The question of Nature

THE QUESTION OF NATURE: architecture between order and messiness

Marina Carretero

THE QUESTION OF NATURE

From ancient times, nature has been known as a reference point for lot of disciplines, and architecture is one of them. Architecture emerged as a necessity of sheltering of the human being. As Vitruvius analyzes in his Second book of On Architecture men passed from live isolated in caves, to create their own architecture as a way of sheltering and gathering. But from its beginnings, architecture has been in fight with nature. This fight comes from the different points of view that nature gives us. Nature can be understood as something merely pure, describing the basics of the purity the classical orders, but it also can be understood as the opposite, the organic, impurity and messiness.

If nature is analyzed from a theoretical point of view, such as physics or mathematics, it arrives to the classical orders or platonic geometries.

Something that we can see in Mies Van der Rohe´s architecture, for instance, where the use of platonic elements, axis, symmetry and proportion are constantly present. In this case, he follows the principles of Vitruvius, where all these small things make good architecture. He explains the classical buildings from the figure of a man (Vitruvius man), and for being so, from nature. He adopted these human proportions to be the basics of the classical orders.

On the other hand, nature can be perceived as something impure, something that comes from a process, something impure and that is not perfectly proportioned. We can see these kind of thoughts reflected in parametric architecture, or organic architecture (Gaudi) etc. This architecture has the same value as the “pure” one. Both of them are taking nature as a reference, but from the two perspectives that nature gives us.

At the same time, there is something else about nature intrinsic in architecture, and it is the fact of the “naturalness of architecture” itself. Is Architecture something Natural? Besides being inspired by natural 2

ARCHITECTURE BETWEEN ORDER AND MESSINESS

elements architecture has not always been a natural process, in fact, most of the times it has been artificial, created by men. Architecture can exist on nature as something that is part of it, as something natural but, would that be architecture as we see it now? Architecture is a science, an art. It means that it is done by men and for that it is artificial. As we said before it began from the wish of men of gathering and sheltering. It started from a necessity, and it has become an art. First men in needing architecture were not conscious about it, they were creating architecture without knowing it, and it is what we consider today architecture without architects. That architecture was part of a process, an evolution, and it was changing according to the necessities of the users, that were architects of their times. Nowadays we can analyze that architecture and create our conclusions, such as what Laugier and Le Duc did with the “Primitive hut”. Here we can see that difference between the two types of “natural architecture”. On one hand, the “Primitive Hut” that Laugier is referring is obviously related with Vitruvius ideas of classical order and proportion, while LeDuc one Century later referred to the opposite with his primitive hut, making a Gothic point of view.

Primitive Hut, Laugier.

Primitive Hut, Le Duc.

3

THE QUESTION OF NATURE

So in this reflexion, architecture itself can never be something natural. We are talking about nature in a science, and of course there are a lot of natural concepts that relate to architecture, but we have to be aware that architecture has always been something artificial. It can be designed from natural materials, from a more or less pure point of view, it can be organic, but above all architecture is a science, it manipulates nature, it is artificial.

As we have seen so far, architecture can refer to nature in different ways, were always has something natural implicit. It can be part of an evolution, following forces over time and a natural process, or it can be part of the natural order. From here we extract two main concepts, purity as order (ideal) and purity as vitality (informed).

As described before, in the case of Vitruvius, he was taking purity as order, he was part of the ideal, reflecting all these in his writings “On Architecture� he makes proportion, symmetry, economy, and order something completely inside architecture. From that point is from where all designs should be started and finished with those concepts. Architecture has to show that in order to reflect beauty, to refer order.

4

ARCHITECTURE BETWEEN ORDER AND MESSINESS

Although most architects refer to one or another point of view, Sullivan is an example of both, ideal and informed. While his intentions are merely pure, his projects are informed. In “Kindergaten Chats” he explains the problems he faced during the development of the skyscraper. It comes –he sais- “from de process analogous to the evolution of the solution, […] the essence of every problem suggests its own solution”. He used the statement “form follows function” but not in a functional way but in a suprafunctionalist manner. He wanted to do a tall building and for that reason the building has to express that it IS tall. It expresses the essence of the building. In this kind of argument it is also reflected the mythical idea of contingency that seems to be inevitable and permanent, because, despite of being a tall building it could express something else, or focus in the mere functionalist part of architecture, instead of express so hardly the height of the building. He solves the problem also creating a law for tall buildings, a solution that is going to be the same for all tall buildings, an ideal solution.

In this example, the truth is extrinsic to the object, it means, it gives importance to the process and not to the object itself. This process that has to do with the problem solved. This system that Sullivan creates is working “as is has to work” there is no other truth, and the is no other possibility.

He is giving a solution for his era that solves all the problems they had.

7

THE QUESTION OF NATURE

On the other hand, and opposite to Vitruvius we can find contemporary architects working with parametric architecture. This is a completely new concept. New technologies have made this new architecture possible. It uses mathematical algorithms to create architecture, and these algorithms are normally related to nature. They have a mathematical foundation beneath them even though the final result will be normally informed. We can see examples of this parametric architecture in the work of Iwamoto Scott Architects. They work “through a speculative form-finding”. There is not a concept for each project, were a relationship between site, function and form is missing. They project architecture as an experiment. The truth in this case will be intrinsic to each work, although it keeps a relationship with the process between nature and the algorithm that creates architecture. The final result of the project will reflect a “cool image” that has nothing to do with what is happening inside or around the building.

8

THE QUESTION OF NATURE

In this essay different possibilities to implement nature into architecture has been discussed, and all of them a valid, it is the architect the one that has to decide in with parameters wants to focus, what does he want to communicate with his building (if there is something to communicate), but from my point of view architecture has to communicate something, each building must express something, architecture is about creating spaces to inhabit, to be occupied by people, and for that reason it needs to keep in touch with its surroundings, program, and budget.

Theory and Culture in Architecture V Ie School of Architecture & Design Fall 2011

10