NATURAL, so what?
the tension between ideal & informed
Natura and Architecture
Ana Gonzรกlez Granja
The etymology of the word Nature comes from the Latin natura which means “essential qualities” or “innate disposition”. Nature is identified with something innate, inborn, rather than acquired, something that seems to be inevitable and permanent. It also can be defined as a biological phenomena in accordance with the usual course of nature. It is used to describe the physical world that might can be related with the human nature. The words natural and organic have been always used in architecture, sometimes giving them the same meaning, or as explanation for different concepts. These terms, depending on the context, can be applied in many different arts. The Roman architect Vituvius (1st century B.C.) was illustrated 1500 years after by Leonardo da Vinci (15 C) with his drawing of the Vitruvian Man to explain the natural order that the perfect human body contains. He was using the word natural to describe why the human proportions are like they are. He believed in an architecture that should be organized, natural, and well-proportioned, concepts reflected in the human body drawn by da Vinci. However, he believed in a proportioned body that does not exist, he was using the body as his architectural myth, trying to project that naturalness, meaning perfection which does not belong to men, in architecture, responding in the most primitive way to order. But there are many more theories about what “natural” means in architecture. A natural shape unconsciously is though as one entity, as a construction (like a cottage or a cave) that had happened by it, that was not though and seems to be a priori of a design. Although to achieve that formal informality that seems unexpected we find there is always a natural process behind, a change produced from the very beginning in the creation process, there is movement created by external or internal forces that is shaping that apparently purity, sometimes reflected in architecture. But what does “natural” have to do with architecture? How is the natural understood in the contemporary world? Does natural mean innocent, pure and ideal? Or on the contrary, is it being informed, not pure, contaminated? What does it mean for architecture to be “honest”, is this concept related with the question of the “natural”? NATURAL, so what? | Chapter 3
from LOUIS H. SULLIVAN
ideal that is informed
to FRANK O. GEHRY
Ana Gonzรกlez Granja
form follows function LUOIS H. SULLIVAN
DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING ?
function follows form FRANK O. GEHRY
Louis Sullivan wrote in 1896 that where there is a confrontation, a problem in resolving things in architecture, and that the best way to decide it is to shape the solution in the simplest way possible, it is the natural law that defines the best answer. Conditioned by logic, sensibility and culture that is concerned with what a building demands. Frank Gehry , his learnt how to be innocent over many years, sharing with Sullivan the concept behind the sentence “the hand of the architect”, shaped by a non-trained architect, that has learnt from his innocence, he follows a path to solve architecture from the problem to solution, a strong and natural liking for buildings. When a problem appears they consider their own understanding of building natural, but both expressing them from the function they want to achieve and show. Although their architecture is completely opposite and has nothing to do regarding appearance and construction their design process and goal is quite similar. Both are looking for the ideal solution which will lead them to what they consider truth and pure, getting to being informed without even care about that. Both manipulate the “object” up to they obtain the truth, that truth is intrinsic to the object itself. If Sullivan wanted a tall office building that building should be tall, although the final result might come from illogical steps, the point is just to look tall, so it is natural itself because it is shaped the way it should be to remain high, he uses tricks in a natural way to beguile the eye of the observer. Meanwhile Gehry focuses his point of being ideal, on looking informal and great, which is not bad, he is ideal in the sense he tries to be functionally direct and “organic”. He cares about the final result, so his methodology is quite simple, going back and forth between plans and models to experiment about shapes, surfaces, textures and colours, he manipulates the objects to find its own natural rules, is the project telling him the answers and solutions. NATURAL, so what? | Chapter 3
A 3 PART THEORY. compared with a classical colum
3. capital attic
2. shaft monotonous
1. base lower stories
Ana González Granja
The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (1197) has purity because it is shaped by perceptions, sensitivity of sensuali-ty, musical shape, on expressing feeling and sentiments in a three dimensional way. That perverse and monumental scale is shaped naturally, because that wave like surface is what he defines as natural, that shape is natural to the place because is the one that fits on that space, as the ships built in Bilbao, is like a bridge connecting areas. “That is so stupid that makes it look great” Frank O. Gehry in Sketches from Frank Gehry, directed by Sydney Pollack. Buildings are surfaces that seek for what Sullivan or Gehry independently consider the true normal type. The natural process has a beginning and an end is defined in those theories Sullivan describes, in a tall office building you can always find 3 parts, shaped following the classical rules for a classical column, 3 parts as a logical statement a beginning, middle and an end. That process lead us to the idea of the living object, created by Gehry in the Guggenheim, the way light heats the material, those reflections, make a building a living thing. Those spaces are constantly changing in a biological way as the day time goes by, there is always a beginning, a middle and an end in the building facade. A building has to be optimistic and has to respond and change to be related with the surroundings, this building is shaped in a way that today seem to be something that has been there always, it has gained the power of being symbol and image for Bilbao, is something that has happened “naturally”.
Guggenheim Bilbao MIDDLE
biological colour changing. BEGINNING - MIDDLE - ENDING
Guggenheim Bilbao BEGINNING
Guggenheim Bilbao ENDING
NATURAL, so what? | Chapter 3
from FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
informed that is ideal Frank Lloyd Wright in 1908 wrote about how architecture should be, how nature comes to design and how organic architecture can define spaces. He said that architecture should have a natural appearance, an architecture that should come out of the landscape, as a natural feature, and if it doesn’t come the architect should handle the situation in order to give the impression that it is “growing from the landscape”. Buildings, Wright argues should be pure as vitality, responding in an organic way to the precise needs, being formally irregular. But he fights with his own definition and ends up with an internal contradiction on his architecture, as he believes that to HERZOG and DE MEURON there should be as many architecture as way of life and people, Ana González Granja
nature of the object FRANK Ll. WRIGHT
LIVELY ORGANISM
nature of the object HERZOG and de MEURON
although that architecture might be worthless. He framed himself as his doing informed architecture but he is not, he is being ideal, because he is using the repetition of platonic shapes to make something pure, coming out of Vitruvius principles even if his reacting against him, like the Larkin Company Building that is made out of the repetition of cubes and rectangles shaping its exterior faรงade and interior distribution, everything in a perfect symmetry. Herzog & de Meuron on their building The Institute Hospital Pharmaceuticals, known as the Rossetti building (1995-1998), makes references to nature and they seem to follow the pure classical rules that Vitruvius talked about, is a pure rectangular shape on elevation where the openings are defined in such a way that, as Wright said, occurred as integral features of the structure and form, is a natural ornamentation almost following the divine proportions. The faรงade is designed as a specific space, in which solidification and dissolution of the building unnoticeably merge, and not only where the sunlight seem to break away its glazed edges. There is a competition of reflections of the surrounding culture, nature, buildings and lively movements shaped always on the faรงade, produced by an entirely glass shell that gives shelter to the building hold a filigree grid. The treatment of the material is another natural feature of the project, it is all about imprinted dots which seem to be an illogical decision, but behind that unknown appearance, the colour reminds of the poison of the medication, the old pharmacy glasses and the plants that treat the illness. The reference to nature is informing a strip of artificial and natural ivy, which replaces the glass layer as one element with density spatiality and light qualities. The green here becomes the interface between natural plants and the glass of the quartz sand. Rossetti reflects what Wright said about bringing out the nature of the building in all of its points, where materials should develop their natural texture and the forms should grow from the natural changed conditions, they must be true forms. NATURAL, so what? | Chapter 3
is a natural ornamentation almost following the divine proportions HERZOG and de MEURON
Ana Gonzรกlez Granja
“A building has a person” (F.Ll. Wright in “The essential Frank Lloyd Wright, Critical Writings on Architecture”:40), and that person is the function and the ability the architects have to handle a specific situation. Herzog & de Meuron most of the time use this kind of textile materiality that is directly related to some aspects of the function of the building. The glass shell here keeps the pharmacy as a container, as one organism where it determines the shape. An organism as the Prairie Houses, designed to blend with the flat prairie landscape, design to create an organic architecture and integration of structural and aesthetic beauty and sensitivity to human life.
But what does organic architecture means? What has nature to do with a building? What are that features that defined if a building is pure or not? Why this continuous obsession of framing architects, periods, styles? Why should we decide if an architect designs being ideal or informed? Which are the criteria that lead us to pick out a building as honest, as pure or ideal? How can we relate these questions to the ones posed at the beginning? What does “natural” have to do with architecture? How is the natural understood in the contemporary world? Does natural mean innocent, pure and ideal? Or on the contrary, is it being informed, not pure, contaminated? What does it mean for architecture to be “honest”, is this concept related with the question of the “natural”? The role of the critic is the one that gives answer and shapes every discussion here, although every answer is just subjective, as it is the informed perception someone has. It is said to guide people and help them to describe a style, a period or to define the kind of architecture someone does. The confrontation that appears when there is a discussion is what allow us to be able to create links between past architecture and current architecture, to connect the dots in between and to realize how the same term can be shaped through history in different ways but always going back and for in between the same ideas and perceptions. “Natural” has been defined differently depending on the purpose but there has always existed an evolution of the topic and a moment of reflection and reinterpretation of how nature has been applied in architecture. NATURAL, so what? | Chapter 3