Why is Architecture so profoundly ashamed with formalism. Our profession is full of people in the formalist closet. I find it absurd that architects need to justify every move they present with some deep and resonant ideology or purpose. John Frazer does a wonderful job of this. Reading his writing was like staring at a moth eaten shirt; holes everywhere. He begins his writing with “An evolutionary architecture investigates fundamental form-generating processes in architecture, paralleling a wider scientific search for a theory of morphogenesis in the natural world. It proposes the model of nature as the generating force for architectural form. The profligate prototyping and awesome creative power of natural evolution are emulated by creating virtual architectural models which respond to changing environments” (pg. 9). Something right there about natural and virtual carrying the same weight doesn’t settle well. Later in writing he proceeds with “A clear distinction is intended between sources of inspiration and sources of explanation. When natural science is used for explanation or illustration, it is essential that the science is correct and that the analogy is valid. But when it is used for inspiration and as a take off point for thought experiments, it matters less, and misunderstood or even heretical ideas can provide much imaginative stimulus” (pg. 12). For most of his writing Frazer is justifying the analogy of natural process to that of design process by saying that his architecture can emulate nature but yet he makes this distinction that really all he is doing is using these natural processes to simply generate form. He’s animate about the analogy and its “awesome power” to create architecture of evolution capable of coping with society’s complexities and chaos. In one of his closing statements he writes that the demise of society is man’s “self conscious obsession with uniqueness”. It seems to me that Frazer is suffering from such a case by emulating nature.

Unlike Frazer, Robert Smithson claims that trying to emulate natural is a huge feat to take on. He writes “there’s a need to try to transcend one’s position. I’m not a transcendentalist, so I just see things as going towards a … well it’s very hard to predict anything; anyway all predictions tend to be wrong. I mean even planning, I mean planning and chance almost seem to be the same thing”.

So where does this leave us in the profession of architecture, where are days are spent planning for society that is ever changing? Perhaps our ideas of architecture should not be so much geared towards this ideal view of nature as some awesome vital force but instead view nature as being the all encompassing world around us; “our spaceship earth”.

In this sense looking at Warner’s writing could be helpful. She states “the work of metamorphosis performed by artists today in every medium often aim at transvaluing their subject, and raising the esteem of the mode through which they are taking form. They offer reformulations of ethical value, and in attempting this refashioning of traditions, re-assess the inherent character of change and mutability themselves” (pg. 27). I can’t help but think back to our discussions of slums and their emergent qualities. How can architecture learn from such real life processes of the built environment to create architecture capable of the evolution that Frazer strives for?