Andreas Melson Gregersen
,@andreasmelsongregersen
0
Following
0
Followers
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
Hi everyone,
I am still new to this format, so I am little unsure how to share work. But for those of you who are interested in atmosphere, I have a new paper published in Poetics. It is called “An Affective Religious Boundary Tool” (2022), and it examines the strategic role of an atmosphere as a type of boundary object in a Copenhagen Night Church.
More generally, the article explores a public trial in the City Court Of Copenhagen concerning the events of a Copenhagen Night Church. A judge had to decide, if the events were concerts (something secular) or worship services (something religious)? The question to this answer was very much rooted in the type of atmosphere present in the Night Church; creating and emphasizing alternative sensory experience, a new “aesthetic formation” (Meyer), does not happen in a vacuum. It is politically, culturally, legally, and theologically infused.
Link for article: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1evla,6w-Xr1b8
If you have any questions, please let me know and I’ll be happy to provide more information or discuss matters.
-
-
Dear Gerrit, Thank you for your reply. Your movies sound very interesting. I am not quite sure, I followed everything you noted. I suspect this is a result of a lack of understanding on my behalf. As a notorious vague term, however, it is certainly difficult to explicate in precise terms what we mean by atmospheres. Perhaps, it is even impossible. Even so, I would like to make a friendly challenge to scholars of aesthetics of religion. Would it be possible to clarify:
I) How you understand atmospheres ontologically?
II) How you propose studying them?
For my own part, I have tried rooting atmospheres in a practice-based ontology. In doing so, I have sought to add a performative element to what Friedlind Riedel describes as Gernot Böhme’s “constellationism”; the basic idea that atmospheres emanate from a constellation of things and people. Hermann Schmitz rooted atmospheres ontologically in situationism. While, this seems intriguing, he also tends to exaggerate the free-flowing character of atmospheres – even to the point of them existing as autonomous forces.
Understanding atmospheres as socio-material practices entails that atmospheres are carried out by subjects who are (ideally) simultaneously carried away (affectively) by atmospheres. The latter point connects with theories on emotions as practices (Monique Scheer) or affective practices (Margaret Wetherell). In this context, however, it also fits nicely with the emphasis on immersion within Aesthetics of Religion. The point being that in order to be carried away by an atmosphere, subjects needs to immerse themselves in it (as you, Gerrit, helpfully alerts to by referencing Schüler). From a practice perspective, the immersion is not the result of individual agency but rather a “distributed agency” (Latour). This fits very perfectly with Mohr’s notion of sensory strategies as not only being intentional (the willingness of the agent) but also the result of material display (sounds, orchestration of light etc.). In the Copenhagen Night Church, I studied, for instance, the pastors employed Fatboys in the chancel. Not only did the Fatboys operate as a type of “affective mediator” by adding a emotional tone to the room through its symbolism (it adds a feeling of relaxation and informality to a church room), it also worked as a material mediation of immersion by helping visitors to engage with the atmosphere affectively (to be carried away) by making them more susceptible to relax and open up.
I hope you will not find my questions provocative. I am merely trying to flesh out–perhaps impossible–some basic ideas about atmospheres; what they are (ontologically) and how they should be studied (methodologically).
All the best, Andreas
-
Dear Alexandra (and all others interested),
Thank your insightful and thorough input. You raise several important points. To keep the discussion going let me rehearse my stated desire to inquiry into the present state of research within the broader framework of Aesthetics of Religion (that is, including studies on material religion and religion and media) that deals explicitly with atmosphere as the primary analytical focus of attention. This may be
1) in the form of an empirically exploration of the production or reception atmospheres in religious practices or settings,
2) in the form of a theoretical exploration or conceptualization of atmosphere in religious practices or settings.
Concerning the latter, I am referring to the question raised by Guggenmos et al. (2011) which I believe deserves renewed attention:
‘Is there a way to describe the phenomenon of ‘atmosphere’ scientifically’ (ibid. 115)?
Guggenmos et al. (2011), provides an answer to the question but I believe more can be done to develop a heuristic concept of atmosphere that would allow us to study the production and reception of atmospheres–or what Reckwitz (2012) defines as “affective spaces”– in practice (ethnographically).
In this regard, I absolutely agree with Alexandra that the ahistorical and universalistic tendencies of the dominating phenomenological approaches needs to be supplemented or, even better, abductively modified to capture the cultural, social, and political processes and aspects involved in the production/reception. Especially to bring forth the aspect of power involved the production. In this regard, it is worth recalling Philip Kotler (1974) who coined the phrase “atmospherics” to designate how atmospheres are used in marking to amplify customers’ willingness to purchase. “In some cases,” Kotler even noted, “the atmosphere is the primary product” (ibid. 48).
(On a sociological side note, we may wonder if this is not also sometimes the case in contemporary religion. What motivated the visitors of the Copenhagen Night Church, I studied, was not necessarily the opportunity experience a divine presence but simply the experience of an atmosphere that may or may not be defined as religious).
It is also a good point to be aware of the meterological origin of the concept atmosphere. ‘The dual understanding of atmosphere as a meteorological phenomenon and a spatial experience of affect and materiality should not be seen as distinct,’ as Bille, Bjerregaard, and Sørensen writes, ‘but rather as feeding on each other,’ as happens, for instance, ‘through the impact of a sunny day on the feel of the city’ (Bille, Bjerregaard, and Sørensen 2015, 36). Emphasizing the importance of weather, also highlight a significant and on-going issue in studies of atmospheres: Are atmospheres something in-between subjects and objects (Böhme) or are they rather a holistic medium encapsulating subjects and objects (Ingold, Schmitz, Heidegger).
In a recent ethnographic anthology of atmospheres, the editors summarizes the following as key contemporary questions in studies on atmospheres. Perhaps, these have already been dealt with within Aesthetic of Religion? If not, however, it would be a good starting point to explicate how an aesthetics of religion framework could approach these questions and/or answer them:
” Are atmospheres media or objects of perception, metaphors or material phenomena? Are they representations, and are they representable? Can they be created, and what do they do? How can atmospheres be affects and effects at the same time? How can we think about atmospheres through air and other elements and substances?” (Schroer and Schmitt 2018, 2).
Lastly, the reason for my inquiry (which I hope you find friendly and not provocative) is also, as Alexandra and Gerritt points to‚ that the work done within Aesthetics of Religion seems to be easily accommodated or modified to the study of atmospheres. As such, I believe aesthetics of religion have something to contribute in this regard, as well.
Alexandra, I think your work on blue brain, for instance, deals implicitly with the scientific production of affective spaces. I think that is a very good point and something be unfolded even more. In this regard, I am also reminded of Ludwik Fleck who also emphasized the importance of style for the construction of scientific facts. As I recall, he noted how style can awaken “a corresponding mood of solidarity” in the reader and it is this mood that brings the reader to assess the argument positively. Perhaps, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht’s (2012) work on how reading, in general, elicits specific atmospheres may be interesting in a study of the production of scientific facts and atmospheres.
Lastly, I would be very interested in following or, if possible, contributing to a key terms project involving atmosphere.
Once again thank for providing stimulating responses. I find it very inspiring.
All the best,
AndreasReferences
Bille, Mikkel, Peter Bjerregaard, and Tim Flohr Sørensen. 2015. “Staging atmospheres: Materiality, culture, and the texture of the in-between.” Emotion, Space and Society 15:31-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2014.11.002.
Guggenmos, Esther-Maria, Isabel Laack, and Sebastian Schüler. 2011. “Agency and the Senses in the Context of Museality from the Perspective of Aesthetics of Religion.” Journal of Religion in Europe 4 (1):102-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/187489210X553511.
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. 2012. Atmosphere, Mood, Stimmung: On a Hidden Potential of Literature. Translated by Erik Butler. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Kotler, P. 1974. “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool.” Journal of Retailing 49:48-64.
Reckwitz, Andreas. 2012. “Affective spaces: a praxeological outlook.” Rethinking History 16 (2):241-58. doi: 10.1080/13642529.2012.681193.
Schroer, Sara Asu, and Susanne B. Schmitt. 2018. “Introduction: thinking through atmospheres ” In Exploring atmospheres ethnographically edited by Sara Asu Schroer and Susanne B. Schmitt, 1-12. London Routledge
-
Dear Gerrit,
Thank you very much for taking the time and replying in such a thoughtful and informative manner. This was very helpful!
While I have read Aesthetics of Religion: A Connective Concept carefully, I am still in the process of reading through the Bloomsbury Handbook. From your response, I can understand I have much to look forward to.
Radermacher’s review intrigued me. According to Radermacher (2018), atmospheres are often described by scholars of religion but rarely the main analytical target or focus of conceptual development. I think this is a fair assessment. Although, a number of anthropologists have more recently explored the production and/or reception of atmospheres in relation to religion. Even so, the general tendency amongst scholars of religion, in my humble and flawed experience, is to reify atmospheres and thereby black-box the complexity of the production and reception (which are interlinked) of atmospheres and, not the least, the potential existence of multiple atmospheres existing simultaneously.
In 2020, I co-organised a informal workshop with Radermacher on “atmosphere and religion.” Unfortunately, we did not get a chance to discuss the state of research on atmosphere in the subfield of aesthetics of religion. We did, however, touch upon the importance of exploring how atmospheres are qualified as religious by informants.
Having read studies related to aesthetics of religion, it did seem to me that there was more to be said about atmospheres (methodologically and theoretically). I do not know if you would agree?
Of course, the “problem” with atmosphere is that it is often invoked with different terms or alluded to implicitly.
As I did not find any substantial mentioning of Gernot Böhme’s aesthetics of atmosphere or Hermann Schmitz’ new phenomenology (which are the most prominent names in the study of atmospheres and often referenced and invoked in the humanities when atmospheres are studied) in the aesthetics of religion framework, I began to wonder:
1) Was this a symptom of a desire to move pass phenomenological approaches to atmospheres. OR,
2) Was it because atmosphere was rarely the primary analytical, empirical and/or theoretical focus?
From your response, I can gather that it is most likely more to do with 1) than 2). That being so, I cannot help wondering how then atmospheres are conceptualized and studied within aesthetics of religion? How do they, for instance, relate to mediation?
Inspired by others, I (2021) have tried to conceptualize atmosphere both as a type of practice (what I call atmosphering, see also Bille and Simonsen 2019) and as type of distributed agency. Patrick Eisenlohr (2018), on there other hand, follows Hermann Schmitz and explores atmospheres as “half things” in his inspiring work. Friedlind Riedel (2020), to take another example, has recently introduced the helpful notion of “atmospheric relations.”
I think the chapters by Schüler and Frank Heidemann in <i>Aesthetics of Religion </i>(2017) are very helpful for studying atmosphere. However, the former explores collective effervescence and notes, importantly, that not every atmosphere is a collective effervescense. The point being, there are also different types of atmospheric presence. Andreas Rauh, for instance, distinguish between, if I recall, four different different modes of atmospheres in his helpfull book Astonishing Atmospheres (2018). Some atmospheres, I would venture, operate akin to what David Morgan describes as focal objects (or perhaps we should say focal quasi-objects) while others remain unnoticed.
Lastly, your PhD-dissertation sounds very interesting. If you have anything published on atmospheres, I would be more than happy to read it.
Once again, thank you very much for engaging with me. I really appreciate it!
Bille, Mikkel, and Kirsten Simonsen. 2019. “Atmospheric Practices: On Affecting and Being Affected.” Space and Culture:1-15. doi: 10.1177/1206331218819711.
Eisenlohr, Patrick. 2018. Sounding Islam: Voice, Media, and Sonic Atmospheres in an Indian Ocean World. Oakland: University of California Press.
Gregersen, Andreas Melson. 2021a. “Exploring the Atmosphere Inside a Liturgical Laboratory.” Material Religion 17 (5):627-50. doi: 10.1080/17432200.2021.1945990.
Radermacher, Martin. 2018. “„Atmosphäre“: Zum Potenzial eines Konzepts für die Religionswissenschaft.” In Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft, 142.
Rauh, Andreas. 2018. Concerning Astonishing Atmospheres: Aisthesis, Aura, and Atmospheric Portfolio. Milan: Mimesis International.
Riedel, Friedlind. 2019. “Atmospheric relations: theorising music and sound as atmosphere.” In Music as Atmosphere: Collective Feelings and Affective Sounds, edited by Friedlind Riedel and Juha Torvinen, 1-43. London: Routledge.
-
