Naturally Art�cial

Arti�cially Natural

Arti�cialMade by humans; produced rather than natural.Made in imitation of something natural; simulated.

Not produced or changed arti�cially; not conditionedProduced by nature

Natural

�e Question of the Arti�cialCulture & �eory VFernando Jiménez Salmerón

As we know a�er the question of the natural, archi-tecture is inevitably arti�cial. So the question of the arti�-tial has to be answered.

What makes an object arti�cial is a modi�cation made by the intervention of a human being. �is still raises some doubts, it is arti�cial just when the modi�cation is made consciously? For example, a human footprint in the forest is arti�cial? Literally is a mark of an animal on the forest. But according to the set criteria, if it is made by human, it is arti�tial.

Nature has more “arti�cial” creations than the ones we sometimes made. For instance, if we see an image of a dam we instantly think of a human creating it, it is some-thing arti�cial, there is no way that happens naturally. But yes there is, beavers creates dams, bees creates hives, moles creates tunnels, birds creates nests.

Nature is full of natural architecture, when nature repre-sents a unique type of animal or process is then naturally arti�cial, because it is not natural in the whole sense of the word. Even if it is classi�ed as natural it disturbs the natural composition, it is noticeable for the human eye, but as long as it is made by animals it will still be natural, so let’s call it naturally arti�cial.

What should be then naturally natural? Nature that do not represent nothing but nature, the beaver itself is naturally natural, a tree is naturally natural.

On the other hand we have humans imitating nature, a clear example of this could be the Kogskyrkogarden Wood-land Crematorium by Gunnar Asplund or Central Park in New York, a perfect representation of nature, arti�tially natural. Atthis point I would ask, if I ask to select the more natural image from the two below, which would you choose?

5

�e interventions of Mr. Asplund or Mr. Law Olm-sted & Vaux have the quality of nature, why?. As Walter Benjamin suggest in “�e Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”: Even the most perfect repro-duction is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.

A reproduction is always lacking something, what he calls “aura”, the essence. �at is why this example is so natural, because it is not a reproduction, it is an arti�cially designed landscape, every point is thought to be con-sumed, it is made for a clear purpose and that is why it has its own presence in time and space.

I really do believe that things have what Mr. Benja-min call the aura, and it has to do with what Mr. Sullivan called essence, he got a step further and said that we do not just have to keep it but enhance it with all the means avail-able.

Landscape architecture has its essence on being natural, that is why it has to be arti�cially natural but we certainly mistake nature as an essence and nature as a decoration, but as Mr. Benjamin said “Works of art are received and valued on di�erent planes. Two polar types stand out; with one, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work.”

With our prodigious capability to create arti�cially natural architecture we have many modes of arti�ciality accord-ing to the aims of the buildings but not following the essence, it is then when the hybrids arise. But, the uniqueness of the building which is described as “aura”, the ultimate essence of a building is the intervention of the human, a representation of our society, of our way of living and this is being arti�cial, arti�cially arti�cial. What Rem Koolhas called “junkspace”, in his words “ the sum total of our current architecture” and according to him, “Junkspace seems an aberration but it is essence”.

A great example of this could be the Pompidou Centre in Paris by Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano, seems to be an aberration but it is essence and ultimately it is not junkspace.Junkspace “has it essence on continuity, it deploys an infrastruc-ture of seamlessness” but his building does not. Its essence its being arti�tial, the purpose is showing it and the means is creating a discontinuous seam of infrastructure wrapping the building, turning it inside out and showing what “modern” buildings are made out of.

A building is thought to be a living object that work for us, providing heat, water, gas, eliminating wastes. �is maximiza-tion of arti�ciality, the essence of the building, gives it certain entity, and thus certain natural appearance, it stops to be a as a container of people but that “living object”.