Architecture is created for viewing. It's an inhabitable form of art. Architects design structures for the aesthetic appeal as well as its functional use. So, what happens when a building must be built, but cannot be seen? When architecture becomes invisible, is it really architecture anymore?
I'mlostinParis is a very intriguing projects that straddles the line between architecture and landscape. The private residence was designed by the radical architect R&Sie(n), who took a very literal approach to green architecture. So literal in fact, that it confuses the public. However, François Roche, principal architect of R&Sie(n), asks, "Do we want nature to be domesticated and purely sympathetic and predictable, or do we want nature which brings some aspect of fear or danger or psycho-repulsion?"
In this cutting, I want to explore the entities of architecture and nature. Though I'mlostinParis is camouflaged to the public, it is no doubt still considered architecture. So what qualifies it? When landscape is manipulated to act in a certain way, we have architecture. The architecture may seem invisible to us, because it is not architecture in its ordinary state. However, landscaping is its own form of design. So it seems that in reality, there is no line dividing architecture from landscape.
Here I want to show how plants can be manipulated to serve as wall, floor, and ceiling. This is landscape architecture in a very pure sense. However, we all know that landscape architecture includes gardens, lawns, and any environment where the fauna is manipulated in an aesthetic way. Therefore, landscape is architecture. So where do we draw the line? Is a mowed lawn considered architecture? I think the line is drawn between nature that is planned and tamed and nature that occurs naturally. Therefore, architecture is indeed designed. It is not a natural thing, though nature is manipulated to become architecture.