Firstly, Pallasma discusses at length the sensory deprivation and distance caused by ocular centrism;
and how this keeps architecture from being as wholesome as it is capable of. This is so, as
architecture today does not Pallasmaa argues, take into account, peripheral vision, shifting of focus,
memory, and imagination. It "has housed the intellect and the eye, but left the body and other
senses, as well as ourmemories, imagination, dreams homeless”. Secondly, he points out how ocular
centrism has developed into a cultural norm; thus the eye can itself be biased, "nihilistic or
narcisstic". Therefore can be distanced and detached from the other senses, forinstance, touch, thus
allowing no emotional dialogue. To support his theory, he quotes examples of thedynamics of the
sense of touch in heightened emotional states wherein, indeed "the hands want to see"Thirdly, the
author compares the image of a modern city to that of what he terms a "haptic city" - a citywhich
can be touched; contrary to the distant, exterior oriented modern city. Furthermore, he discusses
how since antiquity, man has been the measure of not only his architecture, all his activities as well.
To support this argument Pallasmaa quotes instances of the caryatid court and the experience of
hunting in prehistory, where man becomes the central point of origin of everything. He emphasises
on the presence of and an enveloping satisfaction through multi stimuli in nature; giving an example
of a trek through a forest, and the feeling of being within the space of a clearing invoked by
peripheral vision, complete with the crunching of leaves under the feet and sap smell that surrounds
us through the trek.
Building on this starting point Pallasmaa speaks of the importance of the shadow in creating light. He
suggests that it is the nuances of shadows and the dimly lit which actually tickle the senses, and that
Modern Architecture seems to lack this appreciation of the shadow. Arguing systematically he takes
the reader through all the senses in question; namely, hearing, smell, touch and taste. For each
sense he quotes an example from nature, thus describing how it is anacknowledgement of all senses
that completes a space. He talks of registering the speed of wind through hearing and detecting the
temperature of the same through touch. Furthermore, he links smell with memory and adds that
smell is by far one of the strongest mediums that add to the memory of an experience. He then
brings into his argument the presence of man by discussing, time and the sense of proportion - as
man is designed to perceive in comparison to his self -and action where man measures through
moving within a space. In conclusion, Pallasmaa discusses the importance of these senses in the
design process. He talks of thedistance created between the architecture and the design due to
mechanization of the process. This part of the argument need not be dwelt on for long as the
previous text makes clear all the reasoning behind this, one can comprehend in pertinence to each
sense, the importance of 'feeling' it during the design process. The text though very interesting, is a
bit cumbersome, and requires frequent reference to the dictionary. The argument flows very clearly
and systematically and highlights the disadvantages of ocular centrism in comparison with each
sense and how that made the Modern - cold and distant from man. The entire argument is very well
illustrated with both quotations, graphics and experiential reference -which add to and are very
pertinent to the argument. The author saturates the text with examples. This makes the argument
very convincing and becomes intimate with reader. The author also makes psychological and
physiological references making this argument scientifically sound and not just something rooted in
poetry. One of the major textual references that are made, are to Halls book - TheHidden
Dimension. . The author laments that architects today have forgotten it- and hence his written
response to this ignorance. The most appealing aspect of this text is that it can be understood by a
lay person, due to the fact that all examples are such which belong to the life of all and do not use
buildings to illustrate hence not limiting them to architects