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. I would argue that, despite the incredible capabilities of the human mind and the nearly unlimited creativity we are able to produce and use, the core of our design revolves around something almost entirely out of our control: nature and its design principles. Furthermore, I would also argue that the current design of our society is unjust, and continuously prioritizes one group over another, and thus is fundamentally flawed. We, as humans, cannot possibly hope to achieve a societal design that is truly equal for everyone on our own, and therefore must learn from, utilize, and work alongside nature in order to better our own design process.
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 completely eliminate the need for energy-consuming 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.
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; the inherent lack of intelligent and fair design between both groups of society shows just how much class divide there really is, as well as reveals the aspects of cost versus benefit. Much like the upper classes of society exploit the lower classes for cheap labor to supplement their consumerist lifestyle, humans tend to instinctively exploit nature for their own benefit, whether that be disregarding the effects of our post-industrial revolutionist design processes or our clear lack of care when it comes to issues like deforestation, pollution, or animal agriculture. This begs the question of whether or not there is 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.
The concepts of design are not limited to the capabilities, concepts, and creations of humans alone; for the sake of this argument, design should be divided into two categories: that which takes inspiration from nature, and that which is devoid of nature’s influence. The first– design which incorporates lessons learned from nature– has a lot to do with sustainability, a core aspect of modern architecture; in this case, nature can be used as inspiration for projects which have the potential to not only imitate nature, but also help it. The example of natural “air conditioning” used above embodies both points: it incorporates nature (wind) and benefits it by eliminating the need for the copious amounts of energy that air conditioning units and fans use. The second– design which has not taken inspiration from nature– is embodied by the class divide that is so abundant in our society; rather than work together to achieve long-lasting sustainability like the complex ecosystems of plants and animals in nature, humans have decided to divide themselves up and exploit some groups in order to benefit others. Intelligent design cannot be achieved if we as future designers do not utilize the concepts and ideas learned by observing nature and its interactions.
Comments