The exact definition of organicism may seem ambiguous and multifaceted. The way it is utilized, organicism acts more like a philosophy in which characteristics of living organisms are appropriated.1 Organicist paradigm is biomimetic or; expected to draw from or imitate nature in some manner. The degree or manner in which imitation of nature presents itself may vary from the aesthetic, to the conceptual, to the practical, including the various gray areas between them. With this in mind; the application of organicism in architecture can manifest itself through literal and abstract imitation of natural form or through translations of concepts or natural processes such as growth or assimilation.
I’m interested in how the aspects of response and change have translated themselves to the architectural practice and given birth to what is referred to as Responsive Architecture. The field of Responsive Architecture consists of architecture which measures the surrounding environment in some way, usually through the use of sensors, in order to alter shape; form or character in some way.2 It is a process in which information from the people entering the space is obtained and is then used to create a reaction to that input. Responsive architecture is not intrinsically organicist. I believe both practices may overlap to varying degrees, depending on the project, but I wonder if a clearly defined threshold exists where the organicist character completely disappears. In addition to that, I want to examine if there is limit of practical application possible through the marriage of responsive architecture and organicism.
In order to make this analysis, I will examine various projects which combine organicism and responsive architecture in different interpretations. Perhaps one of the earliest examples of responsive architecture is the US Pavilion at Expo 67 by Buckminster Fuller and Shoji Sadao. The pavilion consisted of a geodesic dome structure which was 200ft tall and 250ft in diameter. The sheer magnitude of the project made it reminiscent of a celestial body. The structure was composed of open tetrahedral cells which supported acrylic panels. Motorized triangular shades were attached to approximately 1/3 of the interior surface and utilized mechanical sensors to provide shade in the dome as needed. This system had the effect of reducing the amount of fossil fuels needed to cool the structure. The system takes a conceptual approach on biomimicry in the sense that it seeked to imitate the process of homeostasis which our bodies perform in order to maintain a stable core temperature needed for survival.3 Fuller originally proposed an even more complex and ambitious enclosure system, “predicting that just some cells are to sense light, sound, or heat, so future geodesic domes would have markedly differentiated cells or “pores”.4 Fuller envisioned a system which could “articulate as sensitively as a human’s skin”.5 Fuller was able to devise a system which combined both responsive architecture and organicist concepts in order to create a dynamic and ecologically friendly system. Although the full ambitions were not realized and the sensors were eventually removed, this structure served as a breaking point, which inspired others. In the practice to strive for other ambitious climate control projects, Norman Foster’s tower in London or Adaptive Fritting by J. Norman from the Adaptive Building Initiative is a prime example.6
Next, let’s take a look at a project of responsive architecture which takes another approach on organicism. The Hylozoic Ground series by Phillip Beesly of the University of Waterloo consists of a series of installations which seek to emulate near-living architecture. Hylozoicism is the ancient perception of life arising out of material and this series is a simulation of the idea that material has life. Difficult to describe with merely the use of words, Beesly calls it an “immersive sculpture environment organized as a textile matrix supporting responsive actions, dynamic material echanges and living technologies-“.7 It is an artificial living system which allows for human interaction to trigger “breathing, caressing, swallowing motions”.8 A distributed array of motion sensors triggers primitive response devices composed of thousands of digitally fabricated parts which are combined to form different various modules which are part of a larger system akin to an artificial organism. Most of the components are manufactured out of self supporting materials such as acrylic and silicone and specialized snap fit acrylic joints are predominantly used to join the mechanisms required by the Hylozoic mechwork. Materials, sizes and thicknesses are adjusted to the specific needs of each component’s function. One is immersed in an intricate lattice of small transpacrent acrylic meshworks covered in an array of mechanical fronds, filters and whiskers which react in particular ways via the use of sensors and computer chips.The latest instalation in the series, Radiant Soil also incorporates a variety of liquid cells integrated throughout in glass flasks. These solutions contribute to create a metabolic system in constant flux which filters the air.9 The project seeks to emphasize on the creation of an atmosphere rather than a spatial arrangement.
The examples shown above relate to very different takes on organicism in responsive architecture. Fuller envisioned his project as a translation of a biologic process; The US Pavillion took a more conceptual approach to organicism. The use of biomimicry in this work is employed in a practical (and useful) application rather than a formal one. While the US pavilion may not look very organic, an argument can be made for the fact that the different cells which house the shading panels are integral parts that come together to make a whole. Hylozoic Ground on the other hand takes a sort of formally aesthetic approach. As mentioned previously Hylozoic Ground seeks to create an atmosphere through the use of nature-like forms. The feathers, filters and fronds act like plant in a forest or individual pieces of a living organism. This takes us back to the parts-and-whole discussion of organicism, which seems to be a the central theme or idea which most organicist projects share. One might wonder if aesthetic organicist property may limit function. For example, Domotics; or home automation through the use of sensors, can also be considered responsive architecture. Simple applications include turning lights on and off as people leave and enter a room while more advanced features include functions such as automatic climate control. I believe that domotics lies at the other end of the spectrum and that Incorporating mechanical systems such as these is merely taking a practical approach on the subject of responsive architecture and completely abandoning any paradigms of organicism. The other extreme which would consist of a formally verbatim copy of natural form seems to dissolve the inclusion of practical application.
The Hyposurface by Mark Goulthorpe and dECOi Architects, does a respectable job of combining the aforementioned concepts. The Hyposurface is a display system composed of small units in which the screen surface physically moves. As described on the official website, “The surface behaves like a precisely controlled liquid: waves, patterns, logos, even text emerge and fade continually within its dynamic surface.”10 The piece itself consists of a multifaceted faceted metal surface that has potential to physically deform as a result of electronic stimulus from either sensors or a pre-programed transformation. The “bed” consists of 896 pneumatic pistons; each one corresponding to a small group of facets. The Hyposurface generates dynamic terrains are generated as a real-time calculations.While the Hyposurface is a unique take on responsive architecture, in its current state, it is limited to being pre-programmed and does not really employ responsive functions associated with organicism.
Another similar example is the Cosmic Quilt by The Principals. The installation consists of a 8ft x 16ft x 12ft tall interactive quilt-like structure, capable of responding to the presence of a visitor. The prototype installation combines technology, sensors, micro controllers and motors, with traditional craft in the form of quilt making.11 In the event that these two projects were to unite conceptually, one could imagine a surface that reacts and transmits media which pertains to each individual the surface specifically reacts to. Such a product would revolutionize responsive architecture and even communications.
While responsive architecture is not necessarily organicist, I do believe that it draws from organicist principles. It is my impression that there are many grey areas whenever the fields overlap and that it is not necessary to have an ultimatum for choosing function or aesthetic. This being said, a cohesive union of both is a truly difficult task.
References
1: “Organicism,”accessed September 25, 2013, http://christianhubert.com/writings/organicism.html
2: Tristan d’Estree Sterk, “Using Actuated Tensegrity Structures to Produce a Responsive Architecture.” Acessed September 26, 2013, http://fishtnk.com/responsivearchitecture/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sterkACADIA_03.pdf
3-6: Jonathan Massey, “Buckminster Fuller’s Reflexive Modernism,” Design and Culture 4:3 (November 2012): 325-344.
7-8: Beesley, Philip, Hayley Isaacs, and Pernilla Ohrstedt. Hylozoic Ground: Liminal Responsive Architecture. Riverside Architectural Press, 2010.
9: Beesly, Phillip, “To mimic a living metabolism: Radiant Soil”, accessed September 26,2013, http://thisisalive.com/the-hylozoic-ground-project/
10: “Hyposurface”, accessed September 25, 2013, http://hyposurface.org/
11: Lidija Grozdanic, “Cosmic Quilt- Reactive Architectural Environmnt/ The Principals.” Accessed September 26,2013, http://www.evolo.us/architecture/cosmic-quilt-reactive-architectural-environment-the-principals/
