The above two pictures are my sketches. One uses natural elements to describe the city, and the other uses natural elements to describe the interior.

In the second image, I mapped natural elements to some indoor objects. For example, doors symbolize boundaries because they are controlled by humans, which makes them more like boundaries rather than walls. For example, a walkway symbolizes a pipeline because it means circulation and connection, and both can be extended. Finally, there is the window, which is very similar to water because it can bring vitality to the interior. Rooms without windows are often very oppressive. The above is the first set of metaphors, mainly focusing on the connection and disconnection of space, as well as the resulting effects, such as vitality.

The second set of metaphors will focus on people and their surroundings. I want to compare people to fire, they always bring vitality to various things, but at the same time, they unknowingly destroy them. Next is the sofa, which I want to compare to a shelter. Finally, there is an independent room, much like an island. Private rooms are often a concrete manifestation of the homeowner’s spiritual space. At the same time, the walls turned into an ocean.

The last group is related to the activity. I compare open spaces to parks because they generate activity by stimulating people’s creativity. Then, compare trash cans to lichens because they not only clean the environment, but also can recycle. Finally, there are some disharmonious design elements that are difficult to eliminate, just like pollution.

In summary, the basic elements of architecture include space (Group 1), time (Group 2), and story (Group 3).

This week, we also had a debate on the theme that “Designers have not yet come to terms with their complicity in the creation of the conditions of environmental crisis or with their environmental responsibility, nor have they yet reformed their practices accordingly.”

We discussed factors such as the responsibilities of designers, the influence of big brands, the wave of consumerism, and the influence of capitalism in this debate.

Firstly, the opposing party believes that designers who lack awareness of protecting nature during the design process cannot be called designers, but they are indeed designing, so this sophistry is not valid. But we also noticed that environmental awareness is a mandatory course for every designer.

Some brands lock users by creating a culture, such as Apple, but sometimes this can also lead to waste. This situation is more obvious and serious in the fashion industry. The trend is changing every year, and products that have been eliminated generate huge waste.

This phenomenon is also influenced by consumerism. Sometimes it is necessary to acknowledge that consumption is an important channel for generating personal value in a capitalist society. The consumption power of individuals is an important measure of their social value. But consumption power may also be waste power.

Starting from the superstructure, some brands and capitalists have set their sights on profitability. We can sacrifice for this, but many consumers do not accept it. This also prompts many brands to develop their own political stance and brand values. This has to some extent alleviated waste.

Designers are a service-oriented industry, so sometimes we have to cater to customer needs. However, I believe that a successful designer should be a manager who should point out the right path for social development.

Reference:

1. Cities and natural processes: the foundation towards sustainability; Michael Haff

2.Architectural concept: Red is not just a color; Bernard Tschumi

* Pictures 1-7 are taken by me, Pictures 8-10 are from search engine