health of townsmen.
Architecture constantly affects a
human being and mainly at the back of its mind. Right was Victor Pelevin when he
was writing: " Things you see every day for many years gradually pass into
a monument to your own... To see actually means to put your soul on a standard
copy on the retina of a standard human eye" ("Anthology of childhood").
If an adjoining aggressive house is "put" on a human soul, "a
monument to your own" is converted into a multocular monster.
According to Aristotle, a city
should provide security for people and make them happy. Unfortunately, this rule
was broken in all times, and in recent 50 years it has been forgotten at all. As
a result, a human being has become a victim of his own creative work surrounding
himself by aggressive visual environment.
A city is living organism and, as
any other organism, is constantly renovated. The principle of city formation
form the position of comfort visual environment could become that "idea of
a city" which would unite all its inhabitants. Everything that is designed
for a human being should meet at least physiological needs of his vision. Unless
and until a designer is oriented towards a final result of his work, his designs
will be devised with evident ignorance to saccadic automation which provides for
constant scanning of surrounding environment.
"To embrace the space,
cognize how to see it (accentuated by us) - that is the key to correct
comprehension of a task" (Bruno Dzevi [61]). In old times many architects
managed this. It was often achieved not only by embracing the space but also by
variety of forms, lines, multistory level, diversity of stories in buildings,
small sizes of surfaces and different decorative elements. In a word, everything
was done for sufficient saturation of an object with visible elements in order
"to oblige" saccadic automation. On the other hand, such saturation
was not to the detriment of aesthetic merits since diversity of details is an
objective basis for the beauty of an object. It is quite obvious that it is
impossible to create a beautiful object and , certainly, very difficult to
create comfort visual environment of a city only with right angles and straight
lines which the eye "does not like" and which prevail in modern
architecture. It would rather be a cacophony characterized by the worst
combination of sensor stimuli.
As it was stated in the enactment
of the CPSU CC issued in November 1955 ("On elimination of extravagances in
designing and construction"), decorative details in architecture are not
extravagances. They are necessary elements for formation of visual environment.
It is not by accident architects have used them for many centuries. They have
functional meaning, they are needed for manifestation of saccadic automation as
the air for breath automation. He who was the first to say about "architectural
extravagances" hurt us all; suffered was not only aesthetic part but
fundamental vision mechanisms and lives of townsmen were also threatened. A
human was living in natural visible environment for millions years. 90 per cent
of his history he spent in harmony with the nature. Now in XX century he found
himself in quite unusual environment - in stone and asphalt jungles.
Until now problems of theoretical
investigations have borne a stamp of traditional approach to architecture as
three-dimensional designing. Ignored are general issues of urban development
including issues of visual environment. The lack of valuable theory enables to
get effective and justified practical recommendations. Many architects are aware
of this reason. Here what A. Gutnov writes in this regard: "It is necessary
to direct all efforts in order to develop a new type architectural theory based
on the knowledge of general regularities of artificial environment created by a
human being, of mechanisms of its formation and development" [37].
It is, probably, worth to remind
what the source is to create artificial environment and urban environment in
particular. Such components as air, water, temperature, noise and radiation
level, homogeneous fields are known to be a basis of human environment. However,
all these components, though very important, are indirectly related to the
theory of architecture since architecture, as it may be directly comprehended,
means an external appearance of buildings. This an object we look at with our
eyes, or, speaking by architect Melnikov's words "architecture is a game
for eyes". Thus, "development of new type architectural theory"
should be carried out taking into
account requirements of visible environment. And it should base on general
regularities of visual perception.
We are glad to remind that
architect N. Ladovskiy related this issue with understanding yet in 20-s. "Architect,
- he wrote - should, though just a little, be familiar with perception laws and
means of influence in order to use in his work everything that modern science
can give. Among sciences contributing to architecture a serious place should be
taken by rather young science "psycotechnics" (accentuated by us). We
won't argue with terminology of those years, the main thing is the backbone
which in many ways coincides with our point of view since both videoecology and
psycotechnics are based on the laws 0f visual perception. It is fair to say that
nowadays we know more about these laws than in 20-s. In particular, we know that
saccadic automation is the basis of visual perception [52]. However, the
approach of N. Ladovskiy was correct. And if it was further developed, many
errors in formation of urban environment could have been avoided.
In places where laws of visual
perception were followed to the full extent, architecture has no reproaches. Let
us take, for instance, Novodevichiy monastery on the territory of which a man
feels comfortable though as per the state of air, water as well noise and
radiation level this territory does not differ from other Moscow areas. Replace
mentally monastery temples with modern "box-houses" and you will feel
horror of a modern city and understand the main problem of architecture based on
satisfying physiological needs of visual perceptions and aesthetic norms. And we
learn to follow these requirements, we will decide many problems of the
architectural theory. In the most common form the theory of architecture goes
easily with the triad of Vitruvius: reliable, comfortable, lovely. We can say
with confidence that we have learned to make everything reliable. In many cases
engineering issues of urban development are solved successfully. We can build
houses with amenities: elevator, gas, cold and hot running water, bathroom,
lavatory, chute have become a norm of our life. But, unfortunately, we have
unlearned to make lovely. Everywhere we violate requirements on visual
environment. In fact, in this regard the era of spontaneity has recently come.
Abundance of aggressive and homogeneous visual environment makes a modern city
practically unfit for human habitation. Modern urban development is often given
the credit of elaboration of sanitary and hygienic aspects and insolation
standards. We can say that transport and engineering mains are also built rather
well. We are sure that soon we will learn to take into account geopathogen areas
as well. Unfortunately, we are not sure that we will learn to solve as quickly
the problems of videoecology. That is connected with the fact that textbooks,
articles, sanitary norms and regulations have created "blinders" which
limit professional conscience of architects. "It is difficult to puzzle out
in a boodle of words and symbols, - writes Yacub Vuec, - which today mean
something new than when they were declared for the first time, it needs a lot of
time" [24]. On the other hand, it is difficult to dispute the advance of
the construction industry which dictated its approaches in urban development.
That is why elaboration of issues of videoecology is quite relevant.
Videoecology may be a theoretical basis capable
of solving many key issues in the development of the architectural science. As
any theoretical development, this is a painstaking job but that is this job
which seems far form today needs is the only reliable way to effective practical
recommendations.
What shall we do in this
situation? First of all, specialists on ecology, architects, artists, doctors,
physiologists, psychologists as well as law-making and executive public bodies
should be aware of the problem of videoecology. Videoecology should become a
phenomenon of mass conscience. If we want that to happen, videoecology should
occupy a corresponding place in the educational process. Videoecology as a
subject should be taught in architectural institutes, artistic colleges, schools.
Only if we make definite efforts,
we can make a progress in improving visual environment. First of all, it is
necessary to analyze and make maps of "pollution" of visual
environment of cities. Such maps can give an idea about the nature of the
disaster and will permit to develop measures in order to change the situation to
the best. Certainly, in this case, it is necessary to preserve all valuable
things we have - everything that pleases the eye. To make maps it is necessary
to work out a method and devices on evaluation of visual environment.
A program on population
displacement should be made out on the state level. With our vast territories it
is much easier to solve this problem as compared with other peoples. Every
Russian citizen can live "inside" the nature and in full harmony with
it. By no means one should increase the number of cities and their sizes as it
has been done until now.
Sometimes when reading lectures I
have to hear reproaches saying that videoecology is no business of Russia at
present. There are a lot of other urgent problems. Indeed, there are: decline of
the production level, cost-in-living increase, inflation, moral and ethic
problems, discord between nations, and wars. It seems to us that Yu. Koryakin
was right when he wrote about the reasons which led to such consequences: "We
found ourselves on a razor-edge first of all because we have lost love to life.
W e will be saved not only by repulsion from death but by attraction to life".
How can preconditions to attract
our fellow citizens to life be created? That is the main question. We can a lot
of food, good hospitals and good medicines, but if a man has no "attraction
to life", there cannot be a question about active longevity. And if a man
does not value his own life, he does not value all that is living around him,
and he kills forests, rivers, animals. We can go the already known way and
create another committee at President's level. For example, "Committee on
attraction of Russian citizens to life". But such a committee will hardly
be capable of fulfilling such a global task. To solve it is necessary to attract
the whole intellectual potential of the country, that is - scientists, religious
personalities, personalities of culture and art, academics. Videoecology can
make a great contribution in solving this problem. We have owned a principally
new knowledge which radically changes our conception about the practice of urban
development.
In our opinion, comfort visual
environment may contribute to attraction to life. Cheerfulness of inhabitants of
south coasts of Greece, Italy and other favorable corners of Earth is explained
namely by comfort visible environment. Surrounding beauty is a key to solution
of many problems. It can fill the life with contents and "attract" a
man to life. Architects and other specialists responsible for urban environment
should aim at creating the beauty. F.
Dostoyevskiy did not say that abundance of foodstuffs would save the world but
he said: "The beauty will save the world". This statement may be
evaluated as a large scientific discovery the implementation of which we have
not started yet. Abundance of foodstuffs can secure physiological welfare of a
human being but it cannot guarantee attraction to life, whereas the beauty has a
universal influence upon a human soul. And that is the beauty which is able to
fulfill this task.
Further developing his expression
which has become very popular, F. Dostoyevskiy wrote: " If a people
preserves the ideal of the beauty and the need for it, that means there is a
need of health, norm, and accordingly, that guarantees a superior development of
that people". It is quite obvious that it is impossible to awake
a need for the beauty with people surrounding it by aggressive visual
environment everywhere. People should constantly stay in comfort visual
environment. Only in such a way we can develop a need for the beauty with
Russian people, thus achieving its superior development. Videoecology may serve
as a methodological basis for solving this
global problem. Principles and methods of videoecology permit not spontaneously,
as it has been done until now, but consciously to form visual environment of
Russian cities which completely complies with physiological norms of vision.
You can order the book by phone, by e-mail, or by mail