Nature and artifice is a long time discussion that will never end. In this article I will try
to share my research to show that architecture as an artifice is at its best when it designed to
work jointly with the nature not despite of it.

There is one simple explanation to seperate nature and artifice. Nature is everything
that happens and exsists without the intervention of humanbeings and artifice is created by
man or woman. As we all know nature exsist before humanity with its certain rules and orders.
Nature adopted, evolved and survived in all this years. On the other hand humankind have
been trying to discover and copy the nature to thrive as long as its exsistence.
Since humanity started to success understanding and copying the nature as much as
they could discover, some started to idealise the artifice against nature and made bigger interventions
in micro and macro scales that damaged the balance of the nature. Nowadays for
people who lives in big cities nature is a faraway dream or a lost paradise. Almost everything
we see around us now is an artifice. I can not claim that it is a good or a bad thing. In this age
the way the world evolved society needs the artifice but there is one thing that we forget the
source of all artifice is nature. It is not only about copying the nature and its rules but also that
in the origin of every artifice there is nature as a material.
Architecture has always been and will be artifice. However now we are able to build
any kind of design by choosing the right material wood, concrete or steel that we transformed
from the nature, lots of examples of architecture we see around us is not in a dialog with
nature. In a way the super ego of human see nature as an unlimited source open to its use. Yet
recently there is a new trend in architecture called green building and sustainable design which
was a positive thought for me in the origin but couldnt go further than making roof gardens
or putting some solar panels in most of the examples. As they explain in the article published
by NYUPM ‘’At times they place vertical gardens on the outer walls of their buildings; other
times they cover the rooftops with plants, calling it a “roof garden,” as if there weren’t enough
earth in the world to plant gardens; yet others cover the building entirely in plants. They cover
rooftops, walls, whatever it may be, even themselves, as if camouflaging in preparation for a
non-existent war. All of it is “contra natura”: difficult, expensive, and grossly difficult to maintain.
It is, however, demagogically popular.’’ [Alberto Campo Baeza,2015] The big construction
companies are in a competition to follow this trend with their must have roof gardens and so
called eco friendly technologies.


Ofcourse it is not necessarily a bad thing to have a roof garden unless you decided to
place a roof garden than can not be used because of the wind. Apart from that I see gated communities in general as an artifice that intentionally cuts its connection with nature and its context with its high retaining walls andpromising ‘‘the lost paradise’’ with its artificial gardens. So obviously the problem is not using or pretending to have nature in our project it is to have a real dialog a connection which in mypoint of view starting from contextual design.


I believe the best way to collaborate with nature is to make a design promotes harmony
between human habitation and the nature and that is well integrated with its context.
The list of rules proposed by architect and planner David Pearson towards the design of organic
architecture that known as Gaia Charter is a good guide in designing process that says;
‘’Let the design: be inspired by nature and be sustainable, healthy, conserving, and diverse, unfold
like an organism, from the seed within, exist in the “continuous present” and “begin again
and again”, follow the flows and be flexible and adaptable, satisfy social, physical, and spiritual
needs, “grow out of the site” and be unique, celebrate the spirit of youth, play and surprise express
the rhythm of music and the power of dance.” [Pearson, 2001, p.72]
In this perspective The Farnsworth House by Mies van der Rohe is an inspiring project
with its strong connection with nature. The transparency in the project enables you to observe
the context through its windows. The continous coloums looks like they are inspired by the
trees around it. Also traditional turkish house can be recognised with its intense dialog with
nature based on its materiality and contextual aproaches.
To conclude, as much as humanity evolved and thrived from the primitive hut to advanced
architectural technologies and megastructures artifice lost its connection with nature.
As Alberto Campo Baeza said ‘’Architecture and nature get along better than well, they converse,
but they never merge and are never mistaken for each other.’’

Traditional Turkish House

Farnsworth House by Mies Van Der Rohe