Brett Anstis and Ron Prisk recently attended the 2011 RAIA National Conference titled Natural Artifice held in Melbourne. The topic of the relationship between nature and our creations has always interested me. The works of Frei Otto, Vladimir Shukov, Bruce Goff and Santiago Calatrava are particularly intriguing for their inspiration in natural phenomenon as well as the beauty of mathematics and geometry embedded our cosmos. The particular speakers at this conference offered a series of topics which ranged from the machinated world of R&Sie which embraced the alien, through to Juhani Pallasmaa and Fumihiko Maki’s more humanist based approach. We found ourselves embracing the spirit of each presentation, and in the break would reflect on points that inspired us.
So it went through 8 sessions, with each one offering an extension, or sometimes a counter point to the last. Teresa Moller’s work was a reflection of her persona and was as characterised by what was not done as much as by what was, while the Colombian pair of Sebastian Mejia & Luis Callejas presented work full of the joys of youth and a contagious energy. Manuel Aires Mateus’ work, while beautiful in its own right, was made that much more relevant in my mind when paired with the introduction offered by Stuart Vokes. And the studio of Lisa Iwamoto & Craig Scott demonstrated how we can expand our design explorations beyond our typical projects and become laboratories and workshops experimenting with broader ideas.
The conference was well directed, and considering it was my first, I would definitely go again if they are of this standard. Whatever the inspiration, be it natural, artificial or somewhere in between, my parting thought lingered on the words of Sean Godsell who reminded us of our humanity, making and sitting at our fire, and that when we go searching, the answers are not in Architecture itself, but everywhere else.
Conference link: http://www.architecture.com.au/naturalartifice/
Here are some thoughts on the issues discussed:
Day 1 - Friday 15th April
Session 1 - Things get Wild with Francois Roche & Stephanie Lavaux
R&Sie’s work is very concerned with the alien - those things which make our absence apparent - and Foucault’s sense of the other. How can we respond to spaces which have no sense of our presence but rather speak to us of our redundance. How can this bring about a different appreciation of economic factors, building systems and materials?
In terms of R&Sie’s work and their search for the alien it becomes apparent how the typical approach to the design process is removed from the conventional by means of the randomized filter of machination. This experimental approach moves the designer to an observer role once the process is initiated. Much like Foucault’s panoptic machine allowing for the few to view the many and normalize through observation, R&Sie’s coding can bring about a critical mass to the open-ended randomization that generates a creative force alluding to our redundance.
Such research, much as it does in the technology of the military world, can often generate ideas and products that spin off into a range of other (often apparently unassociated) objects. By this I mean that the initial intended outcome being pursued is not necessarily the only outcome achieved. Putting aside the philosophical debate on redundance, there is the potential for this technology to evolve new appreciations of materiality, but the filter of relevance and ethical value rather than novelty still needs to be applied.
A key issue highlighted in Deleuze and Guattari’s writings is the capacity of materials to self-organise, and challenge the dominance of form over matter in its human conceptualizations. How does R & Sie’s work challenge hierarchical and orthodox conceptions of form-matter relations in architecture? Can this be considered a a critical response to spatial and functional requirements and relationships?
If we inhabit a space of “natural” origin such as a cave, we make it our own regardless of whether or not we were the authors of the object in its entirety. It is a found object and we can embrace the treasures of the parts we relate to, and reject those to which we don’t. On this basis, the alien - or capacity for materials to self organize, is no different from organic natural elements that create the environments around us. There is one critical difference I feel, however, and this is that the organic natural generates itself through the earth’s own latent energy, while this simulated alien generation process requires a time, effort and embodied energy which needs to be monitored to remain relevant.
As a critical response to spatial and functional relationships this approach could be as valid as any other by sheer random chance, but by removing the process of human landscape and thought from the process and outcome, I feel that its value is more in the reaches of research and development rather than a panacea for a new world. Our culture, customs and genetical echos can exist in many environments, but tend to thrive in places where we are we are in unity with our environment rather than alien to it.
Session 2 – Walk the Line with Teresa Moller
Given that Moller investigates the limitations of site and environs and identifies its opportunities, would her design approach change for a site within a dense urban context? If so, how?
The conference constantly highlighted the space between the natural and the artifice. What is natural and what is artificial? In Moller’s work I found that the terms natural and artificial related more to “existing” and “inserted” rather than the source of an object’s manufacture. Does the inserted object become part of the existing condition the moment it is created? This then creates a new “Natural” which is only experienced at a particular point in time..
Her examples are characterised as much by the absence of any addition, as they are by the inserted artifice. In detail, searching for the contrast between artificial and natural ranged from the obvious (such as a flight of stairs), to the more subtle - but equally rewarding (such as the molding of an existing rock to cup water).
In terms of applying this to a dense urban context, Teresa described the existing environment is the natural in which the treasure exists. I believe the real challenge in this environment is the speed at which each intervention moves from the artifice to the natural. The ego of humanity is an overlay in this dense urban context, which often tends to look for more than some of the beautifully restrained gestures evident in Moller’s work. Finding the contrast between the natural and the artifice feeds this ego in such an environment. Ultimately the treasure exists in each place, however, and it is our challenge as to whether we see it and how we respond to it.
If we accept that our geography affects our architecture in its response to the natural environment, how does Australia’s vastness of space impact our design within architecture and its surrounding landscape?
The idea of vastness of space is often portrayed in projects located in isolated environments. Like question 1 above, however, the real challenge is whether this translates in more dense environments (the majority of the Australian population do live in typical environments of greater density after all). The vastness of our landscape seems to seep into our consciousness just as our vast coastline encircles our continent, and has given us a strong appreciation of that which is beyond the buildings we insert.
The culture of locality has an influence in Chile as it does here in Australia, through the isolation of our particular landscapes, combined with the freedom experienced through this separation.
Beyond this there was a stronger sense of vastness through the common energy of not only humanity, but all living things. I think that Teresa (along with Juhani and Sean on the following day) showed a balance of elements and inspiration within ourselves that we reflect on, and can be powerful guiding forces in how we in turn affect our environments through our designs applied in areas of high and low human density. Our surrounding landscape becomes the defining field for our artifice, as this is what makes our sense of place relevant and resilient.
Session 3 – Transformation with Luis Mansilla
If the cathedral and its square were forms of ancient public space how can an understanding of architectural history and building traditions help us in designing current public spaces?
Luis mapped his journey through the design of MUSAC using 6 “Landscapes” as a system which keeps the mind open through the process by referencing and awareness. He describes contrasts through ideas such as:
- an enforced system which can still offer surprise,
- not everything being possible , but the possibilities are endless and,
- to have and idea and then hide the idea.
Using the filters of intellectual, personal, geometric, natural, social and historical analysis is a process Luis used to seek references, many of them reaching into the past, to inform his creative process. As he described the building and its references to these landscapes, I found that most of the journeys traced made sense and could be understood in the final outcome (independent of my opinion of whether or not I felt they succeeded). On this basis I was primarily reminded that our creative process is a journey of reference (or rejection thereof). There is a system of building traditions to help us design our current space, as well a rejection thereof through the creation of new “alien” systems such as those in the work of R&Sie. Either way, what I would like to take forward is the reminder of this consciousness to stretch my explorations. Love or hate systems, there is still merit in the notion of a framework to remind us to push, explore and test ideas such as the “6 Landscapes” does which takes the outcome beyond just a reference to self.
Does Mansilla & Tunon’s design formula lend itself to creating ground level spaces at a human scale or is this a considered overlay that gets worked through in isolation?
I would be surprised if such a considered overlay gets worked through in isolation after their very analytic overall process. Perhaps the success of the outcome brings into question the relationship of the ground level spaces at a human scale in terms of identification of unique environments, cognitive mapping and relationship of inside and outside space. Does a systematic process to design work? Again, rather that look at the success or failure of the particular example, I would prefer to look at what learning I can take away from Luis. “Transformation” as part of the design process is something that is not guaranteed to happen with every journey. One needs to be opened up for this to happen, and I feel that Luis’ proposal offers assistance in creating the awareness for this possibility to exist. Like the examples of Paisajes Emergentes and Iwamoto & Scott, the beauty of being opened to absorb the natural existing conditions at a level broader than the immediate and obvious is a powerful opportunity to find the story of the place, which can fuel your creative journey. Finding, transforming and sharing this meaning through metaphor gives a human scale by its nature if a broader audience can also be opened up through the artifice and its relationship with the natural.
Session 4 - Inner Space with Fumihiko Maki
Given that design should demonstrate sensitivity to ordering, sequencing and articulation of three-dimensional form, how does a sense of the ‘incremental’ manifest itself in Maki’s work and how does this relate to his notion of ‘time and architecture’?
Time and Architecture are unsurprisingly part of Maki San’s work, as the notion of holistic long-term thinking is inherent in much Japanese philosophy. Many contemporary Japanese homes are rebuilt every 25 to 30 years, so there is a continual process of renewal. Companies such as Sekisui House (one of Japan’s largest home builders) has an “Everloop” revitalization process for all their homes (recycling) as well as a commitment to assist with maintenance and servicing their structures well beyond the imagining of our local homes. “Try to reach - but not arrive” as part of the journey through life, is quite different from our Anglo-Saxon based definitive results and short-term milestone based mindset. Japanese approaches to this long-term view also extend to nature where landscape is thought of as culture and often experienced by contemplation, whereas the western approach can be a more tangible experience within the here and now.
The sense of incremental was manifested in Maki San’s work on his Hillside project, which evolves through creating, observing, learning, reinventing and then recreating. This process is a proposal and feedback loop, which highlights journey and observation. Watching the intervention and observing its interaction is a humbling and extremely grounding lesson from Maki San, who demonstrates a profound respect and understanding of all living things. There is also a sense of a task never being completed, but rather part of a much larger ongoing whole linking back through our evolution.
If a design process that responds to spatial and functional requirements is driven by the human scale does it follow that it will inform the spatial outcome?
Space rather than form can offer delight instead of beauty. This came across as clear and pure essences at the heart of Maki San’s philosophy towards design. Human scale will find syncopation with this rhythm, as it is core to the journey of creation, rather than simply being an end result of it. I find many of the Japanese designers spaces culturally specific, and to be honest, when combined with an American influence, not to my particular liking, but I can strongly appreciate the essence of the usage patterns and seeing the space as the primary facilitator of human delight. As we are all different, however, we all perceive particular delight in relation to our own perceptions.
Maki San said “Space can be compared to Mind. Space inside a form will reveal what kind of a person you are”. A design process with this at its core will surely have an impact on the spatial experience, and we would do well to aspire to Maki San’s love of humanity through his embrace of this philosophy. Combing this with the broad approach of Luis, Sebastian, Lisa and Craig in the other sessions, I can appreciate how space can broaden even further. This extends beyond the immediate and into our living biospheres and keeps focus on community at a broad level.
Day 2 - Saturday 16th April
Session 1 - Total Fabrication with Lisa Iwamoto & Craig Scott
Iwamoto and Scott’s experimentations with parametric modelling show real progress in form finding and geometric understanding through computation to understand three-dimensional form and relationships. What is the next step in merging the structures and geometries used in the installation and experimental work with practical architectural outcomes?
What I found interesting in the presentation by Iwamoto and Scott was the exploration of process and journey. The choice of computation and bio mimicry as a language enhances this journey as it offers some unique opportunities for experimentation and exploration along the path to final realization. The example of Eames’s chair being the end result of multiple projects and experimentation in the medium of molded plywood demonstrates the steps of evolution and joy of the journey. You can see how Iwamoto and Scott work seamlessly across a range of experiments be they installations, objects, landscapes, buildings or broader bio-spheres.
To merge this experimentation with practical architectural outcomes is an inspiring vision, which needs the first step of liberation. Liberation from the immediate and conventional. I can see how this could be applied in our own work through commitment (even at a small scale initially) to remove the conventional and explore answers outside of Architecture. Examples could be the digital media and bio mimicry or any other influence, some of which might forever live in the experimental phase, but could also inform real practical outcomes such as the projects with the optic-fibre light spines. Looking at non-human made objects is to me a great way of exploring the unconventional and being inspired.
What can we learn from bio-mimicry, or the adaptability of nature, to build resilience into new architecture?
The term resilience was used in a couple of sessions to describe a driving inspiration. If the term resilience is taken in the context of the ability to withstand or respond and recover from adversity, then this question has me wondering why new architecture alone would be facing this challenge. Is it to overcome the adversity of the common or conventional and take new steps much like the work 80 years ago must have shifted the direction of the new? Is it to move from one age to the next? Is adaptability at the heart of the issue - as our continued responsible use of natural resources is challenging our history to a one off use approach?
I feel that the works of Iwamoto and Scott best answer this challenge when they have expanded beyond studies of only form (be they inspired by the natural or not), and reached out to the greater realms of coexistence. The San Francisco of 100 years project is a great way to think of the adaptability of nature. Nature is not just about the here and now, but its genetic coding means it evolves with a thousand year (or more) plan – unlike our financially ingrained quarter year plan. I thing the long term vision is the greatest guiding lesson, and from this the branches of experimentation can grow. This will have us thinking beyond just the boundaries of the conventional architectural palette, seeing the treasures in many other sources of inspiration, and building resilience due to long-term thinking. This is the benefit that searching outside of Architecture and a broader education can give resilience to new young creators.
Session 2 - What Emerges with Sebastian Mejia & Luis Callejas
The words “Weather, Atmosphere and Resilience” were described by Paisajes Emergentes as strong influences in their creations of landscapes as buildings. They offer an insight to the challenges and inspirations felt all around the world, but frame it slightly differently for me. “Weather” has a level of change and unpredictability that “Climate” does not conjure. Climate has me thinking of a series of averages while weather conjures the specifics, nuances, fluctuations and sometimes the freakish. Similarly “Atmosphere” has me thinking more of the energy created by the objects and life forms rather than “Space” which might focus on the materiality of the solid which creates the void. I have discussed resilience with reference to the work of Iwamoto and Scott as taking a long term view in order maintain relevance rather than making choices only for the here and now.
Luis and Sebastian inspire with their approach to the challenges of each brief by bringing an overview that extends beyond architecture and the apparent exercise that is placed before them. They cast their net much further, drawing on experiences of travel, and looking at the environment with a freshness that sometimes only a stranger can see. By not separating the disciplines of landscape and architecture, but rather by looking at all of the creation holistically, it would appear that the space between the natural and the artifice can be molded in a joyful and resilient manner.
I respect the way in which they seemed to tackle their work through explorations much broader that just the brief before them. In fact many of the speakers over the 2 days inspired through their reference to elements of biology, ecology and geology. These are all aspects of design which respect culture and context and thus play a huge part in the relevance of our interventions. Luis and Sebastian let the emotive imagery of their thoughts and work share an “Atmosphere”. I found this relevant and extremely useful – especially when compared with so much name and ego based architecture. Environment and community are created without being a monument to the creator.
What emerges for me, is that just as Paisajes Emergentes treat landscape as buildings and vice versa as a reminder that we are not just Architects of structures and spaces, but potential catalysts for entire biospheres, and in that sense will always move in the space between the natural and the artificial.
Session 3 - Open Door with Manuel Aires Mateus
Aires Mateus’ projects appear to begin with an architectural language, like an image of a house form or a ruin etc. Is this a self-referential form of architecture? Does it constitute and clear and coherent design approach and what advantages or disadvantages does it offer?
The introduction offered to this session by Stuart Vokes tied this whole session together in the way the juxtaposition of the natural and the artifice made all the more tangible as we can somehow measure and comprehend the beauty of each through their reference to the other. The example of the remains of the fort offers an historical text and an interface of human comfort that enhances our relationship with nature by making the natural more accessible and less intimidating to man. Without this reference, the work (and the way it was described) by Manuel could be reduced to pure geometrical abstraction. I think the link became more evident, however when Manuel spoke of defining the limit and then creating the paradise within. This approach to a self-referential design process could thus loose its way if simply left in the geometrical, where form and space are isolated from the natural and broader environment. The advantage, however, of this process becomes evident when imbued with the historical, the conscience of contrast with the natural, as well as other landscapes (such as those described by Mansilla), all of which enrich the relationship of the artifice with its context.
How can the level of simplicity and cleanliness of Aires Mateus’s smaller-scale work sit in relationship to contemporary issues such as urban reality and information technology?
Terms of simplicity and cleanliness are interpretations of the visual, and in this sense are effectively no different to the complex, or form driven digital world of creating the peacock. The conference delved into deeper issues of ethical, ancestral and genetical ties with humanity as well as other life forms – all of which can be responded to in a number or ways. At the heart of it, however, I felt that it was not form at the pinnacle of design, but rather the synergy with its environment and contextualism.
Urban Reality and information technology, as opposed to a house in a forest, seem to conjure a level of competition, which drives us to shout out to be heard. The house in the forest stands in contrast due to its singular difference with its surrounds. What about one of the trees in the forest around the house? Does it stand out or become noticeable? It seems nothing in the urban context or digital world wants to be one of the trees, but rather be the stand out house in the forest. This is the real nature of our egos, rather than form or the visual for visual’s sake. Form can just become the expression of the ego, and with the development of the digital, avenues are opening up to create new forms and thus distinguish one’s self even further. There will always by the classic however with simplicity as its language.
Session 4 - Natural Artifice with Juhani Pallasmaa
Digital media and telecommunications influence how the outcomes of architecture are ‘distributed’ and ‘embedded’ into the general popular consciousness, and also ‘consumed’. How might an architect’s mode of designing and running a practice respond to this?
Over the past decade the rise of the virtual seems to loom larger. The conference focused on some discussion that embraced this such as the work of R&Sie, and other such as the philosophy of Pallasmaa which reminds us of the ethical and human reality rather than the purely technical. Then there seems to be work which ranges across this spectrum - seeing these two positions not as opposite poles, but rather realities which exist in amongst many others in our ever more complicated world. Juhani’s comments highlight today’s condition as being one where form is valued at the highest order – particularly supported by the digital. Counter to this, he offers an Architecture grounded in the full existential understanding of human destiny rather than scientific formulations. He also describes our task as more ethical than technical., which is not just for today, but for what we want to become longer term. After nearly 2 days of new thoughts after every speaker, I left Melbourne feeling well grounded by the words of Juhani, which reminds me or my relationship and obligations to other life forms as being of the primary order. How secondary elements such as the technical and digital can support this are still available in my opinion but should work towards this goal rather than becoming the goal in their own rights.
Luis Mansilla spoke of metaphor as a restriction to design freedom, but useful in explaining a design to a client (sometimes by a post-design rationalisation), while Juhani Pallasmaa spoke of the need for metaphor in human understanding of our world. Is the use of metaphor, or reference to natural objects and systems, a method for architects and the users of their spaces to understand the notion of artifice?
The Artifice can only exist if there is a reference point to make it such, and so the natural is the other ingredient that enables this contrast and creates the type and extent of space between. Metaphor relates something unknown, or less well know, to something else which has a greater cognitive understanding for us, and thus tries to embed meaning in the new through the old. I think this condition can’t possibly be a restriction on design freedom because it exists naturally and is embedded in our genetic makeup through layers of memory. The work of R&Sie attempts to remove this through the interface of the random machinated middle process separating the programmer from the end result. What is to stop the user who experiences such a thing to still try and relate it back to something more familiar? Maki San speaks of Delight, rather than Beauty in space as a very clear direction, while Owen and Vokes found the remnants of a crumbling wall the artifice which made the natural more engaging. I found myself being moved by the particulars of each different speaker, but ultimately the notions I still relate to the most are those which respect and support the sense of response to life and joy. Sean Godsell mentioned that the answers were not in Architecture, and for me, this is at the heart of the relationship between the natural and the artifice. The natural offers a huge world of opportunity to learn and be influenced. They offer an evolutionary history and lead us towards thinking timelessly which moves past the hubris and allows for relevant artifice of integrity.
]]>
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
