Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jaesteduc.45.2.0017?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#
references_tab_contents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetic
Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Biophilic Design Aesthetics in
Art and Design Education
YANNICK JOYE
Yannick Joye (PhD, University of Ghent, Belgium, 2007) currently works as a full-
time postdoctoral researcher at the Research Centre for Marketing and Consumer
Science, University of Leuven. For the moment he is mainly involved in research on
(evolutionary) environmental aesthetics and in empirical environmental psychology
research. Dr. Joye has published in—among others—Environment and Planning B, Re-
view of General Psychology, and Environmental Values.
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In the following two sections I will describe some of the central aesthetic
attributes and characteristics of biophilic design and try to demonstrate
why it is important for biophilic design to become “contextually embed-
ded.” Before I embark on this, I want to note that for my discussion of the
central biophilic design characteristics, I will focus mainly on a set of spe-
cific empirical findings from the field of environmental psychology. It is not
within the scope of this paper to rehearse all possible design strategies, and
I refer the reader to recent publications on the matter to get more detailed
insight into this issue.8
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and over again, that green settings are aesthetically preferred over nongreen
environments and that the former also have a restorative influence on
human individuals (we will return on this latter point later in the paper).
Quite a few theorists contend that these affective responses are evolved
adaptations and consider them as a good illustration and expression of bi-
ophilic responding.9 But if this is indeed a correct interpretation, in what
way can greenery be integrated into the built environment in order to lead
to an actual instance of biophilic design? Two main strategies can be dis-
cerned in the relevant literature.
A first strategy is to offer the possibility for people to experience actual
nature10—and in this case greenery—in architecture. Such actual experi-
ences can be realized by, say, integrating plant life in buildings (for example,
potted plants or trees); by providing views on the exterior (natural) environ-
ment; by growing greenery on the building’s exterior surface (for example,
vines, “green roofs”); and so on. In fact, this strand seems quite uncontro-
versial because it is an almost immediate extrapolation of (experimental)
environmental psychology findings to the built environment and because it
does not say much about the built form per se.
A second strategy is to provide a vicarious experience of vegetative
structure in architecture by imitating these natural elements (or certain as-
pects of them) in architectural design. Such imitated architectural nature can
be realized according to different levels of abstraction.
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
3. The Value of Art and Design Education for Biophilic Design Aesthetics
With the conceptual core of biophilic design now established, why should
this particular design aesthetic become introduced in artistic and aesthetic
educational curricula? While there is a longstanding tradition of nature as
an aesthetic model for art, architecture, and design, biophilic design is new
in that it explicitly attempts to start off from an (empirical) evidence base to
bring nature into architectural design. However, despite some recent pub-
lications dedicated to the topic, the design paradigm is still in full develop-
ment.16 Therefore, a major challenge facing biophilic design is to further in-
filtrate art and design education, allowing (future) architects and designers
to become acquainted with the theory and, eventually, to lift it to a higher
level—both practically and theoretically.
It is likely, however, that the introduction of biophilic design will face
resistance. For example, biophilic design’s appeal to universally shared
preferences seems to contradict some architects’ desire to be creatively
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
unique (in the following section I will argue that this could well be an
apparent contradiction). A further issue is that the theoretical framework
underlying biophilic design borrows from different research strands (for
example, environmental psychology, vision research, evolutionary psychol-
ogy, neuroscience , and others), and it will require a transdisciplinary effort
by architecture and design educators to get a grip on these.17 This could
make them reluctant to integrate the theory into the architectural and de-
sign curriculum. One of the aims of this paper is to explain the essentials of
biophilic design and thereby facilitate the understanding and discussion of
the design theory in educational contexts. A third reason for resistance is that
some adherents of biophilic design contend that architectural styles with
nonnatural forms (for example, modernism, deconstructivism) are “patho-
logical” for human individuals.18 It is quite probable, however, that such
a view will be experienced as disgraceful or even insulting by those who
do not embrace biophilic form typologies in their design work. While it is
possible that environments that stray too far from our evolutionary habitats
can have adverse health effects, this only seems to be part of the story. Our
likings are not solely determined by a shared biology but also result from
learning and experience. Why couldn’t it then be that nonnatural shapes
(for example, straight lines) are more in tune with these learned likings? To
give a simple example, belonging to and identifying with a social group or
context can be crucial for one’s well-being, perhaps even more so than be-
ing responsive to biophilic tendencies. If true, what then is so pathological
about individuals (unconsciously) “putting aside” certain inborn aesthetic
likings and imitating the (learned) likings of the group, albeit likings for
nonnatural forms?
Biophilic design should clearly spell out why these resistances are
misguided or why they are worth overcoming. What seems equally
important is that the successfulness of the design strand hinges on its ability
to penetrate the world of aesthetic, art, and design education; that is, it
should establish a firm connection with architectural practices. A first reason
is that theorists working on biophilic design often don’t have any significant
architectural background or training, which could hamper the transition to
the stage of practically developing biophilic design suggestions. I admit that
the gap between theory and practice can probably be overcome relatively
easy in the case of the first biophilic design strategy (that is, the experience of
actual nature in architectural design). However, restricting biophilic design
to this interpretation risks making the architectural strand redundant and,
hence, less groundbreaking than it proclaims to be. The reason is that this
interpretation seems akin to, among others, “green architecture” or interior
landscaping, for which rich and elaborated design practices already exist.19
I am convinced that the foregoing difficulty mostly applies to
the experience of imitated nature in architecture. For example, while the
integration of fractals in architecture is sometimes proposed as a possible
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4. The Value of Biophilic Design Aesthetics for Art and Design Education
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A related issue, relevant for the potential creative value of biophilic design,
is whether this design strand ultimately leads to traditionalism and,
likewise, to stylistic uniformity. The question of traditionalism is inspired by
the observation—made by certain scholars—that “traditional architectures
were achieved by instinctively following the operating mechanisms of both
intelligence based design and biophilia, even though those terms were not
then known.”23 To give but one example, traditional architecture quite often
symbolically refers to nature by naturalistic ornament. But doesn’t this im-
ply that the stylistic scope of biophilic design is inherently limited?
Although there is a good case in claiming that traditional architecture
has certain biophilic characteristics, I am convinced that stylistic uniform-
ity and traditionalism are not necessary features of biophilic design. Perhaps
there is a sense in which the reproach of stylistic uniformity applies to the
experience of actual nature in architecture. If stylistic diversity is understood
as only obtainable by transforming the material structure of an object, then
just placing plants in a building offers not much opportunity for diversity
(that is, this leaves the material structure of plants unchanged). Some will
perhaps consider this as too strict a definition and will contend that diver-
sity should also have a clear experiential component (that is, “something is
diverse when it is experienced as such”). While it is outside the scope of
this paper to embark on a philosophical discussion of this topic, this last
interpretation entails that the first biophilic design strategy is not incompat-
ible with stylistic diversity. Diversity can then (for example) be attained by
placing plants in buildings or settings of different styles or by arranging and
combining them in a multitude of ways. The “threat” of stylistic uniform-
ity is even less evident in the case of imitated nature in biophilic design be-
cause here nature can be represented and stylistically interpreted in a large
number of ways.
In its most basic form the experience of imitated nature implies that one
takes a look at the low-level (visual) features and patterns that are charac-
teristic of natural objects and applies these to architectural design. While
this strategy obviously implies a choice for natural shape grammars, its
nonrepresentational character entails that it has only few stylistic commit-
ments, ruling out any necessary connections with traditionalism. Still, I have
to admit that the contextual responsiveness necessitated by biophilic design
can have certain stylistic repercussions, which might put an inherent brake
on the form freedom that some might initially ascribe to biophilic design.
However, these constraints are not inherent to biophilic design but follow
from the interaction with the (cultural, social) environment in which it will
become embedded.
Nature is a perennial source of inspiration for architectural and design
aesthetics in many ways (for example formally, conceptually, and structur-
ally).24 To give but one example, under the influence of early evolutionary
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reduction of Diminishing
nature contact with nature
Less interestofin
Reduction Less opportunities
protecting
naturenature for biophilia
Given the above it seems that biophilic design education implies a kind of
indirect or implicit environmental education. On the one hand biophilic de-
sign education tries to establish specific practices in which students are urged
to have (visual) contact with natural form. One of the goals is to enable them
to come to successful and effective biophilic design proposals. On the other
hand, and perhaps most importantly, is that the artistic nature of biophilic
design education implies an important emphasis and focus on aesthetically,
and hence affectively, experiencing nature (this point was emphasized in
the previous section). Both aims imply that one of the components of the
vicious circle is counteracted. That is, biophilic design education increases
opportunities for experiencing biophilia, and it could thereby attenuate the
process of the extinction of experience. Note that the aesthetic involvement
with nature could have an especially important role in this process. Envi-
ronmental psychology research shows that emotional states, like aesthetic
experiences, play a considerable role in proenvironmental behavior. Hartig
and colleagues, for example, found that those people who showed inter-
est in, and were fascinated by, a piece of familiar nature (that is, a fresh-
water marsh) were also more motivated to behave proenvironmentally.40
Similarly, recent research by Hartig and colleagues indicates that positive
experiences in nature—such as restoration—promote ecological behavior in
individuals.41
I expect that some will feel that it goes too far to contend that educational
contexts will play a major role in counteracting the above-described vi-
cious circle, as biophilic design education is addressed to only a relatively
small number of individuals (that is, architecture/design students). What is
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
One of the central aims of this paper was to introduce to the reader the
essentials of biophilic design and discuss the relevance of the design strand
for aesthetic, art, and design education. What is especially compelling about
biophilic design is that it constitutes an attempt at naturalizing architectural
theory. The design theory is still in full development, however, and I hope
to have reached a balance between both critical discussion and instructive
learning. Such a critical approach is deemed necessary as it is largely missing
from the biophilia debate. Before concluding this paper I wish to make some
final comments on biophilia’s genetic commitments. The relative strength
of this genetic component could have ramifications for the argument I have
presented and for the scope of a biophilic design aesthetic.
Philosophically, biophilic design implies a “universalist” view on
aesthetic preferences and artistic behavior. It states that these traits are not
culturally specific but shared by all human beings. Nowadays universal-
ist aesthetic theories often have a distinct neo-Darwinian “flavour,”43 and
it should be clear by now that this also holds true for the theoretical under-
pinnings of biophilic design (that is, biophilia). Although biophilia’s claim
that we positively relate with nature is unquestionable, it remains unclear
what the scope of the genetic component of biophilia is, and one should
be cautious not to make any definite claims about it. For example, evolved
emotional reactions to predator and prey will probably involve quite basic
emotional states (for example, fear, dislike, like). However, biophilia often
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
invokes deep feelings (for example, “love”) to characterize the human rela-
tionship with nature. But because these in no way follow from adaptationist
analyses, it raises suspicions that the bulk of biophilia’s “philia” is culturally
constructed—that is, built around a minimal skeletal genetic core.
Suppose that I am on the right track, then the obvious question is whether
this is problematic for the arguments I have presented in this paper. I be-
lieve it isn’t because the argument can be interpreted entirely pragmatically.
In particular, it is empirically established that Westerners relate positively
to certain natural elements. This does not influence the claims that natu-
ral form—both “actual” and “imitated”—can (a) be a source of creative in-
spiration, (b) can elicit restorative experiences in educational settings, and
(c) can provide a counterforce against the extinction of experience. What
this moderate interpretation of biophilia could nonetheless imply is that,
although our attitudes toward nature are deeply rooted, they are to a large
extent culturally dependent and not necessarily similar to those of other
cultures.
Quite probably, some will consider the foregoing conclusion as
undesirable. The reason is that a strong version of biophilia makes some
think that biophilic design stands out as superior among other architectural
strands or that it is more “scientifically grounded” and, hence, preferable.
The supposed inborn nature of biophilia is considered as the necessary “am-
munition” to evaluate and reject architecture that does not appeal to this
predisposition or that does not display naturalness.44 However, the superi-
ority of evolved predispositions over cultural tendencies that is implied in
this argument ignores the possibility that cultural phenomena are also part
and parcel of an adaptationist and, hence, naturalistic framework.45
While it is perhaps true that biophilia can explain why we prefer certain
architectural styles over others, it is difficult to see how it can be prescrip-
tive. Even if biophilia were hardwired, there is no logical necessity that one
ought to adopt a biophilic design strategy, and the accompanying educa-
tional context, just because it happens to be the fact that we affectively re-
late to nature. It could even be true that biophilic design is psychologically
“healthier” than other styles. While this gives us one reason to embrace the
design strand, it is not necessarily a definitive reason, for there may be coun-
tervailing ones. For example, I have already pointed out earlier in this paper
that social issues (for example, belonging to a social context) could quite
easily override the tendency to prefer biophilic forms.
Finally, note that these problems echo difficulties at the heart of biophilia.
Biophilia attempts to safeguard biodiversity by pointing out that nature is
“good” for us. Along similar lines (and in agreement with the artistic focus
of my argument) it could be argued that biodiversity should be preserved in
order not to lose an important source of architectural creativity and aesthetic
inspiration. It should be evident that the previous criticism also applies here.
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
There are obvious reasons why one could pursue something because it is
healthy or because it implies an important aesthetic vocabulary, but one can
probably think of many reasons why one would choose architecture that
is—from a biophilic perspective—“unhealthy.” What follows from these ar-
guments is that biophilic design education, and the natural aesthetics that
goes hand in hand with it, can only be interpreted in a pluralistic, ecumeni-
cal framework—that is, as a valuable addition to existing accounts.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the anonymous referees for their positive criti-
cism. Many thanks also to Andreas De Block for his thoughtful and valuable
comments on this paper. This paper was written when the author was a
postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute of Philosophy (KULeuven) and
was supported by the Research Program of the Scientific Research Founda-
tion-Flanders (FWO), project G.0446.08.
NOTES
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions