biometric architecture

i

BIOMIMETIC ARCHITECTURE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ROLE OF NATURE

INSPIRED DESIGN

By: Igor Barteczko

A dissertation in partial fulfilment of the regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of

Architecture

Nottingham Trent University

2010

Biomimicry: From the Greek bios, life, and mimesis, imitation

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and encouragement.

iv

SYNOPSIS OF STUDY

This study looks specifically into biomimetic architecture and attempts to bring to light the

history of this movement; its influence, present day understanding, aims and significance

within the built environment. The dissertation focuses on the question, whether the built

environment can be optimised in order to be symbiotic with the natural world, and whether

building can become organisms. This dissertation is dedicated to understanding the problems

in the relationship between humanity and the natural world today in the scope of

technological advancement. Its end ambition is to bridge the gap people have with the natural

world today and to improve the flow of information between the natural sciences and built

environment professions, in order to help tackle this human limitation and help produce

architecture that are in harmony with natures laws that govern the life on Earth. The work

reports by examination of works by selected contributors in the field of biomimicry, both

from humanist and naturalist perspectives and provides supporting examples from the natural

world. This report attempts to provide an overview of the role imitation of life plays in

architectural design.

v

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE: 1. ANATOMY OF A BIRD’S WING BY LEONARDO DA V INCI 5. 2. THE FLYING MACHINE SKETCH BY LEONARDO DA V INCI 6. 3. ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHS USING NATURE AS MEANS OF COMMUNICATION 13. 4. SECTION OF THE HYPOSTYLE HALL AT KARNAK DEPICTS TWO TYPES OF COLUMNS:

CAMPANIFORM AND LOTUS-BUD 14. 5. EGYPTIAN COLUMN DRAWINGS BY SIR BANISTER-FLETCHER IMITATE NATURE 15. 6. GOLDEN RATIO AND THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZA 16. 7. LARGE HADRON COLLIDER IN GENEVA 17. 8. LAW OF PHYLLOTAXY IN NATURE DISCOVERED BY LEONARDO DA V INCI 18. 9. ARCHIMEDEAN SCREW – TECHNOLOGY USED TO MOVE WATER VERTICALLY 19. 10. LEONARDO DA V INCI DRAWING OF HUMAN FOOT WITH ANIMAL ADAPTATION 20. 11. ENERGY TRANSFER DIAGRAM DEPICTING AT THE HUMAN TOP

OF THE FOOD CHAIN 31. 12. MOAI MONOLITHS CAUSE ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE AND CIVILIZATION DOWNFALL 32.

13. TERMITES BUILDING ARCH 33. 14. ANTS WEAVE SHELTER 34. 15. TERMITE NEST SECTION 35. 16. OVID TERMITE NEST SECTION 36. 17. ANTHROPOMORPHIC COLUMN INSPIRED BY THE HUMAN BODY 37. 18. FREI OTTO’S DESIGN OF A TOWER INSPIRED BY THE HUMAN SPINE 46. 19. LEONARDO DA V INCI STUDIES OF THE HUMAN SPINE ANATOMY 47. 20. THE MACHINE AESTHETIC - MACHINE INSPIRED ARCHITECTURE:

UNITÉ D’HABITATION IN MARSEILLE BY LE CORBUSIER (1952) 48. 21. THE ORGANIC AESTHETIC – NATURE INSPIRED ARCHITECTURE

SWISS RE HEADQUARTERS 30 ST MARY AXE IN LONDON BY LORD NORMAN FOSTER (2004) 49.

22. MOTIVATION AND METAPHOR: FISH V ILA OLIMPICA IN BARCELONA BY FRANK GHERY (1992) 50.

23. A LIVING CITY OF THE FUTURE INSPIRED BY NATURE NEXUS MOBILE FLOATING SEA CITY (CONCEPT) BY EUGENE TSUI (1986) 51.

24. TECHNOLOGY AND NATURE MERGE INTO ONE SEAFRONT REDEVELOPMENT MORECAMBE (COMPETITION SCHEME), BY BIRDS PORTCHMOUTH, RUSSUM ARCHITECTS (1991) 52.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

SYNOPSIS OF STUDY iv

LIST OF FIGURES v-vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

INTRODUCTION 3.

CHAPTER 1 THE HISTORY OF BIOMIMICRY 7.

- ROLE OF NATURE IN ARCHITECTURE,

SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY 7.

CHAPTER 2 BIOMIMICRY: NATURALISM VS. HUMANISM 21.

CHAPTER 3 PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN NATURE 38.

- BIOPHILIA HYPOTHESIS 38.

- GAIA HYPOTHESIS 40.

- KOYAANISKATSI 41.

CHAPTER 4 TECHNOLOGY: THE ORGANISM - MACHINE DILEMMA 42.

CONCLUSION 53.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 55.

ABSTRACT 59.

3

BIOMIMETIC ARCHITECTURE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ROLE OF NATURE

INSPIRED DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

The idea of architecture imitating nature reaches as far back in time as the first recorded

human cultures began to build this civilization. For the ancients the natural environment was a great

source of inspiration. It assisted ancient man and helped him tackle a variety of life’s challenges.

This in turn produces technology, which man improved over time to better suit his needs. It is hard

to precisely pinpoint which contemporary technologies have their routs in nature, because

technology has transformed to the extent that the gap between, what previously were nature

inspired tools and the technology that evolved from these tools, is too great to judge. As an

example, the aeroplane can be traced back in time to its ancestor, the ‘ flying machine’ by Leonardo

Da Vinci, who attempted to mimic the flight of birds (Figures 1 and 2). Between the contemporary

aeroplane and the first flying machines of the renaissance is evolution. This evolution of the

technology is firstly influenced by an example found in nature (such as the bird). Secondly, a clever

adaptation enabled by human ingenuity – a creative process relying on mans understanding of the

natural world and an the optimisation process. But on the other hand, there are other technologies

like the Central Processing Unit (CPU) that helps run modern jet engines. These may be too

advanced to have a lineage that can be traced back to nature. This means that some technology,

whether it is architecture or aeroplanes, is difficult to trace back to its origins because the gaps in

understanding and/or lack of historically recorded data is insufficient. Over the many years, man

has used nature as a source of inspiration in sculpture, painting, writing, architecture and other

creative arts, as well as many sciences, hence creating a culture established on of the natural world.

But the role of nature inspired technology becomes invisible when two technologies are crossbred

and producing a technology alien to nature. To give a crude example of the artist, who wanders

through a field and discovers a puddle of water and in it he finds a piece of wood floating on the

water. The artist then wanders on through a forest and notice a heavily leafed branch moved by the

force of the wind and as he wanders some more, he discovers more natural phenomena. But it is

when the artist is confronted with a problem such as a river that he feels the need to cross, he would

use his previous knowledge and experience and practically adapt it to become a solution. The artist

would now have a technology that enables him to cross the river for example a raft made of wood

that floats on water and a mast with a sail that is moved by the force of the wind just like the tree

leaf. The knowledge gained by the ancients from observing the natural world, gave humanity

understanding of the forces of the world which helped produce tools, and in consequence transform

human nature all together. Contemporary civilisation is sophisticated compared with the ancient

times but primitive when compared with possible future civilization. Its problems and needs are

4

overall on a much larger scale than in the ancient times and it is this fact that gives cause for

advanced technology. But on the contrary human ingenuity alone did not put itself in this place but

nature perhaps did and the theory of evolution plays an important part in understanding the role

nature plays in technology. If technology is an extension of biological evolutionary plan it is

plausible to suggest that what is still artificial today could once crossbreed with the biological and

produce a half biological half mechanical technology that better suits human needs and the

evolutionary plan. Biomimicry may play a vital part in merging artificial with biological. Life like

technology evolves through optimisation and it is inevitable that as our understanding of the natural

world increases, our ability to optimise technology will improve just as biology has optimised and

improved over billions of years, creating man, who continues to optimise and improve in a similar

way nature would. This understanding is key to responding to some of these complex new

challenges like climate change, energy and resource depletion. The building industry plays a key

role and architecture is also beginning to use biomimicry for solving common problems. Janine

Benyus defines biomimicry as “ the conscious emulation of life’s genius” outlining the three ways

in which people can draw knowledge and inspiration from nature.

‘Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems. Nature as measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the “rightness” of our innovations. After 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts. Nature as mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but what we can learn from it.’2

2 Janine M. Benyus, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1997 vi

5

FIGURE 1. ANATOMY OF A BIRD’S WING BY LEONARDO DA VINCI

Source: PEDERTTI, CARLO, Leonardo: The Machines, Florence: Giunti, 1999 (p.46)

6

FIGURE 2. THE FLYING MACHINE SKETCH BY LEONARDO DA VINCI


7

CHAPTER 1

THE HISTORY OF BIOMIMICRY: ROLE OF NATURE IN ARCHITECTURE, SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

Imhotep, an Egyptian polymath and the first recorded architect from around 2400

B.C.E. ‘was the first to translate vernacular materials into stone-faced ashlar and the pyramid

shape and to abstract bundled reeds into columns’ . 3 The ancient Egyptian culture is abundant

in artefacts that were nature inspired. Most remaining artefacts were carved in stone which

allowed them to survive throughout time until rediscovered by modern archaeologists. ‘One

often finds motifs, on columns, for example, deriving from natural materials that have been

carried over from original material into stone architectural forms’ .4 Columns were the most

common imitators of nature, often taking inspiration from palms, lotus and papyrus plants.

The hieroglyphs (Egyptian alphabet) also imitated natural shapes of nature, like a birds

feather or whole animals silhouette, which conveyed symbolic meanings. The Egyptians

associated animals and plants with their functions and character and therefore often imitated

them to transmit information across time. (Figure 3) ‘Almost always their shapes echoed

vegetable forms. Shafts, swelling at the base to resemble a bunch of lotus stalks, stood upon

circular stone bases, their bud-shaped capitals creating a silhouette very common at the time.

Another was produced by a simple tapered shaft, crowned by the inverted-bell form of an

open papyrus flower. In the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak [Figure 4], the huge central columns

took this latter form, while the capitals of the lower order on either side imitated the shape of

a flower’5 (Figure 5). Revisiting the ancient culture with modern way of thinking is difficult

because the cultural gap is too great and contemporary ideas differ from the ancients, but

nevertheless many similarities are still present such as the fact than both ancient and modern

man are the same species guided by instinct and reasoning. Biomimicry may provide

important answers concerning human evolution, such as, why the ancients had perhaps a

closer relationship with the natural world compared to modern man, or, what role nature has

played in architecture in the evolution / devolution of human throughout time. (Devolution

happens when artificially created comfort environments impact negatively the acclimatization

process of the human.) This bridge between the ancient and modern worlds could prove

important because such relationship would inform modern man of the vital role nature plays

in his evolution but also could inform man of how far he has moved away and isolated

himself from nature, and how he may begin to rebuild this lost connection with nature once

again.

3 AT Mann, Sacred Architecture, London: Vega, 2002 (p.103) original source: Patrick Nuttgens, The Story of Architecture, London: Phaidon, 1997 (p. 32) 4 Christopher Höcker, Architecture: A Concise History, London: Lawrence King Publishing, 2000 (p.11) 5 World Architecture, ed. by Trewin Copplestone, London: Hamlyn, 1963 (p. 33)

8

The ancient Egyptians are known to have had a knowledgeable culture which

understood the laws of the universe and humanity in great depths. This understanding is

demonstrated by their ability to construct stone monuments that are aligned with geometric

precision with bodies in space and the geology of the planet as well as their ability to rule

using sophisticated communication tools such as symbols and religion. The Great Pyramid of

Giza is a good example of their advanced mathematical understanding because it employs the

Golden Ratio. 6(Figure 6)

Egyptologist R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz (1887-1961) ‘believes that the ancient

Egyptians did not develop these concepts themselves, but received them as legacy from prior

Atlantean civilizations.’7 The same was true with regard to the Central and South American

civilizations who shared identical cosmologies, such as ‘ the sun, moon and Sirius, as all the

other early civilizations’ Their architecture did not differ greatly. The Egyptian, Mayan,

Polynesian, Incan and many other ancient civilizations built monuments of devotion to a

higher order and all these cultures had a strong relationship with life and the natural world.

This meant that the inspiration had its source far beyond the idea of imitating plants and

animals alone. The imitation was not limited to a single example but conveyed universal

principles of nature that were shared across all life. ‘The creation of sacred buildings echoes

the creation of the universe, and both seek to follow similar mathematical laws. Therefore the

Golden Section (phi) is found to govern the growth of plants and animals, and is also the

primary proportion found in sacred buildings and monuments across antiquity. In their use of

numbers as a symbolic language, the ancient Egyptians predate and influenced works of

Pythagoras and Plato.’8 Without question the ancients left behind a great knowledge which

modern science is still trying to make sense of today.

Approximately two millennia after Imhotep, Pythagoras (ca. 570–495 B.C.E.)

Socrates (ca. 469–399 B.C.E) and Plato (ca. 428–347B.C.E.) continued a similarly close

relationship with the natural world. They studying the natural world with the attempt to

understand it both from mathematical and philosophical points of view, but also with the

attempt to further a knowledge gained from studying their ancient predecessors. They studied

nature and discovered in it a great source of wisdom for many of their works. Aristotle (ca.

384–322 B.C.E.) who was Plato’s student and was known to be a multidisciplinary, with

6 GHYKA, MATILA, The Geometry of Art and Life, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1977 (p. 24) 7 AT MANN, Sacred Architecture, London: Vega, 2002 (p.105) 8 Ibid (p.106)

9

areas of specialization ranging from botany, zoology, chemistry, astronomy, physics,

meteorology to philosophy, which produced a universal understanding of the nature of things,

which modern theory of truth and science is based upon. This multidisciplinary approach

gave Plato and Aristotle the ability to identify universal principles that govern life and that all

things have an essence (spirit) that gives them a purpose; this essence is yet to be understood

by modern science. Aristotle called the approach to understanding life the philosophy of

causality.9

Like the ancients, these early mathematicians and philosophers understood that there

were higher principles that gave order within the natural world, including the workings of

human beings and all bodies in space. This sparked a breakthrough and science was

established. It was Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who continued – like their predecessors, the

Egyptians – to lay the foundations of natural philosophy and science that modern civilization

is based upon. This breakthrough also inspired many innovations in technology and thought

throughout the ages up to present day. Their natural approach lead to further advancement of

civilization and put the human being on a journey of a somewhat natural growth. Throughout

the ages there would be someone like Imhotep, Pythagoras, Plato or Aristotle who would

leave a sign for the rest of humanity to follow and this sign has much to do with

understanding this one force that governs all life. Or, as the modern scientists would call it at

the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, the ‘God Particle’ (Figure 7). These scientists

uncovered answers to relevant questions through their curiosity with the unknown and an

unlimited passion for wisdom, but many times when a breakthrough occurred, it was when

they were at work, solving everyday problems. This multidisciplinary approach to solving

life’s challenges enables us to produce solutions that can in turn be adapted to solve many

other problems. Taking Earth as an example, it does not solve a single problem from spinning

around its axis but hundreds of billions of problems using one principle. The idea is that the

tool with which all those problems are solved is one, meaning that it is a universal tool, which

can be applied to solve a variety of problems. And the very knowledge of these underlying

principles is what enables multidisciplinary people, like Pythagoras, to provide solutions for

the whole of humanity. What is important, is what this suggests about the role nature plays in

the advancement of architecture and humanity. And this implies that architecture could

become a universal tool that helps sustainable growth of all life on Earth if the universal

principles that govern life and the products of life are understood to the degree that they can

be adapted to suit humans and employed in architecture.

9 Andrea Falcon, ‘Aristotle on Causality’ , Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/ [accessed 21 February 2010]

10

Around 1900 years later, during the renaissance, Leonardo Da Vinci (1452 –1519),

perhaps the most creative imitator of nature, also known as an Italian polymath with an

unclassifiable obsession for knowledge, helped make new discoveries in science that had an

undeniable impact on the advancement of humanity. He worked simultaneously in the roles of

a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor,

anatomist, geologist, botanist, writer and many more. Many of his freethinking opinions were

written in code, which protected him during his lifetime, as he was aware that his

controversial science would be considered, blasphemous, by the oppressive church of that

time, which was his frequent place of work. Leonardo was a naturalist and believed that

nature was made of processes and all solutions could be found within these processes. On the

other hand, the renaissance humanism, which attached importance to human dignity, concerns

and capabilities and particularly to human rationality, forced Leonardo Da Vinci to do his

anatomical studies in secret.10 These two philosophies fought with each other throughout the

ages and are still fighting today, as the article ‘Biomimicry vs. Humanism’ by Joe Kaplinsky

suggests in the Chapter 2. Cautious of this Leonardo was forced to work in code but it did not

prevent him from doing what he felt a strong passion for. He consulted nature frequently

understanding that “although human ingenuity makes various inventions, responding with

different instruments to a single objective, never will it find an invention more beautiful, nor

more direct than those of nature, because in her inventions nothing is lacking and nothing is

superfluous.”11 In the book Leonardo: The Machines (1999), many references are made to his

ability to observe the governing natural principles in things and to learn from these

observations, applying this new gained knowledge to his many mechanical inventions. In one

of his observational drawings, he wishes to understand the process of bird flight and he

contemplates that the correct method is to understand this better in water. He understands that

within air the principles will be invisible to the senses but in water he will see: “ In order to

give the true science of the movement of the birds in the air it is necessary first to give the

science of the winds, and this we shall prove by means of the movements of the water. This

science is in itself capable of being received by the senses: it will serve as a ladder to arrive at

the perception of flying things in the air and in the wind.”12 In another example, he observes

the nature of things by comparison: “That bird will rise up to a height which by means of a

circular movement in the shape of a screw makes its reflex movement against the coming of

the wind…”13 Or when done in reverse, during decent: ‘They flock together and spiral

10 PEDERTTI, CARLO, The Codex Hammer of Leonardo Da Vinci, Florence: Giunti, 1987 11 PEDERTTI, CARLO, Leonardo: The Machines, Florence: Giunti, 1999 (p.52) 12 Ibid (p.10) 13 Ibid (p.46)

11

upward with many turns, and then they flock together again, and rise wheeling through the

air.”14

Leonardo observes a spiral flight and recognizes new aerodynamic principles through

nature, which he then applies to his many inventions. He cross-references these aerodynamic

principles with ‘whirlpools in water, in flow of blood and in wavy hair, as well as in

arrangement of the branches of plants, by that discovering the law of phyllotaxy which in

modern botany bears his name.’ 15 Today this principle is referred to as the Fibonacci pattern,

which is frequently found in the way branches order on a tree twig during its growth. [Figure

8] A similar discovery was made by the mathematician Archimedes (ca. 287 – 212 B.C.E.)

known as the Archimedean Spiral (arithmetic spiral). From this knowledge Archimedes

designed the Archimedean Screw which, if put into a cylindrical tube and rotated will carry

water from a lower level to a higher level automatically (Figure 9). To give another example

this technology is used in agriculture for putting wheat grains into a silo.

Leonardo Da Vinci like Archimedes, understood by cross-referencing the principles

that govern all things remain constant but the diversity with which living things respond are

abundant. This diversity exists because all living organisms have lived and adapted in

different environments, which caused them to respond in different ways and man-made

technology is only a human method of immediate adaptation. If Leonardo Da Vinci

understood that the need which he has, for example the need to fly, can be cross-referenced

with the birds need to fly, he can then observe the mechanism and process of flight by the

birds adaptation and apply this new knowledge to his human machines (extensions). He

discovered that, if he understands the needs of the human better, he can then consult with

nature, find similar needs and observe how examples from nature have adapted and solved a

problem to satisfy that need. He would not only understand the process leading to solution

and use it within his inventions but also understand the constraints and laws that govern the

natural world. The creativity of Leonardo Da Vinci was not that he guessed and got it right

each time but that, he was able to understand the natural processes and by tweaking and

adapting these natural mechanisms, and he would translate them into mechanisms that could

solve human problems and help humanity reach goals and create further opportunities.

Frequently in his drawings he would adapt ideas found in nature to human needs, which

demonstrated his ingenuity (Figure 10)

14 Ibid (p.46) 15 Ibid (p.46)

12

Most of Leonardo Da Vinci’s inventions were relatively sustainable in nature, they

were later adapted and evolved into energy consuming giants. (in the same Leonardo Da

Vinci borrowed ideas from nature, later humans borrowed ideas from Leonardo’s machines.

This isolated technology from nature as it this borrowing of the already borrowed made it

unsustainable. This is further argued in Chapter 3). Today these giants machines have

conquered the lands, seas, sky, and even space but it is unfortunate that they all consume vast

amounts of natural resources for its production, lifetime usage and demolition. At the price of

natural resources these machines enable humans to explore space but they are still unable to

replant, re-grow and rehabilitate the many ecosystems that inspired their creation and sustain

their existence. These lifeless creatures that man continues giving birth to are alien to the

planet because they are still far from sustainable integration with the ecosystem. Technology

is the tool with which man is slowly taking away the foundations that helped sustain life on

the planet for billions of years and from a moral standpoint this selfish human action puts man

and all life on Earth in danger.

13

FIGURE 3. ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHS USING NATURE AS MEANS OF COMMUNICATION

Source: LearningToGive.org, ‘Mysteries of Egypt (3-5): handouts’ , Hieroglyphics, http://learningtogive.org/lessons/unit180/lesson1.html#handouts [accessed 21 February 2010]

14

FIGURE 4. SECTION OF THE HYPOSTYLE HALL AT KARNAK DEPICTS TWO TYPES OF COLUMNS:

CAMPANIFORM AND LOTUS-BUD

Source: The Project Gutenberg EBook, MASPERO, G., OXON D.C.L., MANUAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: Guide to the Study of Antiquities in Egypt, 1895. (p. 64)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14400/14400-h/14400-h.htm [accessed 21 February 2010]

15

FIGURE 5. EGYPTIAN COLUMN DRAWINGS BY SIR BANISTER-FLETCHER IMITATE NATURE

Source: Chuck LaChiusa, ‘Papyrus’ , Buffalo as an Architectural Museum, http://www.buffaloah.com/a/archsty/egypt/jpgs/fletch.jpg [accessed 21 February 2010]

16

FIGURE 6. GOLDEN RATIO AND THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZA

Source: HEMENWAY, PRIYA, The Secret Code: The mysterious formula that rules art, nature, and science, Köln: EVERGREEN GmgH, 2008 (p.68)

17

FIGURE 7. LARGE HADRON COLLIDER IN GENEVA – SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT LOOKING FOR THE

‘GOD PARTICLE’ AND ATTEPTING TO DISCOVER HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS MADE

Sensor data imaging of Large Hadron Collider smashing two atoms at close to the speed of light. The experiment is aimed at discovering the underlying principles that govern the universe.

Source: CERN Document Server, ‘CERN PhotoLab / Experiments and Tracks’ , CERN, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1228914#01 [accesses 21 February]

18

FIGURE 8. LAW OF PHYLLOTAXY IN NATURE DISCOVERED BY LEONARDO DA VINCI

Source: StasoSphere, ‘Phyllotaxy, Or Leaf-Arrangement’ , Free Books / Flora and Plants / Class-Book Of Botany, http://chestofbooks.com/flora-plants/Botany-Flora-USA-Canada/Phyllotaxy-Or-Leaf-Arrangement.html

[accessed 21 February]

19

FIGURE 9. ARCHIMEDEAN SCREW – TECHNOLOGY USED TO MOVE WATER VERTICALLY

‘A woodcut from an edition of Virtruvius’s De Architectura published by Fra Giocondo (c.1445-c.1525) in Venice

in 1511.’

Source: Chris Rorres, ‘Archimedean Screw’ , ARCHIMEDES, http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Screw/ScrewVitruvius.jpg [accessed 21 February]

20

FIGURE 10. LEONARDO DA VINCI DRAWING OF HUMAN FOOT WITH PARTIAL CAT CLAW

ADAPTATION

Source: PEDERTTI, CARLO, The Codex Hammer of Leonardo Da Vinci, Florence: Giunti, 1987 (12 recto)

21

CHAPTER 2

BIOMIMICRY: NATURALISM VS. HUMANISM

Naturalism:

a movement, esp. in art and literature, advocating detailed realistic and factual description 2

the belief that all religious truth is based not on revelation but rather on the study of natural

causes and processes 3 philosophy a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and

natural forces 4 action or thought caused by natural instincts16

Humanism:

the rejection of religion in favour of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own

efforts 2 a cultural movement of the Renaissance, based on classical studies 3 interest in the

welfare of people17

In the article ‘Biomimicry versus Humanism’ Joe Kaplinsky is the opinion that, ‘nature,

rather than mechanical solutions is the key to unlocking architecture. He argues that

biological language and analogies diminish the real achievement of designers. He calls for a

humanist sense of what architecture and engineering mean in the world.’18 From his humanist

perspective he argues that, ‘ today the biological inspiration often seems peculiarly isolated

from human concerns. That today the human has become tainted.’ And that ‘design is for ‘ the

planet’19, not for humanity. But by doing good for the planet means doing good for humanity,

because from the naturalists perspective humanity and the planet are one inter-reliant entity

shared between two bodies: the Earth and all life.

Joe Kaplinsky fears that a strong incline towards biology and the idolisation of nature

threatens to cut human ingenuity and achievement down to size. He says that being

subservient to natures wisdom is dehumanising because biomimetic architecture does not put

designers in full creation. He sees designing architecture with the help of nature as

discouragement of human ingenuity. ‘The idolisation of natural solutions poses a fundamental

challenge not just to a particular style of design, but to the un-natural and social enterprise of

designing and building itself. If the goal of sustainable building is to lower impact, and the

measure of low impact is untouched nature, then doesn’ t the ideal logically move towards not

16 Collins English Dictionary, ed. by Anderson Sandra and others, Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2005 (p. 1082) 17 Ibid. (p.768) 18 Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Biomimicry versus Humanism ‘ , Architectural Design, 76 (2006), 66 – 71 (p.66) 19 Ibid. (p. 66)

22

building at all?’20 The naturalist would disagree with Joe Kaplinsky and would not limit

biomimicry to a particular style in time because it is present throughout all of human

development. Biomimicry is a response to human failure of the human ability to live

sustainably by its own efforts which he avoids to admit to. The human has to rely on the

energy produced by other organisms to survive because he is yet unable to live completely

autonomously. There is also a confusion because the sustainability of buildings is not

measured by untouched nature, but rather, it is measured by working with nature, therefore

building can continue but under the condition that, what is built becomes an integral part of

the existing fabric of the planet and not a separate body that consumes the planets natural

resources in exchange for its existence. Like a parasite. According to the naturalists, most

living things on Earth are coexistent. The survival of one species depends on another and both

create a natural energy cycle. Currently the energy cycle of life shows the human at the

consuming end alone (Figure 11). The theory is that, if there is unsustainable logging of trees

in the Amazon forest, then perhaps architecture may hold the solution to substitute the

invaluable life-giving functions of the trees. Trees use solar energy for its existence, they

breathe in carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the atmosphere as by-product, but this does

not mean that buildings become trees, but that they are designed to function in a similar ways;

the energy (timber) consumed for construction of the environment could be recovered by

energy (i.e. solar) which could in turn be used to plant new trees in the forest; closing into a

sustainable cycle. And the buildings skins could be inspired to function like tree leaves,

taking carbon dioxide and giving oxygen. To achieve this would mean to employ human

ingenuity and develop new technologies and bring the architects, engineers and biologists

closer together in good cause for humanity. This approach is one that is farsighted and wise

because it protects the resource and encourages sustainable evolution of a safe systems but for

the time being it is unrealistic because the building industry itself still needs to evolve.

Joe Kaplinsky is uneasy about bowing down to the genius of nature because it limits

human creative confidence. He uses the Vaclav Havel quote from the opening paragraph of

Janine Benyus’ book, Biomimicry: Nature Inspired Innovation (1997): ‘We must draw our

standards from the natural world. We must honor with the humility of the wise the bounds of

that natural world and the mystery which lies beyond them, admitting that there is something

in the order of being which evidently exceeds all our confidence.’21 The naturalists view is

that, even the human geniuses of the past consulted nature for ideas with great humility. They

understood that there are natural forces beyond human capabilities or comprehension, which

20 Ibid. (p.68) 21 BENYUS, M., JANINE, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1997 (p. 1)

23

implies that, the only way to have humanity reach a state of complete automaticity is through

observing and treating the natural world as a teacher to show the man how it is done. In the

future when humans will probably begin to explore and expand into space; the planets that

will be colonised will require the knowledge gained from understanding the Earth and the

ecosystem in great details, and only this will allow him to recreate his habitat on other worlds.

Careful imitation of such wisdom with good intention would bring positive outcomes and the

abuse of this wisdom would bring negative outcomes for humanity.

Naturalists of multidisciplinary character, are thirsty for wisdom and not for Earths

pleasures, understanding that everything is connected on Earth and changing any foundations

that support the ecosystem i.e. cutting trees in an unnatural manner will cause disruption in

the established ecosystem on Earth and this will have unprecedented consequences. The

naturalists do idolise nature because they consider themselves as part of it; biologically linked

and if separated, problems will inevitably occur. To grasp the natural world in its entirety

requires an understanding that humanity is only recently beginning to have, therefore it is true

that this would not have been possible in during the industrial ages because the technology of

the time did not allow us to see the planet comprehensible perspectives. But there are

examples mentioned earlier to prove that human ingenuity has nothing to do with intelligence

but everything to do with a wise approach, which relies on working with nature from the start.

There is the idea that humanity has by chance wondered this path and only now it has realised

the consequences of walking – which help if understood as a method of trial and error

although it may as well be to late to repair and rehabilitate the ecosystem in time and this will

most likely test human ingenuity and instincts to its maximum.

For Leonardo Da Vinci, firstly it was about understanding the natural processes and

functions, secondly it was about expressing his understanding in artistic, mechanical and

architectural inventions. The advancement of humanity was perhaps merely a by-product of

his curiosity, creativity and problem solving skills. This by-product stemmed from

understanding nature and listening to its wisdom with a child-like mind and by acquiring his

multidisciplinary eye to understanding and creating; he was able to translate nature into

humanity-friendly technology (excluding his destructive war machines). But on the other

hand it is the fast advancement of technology that enabled humanity to become highly

consumptive and unsustainable but it may turn out to be different. Apart from ingenuity, Joe

Kaplinsky does not speak of natural instinct as an essential part in the process of creative

problem solving, because this idea implies that what is intuitive is natural and what is natural

is based on natural laws which provide an established sense of harmony. Surely for an artist,

anatomist, scientist or engineer, like Leonardo Da Vinci the idea of doing things for the

24

welfare of humanity would have been a burden and distract him form his work. For Leonardo

Da Vinci, his unbiased approach to humanity and full dedication to his passion made him a

citizen of the Earth who represents life’s greatest achievement. This enabled the artist to grow

free and naturally meaning that his ingenuity was not crippled by anything in any sense; his

ideas and inventions are still used for creation today, but unfortunately they are also used for

satisfying the need of greed. Today most people are aware of the extent of destruction over

creation within the ecosystem. More trees are cut and less are planted, deserts grow and rivers

dry.

Joe Kaplinsky is uneasy about accepting that the principles of design inspired by

nature are ‘ in direct contradiction to the human-centred outlook associated with the

Enlightenment.’22 He argues that the enlightenment is what ‘gave rise to the achievements of

science, technology and engineering on which the positive side of today’s nature study is

based.’23 The naturalist would agree but would point out that the enlightenment is a

consequence of nature based study to begin with and Aristotle or Leonardo Da Vinci would

perhaps agree that human was not born into this world but out of it. It is since man fist

realised that he has free will, that the cord connecting him with nature snapped and since that

time man walked oblivious about the impact he had on the habitat until he realised again that

the creative process is not about him alone, but the whole planet. The human has the power to

destroy as well as he has the power to create life. But in order to create life one must first

understand how. The human has destroyed life therefore he must now know how to recreate

it. And biomimicry sheds light on this story. It is a growing concept in all fields, including

architecture.

Joe Kaplinsky is confusing when he says that ‘human ingenuity works as a cultural

process quiet different to evolution. We say that a scuba suit or an aeroplane are products of

creativity because they have consciously been worked on, planned and imagined through

application of knowledge about the world. This is a process quiet unlike evolution.’24 The

naturalists would agree but rephrase this statement into: the cultural process is governed by

human evolution, which creates products from human imagination; human imagination

should originally come from the interaction with the living habitat. The problem may be that

over the many years human culture has changed to the degree that it does not recognise its

place within the natural world.

22 Ibid. (p. 68) 23 Ibid. (p. 68) 24 Ibid. (p. 69)

25

The first flying machines designed by Leonardo Da Vinci are direct proof of

biomimicry which does not undermine human ingenuity but works with it to solve a complex

problem, therefore a nature inspired technology or a man-made organic machine (if the

machine is an extension of life, it is an organic machine i.e. a prosthesis could be understood

as an synthetic limb, but a limb is an integral part of the organism, it functions and looks like

the limb but it is limited by the state of the technology). It is in consequence a technology

derived from nature by means of translation, adaptation, creative cross-referencing and

problem solving.

Today, humanity has isolated itself from nature to the extent that the ‘milk comes

from the supermarket’ , is not a comic story but a real hazard to humanity. The same is true of

culture. Culture is understood by the experience of present time, but when asked to perceive

the culture of the ancient Egyptians, it is thought of as primitive compared to modern culture.

On the other hand the ancient Egyptians knew very well that the milk came from the cow or

goat etc. Previous civilisations may be taken for granted by modern man because they are

remembered for their downfall and not for their achievements, approach and struggles that

modern man is free from due to his power over nature and the comforts of a home with

climate control technology. This is because modern man commonly associates the past with

primitivism, because he compares today’s experience with past memories which do not give a

good account of the culture of ancient times. If modern man, who does not know where the

milk comes from is suddenly dropped into ancient culture, he will not be able to find a

supermarket and he will not survive. But if an ancient Egyptian is dropped into modern world,

he will starve to death trying to find a cow in a supermarket. This comparison gives a crude

but fair picture of the difficulty of putting ourselves in the shoes of the ancients and their

culture or life’s challenges. It is plausible to suggest that maybe the culture of today is

primitive, one that has separated itself from nature and became dependant on technology -

which in turn is dependant consuming nature in unsustainable ways - to the extent that if

nature fails, technology fails as well and man fails as a consequence because the technology is

currently the barrier that separates man from interacting directly with nature. It is crucial that

man understands that the ecosystem is the principal technology which requires care and

investment of energy, not the technology that is sustained by nature, because that may as well

be a cultural belief, which may lead to the downfall of this civilization. One cannot keep

putting more petrol into the car as there is a limit on oil, instead one must take care of

obtaining renewable and clean energy elsewhere. Some contemporary archaeologists claim

that The Rapa Nui people from the Easter Island in the Pacific Ocean (c. 700 to 1,100 AD)

have cut down all the palm trees to sustain their cultural beliefs, building Moai monoliths of

worship for their deity Make Make. This caused the ecosystem to collapse bringing famine,

26

starvation and civil war between the two tribes, and an irreversible downfall of their

civilization.25 A cultural belief proved to be deadly, because to keep cultural beliefs alive

resources must be sources and in the Easter Island’s case the primary resource that fuelled the

belief was natural (Figure 12).

Joe Kaplinsky undermines the imagination of nature inspired designer by claiming

that ‘ the designer is in self-denial, trying to disappear from the mess and effort of having to

produce and maintain the built environment by imagining that artifice will turn into a living

system.’ 26 He claims that ‘Richard Rogers loses sight of the distinction between the human

agency of the designer, maker or user of a building, and the fact that architecture is incapable

of self-programming for optimal performance: ‘Buildings, the city and its citizens will be one

inseparable organism sheltered by a perfectly fitting, ever-changing framework. Posts, beams,

panels and other structural elements will be replaced by seamless continuity. These mobile

robots will possess many of the characteristics of living systems, interacting and self-

regulating, constantly adjusting through electronic and bio-technical self-programming. Man,

shelter, food, work, and leisure will be connected and mutually dependant so that an

ecological symbiosis will be achieved.’27 Kaplinsky disproves of this: ‘Life is just not like

that. And architecture can never be alive.’28 And according to naturalists, bioneers and

architects, life and evolution is exactly that. For Example cells from a complete organism

when working together are ‘seamless continuity’ and the DNA programmes each cell to

function in accordance with all. Contemporary stem cell research proves that cells can self

organize when given a particular structure mainframe that they can recognise as a particular

organ. It is a matter of time before building parts become like cells and before the building

breathes, sees, listens, talks, moves, creates and understands like an organism.

On a much larger scale, humans like ants, bees or termites already form complex

interconnected societies, build infrastructure that works for the benefit of all, they self-

regulate, using governing bodies and hierarchies, which constantly readjust, self-programme

and self-repair, quiet like an organism would. (Figures 13 and 14) Are termite mounds not

living architecture, that lives and breathes and acts as a whole like a living organism? It is the

termites who operate the architecture not the termite mound operating the termites but their

scale is insignificant to affect the entire ecosystem like we do. (Figures 15 and 16)

25 26 Ibid. (p. 69) 27 Ibid. (p. 69) original source: Richard Rogers, Architecture: A Modern View, London: Thames & Hudson, 1990, (p. 60) 28 Ibid. (p. 69)

27

Joe Kaplinsky continues to provide confusing claims on the subject contrasting

between manufacture and growth. That ‘by making use of the uniquely human capacity to co-

operate, this concentration allows us to achieve a precision, reproducibility and economy

found nowhere in the natural world.’29 He believes that human ingenuity alone could

potentially free humanity from ‘ the burden of self-repair and reproduction, our architecture

can have a simplicity that is unimaginable in the living world.’30 He continues, ’ the lesson,

once again, is that the measure of a good idea cannot be found in nature alone, but only in

how it is adapted to human ends’ 31. This last statement runs in parallel with what the

naturalists would say but again it lacks proof. In the books by James L. Gould and Carol

Grant Dould, Animal Architects: Building and the Evolution of Intelligence (2007) countless

examples are given of how animals use collective intelligence to build living habitats that are

of no human match. But Joe Kaplinsky does make an important point, which is that, if we

were to act like some of these animals we would perhaps be able to challenge bees, termites,

wasps, spiders and ants in ingenuity and become more resourceful, both in construction

process and in material selection and help better balanced in the ecosystem than any other

organism.

For Joe Kaplinsky ‘ It is at the intersection with ecological design that biomorphic

inspiration becomes most problematic. It is here that ‘ learning from biology’ threatens to

become little more that an excuse from accommodating ourselves to the natural world as it is,

rather than using our creativity to make something new. And amongst the impressive new

structures of biomorphic architecture we can detect much idolisation alongside the more

positive learning from nature.’32 The naturalist would disagree and argue that the idea of

creating something new may be abstract and impossible if it is not based on studying the

natural world as it is now, rather it is what we do with what is readily available is what gives

humans the higher stand in the animal kingdom. Joe Kaplinski talks of ‘ idolisation’ with the

natural habitat conveying in it that it is a primitive human emotion towards our habitat, on the

other hand the naturalist would say: although primitive, it is vital for mans survival to

understand his living habitat as he is fundamentally interconnected with. As it is to be able to

transform it to suit mans needs and the needs of all other life in the global community.

Joe Kaplinsky continues to give an example of how humanity guided itself through

the use of architecture in humanist philosophy: ‘ In the past, biological references in

architecture have tended to be anthropomorphic, as in caryatid columns or the less conscious

29 Ibid. (p. 70) 30 Ibid. (p. 70) 31 Ibid. (p. 70) 32 Ibid. (p. 71)

28

influence of the mind’s tendency to pick out facial structures in the visual field on a building

frontage (Figure 17). Anthropomorphic references have inevitably been closely bound up

with human meaning. Think of the complex symbolism of church architecture. The transept

and nave are symbolically overlain by the crucified figure, the congregation as a body of

Christ, with the priest as its head.’33 In the naturalists view this is what would be referred to as

idolisation with the human alone. There is rudeness in the belief that the human stands above

all and second after God but because he stands on the soil and if this soil is disrespected then

it looses its life-giving properties which the human is so dependant upon. This means that the

soil stands above man. In the church example architecture is used to convey the idea that man

was created in Gods image. Compared with the Egyptians who based their architecture

around universal order. The roman church focused on the human as the driving force for

under two millennia and as a consequence the human began to associate himself with the life-

giver but what happened in consequence was that man fell into his own trap. He became

selfish and ignorant towards the principles of the natural world, causing damage to the planet,

which he is only now beginning to self-reflect upon as he turns to nature with the use of

biomimicry. And ironically, like during the time of the ancient Egyptians the role of nature is

beginning to play the vital role in human culture and now it seems to be that we are entering

the ecological age. Joe Kaplinski has the same opinion that ‘Today, biomorphic architecture

more reflects the impoverishment of human meaning. The structures of today’s buildings

refer to animal and plant forms.’ 34 Just as it did during the ancient times. And he reflects and

envisions a turn in human approach that: ‘Once we recognised that where our cities had

become ‘concrete jungles’ , this was symptomatic of our alienation, the breakdown of

common values and community. Today’s anticipated future skyline recalls jungles too, where

wild nature proliferated without rhythm or reason. These new jungles also express a failure to

provide meaning. [he refers to metaphoric imitation of nature i.e. Zoomorphic architecture,

which I agree does sometimes occur without reason] Yet now it can be celebrated as a turn to

nature, outside of human values. The city transformed into jungle is a powerful symbol of a

collapsed and lost civilisation, where nature has overgrown the human order.’35(here he refers

to biomimetic architecture) Nature in the naturalist point of view, has not just overgrown the

human order but it is taking back what it has lost during mans destructive ruling and nature’s

dark ages. Fortunately it is coming back from within the human spirit. The human is

beginning to empathize and act not only form the need to survive but also from reasoning. Joe

Kaplinsky agrees that the human maybe at the top of the pyramid, but it is his attitude towards

himself and equally all that is beneath him that has to change. It is the human dimension that

33 Ibid. (p. 71) 34 Ibid. (p. 71) 35 Ibid. (p. 71)

29

needs to change to truly allow biomimicry to be used to achieve better architecture; ‘ It is in

this dimension of providing significance and meaning to the way in which we understand our

buildings that biomimicry is most deficient. We can learn much from nature about chemistry,

materials science, and even structural engineering. But we cannot learn how to put together

those elements into something greater, or how to become better architects and engineers.’36

In his closing statement ‘We have much to learn from the study of nature. However,

the lesson of history is that as we have learnt more, our transformative impact on the world

has grown and not diminished. It is through transforming the world that we have most truly

understood how it works. In the process we have created a civilisation that has freed us from

direct dependence on nature. This freedom has allowed us to appreciate nature aesthetically

and scientifically.’37 In the naturalists point of view Joe Kaplinsky did not mention that this

independence from nature has also deluded humanity to believe that there is an

indestructibility. Much like when a child is growing up and is yet unaware of how fragile his

body is and until he experiences a few falls and bruises he will be unaware of the constraints

and laws of the world and in consequence unable to respond with appropriate actions to

overcome these laws and live within constraints. Humanity is now rediscovering these

constraints and laws not only through its own experience but also through the experience of

ancient history and organisms that shared its habitat with humanity but no longer do.

Humanity is forced to reflect upon present time and the time of the ancestors, hence a widow

of opportunity is given to put things right. What humanity needed was this lesson, and this

lesson is what now puts man into a definable relationship with the natural world and life

which was previously based on superstition and cultural beliefs is now based in scientific

observation. Humanity learns from its own impact on the planet first hand and from the

behaviours of other organisms. Facts about life that correlate help compose a honest picture of

a safe direction life should move in in order to stay alive. Now humanity understands what

Vaclav Havel puts in such careful words and why he suggests that when times are tough in

human experience means that there is an important lesson to be learnt: ‘We must draw our

standards from the natural world. We must honor with the humility of the wise the bounds of

that natural world and the mystery which lies beyond them, admitting that there is something

in the order of being which evidently exceeds all our confidence.’38 Again the important

question to ask is, whether the ancient cultures knew of this through theoretical thought or did

so through an instinctive impulse which they were closer to than we in the process of

evolution. Man has isolated himself from the natural habitat and ways of being instinctive

36 Ibid. (p. 71) 37 Ibid. (p.71) 38 BENYUS, M., JANINE, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1997 (p. 1)

30

because mans actions are now governed by reason and this reason took only a few thousands

of years to evolve to today’s standard, its learning process had a negative impact on the

natural world.

It took man many thousands of years to understand his instinct through theoretical

thought. After all it took millions of years to develop instinct within humans (this process of

evolution was factual) but it took only the last few hundred thousand years to develop

theoretical thought (this process of evolution was at first non-factual and based on

assumptions; mythical and religious). This struggle between instinct and theory is within

every human and it is so because one part of the human brain operates based on theory and

the other on natural impulse which have developed over hundreds of thousands of years

according to contemporary science. Architecture throughout all times carries the marks of this

conflict between what is natural and what is theoretical. It can be therefore argued that only

now the theoretical understanding of the human being is beginning to overlay with the

intuitive, natural impulse because one is understood by the other.

31

FIGURE 11. ENERGY TRANSFER DIAGRAM DEPICTING AT THE HUMAN TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN

Resource: The Gaia Atlas of the Planet Management: for today’s caretakers of tomorrow’s world, ed. by MYERS

NORMAN and others, London: Pan Books, 1987 (p. 91)

32

FIGURE 12. MOAI MONOLITHS CAUSE OF ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE AND CIVILIZATION DOWNFALL

Resource: Essential Architecture, ‘Easter Island’ , Easter Island Moas,

http://www.essential-architecture.com/A-AMERICA-S/EASTER/EAS-001.htm [accessed 21 February]

33

FIGURE 13. TERMITES BUILDING ARCH

Source: GOULD R. JAMES AND GOULD GRANT CAROL, Animal Architects: Building and the Evolution of

Intelligence, New York: Basic Books, 2007 (p.143)

34

FIGURE 14. ANTS WEAVE SHELTER

Source: GOULD R. JAMES AND GOULD GRANT CAROL, Animal Architects: Building and the Evolution of Intelligence, New York: Basic Books, 2007 (p.96)

35

FIGURE 15. TERMITE NEST SECTION



36

FIGURE 16. OVID TERMITE NEST SECTION



37

FIGURE 17. ANTHROPOMORPHIC COLUMN INSPIRED BY THE HUMAN BODY

Source: FEUERSTEIN, GÜNTHER, Biomorphic Architecture: Human and Animal Forms in Architecture, Stuttgart – London: Edition Axel Menges, 2002 (p.35)

38

CHAPTER 3

PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN NATURE

In Zoomorphic: new animal architecture (2004), Hugh Aldersey-Williams says ‘at a

deeper level, according to George Jeronimidis of Centre for Biomimetics at the University of

Reading, architects are drawn to the field ‘because we are all part of the same biology’ . The

urge to build in closer sympathy with nature is, he believes, a genuinely biological, and not

merely a Romantic, urge.’39 This implies that from the exact beginning of evolution when life

was at is primitive it was made of the same stuff. But as billions of years passed a diversity of

species evolved with diversity of abilities.

BIOPHILIA HYPOTHESIS

In psychology the term to describing this human-nature relationship is called

Biophilia. In the article ‘New Building Systems Mimic Nature and Return to a Biocentric

Approach to Design’ , Architectural Record, (2002) Nancy B. Solomon makes reference to

Edward O. Wilson, professor of comparative zoology at Harvard University who first applied

this name to describe humans innate attraction to other forms of life in 1984. Nancy B.

Solomon explains that ‘According to Wilson, our affinity for nature is intrinsically linked to

our own human nature because—logically enough—our species developed over the course of

hundreds of thousands of years within nature. “ In short, the brain evolved in a biocentric

world, not a machine-regulated world,” writes Wilson in The Biophilia Hypothesis (Island

Press, 1993). From this premise, it follows that we humans may not be able to achieve our full

potential—physically, intellectually, or spiritually—if we become too isolated from the

natural world.’40 What this suggest is that biomimetic architecture may have the potential to

improve human relations with nature and help humans achieve their full potential –

physically, intellectually and spiritually if the technology that humanity produces becomes

better connected to nature. What this means in terms of architecture is that if humans

construct its world around nature or in its image it will benefit their health, wellbeing and help

them evolve both in mind and in spirit. What this also implies is that the current machine

world we live in today may not be good for humans as thought of before. Most cities in the

world are made of concrete, machines, glass, steel, asphalt, stone and have a proportionally

39 ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS, HUGH, Zoomorphic: new animal architecture, London: Laurence King Publishing, 2003 (p. 169) 40 Nancy B. Solomon, ‘New Building Systems Mimic Nature and Return to a Biocentric Approach to Design’ , Architectural Record, 190 (Sep., 2002), p.173

39

small amount of nature included, such as greenery, wildlife and this includes the quietness

and peace and freedom of the open fields and endless horizons of the countryside. The current

model of the city is alien to what should be an ancient way of living.

Nancy B. Solomon refers to Stephen R. Kellert, professor at the School of Forestry

and Environmental Studies at Yale University, who ‘has explored the implications of

biophilia on the built environment. In Reshaping the Built Environment (Island Press, 1999),

Kellert spells out nine values of biophilia-‘ 41 The broad design objectives for future

development by Stephen R. Kellert are listed bellow:

aesthetic (physical attraction and appeal of nature)

dominionistic (mastery and control of nature)

humanistic (emotional bonding with nature)

naturalistic (exploration and discovery of nature)

moralistic (moral and spiritual relation to nature)

negativistic (fear of and aversion to nature)

scientific (knowledge and understanding of nature)

symbolic (nature as a source of language and imagination)

utilitarian (nature as a source of material and physical reward).

Nancy B. Solomon writes that ‘specific building elements that figure prominently in a

discussion of biophilic architecture include organic forms; views to nature; indoor greenery;

natural lighting, ventilation, and materials; and spatial and visual diversity.’ 42

Nancy B. Solomon then refers to Seattle-based environmental psychologist Judith H.

Heerwagen and says that ‘good examples of biophilia in the built environment are still few

and far between. In fact, she believes modern zoo design takes these issues much more

seriously than design for human habitation: “Zoo designers now consider the animals' natural

environments and what they need—physically, psychologically, and socially—to be healthy.”

Long gone are the small, boxy cages of yesteryear; animals are allowed to roam more freely

and, in some instances, even search for food. In contrast, how many Americans still work in

sterile, windowless cubicles?’43 She points out an important fact about the way in which

architects still think of architecture today. A convincing study is being conducted into the

wellbeing of animals and the impact their environment has on them but would humans require 41 Nancy B. Solomon, ‘New Building Systems Mimic Nature and Return to a Biocentric Approach to Design’ , Architectural Record, 190 (Sep., 2002), p.173 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

40

a similar study to be conducted? Perhaps the human has evolved over the past few hundred

years to the extent that he became used to the living habitat of today that he would feel

alienated if dropped into his ancestral habitat all of a sudden. But the point Nancy B. Solomon

is making is that the human is naturally inclined to live in an environment that is nature

related because of the positive psychological impact. Again biomimicry may be the way

forward for the designers of future cities, places and spaces for people.

GAIA HYPOTHESIS

The second hypothesis linking which helps identify the role nature plays in architecture is of a

global scale. The Gaia Hypothesis does correspond with biomimetic point of view as the way

of observing and understanding the natural world is very similar when looked from a global

perspective. Naturalists include astronauts who travel to space and look down upon the earth

and have the possibility to witness the planet as a whole but back down here, for the majority

of us it seems a limited view and it is hard to imagine what the world is like as one system.

Biomimicry does study systems in nature just as functions of particular species and it is in

those systems that the true magic of the planet is most interesting. Take the ecosystem for

example: an ecosystem could be a single tree. The single tree in its lifetime provides a habitat

for many varieties of insects, plants, birds, mammals and so forth and all it needs is sunlight,

air, water and earth. The tree holds onto nutrient rich soils and provides a microclimate

underneath itself, its fruits can be used as food for many different organisms. But if this tree is

cut down or damaged, many other species die as a consequence of this. The Gaia theory has

been ridiculed many times by sceptics because it suggests that Earth’s biosphere is closely

integrated with the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere

and lithosphere) which in turn form a complex interacting system that maintains Earths

ecological balance much like a singe tree but on a much larger scale. James Lovelock

proposed this theory as the Earth’s feedback system in the 1960s but it is this theory that is

being preached by many biologists, architects and engineers today.44 If architecture is

understood in the same way as the tree it might help rehabilitate the wildlife that has been

destroyed over the many hundreds of years of human industrial development. Not only that

but as suggests by Nancy B. Solomon this could also help provide an environment that

benefits human wellbeing and intellectual development.

44 The Gaia Atlas of the Planet Management: for today’s caretakers of tomorrow’s world, ed. by MYERS NORMAN and others, London: Pan Books, 1987

41

KOYAANISKATSI

Ko-yaa-nis-katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life

disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.45

KOYAANISQATSI – a film by Godfrey Reggio ‘ (created between 1975 and 1982), the

film is an apocalyptic vision of the collision of two different worlds - urban life and

technology versus the environment.’46 This movie depicts a problem inflicted by humanities

careless existence. More recently there had been an explosion of technology, which enabled

humanity to witness the environmental changes caused by the industrial and technological

revolutions. The internet has connected the world beyond comprehension and within the last

decade humanity experienced a new sense of existence, a sense of oneness. This oneness is

causing humanity to self-reflect upon mans impact on natural world and it is beginning to be

understood as our only home therefore if we keep mistreating it the way we do it may one day

lead us to the same scenario as the Rapa Nui people on the Easter Island.

HOME - a film by Yann Arthus-Bertrand, (2009) captures the same problem Godfrey

Reggio explored in his KOYAANISQATSI film twenty years earlier. In the last twenty years

humanity has managed to disrupted the balance of the Earth on an unimaginable scale. HOME

is not like Al Gores The Inconvenient Truth (2001) which talks about the climate change

impacting on the melting ice caps and the rising of sea levels, HOME sends a direct warning

to humanity illustrating in greater detail the impacts that Al Gore mentions only eight years

earlier. ‘ In 200.000 years on earth humanity has upset the balance of the planet, established

by nearly four billion years of evolution. The price to pay is high, but it’ s too late to be a

pessimist: humanity has barely ten years to reverse the trend, become aware of the full extent

of its spoliation of the Earth’s riches and change its patterns of consumption.’47 If ten yeas is

all that is left to reverse the impact humanity has on the Earth resources and biomimetic

architecture will surely play a vital part in reconstructing a new world. Todays scientists will

study the natural habitat and the architects of tomorrow will transfer the knowledge into new

technology that will be part biological and part artificial. Slowly the world will have to

rebuild and a lesson will be learnt. Ironically it will be learnt through Biomimicry.

45 IRE, ‘KOYAANISQATSI’ , http://www.koyaanisqatsi.org/films/koyaanisqatsi.php [accessed 21 February 2010] 46 Ibid. 47Yann Arthus-Bertrand, ‘HOME’ , http://www.home-2009.com/us/index.html [accessed 21 February 2010]

42

CHAPTER 4

TECHNOLOGY: THE ORGANISM - MACHINE DILEMMA

When approaching architecture from the technological point of view, two

observations become noticeable: 1 technology is becoming more detached from nature, 2

technology is becoming like the mechanisms, materials, systems and process that are

frequently exhibited by nature. This is because some technologies were inspired by, or made

possible through other technologies, but on the other hand some technologies are still brought

into humanity through the natural method, because there are new constraints and problems

within humanity which require greater optimisation and resourcefulness and in many

examples, nature is better at doing that than mans mind could possibly imagine on its own.

Natural perspective is key to overcoming functional problems within the natural world

(Figure 18 and 19).

In architecture there is also the issue of metaphoric interpretation of nature. The idea

of organic has been used as an analogy in architectural design to describe a building that

metaphorically resembles an organism or something organic. With the recent arrival of

biomimetics, this idea has developed into something quiet different because more emphasis is

put on imitating the function and not the character. As outlined in the book by Hugh

Aldersey-Williams, Zoomorphic: new animal architecture (2003) Philip Steadman is quoted

from The Evolution of Designs, (1979) sharing a pessimistic view on the Organism-

Mechanism dilemma in architecture. He believes that architecture can never become

functional like living organisms: ‘when all is said and done, the fact that buildings, machines

and implements are inert physical objects and not organisms; and the relevance of biological

ideas to their study can only remain in the end of analogical and metaphorical nature.’48

Mans previous relationship would have been about defying the natural force and the

same was probably true in 1979, but in the 21st century the general idea is to work with the

natural force and within natural constraints. In architecture there is frequent debate over this

problem because what used to be possible only by metaphor is suddenly possible in function

which opens new possibilities for architectural design.

48 ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS, HUGH, Zoomorphic: new animal architecture, London: Laurence King Publishing, 2003 (p. 168)

43

Technology plays a vital part in this notion because it gives architects, engineers and

biologists the ability transfer natures ideas into architectural solutions. Firstly because

technology helps understand the natural world better and secondly, because the end product

that the artists and scientist create becomes a new technology but tweaked to better suit

human usage and psychological needs. Not so long ago this idea was an unrealistic vision but

today this vision is closer to realism than throughout all human history. On the one hand, this

is because nature was once understood as something beyond comprehension, but today the

natural world is scientifically understood and seen on the smallest and on the largest of scales;

its chemical composition, its atoms but also as a whole planet, galaxy, universe etc. The

artificial technology, based on previously theoretical principles has now began to overcome

mans biological limits, and in many cases, it has extended mans biological capabilities;

helping him discover, understand and learn more about the natural world. As a consequence

of this theoretical and technological breakthrough, man can further expand his curiosity and

creativity. But because man intelligence, knowledge and moral standard is still small

compared to his ambitions, he remains constrained by the natural environment and he is

forced to either challenge nature with unsustainable technologies that are unnatural or adapt in

accordance with the laws of nature and confront these constraints with natures own weapons.

At the same time, whichever method man employs and is still nature a source of intelligence,

knowledge and it teaches man some moral values as it tests the technology produced by man,

which forces him to innovate. This perhaps makes the natural environment inherently

disciplining in the way it allows intelligent life to evolve, which implies that humanity is not

only controlled within an controlled environment but also made of it, meaning that is it

controlled from within, programmed to evolve naturally and not in any other way because that

may cause setbacks in the long run)

Hugh Aldersey-Williams argues that what used to be mans pessimism towards

biomimetic architecture is now growing into optimism not just as an attraction to aesthetical

values alone but also as an act of reasoning based on functional values: ‘There is today a

widespread interest in buildings that respond actively to their environment, which indicates a

deeper relevance of biological similitude to their function and behaviour as well as to their

appearance.’49 He continues to suggest that letting the architecture borrow from nature has

become logical and intuitive because of its many qualities: ‘Living organisms, meanwhile, are

both adapted to their environment over a long term by evolution, and capable of responding in

various ways to its changes from moment to moment and day to day.’50 Hugh Aldersey-

49 Ibid. (p.168) 50 Ibid. (p.168)

44

Williams is the opinion that it would ‘seem foolish not to sneak a look at her answers first.’51

If we are the children of Mother Nature we ought to listen to its ways fore she is wiser and

until man evolves to the degree of comprehending nature in its fullest sense and in its utmost

detail, that is when his role from spectator will truly begin to shift towards creator.

Hugh Aldersey-Williams romanticises on the future potential of biomimetics but is

well aware of the challenge due to humanities limited flexibility: ‘We would like the

‘ intelligent’ building of a future generation to open windows like eyelids to dawn and to sense

the heat in the rising sun or respond to the chill of a breeze by raising the hairs on its back for

insulation. Whether it does such things literally or metaphorically is now the issue.’ He later

states that this may be because ‘ the building industry is notoriously conservative, especially

when it comes to new materials. It seems readier, surprisingly to embrace formal

extravagances of its architects than is does the substantial innovations of its engineers and

scientists.’52 At a different level this issue splits into two typological categories. The first

problem lies in defining the line between, which architecture ought be classified as biological

and, which ought be classified as mechanical. As stated in the above quote the latter is

plausible for the industry of today because a long established traditional approach is familiar

and accepted across the built environment professions. (Figures 20 and 21) Today this

distinction is still easy to point out but in the future, as more nature inspired technologies are

produced, the harder it will be to distinguish between the two. The second problem lies in

defining the role nature plays in architectural design; what is abstract (metaphorical) and,

what is concrete (functional) inspiration, and what if biomimetic architecture applies both

ideas to one product? In the book Zoomorphic: new animal architecture (2003) many

examples are given of architecture imitating animals metaphorically. All these examples have

been designed through what is called the Zoomorphic analogy; some being more direct

representations and others abstracted; some even mimic the functions meaning that they can

be classified as biomimetic, but most still mimic the form or use a metaphoric comprehension

of nature. (Figure 22)

It soon becomes clear from studying these examples of ‘Zoomorphic Architecture’

why there is a lot of trouble in defining biomimetic architecture. One group of people will talk

of functional properties, others will talk of the materials, some will talk of the form and

another group will talk of the systems, cycles and processes. All these are biomimetic but

because they are used in conjunction with metaphoric concepts they become either classified

as zoomorphic, organic, biomorphic. Biomimicry is an idea that may confuse when it is

51 Ibid. (p.168) 52 Ibid. (p.168)

45

compared with metaphorical ideas, but most commonly the word biomimetic appears in

engineering as the idea of imitating natural functions not metaphorical association. On the

other hand, biomimetic architecture is a product of both types of inspirations, the metaphoric

and the functional and they overlap frequently, making it impossible to associate a building

entirely with one or the other unless stated by the designer.

Architecture is considered a creative art based on the science of building.

Metaphorical and functional aspects intermingle within architecture similarly to nature where

the beauty of the form intermingles with the function. Hugh Aldersey-Williams quotes

contemporary zoologist-turned-engineer Julian Vincent, who defines biomimetics from a

functional approach as, ‘ the abstraction of good design from nature’ . He explains that: ‘The

qualifier ‘good’ is important, as is the term ‘abstraction’ – biomimetics is not about slavish

imitation of nature at any cost, but the judicious selection of observed properties and their

subsequent development into sophisticated artificial technologies.’53 The key question is

whether these newly transferred technologies or ‘artificial technologies’ ought to be treated as

machine or organism?

Hugh Aldersey-Williams says that ‘The attraction of biomimetics for architects is

that it raises the prospect of closer integration (in this light, biomimetic architecture is seen as

an extension of Modernism). It promises to yield new means by which buildings may respond

to, and interact with, their users – means more subtle and more satisfying than present day

mechanical systems.’54 He questions the validity of present method of solving architectural

problems with the idea that biomimetics can provide solutions of much greater satisfaction,

but can architecture become much like a mobile animal to the human or will it perhaps stay a

static machine forever? (Figures 23 and 24) He confirms of a transition happening in

architecture from Monumentalism to the Biomimetic. Hugh Aldersey-Williams is the opinion

that ‘ it is historically axiomatic that, while environments may alter, buildings tend to stay the

same. Indeed, monumentalism has been a defining characteristic of the art of architecture.’55

he later suggests that ‘ implicit , but so far unstated, in this quest is the matter of death. Species

evolve, individual organisms develop and reproduce, respond and adapt to their environment

– and then they die. Perhaps only when buildings too are able to curl up and die will the

biomimetic project be compete, and architecture’s age of monumentalism be truly over.’56

53 Ibid. (p.168 - 169) 54 Ibid. (p.169) 55 Ibid. (p.168) 56 Ibid. (p.171)

46

FIGURE 18. FREI OTTO’S DESIGN OF A TOWER INSPIRED BY THE HUMAN SPINE

Source: Frei Otto Complete Works Lightweight Construction Natural Design. ed. by NERDINGER WINFRIED in

collaboration with others, Basel: Brikhäuser Verlag AG, 2005 (p.16)

47

FIGURE 19. LEONARDO DA VINCI STUDIES OF THE HUMAN SPINE ANATOMY


48

FIGURE 20.THE MACHINE AESTHETIC - MACHINE INSPIRED ARCHITECTURE: UNITÉ D’HABITATION IN MARSEILLE BY LE CORBUSIER (1952)

Source: Building 2009, ‘Welcome to the machine: Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation’ More Building,

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3123479 [accessed 21 February 2010]

49

FIGURE 21. THE ORGANIC AESTHETIC – NATURE INSPIRED ARCHITECTURE SWISS RE HEADQUARTERS 30 ST MARY AXE IN LONDON BY LORD NORMAN FOSTER (2004)

Source: ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS, HUGH, Zoomorphic: new animal architecture, London: Laurence King Publishing, 2003 (p. 99)

50

FIGURE 22. MOTIVATION AND METAPHOR: FISH VILA OLIMPICA IN BARCELONA BY FRANK GHERY (1992)

Source: ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS, HUGH, Zoomorphic: new animal architecture, London: Laurence King Publishing,

2003 (p. 46)

51

FIGURE 23. A LIVING CITY OF THE FUTURE INSPIRED BY NATURE NEXUS MOBILE FLOATING SEA CITY (CONCEPT) BY EUGENE TSUI (1986)


52

FIGURE 24. TECHNOLOGY AND NATURE MERGE INTO ONE SEAFRONT REDEVELOPMENT MORECAMBE (COMPETITION SCHEME),

BY BIRDS PORTCHMOUTH, RUSSUM ARCHITECTS (1991)


53

CONCLUSION

HOW DOES NATURE WORK?

Nature runs on sunlight.

Nature uses only the energy it needs.

Nature fits form into function.

Nature recycles everything.

Nature rewards cooperation.

Nature banks on diversity.

Nature demands local expertise.

Nature curbs excess from within.

Nature taps into the power of limits.57

On the subject of biomimicry Neil Spiller asks a vital questions: ‘What might happen

if we start to build out of flesh? If we can master stem cells, if we can understand autopsies

and we can build fleshed evolutionary systems, what then?’ 58

The word ‘ if’ is perhaps not what the energy should be focused on, but rather on the

idea of ‘how’? When architecture is understood as a universal tool, which is sensitive to life’s

purpose and responds appropriately to all the requirements and side-effects associated with

human existence, only then will it reach a state that is fully optimised and indistinguishable

from the harmony found within the natural world. To achieve this, humanity will first need to

recognise and understand the laws that govern life, observe the patterns of growth and

become one with them. This is because the natural resources are scarce and they are what

currently sustains life on Earth and if managed appropriately nature may show humanity what

is life’s plan. If man rebuilt the natural world he destroyed, new species might flourish, which

could give new ideas and solutions for those who transform this world.

If the current architecture were understood as an organism and not a machine it would

most likely be classified as a parasite, but with technologies such as solar energy, hydro

energy, green roofs and facades, new natural techniques of fabrication, buildings and cities

could soon become organisms that are coexistent with other life forms creating a closely

57 BENYUS, M., JANINE, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1997 (p. 7) 58 Neil Spiller, ‘Good-Natured Stuff ‘ , Architectural Design, 77 (2007), 144-145 (p. 145)

54

dependant ecosystem. Nature could one day become dependant on the architecture and

architecture could fuel the rehabilitation process of the entire ecosystem in order to secure the

survival of humanity. The architecture that remained from the ancients speaks of a cultures

highly dedicated to passing on (in stone) the source of their greatness and wisdom. Today,

like in the past, the survival of humanity depends on the relationship humanity has with the

natural world. Architecture today is fuelled by a culture that has become detached from the

natural world but at the same time it is now reaching back towards it through biomimicry.

BIOMIMICRY

1. Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature’s models and them imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems, e.g., a solar cell inspired by a leaf. 2. Nature as measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the “ rightness” of our innovations. After 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts. 3. Nature as mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces and era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but what we can learn from it.59

59 BENYUS, M., JANINE, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1997

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS: Collins English Dictionary, ed. by ANDERSON SANDRA and others, Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005 ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS, HUGH, Zoomorphic: new animal architecture, London: Laurence King Publishing, 2003 Nature’s Operating Instructions: The True Biotechnologies, (The Bioneers Series) ed. by AUSUBEL KENNY AND HARPIGNIES J.P., San Francisco: The Sierra Club Books, 2004 BAR-COHEN, YOSEPH, Biomimetics – Biologically Inspired Technologies. Boca Raton [Florida, USA]: CRC Press, 2006 BENYUS, M., JANINE, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1997 BINGHAM NEIL and others, Fantasy Architecture 1500 – 2036, London: Hayward Gallery Publishing, 2004 BRAUNGART MICHAEL AND MCDONOUGH WILLIAM, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, London: Vintage Books, 2009 CURL, S., JAMES, A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 HÖCKER, CHRISTOPHER, Architecture: A Concise History, London: Lawrence King Publishing, 2000 FEUERSTEIN, GÜNTHER, Biomorphic Architecture: Human and Animal Forms in Architecture, Stuttgart – London: Edition Axel Menges, 2002 INGRAHAM, CATHERINE, Architecture, Animal, Human: The Asymmetrical Condition, London: Routledge, 2006 The Organic Approach to Architecture, ed. by GANS DEBORAH and KUZ ZEHRA, Chichester (UK): Wiley-Academy, 2003 GHYKA, MATILA, The Geometry of Art and Life, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1977 GOULD R. JAMES AND GOULD GRANT CAROL, Animal Architects: Building and the Evolution of Intelligence, New York: Basic Books, 2007 HANSELL, MIKE, Built by Animals: The natural history of animal architecture, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 Environmental Tectonics: Forming Climatic Change, ed. by HARDY STEVE, London: Architectural Association (AA Agendas No. 6), 2008

56

HEMENWAY, PRIYA, The Secret Code: The mysterious formula that rules art, nature, and science, Köln: EVERGREEN GmgH, 2008 MORPHO-ECOLOGIES, ed. by HENSEL MICHAEL and MENGES ACHIM, London: Architectural Association, 2006 JODIDIO, PHILIP, Architecture: Nature, London: Prestel, 2006 JODIDIO, PHILIP, Green Architecture Now!, London: TASCHEN, 2009 KUHN, S., THOMAS, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1962 AT MANN, Sacred Architecture, London: Vega, 2002 The Gaia Atlas of the Planet Management: for today’s caretakers of tomorrow’s world, ed. by MYERS NORMAN and others, London: Pan Books, 1987 Frei Otto Complete Works Lightweight Construction Natural Design. ed. by NERDINGER

WINFRIED in collaboration with others, Basel: Brikhäuser Verlag AG, 2005 NUTTGENS, PATRICK, The Story of Architecture, London: Phaidon, 1997 PEARMAN HUGH and WHALLEY ANDREW, the architecture of eden, London: Eden Project Books, 2003 PEARSON, DAVID, In Search of Natural Architecture, London: Gaia Books Ltd. 1994 PEDERTTI, CARLO, Leonardo: The Machines, Florence: Giunti, 1999 PEDERTTI, CARLO, The Codex Hammer of Leonardo Da Vinci, Florence: Giunti, 1987 RATTENBURY, JOHN, A Living Architecture: Frank Lloyd Wright and Taliesin Architecture, Maldon (Essex, UK): Pomegranate Communications Inc., 2000 SHICK, THEODORE, Readings in The Philosophy of Science: from Positivism to Postmodernism, London: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000 STEELE, JAMES, Ecological Architecture: A Critical History, London: Thames & Hudson, 2005 TSUI, EUGENE, Evolutionary Architecture: Nature as a Basis for Design, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999 VASARI, GIORGIO, Lives of the Artists, vol, 1, London: Viking Penguin Inc. 1987 WEINSTOCK, MICHAEL, The Architecture of Emergence: The Evolution of Form in Nature and Civilization, London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2010

57

JOURNALS:

‘Borrowing from nature’ , Economist, 384 (9/8/2007), 30-32

Blaine Brownell, ‘Tooling with Mother Nature’ , Discover, 30 (Mar., 2009), p.10 J. F. V. Vincent, ‘Biology of Fibrous Composites. Development Beyond the Cell Membrane’ , Science, 265 (Jul., 1994), pp. 126-127 Neil Spiller, ‘Good-Natured Stuff ‘ , Architectural Design, 77 (2007), 144-145 Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Biomimicry versus Humanism ‘ , Architectural Design, 76 (2006), 66 – 71 Nancy B. Solomon, ‘New Building Systems Mimic Nature and Return to a Biocentric Approach to Design’ , Architectural Record, 190 (Sep., 2002), p.173 Norman Weinstein, ‘Alvar Aalto Through the Eyes of Shigeru Ban’ , Architectural Record, 196 (Feb. 2008) Mark Mumford, ‘Form follows nature: The origins of American Organic Architecture’ , Journal of Architectural Education, 42 No. 3 (1989) 26-37 William Weber, ‘ Innovative by Nature’ , Architecture Minnesota, 33 (2007) 46-48,58 (p.#) Susan D. Bronson, ‘The Philosophy of Sustainable Design by Jason F. McLennan’ , APT Bulletin, 36 (Jan., 2005), p. 56 WORLD WIDE WEB:

Ross Lovegrove, ‘Ross Lovegrove shares organic designs’ , TED - ideas worth spreading, http://www.ted.com/talks/ross_lovegrove_shares_organic_designs.html [accessed 21 February 2010] Janine Benyus, ‘Janine Benyus shares nature’s designs’ , TED - ideas worth spreading, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/janine_benyus_shares_nature_s_designs.html [accessed 21 February 2010] Janine Benyus, ‘Janine Benyus: Biomimicry in action’ , TED - ideas worth spreading, http://www.ted.com/talks/janine_benyus_biomimicry_in_action.html [accessed 21 February 2010] Robert Full, ‘Robert Full: Learning from the gecko's tail, TED - ideas worth spreading, http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_full_learning_from_the_gecko_s_tail.html [accessed 21 February 2010] Jane Poynter, ‘Jane Poynter: Life in Biosphere 2, TED - ideas worth spreading, http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_poynter_life_in_biosphere_2.html [accessed 21 February 2010]

58

Magnus Larsson, ‘Magnus Larsson: Turning dunes into architecture, TED - ideas worth spreading, http://www.ted.com/talks/magnus_larsson_turning_dunes_into_architecture.html [accessed 21 February 2010] Rachel Armstrong, ‘Rachel Armstrong: Architecture that repairs itself?, TED - ideas worth spreading, http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_architecture_that_repairs_itself.html [accessed 21 February 2010] Andrea Falcon, ‘Aristotle on Causality’ , Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/ [accessed 21 February 2010] LearningToGive.org, ‘Mysteries of Egypt (3-5): handouts’ , Hieroglyphics, http://learningtogive.org/lessons/unit180/lesson1.html#handouts [accessed 21 February 2010] The Project Gutenberg EBook, MASPERO, G., OXON D.C.L., MANUAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: Guide to the Study of Antiquities in Egypt, 1895. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14400/14400-h/14400-h.htm [accessed 21 February 2010] Chuck LaChiusa, ‘Papyrus’ , Buffalo as an Architectural Museum, http://www.buffaloah.com/a/archsty/egypt/jpgs/fletch.jpg [accessed 21 February 2010] CERN Document Server, ‘CERN PhotoLab / Experiments and Tracks’ , CERN, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1228914#01 [accesses 21 February] StasoSphere, ‘Phyllotaxy, Or Leaf-Arrangement’ , Free Books / Flora and Plants / Class-Book Of Botany, http://chestofbooks.com/flora-plants/Botany-Flora-USA-Canada/Phyllotaxy-Or-Leaf-Arrangement.html [accessed 21 February] Essential Architecture, ‘Easter Island’ , Easter Island Moas, http://www.essential-architecture.com/A-AMERICA-S/EASTER/EAS-001.htm [accessed 21 February] IRE, ‘KOYAANISQATSI’ , http://www.koyaanisqatsi.org/films/koyaanisqatsi.php [accessed 21 February 2010] Yann Arthus-Bertrand, ‘HOME’ , http://www.home-2009.com/us/index.html [accessed 21 February 2010] Building 2009, ‘Welcome to the machine: Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation’ More Building, http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3123479 [accessed 21 February 2010]

59

ABSTRACT

‘When we stare this deeply into nature’s eyes, it takes our breath away, and in a good way it

bursts our bubble. We realize that all our inventions have already appeared in nature in a more

elegant form and at a lot less cost to the planet. Our most clever architectural struts and beams

are already featured in lily pads and bamboo stems.’ 60 - Janine Benyus

Aristotle (ca. 384–322 B.C.E.) considered the source of all innovation is intimately

connected with mans ability to understand the natural world. He is the first who introduced

the notion that nature is composed of things that change and that studying such changes can

provide humanity with useful knowledge of underlying constants.61 Marcus Vitruvius Pollio

(c. 80–15 B.C.E.) wrote that man made structure must display the qualities of ‘ firmitas’ ,

‘utilitas’ and ‘venusta’ – that architecture must be; durable, useful, attractive and suggested

that in essence architecture is an imitation of nature. Giorgio Vasari (1511–1574 A.D.)

emphasised that without the knowledge of drawing and rules of natural perspective no one

can call himself a true artist.62

If architectural design, is a product of the architect, who has the ability to create

according to principals that govern the natural world it can be argued; that in order to design

sustainable architecture the architect should first seek answers in the natural world, consult

with naturalists like biologists, botanists and zoologists. According to the promise of

biomimicry, only when the designers and naturalists look for solutions to humanities

problems will there be harmony between the built environment and the natural world,

meaning that is will be morally responsible design.

Most biological forms of life have already optimised their abilities to exist in

harmony with the natural world but at present date there is little agreement and symbiotic

coexistence between the human built environment and the rest of the natural world. Most

preset-day architecture mimics nature but only in the form of metaphorical analogies and

morphological concepts but these is still little Biomimetic Architecture because the functions

and processes are still to be shared between the biologist and architect and they are still to be

converted to human survival needs.

60 Janine M. Benyus, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1997 (p. 6) 61 Andrea Falcon, ‘Aristotle on Causality’ , Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/ [accessed 21 February 2010] 62 Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists, vol, 1, London: Viking Penguin Inc. 1987

60

This dissertation investigates the Biomimetic Architecture movement and responds to

the need for improved communication between the biological and architectural professions.

This dissertation will also argue naturalist and humanist points of view on the topic of

imitating nature, and it will investigate the technological aspects, giving key examples of

biomimicry in architectural industry today.

biometric architecture

Documents