Monday, December 7, 2009

Theo Jansen's Biomimicry

Biomimicry does not have to mimic form. Giving a structure human qualities such as a "nose" or a "foot" keeps in tact human symbolism in architecture and protects identity in human form.
Perhaps this is a good example of mimicing processes without rejecting the foundation of architecture through the ages. Biomimetic form in design would display that our structural values at a specific moment in time lie within the characteristics of naturalism instead of humanism.

What about Humanism?

What is human nature, exactly? How do humans differ from other animals with an impulse to build? Ultimately it became a question of identity. Do we as humans identify more with ourselves and our own tradition than with nature and the natural world? Does biomimicry as an emerging science signify a change in this attitude? Is this a bad thing?
Innovation inspired by nature is an extremely good way to increase efficiency and optimize our scientific processes by unimaginable amounts. But does architectural form need this? Should we mimic the shape inhabitants in the wild just because they live among the “natural” environment?
Are we overcompensating for the previous damage we’ve done on the environment? I don’t think we need to reject our human identities in order to fulfill an ideal of reversing our affects on our earth its climate. Isn’t there some sort of human intent that can still be expressed in sustainable architecture?

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The Premise.

This is an opportunity to voice an opinion in opposition to a few aspects of the sustainability movement. Although an unfavorable, and perhaps unprecedented viewpoint, green can't be all good can it? Are we letting it take over our lives? From an architectural standpoint, is the "green" trend diminishing our human tendencies and erasing our identity to replace human hands with nature-found optimization? Can we find a way to be sustainable that embodies humanity instead of mimicking nature?