Diego Daleccio
801-19-8405
Are the concepts of architecture and design limited solely to the creations of humans? We are always taught to appreciate the beauty that’s around us and the complexity of nature, yet hardly seem to acknowledge the influence it has on our design, both social and industrial. So much of what we incorporate into our building and design processes stems from knowledge derived from observing what’s around us. Throughout watching the movie, “Baraka”, we, the viewers, were shown various examples of natural design at work, from the smallest animals to the largest land formations. For example, mountains change the way the wind flows, effectively cooling certain parts of forests and creating differentiation in the biomes around it– a lake might form at the base of a mountain due to the collection of rainwater runoff and humidity, changing the terrain around it. While the effects might not be as extreme as these examples, we as architects must consider these kinds of natural forces while designing our buildings and spaces. By influencing the way the wind flows inside of a building, we could eliminate the need for things like air conditioning by providing an effective natural cooling system. Similarly, we must consider the shape of our building overall in order to avoid damage due to natural occurrences like rain or wind, or even more destructive forces like earthquakes and hurricanes, a lesson learned by observing the way natural formations interact with the land around them. There are plenty of other examples of natural design in “Baraka”, like non-artificial hot springs and the ever-changing terrain of zones with flowing lava, all of which serve as excellent examples of just how much we still have left to learn about and from nature. But not all inspiration needs to be taken from non-living things.
We must also consider the metaphysical aspects of architecture, like whether or not it can be considered a representation of the state of society at the time. In Baraka, several examples of both well-known and relatively hidden man-made buildings, monuments, tombs, structures, etc. were shown, and nearly all of them had one thing in common: the fact that they represented something important to the respective culture and its people. One of the first examples we see is the temples built by a society of monks. In the movie, they were decorating statues with what appeared to be a traditional paint and application method. Presumably, these statues are a very important symbol in their culture, and thus they created a temple based around these symbols in order to pay homage to, and show their respect for them. Another example is the massive tombs carved into/from existing rocks in the desert by an unnamed and unseen group of people. Based on the contextual information we are given, it can be assumed that the larger and more decorated the tomb is, the more important that individual was to their society. Furthermore, the quality of the structure also seemed to be an indicator of social status. The more important individuals’ tombs seemed to have withstood the test of time, a testament to the level of craftsmanship dedicated to that tomb. As an aspiring architect, I think those are all incredibly important values when designing a project: it (the project) must be, in my opinion, useful, well built, intelligently designed, and pleasing. Alongside the exterior designs we were shown in the movie, there was also a glimpse into more minimalistic, internal projects, like traditional Japanese Zen gardens. These gardens, while not very practical due to the fact that they do not produce anything and are very difficult to maintain, are a staple in Japanese culture purely because of the significance it has to their culture and traditions.
Moving away from specific cultures and moving more toward a global scale, class divide seemed to be one of the main topics in the movie. More specifically, cost versus benefit, and who benefits from the loss of others. China was the main example used in the movie, most likely due to its clear overpopulation and severe class divide. Overpopulation and a lack of jobs have made China a prime source for cheap labor from large corporations, mostly in the textile and technology industries. The workers are paid miserably low wages and are forced to work in less-than-optimal conditions just to barely cover the increasing cost of living. Meanwhile, in the same country, there are districts dedicated to the wealthy, where they can lavish in and spend their accumulated wealth. China is, of course, just one example of this, as there are many “modernized” societies and cultures with a large class divide. The reason I am placing so much importance on this issue, and the reason I believe the movie, “Baraka” stressed these points is because the problem came about by an inherent lack of intelligent and efficient societal design. As a student, I cannot pretend to know the solution or answers to this problem, but it is evident that the systems China and the rest of the world have put in place were designed in a way that benefits a certain group of people over others. I have already discussed the use of the metaphysical design in the movie, so now I would like to build upon those ideas: the structures mentioned above were given much respect and had impeccable craftsmanship dedicated to them because they are (or were) important to that culture. So then, what does that mean in China’s case? Does it mean that they do not value or respect the “lower” tiers of society, or is there just no better design for the systems already in place? As a designer, it is important to consider how all members of a society will be affected by your designs and projects, and I believe that is why the movie placed so much importance on the issue of overpopulation. This also plays into the issue of cost versus benefit. “Baraka” showed us several video clips of animal agriculture, or the mass-production of animal products like meat, eggs, and milk, as well as the animal abuse that goes on in these factories. One sector of society (the animals) suffer so that another (us, the humans) can benefit. This could be considered a representation of the fact that even in our supposedly civilized societies, everything seems to have a cost and a benefit. We eat meat at the cost of animals, buy cheap clothes at the cost of underpaid sweatshop laborers, and become industrialized at the cost of the well-being of our planet. This begs the question, is there any way to design a system or project that is truly fair and equal for everyone? While the question is purely hypothetical, it is still important to consider.
As a final point, I would like to talk about my thoughts on the movie in general. I believe the movie was an interesting showcase of the relationship that humans as a whole have with nature, and how that relationship differs between cultures. This is always important to study, regardless of what field you decide to go into, because it can be analyzed from so many different perspectives, and each individual will most likely value different aspects of it. I analyzed it from the perspective of an aspiring architect, a student. However, someone like a doctor or an archaeologist, or even a car mechanic would have probably chosen different topics within the movie to discuss. Personally, I think that is exactly what design is all about: I mentioned it above, but as an architect and designer, we must always reflect on how our work affects all groups of society, so it is always important to consider different perspectives when discussing topics like the relationship between humans and nature.
Comments