Detaching Environmentalism from Politics

In understanding the term Green as it is used in the current environmental movement, we find out that it is based on the “Four Pillars” of the German, Gründ (Green) Party. The Four Pillars, written in 1984, represent the founding principals of the political party as ecological wisdom, social justice, grass roots democracy, and non-violence. I believe this is central to any discussion on current trends in making a more environmentally responsible world come to fruition.
Although I understand the logic of these core values and believe they hold true as goals societies should aim for, the political ties these pillars have are too strong and therefore have an inherent opposition simply because they are placed as political objectives. I believe that in order to have a clean environment, the motivation to change needs to be understood by all regardless of political leanings. The least politically tied goal of these pillars is ecological wisdom, it seems there can be common interests, profits, and benefits regardless of right or left wing politics. It is hard to say the same thing for social justice, grass roots democracy and non-violence.
The “best” solution, in terms of a broad reaching and effective one, in my view is a politically neutral solution and for this we turn to research, facts, numbers and charts. The benefits of a Life Cycle Analysis are key to helping companies recognize their ecological impact. A parallel can be drawn to the Nutrition Label Act of 1990 that created heightened awareness about the food eat and more importantly, the choice to make an informed decision as a consumer. If the government is to take a stance it has to be on behalf of the consumer because, especially in a country like the USA, it is the only way to encourage companies to change their methods of production.
In the natural world, a close look at an ecosystem shows the roles of producers, consumers, and decomposers where each is dependent on the other for survival and a return to earth means eventually becoming earth and feeding the system again. The EPA’s definition of LCA as a Cradle to Grave concept is “raw materials from the earth to create the product and ends at the point when all materials are returned to the earth”. There are two basic concepts that we can extract from this phrase that directly feed the more thoughtfully developed Cradle to Cradle approach. First, the phrase “returned to earth” implies that it is simply put back in the earth but not necessarily benefiting anyone or becoming anything else. This is reinforced by the second concept in the phrase, “ends at” these two words have a detrimental affect on our current approach and understanding of product life. If the term “ends at” needs to be used, then it should consider the point at which the raw material is formed again making the complete cycle the end point. McDonaugh and Branghart have explained this concept most successfully in their collaboration with Rhoner Textiles in Switzerland where they were able to produce cleaner water leaving the factory than coming in and the waste material was used as insulation for local agriculture.
Although the moral implications of social justice and environmental action are equally important, the politics involved in the resolution of the social aspects of our society are much deeper today than those implied by a more ecologically conscious world today.

Durability in Architecture

In reflecting upon my position or where my ethical line is drawn, I find that pollution is a necessary evil in architecture. The extent to which we pollute can be debated and the consequence of all our choices can be weighed, but to some extent there will always be an environmentally adverse part to the process. I think that we can be more deliberate in our choices of materials, construction processes etc. and then have an understanding of where the failure is in our process to begin to try to correct it or make it "less bad", However to embark on a goal of making something completely "green" seems somewhat hollow. Having your goal be checking every box in a LEED checklist so that you can declare a certain level of environmental certification is just too easy for me to believe in. Understanding the implications of your choices and knowing that you cannot achieve everything but can achieve some of the goals on that list, and achieve them to the highest order is what I believe in. This is durability in architecture, something that will last over time and will function well within a certain set of parameters. At some point the building will live long enough so that the initial environmental cost of construction will have been worth it. These building are able to transform over time in their use and allow the user to occupy them in a number of different manners. Designing not for one specific use but for varying uses within one specific duty.
An object I would compare this idea to is perhaps a pair of Doctor Martens because you can wear them with a pair of jeans, or your sunday best.

The Problem of Material Ethics

March 20/28, 2009

The building industry has such a large impact on the environment in several ways - from the demolition of the site, to the actual construction and then to the operation of the building’s multiple systems. Areas such as material selections and the installation of certain objects (ex. plumbing fixtures, floor tiles) also contribute to the impact on the environment. It is a difficult line to draw since all areas relate to one another. But to expand into very broad terms, relegates it to generalized grand gestures and less of the specificity in the actual consideration of materials.

In my previous work at a historic preservation architecture office, we considered the intangible in conjunction with the tangible aspects of architecture – that to preserve the original material of the walls (by repairing rather than demolishing) is to maintain the craftwork/intent and the historic significance imbued in the overall structure. But there is a certain compromise in the renovation of these historic structures – where does it become absolutely necessary to recreate the element that was there before? Could something that looked very similar but of a different material be suitable? How much are we actually contributing or taking way from the historic significance of the property by this substitution? What of localism – what if something that was prevalent in the surrounding areas is no longer available and that to obtain that material requires an enormous amount of effort (eg. hardwood)? I feel that the overall gesture of preservation – the recycling of a historic structures sits very well with me, that I can not only believe in the reuse but also in the continuation of the past into the present. But it is in the details that make the work unsatisfying - that to maintain the historic significance is to disregard avenues where one could lessen the impact on the earth, for example, the choice to use a ‘greener’ mechanical system or to minimize the alteration on the historic fabric by choosing a more compact, less intrusive, and less ‘green’ system. Or that the desire for authenticity results in having to order a very specific type of wood from another country. How do we work within this existing framework and determine what can constitute material ethics? Where does one draw the line in regards for ingredients? How much should the intangible (cultural and historical values) affect the intangible? Or is the life cycle of the structure itself (continuing the life cycle of these structures/materials) overrides the need for that specificity? Does the larger picture justify this comparison?

In historic structures, there are varying degrees of intensity. On one side there are the house museums where everything is kept intact - the building’s original function is halted in time. The other side is adaptive use where the building’s function is changed to allow for new programs, new systems and new materials. I am more interested in adaptive use – I am more excited by the navigation of the historic integrity with the introduction of new material/program. Preservation to me at this point, has been always more about the intangibles values imbued in the tangible materials. Compromise is inevitable but compromise as I have seen it, has always come from budgetary, aesthetic and historic concerns rather than environmental ethics. I am mulling over how to reconcile or adjust one’s framework so that this concern for the environment, for our material responsibilities to that of preserving these structures for their historic significance.

Considering Material Practice

Material selection, the production of objects for use and the impacts of objects on the human world are interdependent aspects of material ethics. At the beginning of this semester, I was most focused on the issues surrounding social justice. I began with an interest in exploring the appropriation of an impoverished aesthetic through design. As seen in work of many designers, such as the Campana brothers, the aesthetics of poverty are often translated to appeal to the middle and upper classes through products. This appeal for the impoverished appearance leads to a lack of understanding of the meaning and consequences behind the image. Often this appropriation exploits the ideas and image of the poor for design inspiration; yet the disadvantaged receive no compensation, nor are they served by these products out of their economic reach. I see an opportunity here to employ and learn from the values behind an impoverished aesthetic to inform issues such as social, economic and environmental sustainability. I am interested in creating objects out of an aesthetic of poverty that can both serve the communities they are inspired by and learn from their values to inform the design process overall.


After considering the readings and discussions of this class, I am now more conscious of how material selection and the production process impact social and environmental justice. I am now asking myself to think more deeply about how my choice of materials (even in model-making) is just as important as the intended production and function of the product. I was and still am focused on who has access to the objects I design, what needs or wants they serve and how they contribute to excessive consumerist tendencies. However, now I am also considering how people are affected by the materials I choose to build even my models and prototypes. What are the working conditions of the factory workers who produce these materials? Is their health being jeopardized? Are they being paid a fair wage? Is the environment being degraded in the communities where the raw materials are being sourced? I must also envision a production process. Who will be involved? How would their working conditions be considered? During use of these products, how will the materials affect those using them? And after use, where will these products go? Will they be dumped in disadvantaged communities. These are all questions that I must consider in moving forward with my interests.

Roselle's Random Thoughts

Within the realm of architecture I typically work with materials that are composite. Some of these materials consist of plaster, foam core, and cardboard. Foam core seems to be the worst of these materials. The ingredients of foam core consist of polystyrene in the center with white clay coated paper or kraft paper on the outside. Polystyrene is one of the most commonly used petroleum plastics. Where is this made? What is the difference between polystyrene and polyethylene?

Is there a way similar to Caroline’s work, that we can use foam core as a composite. Foam core takes a long time, if it ever disintegrates in landfills. It is important to look at the Life Cycle of these products and the ecological footprint of them. Where are they being made, who is making them? Where do the materials of these composites come from? Are these companies out sourcing and providing jobs for people in the community with good/ safe work environments or are they the next Walmart?

As an architect it is important to know/ understand these ideas of Life Cycle which ecological footprint falls under. Do you use materials that are mined/ harvested in the area? Or do you specify an exotic wood that comes from Costa Rica? I get to decide these things in my architecture as I get to also decide which materials to use in models. As clients come to me it is my responsibility to specify materials that I think are ethically responsible. I would choose the Zumthorian approach to materials using local materials in the area, with a small ecological footprint, where the ones mining/ harvesting the materials are treated right.

At the large scale of architecture I understand the importance of social justice, life cycle, and “sustainability.” As far as the materials we currently use at RISD in the architecture department it is far from these ideas. I have no clue where the materials I am using come from. Is plaster better to use than foam core? What is the best mold making material? What is the best for the maker to be breathing?

I am interested in exploring ways of recycling foam core or other non-recyclable materials that end up in the trash as part of a composite or hybrid material. I am not sure that melting petroleum products is the way to go, but there has to be another process of re-using. Even thinking about plaster, how can it be broken up and used with another material to achieve a certain effect. We could create the new CesarStone with casted material scraps.

Caroline’s work is great, very inspiring. I am excited to start thinking about ways in which we can re-use our materials and make a new composite material.

A Rambling Response to Unknown Materials and Life-Cycle Thought

I found last week’s class to be interesting, but I found Caroline’s presentation to be fascinating on Saturday. For me, as she discussed this new material or product that she is studying and designing, I became excited for the opportunity to join in the experimentation. So much of what we learn here at RISD, or at least in the architecture department, is the amazing possibility of studying a material and discovering how to apply it. However, in our education, we stick to very standard materials, i.e. wood, rope, paper, metal, cardboard, plaster. Theses are materials that have been around for a very long time and have an entire history of experimentation and application associated with them. The really energizing thing about the used paper/plastic hybrid is that it is an unknown entity. The opportunities are completely uninhibited by any previous knowledge or expectations of the material, which would allow for such amazing exploration and experimentation. This is where I would love to see our department push more – the exploration of new material, not just the exploration of known materials, but also that of unknown materials. When I say unknown, this could mean the application of a material that is unknown to anyone, such as this plastic/paper hybrid, but it could also apply to the materials that are known to many, but relatively unknown to architecture. It becomes a little sad to me when someone will discuss the design process of an architect, almost always includes some description of opening up a printed catalogue of options and selecting. We are at a art/design school, it seems to me that it would be the perfect opportunity to apply every angle of design thinking that exists throughout the students of RISD toward pushing a new material and see what its potential really is, across all disciplines. I also believe that pushing us to work with this unknown material which has been created out of waste could bring a new level of engagement with the Design for Disassembly Movement. There are plenty of people in the architecture field considering these issues of life-cycle, so it would be great to give them the opportunity of not only designing for disassembly back into their original components, but also the ability to design for disassembly toward the creation of new materials via the hybridization of the materials being used from an outdated/obsolete structure. The more options we give designers, the more we’ll be amazed by what the materials are capable of. Once a materials has been pushed, played with, and tested by the design field, it will trickle down into common knowledge and gain acceptance as a material, no longer fighting a losing battle against social preconceptions and prejudices, allowing for wider and larger scale application. It brings life-cycle awareness to an accessible level. In school, we learn to think of life-cycle and embodied energy from the moment the first element of gathered from mother Earth. It includes every plow that every scraped land, every worker who even breathed on the raw material, up to raw material processing on to the other side of the spectrum of manufacturing, installation, use, removal, and disposal. Although in an ideal world, we would be aware and responsible for every single bit of energy and impact a product has during its life, it becomes too great of a snowballing mess to be conquered by each and every one of us. We need a system where you can trust that everything before your point in the process has been done with the highest standards and that everything that will happen after your time will also be handled with the highest standards, so that you could really focus all of your energy into making sure to handle your period in time with the highest standards, but unfortunately, we still cannot depend upon anything before or anything after our moment of intervention.

The Way We Make

Inherently or not, an artist’s work is shaped by the nature of its medium. Trying to push away perhaps by its conventionality, the materiality used by students and their designs in mind converge.  Many are driven by the qualities of either natural or synthetic materials, which can also dictate a student’s working process. This however can be convenient and can offer a sense of direction to a maker. At the same time some materials can limit our desire to express an idea. Some materials do not perform of have certain qualities that one might be looking for changing the end result or a design.

It is interesting to see how every department, it be the furniture, architecture or industrial design, has a different dialogue with the materials and resources they gather and use. For the furniture department it seems important to use recycled material to built upon from but still using “new or raw materials” to create a hybrid between the two. It seems like the process of experimentation and creating furniture made out of composite materials is common.  However, I find interesting student’s concern to use recycled materials to make furniture but contradictive the amount of waste that can be produced by making for instance a chair.

In the architecture department, it seems like students take the time to fully understand their material selection. They test their materials to make sure they respond to what they are looking for while still being interested in it.  This dialogue between the artist and their medium allows them to negotiate the boundaries between the material and their ideas.

Forcing students to use specific materials like corrugated cardboard, plaster, or wood is a good learning experience to understand the behavior of such. Hundreds of models and prototypes are made with affordable materials for students to development their ideas. It is something I find in common with many departments where exploration is encouraged and the endless amount of idea production is reinforced. The process can very wasteful, even more so if the materials used are being converged with others that are hard to take apart if those were to be recycled.

It doesn’t seen that much after thought has been given to the way ideas are being developed in relation to our material consumption and exploration. It’s hard to find a balance between making biodegradable resources, using little energy or not polluting in the process and designing an efficient product. Because more thought and awareness is being addressed to these concerns at RISD, it might affect the way we make and question the consequences composite materials can have to its environment.

It is good to hear that the department of industrial design is trying consolidate years of inefficient material production and packaging design since the industrial revolution to a more efficient and recyclable end product.  Bringing to use more eco-friendly materials into our design might inspire other departments to act and react to these issues that are affecting the way we live and make.