Bad/unnatural/ suffocating architecture - inorganic buildings to borrow from Frank Lloyd Wright whose work I’m a big fan of - is one of my pet peeves. And particularly in schools where we teach our kids. So many such buildings, at least here, are designed like prisons (which even the prisons shouldn’t be) and I always wonder is it cost - does good design really cost that much more - or is it just a failure of the imagination? “Falling waters” is of course iconic its embrace of organic architecture but even a small change in how we live would yield unexpected benefits - bodily and spiritual.
However, I fear the questions are larger and I don’t want to prescribe without a better/ broader understanding. I feel lucky to be in a part of the world where clemency of weather means we live in/outdoors almost all the time. But when I see those who suffer in harsher natural (not all that’s natural is automatically good or beneficial) conditions I wonder how we can redesign our/their life patterns to enable more organic living?
In matters of architecture, I always think of Howard Roark as my frame of reference: aesthetic and practical. I was chatting with an Italian archeologist this past weekend at a wedding (in Auvergne) and she said that a building that reaches 50 years must be considered each time as to whether it deserves a certain status. Would that most buildings were built to last as long as some of the 12th century ruins we're presently visiting in the highlands of Scotland.
It's a simplistic mechanistic linear mindset that drives all of our decisions. This idea that the world is something we will get to control once we get all the data, which of course places us outside of "it" as well, which is even worse. I wonder if Eastern countries have that too. It's definetely a Western civilization thing.
Anyway, this mindset makes us measure instead of observe. And what you don't measure for, you loose. From vitamins in fruit to hapiness in children.
You raise some good points, Jo. This idea of us as "outside nature" has some interesting consequences. It's tempting but hard to separate out eastern/western in an authentic way but what I have found is there is much truth in ancient wisdoms, a lot of it locked in with religious practice, which I myself threw out for a long time... but that's a whole other topic. Thanks for your thoughts.
I found this by one of my favorite writers/ her newsletter The Marginalian (you may already know it) very enlightening and interesting both from a historical angle (history of the notion of empathy itself starting in art) and its implications in modern psychology and for human connection... PS> I refer to an authentic empathy despite the oversaturation of the culture with that word...https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/12/14/you-must-change-rilke-rodin-empathy/
I had a conversation recently with a friend, Hervé Franceschi, who has spent his life in communication (if not communion) with trees and animals. It sounds rather similar in terms of intention, tone and benefit! In short, it means be present in order to hear nature. The idea of empathy for a tree may be a bit far, but empathy with animals, absolutely! I had Adam Snow and Shelley Onderdonk, a couple of horse riders, breeders & polo players (Shelley's a vet), on my podcast (for pub Aug 20) and they talked about empathy with their horses, for sure. So much to think about!
To your point, more prosaically, we're staying in a budget hotel in St Andrews Scotland, and the room (on the 2nd floor) doesn't allow you to open the window. So, (a) we need AC ($$) to cool the room; and (b) we can't feel nor smell the beautiful outdoor air. Go figure!
Non-operable windows... the bane of my profession:))
Empathy to non-animal beings to me is simply the empathy you might feel towards Gaia, the balance of life, Nature's equilibrium. You can't really empathize with fungi, nor anthropomorphize them, but you can definately feel on the same wavelenght with the patterns of nature, seasons, rythms...
Modern houses isolate us from nature, but few of us are architects. What can we actually do to change how we fit into nature? (We're not *isolated* from nature. We are *part* of it. When we damage it, we damage ourselves. When we ignore it, we ignore our home.)
We created the market for isolating, oversized, new homes. Developers build McMansions because they hate nature. They do it because people buy them and they care more about money than nature. So do the people that buy those houses.
But housing is an odd place to start IMO, because choice is inaccessible to so many people. Cars are a better place to start. We've created and are sustaining a society where we can't live without them and they're destroying nature faster than architecture.
We created the market for isolating, oversized vehicles, too. What's the point of getting out of that house if it's to roll around in a mobile living room that does more damage to nature than the house?
You've hit the spot. Houses should not be the realm of developers, a product for consumption created for profit only. We used to build our homes and that reinforced our feeling of belonging to them, to the place, to the land.
Walk, ride a bike. Of course. And also, get involved, change something that's bigger that yourself, get together, lobby if you have the stomach for it. We've been sold this idea that we as consumers are at fault (did you know that the term carbon footwas invented by BritishPetroleum?). The systems we've built for ourselves are at fault.
Yes, I'm aware that the petro industry pushed hard on the idea of carbon footprint to push responsibility to consumers. (Although I think it existed before BP starting running those ads.)
That doesn't mean it's completely wrong. Consumers decide what sells. Cars get bigger every year because people buy them. Disposable fashion exists because people want it, even after they read an article explaining how damaging it is. Apple sells a different color phone every year because people will throw away a phone to get a new color and use it to read an article about mining for precious minerals in Africa on Apple News.
If I ran a fossil fuel industry I'd love to read articles absolving consumers of responsibility. Brilliant two phase strategy, no?
Bad/unnatural/ suffocating architecture - inorganic buildings to borrow from Frank Lloyd Wright whose work I’m a big fan of - is one of my pet peeves. And particularly in schools where we teach our kids. So many such buildings, at least here, are designed like prisons (which even the prisons shouldn’t be) and I always wonder is it cost - does good design really cost that much more - or is it just a failure of the imagination? “Falling waters” is of course iconic its embrace of organic architecture but even a small change in how we live would yield unexpected benefits - bodily and spiritual.
However, I fear the questions are larger and I don’t want to prescribe without a better/ broader understanding. I feel lucky to be in a part of the world where clemency of weather means we live in/outdoors almost all the time. But when I see those who suffer in harsher natural (not all that’s natural is automatically good or beneficial) conditions I wonder how we can redesign our/their life patterns to enable more organic living?
Good design doesn't cost more, and bad design has externalitites that people fail to think about... and this speak not only about buildings!
In matters of architecture, I always think of Howard Roark as my frame of reference: aesthetic and practical. I was chatting with an Italian archeologist this past weekend at a wedding (in Auvergne) and she said that a building that reaches 50 years must be considered each time as to whether it deserves a certain status. Would that most buildings were built to last as long as some of the 12th century ruins we're presently visiting in the highlands of Scotland.
So do you think it’s simply a failure of the imagination? What is going on there?
It's a simplistic mechanistic linear mindset that drives all of our decisions. This idea that the world is something we will get to control once we get all the data, which of course places us outside of "it" as well, which is even worse. I wonder if Eastern countries have that too. It's definetely a Western civilization thing.
Anyway, this mindset makes us measure instead of observe. And what you don't measure for, you loose. From vitamins in fruit to hapiness in children.
You raise some good points, Jo. This idea of us as "outside nature" has some interesting consequences. It's tempting but hard to separate out eastern/western in an authentic way but what I have found is there is much truth in ancient wisdoms, a lot of it locked in with religious practice, which I myself threw out for a long time... but that's a whole other topic. Thanks for your thoughts.
I found this by one of my favorite writers/ her newsletter The Marginalian (you may already know it) very enlightening and interesting both from a historical angle (history of the notion of empathy itself starting in art) and its implications in modern psychology and for human connection... PS> I refer to an authentic empathy despite the oversaturation of the culture with that word...https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/12/14/you-must-change-rilke-rodin-empathy/
I had a conversation recently with a friend, Hervé Franceschi, who has spent his life in communication (if not communion) with trees and animals. It sounds rather similar in terms of intention, tone and benefit! In short, it means be present in order to hear nature. The idea of empathy for a tree may be a bit far, but empathy with animals, absolutely! I had Adam Snow and Shelley Onderdonk, a couple of horse riders, breeders & polo players (Shelley's a vet), on my podcast (for pub Aug 20) and they talked about empathy with their horses, for sure. So much to think about!
To your point, more prosaically, we're staying in a budget hotel in St Andrews Scotland, and the room (on the 2nd floor) doesn't allow you to open the window. So, (a) we need AC ($$) to cool the room; and (b) we can't feel nor smell the beautiful outdoor air. Go figure!
Non-operable windows... the bane of my profession:))
Empathy to non-animal beings to me is simply the empathy you might feel towards Gaia, the balance of life, Nature's equilibrium. You can't really empathize with fungi, nor anthropomorphize them, but you can definately feel on the same wavelenght with the patterns of nature, seasons, rythms...
Amen to that.... keeping our spirits open.
Modern houses isolate us from nature, but few of us are architects. What can we actually do to change how we fit into nature? (We're not *isolated* from nature. We are *part* of it. When we damage it, we damage ourselves. When we ignore it, we ignore our home.)
We created the market for isolating, oversized, new homes. Developers build McMansions because they hate nature. They do it because people buy them and they care more about money than nature. So do the people that buy those houses.
But housing is an odd place to start IMO, because choice is inaccessible to so many people. Cars are a better place to start. We've created and are sustaining a society where we can't live without them and they're destroying nature faster than architecture.
We created the market for isolating, oversized vehicles, too. What's the point of getting out of that house if it's to roll around in a mobile living room that does more damage to nature than the house?
Walk. Ride a bike. Use transit.
" choice is inaccessible to so many people "
You've hit the spot. Houses should not be the realm of developers, a product for consumption created for profit only. We used to build our homes and that reinforced our feeling of belonging to them, to the place, to the land.
Walk, ride a bike. Of course. And also, get involved, change something that's bigger that yourself, get together, lobby if you have the stomach for it. We've been sold this idea that we as consumers are at fault (did you know that the term carbon footwas invented by BritishPetroleum?). The systems we've built for ourselves are at fault.
Yes, I'm aware that the petro industry pushed hard on the idea of carbon footprint to push responsibility to consumers. (Although I think it existed before BP starting running those ads.)
That doesn't mean it's completely wrong. Consumers decide what sells. Cars get bigger every year because people buy them. Disposable fashion exists because people want it, even after they read an article explaining how damaging it is. Apple sells a different color phone every year because people will throw away a phone to get a new color and use it to read an article about mining for precious minerals in Africa on Apple News.
If I ran a fossil fuel industry I'd love to read articles absolving consumers of responsibility. Brilliant two phase strategy, no?