What is the prerequisite for anything to be deemed organic? -To contain carbon. Now this is a definition coming from the anatomy class and I’d argue not many architects are familiar with it. Otherwise you wouldn’t hear us bragging, as heartily as we normally do, about organic architecture with low carbon footprint, or even better – zero carbon emissions. And an organ is a collection of tissues, joined together to serve a common function. Is that what we mean by labelling a design organic – that the building is so well knit to serve its purpose that all its systems interweave seamlessly, assuring perfectly balanced level of comfort? I wish!
Instead, we simply point its shape is curvilinear and all the edges are softened – to depict such forms I have witnessed colleagues refer to an array of images across the scale of fondness – from pebbles to blobs… Hm…
It’s every time the swimming pool sketch veers into this particular geometry, strangely reminiscent of the kidney diagram, that we summon the “organic” wrapper to sleek out the presentation on the morning after the sleepless stretch. Perhaps it is only natural to come up with it, if we have tormented our own pair of organs with too much coffee and energy drinks in the meantime, but metaphorically speaking, the least desirable outcome would be to inspire thoughts of kidneys as you swim. Here I probably should clarify that I like curves and am aware of their benefits for our cognitive and emotional states. I just wish our biomimetic explorations were not only skin-deep. Using curves knowingly can reduce the sizes of structural elements, make possible enormous spans, and enhance the aerodynamics thus bearing the wind loads with a simpler façade detail. Nature-based form-finding has been a path well-trodden from the beginning of time, but at times it feels like the ancient masters have known better how to extract general scalable principles (like the golden ratio) to support their creativity, while our hunt for relentless novelty has taken us away from the essence of the idea.
If we try to understand and apply the logic of the order and pattern, instead of matching and patching it randomly, we could improvise within its matrix, just like fluent musicians play with the rhythm and tones. And if we’d look for the underlying reasoning we’d be more inclined to recognise that our planet is home to rectilinear, sharp and edgy organisms as well – well deserving to be studied in detail, as on micro level some of the smoothest looking surfaces are ultra-prickly. Ironically, now that we are much better equipped to reveal the secrets of life, live and in situ, we rarely leave the digital domain, and wind those forms on purely visually-pleasing grounds. The shape often emerges as the largely unexpected outcome of a multi-software juggle and then demands leaps of virtuosity from everyone on board to achieve stability, cover, climatic adequacy and reasonable distribution of amenities and services.
Again – I appreciate the powers of computing – we have been presented with the rare opportunity to morph complex geometries without even understanding the mind-bending equations behind. Well, that’s not the first instance of driving without knowing how the engine works – similarly we use our bodies and take for granted the intricate functionality of the apparatus. It’s good to push the boundaries and innocence aids defying the underlying laws of physics (like gravity) up to a point… usually the point of breaking.
Fortunately the virtual realm gives us a safe sandpit to test the speculations before attempting to materialise them. And fortunately, the collective wisdom of the body cells, most of the time, successfully dissuades us from harmful practices. However, knowledge, training and prevention are always a better route to wellbeing than post-traumatic rehabilitation. Similarly – whole life cycle projections, in-depth site analysis and comprehensive planning produce better buildings than last minute risk mitigation and value engineering.
Where our current practice is letting us down is its almost total dependence on visual cues to confirm the validity of design. We have nominated a single sense to dictate how a space should feel. Fantastic – if we are producing a film decor, but in the real world of multidimensional sensitivity it’s no wonder some of the “iconic” architectures fail to impress. Our experience of the real space is incongruent with what we were made to believe it should feel like.
A recent study by a research team from Belgium and the Netherlands has confirmed what advanced thinkers like J. Pallasmaa have been warning us about – designers pick building materials according to their visual qualities – e.g. referring to associated and intellectually projected tactile characteristics rather than the actual ones. The researchers tested students of architecture, making them pick and compare materials first visually and then just by touch – blindfold. The results testify significant differences in the materiality assessment.
Yes, I can attest that in practice most of us source a set of materials which tick the boxes of the specific application we’re after, and then pick the “look and feel” by looking at the samples. I would argue though, that we are not the only ones plagued by the Visual Dominance Syndrome – it’s more of a cultural and a generational issue – vision has ranked top among the senses since the pyramids, but in our age its usage has skyrocketed. The overdoses of visual stimulation threaten to shut down the mind if we don’t filter constantly. On the top, it doesn’t help that lately most of our interactions with the world are via buttons and screens – we are losing touch with reality quite literally and tend to fall prey to illusory expectations more often.
Under careful observation, the loss of objectivity is actually highlighted by the invention of virtual and augmented reality – as your vision, immersed in a fantasy urges the rest of your senses to join, the inherent conflict of inconsistent signals often causes nausea and headaches – alarms from the body to interrupt the confusing experience. Assigning supremacy to the head-embedded senses and organs, in a strict hierarchy, undermines the wholeness of the embodied experience and disregards the recursive flow of feedback within the system. It’s time to end the grotesque division as neither head nor body could exist separately. In fact: a living organism’s perception would be altered and diminished by any tampering with its complete score of organs, tissues and cells. Similarly – a living organism’s perception would be altered and diminished by isolating it from the larger biome it belongs to – because the building blocks of societies are not so much the individuals as their relationships.
Take forests for example – we used to perceive them as the mere sum of their trees – and it took many failed attempts to plant a healthy forest, to acknowledge the cohabiting intricacies and symbiotic partnering of multiple organisms that mostly happen underground. Now we know about the mycorrhizal networks, connecting horizontally wide areas of diverse plants and transporting nutrients, chemicals and information among them, but we used to notice just their surface tips – the mushrooms. Working with the larger scale brings new ideas: what if we start exploring the poisonous look-alikes and their locations as an indicator for the levels of toxicity in the area?
Trouble is, it always takes longer to apply the analogy to ourselves and admit that pronouncing the mushrooms (even when they are truffles) brains of the forest, just because they top its so-called nervous system, would be as inadequate, as declaring our own mushy organ the start and end of intelligence.
Yes – I do exaggerate, but the habit to prioritise some organs above others stems from a survival-oriented mind-set. And I’m not interested in the theoretical minimum of organs needed to keep me technically alive – I’m interested in thriving – living up to my potential as a human being in a human society, integrated naturally on planet Earth.
For the same reason I am interested in creating optimal spaces – places augmenting our wellbeing and broadening our scope, places perceived with all our senses at once and instilling joy and magic or peace and calm, places made responsibly, with fair-trade materials and artisan touch, places with integrity and soul – organic architecture.
Architects are polymaths by definition, so crossovers and bridging of theories and disciplines is common practice when we are composing concepts. Why we have steered clear of anatomy so far (when even artists study it) is a bit of a mystery to me. Arguably the one who shelters the body should know the body well? My guess would be in line with the answer of the question: How many athletic philosophers do you know? It’s true that our daily workload often eats the time for leisure and sport and as visually dominated, head-centred illusionists we don’t feel pain while indulging in creation. However we should be more careful, as this lack of balance might prove to be the culprit for the growing discomfort and discord in our built environment.
Therefore I promise from now on to remember my body, take care of it, study its details and cherish its miracles – for the sake of humanity, nature and love. Amen!