Who’s Afraid of Atmospheres (And of Their Authority)?

Starting from the philosophical project outlined by Hermann Schmitz and Gernot Böhme and subsequently developed by many other scholars (philosophers and architects, urban planners and sociologists, geographers and psychologists, designers and political experts, etc.), the purpose is to thematise the emotional tones of different spaces (affordances) and to assess their impact on the felt-body: an impact that cannot be reductively considered as an arbitrary subjective projection and that poses not only aesthetical but also ethical problems. An atmospherological approach could have vast and promising applications in the field of human sciences for all those who are interested in understanding the effectiveness of the emotions we feel in natural and/or artificial environments. In this way, by becoming aware of the fact that atmospheres are more effective than we have been rationally willing to admit and that traditional aesthetics, unilaterally oriented towards art, has understimated this truth, it would be also possible to recognize und undestand the mise-en-scène that makes up a large part of our daily life. And, last but not least, it would be also possible to realise the possibility we have of not being acritically subjected to the effects of atmospheres, if we are aware of their generative mechanisms. An atmosphere possesses and exercises authority over the perceiver and his felt-body. This authority (in a sense a “numinous” one) exists in the proper sense only when it prevails over our resistance and we cannot access a further critical level. This is because an atmosphere that I feel externally, as poured out into the surrounding space is mine not because I possess it, but because it concerns me. Its normativity, moreover, is not so much discreet but rather loosely diffused into a situation and yet it is able to inhibit any critical distance in those who come across it, especially if unexpectedly. This atmospherogical approach implies of course a reflection about the ethical consequences of our “necessary” felt-bodily feelings. Even if the manipulative appearance is implicit in every practice that generates an atmosphere, it’s true that only by acquiring a better atmospheric “competence” (both as thinkers and perceivers) we can really learn how not to be grossly manipulated. An atmosphere is moreover maybe less manipulative when it allows a quick alternation between an uncritical-pathic immersion and a critical-rational emersion, namely between an emotional mood and a more analytical one.