Unnatural Nature
Unnatural Nature
Definition
Unnatural nature is Peter Eisenman's term for a landscape produced through computation that "seems like nature, but under closer inspection" is revealed as not nature — compressing "something that would take 10 million years" into 10 years. It names a third category between the man-made and the natural: neither representation of nature nor opposition to it. "There is man-made, there is natural. I want unnatural." Eisenman's architecture "never represents anything" — it is an unnatural nature, as seen in the City of Culture of Galicia, whose buildings appear to emerge from the hilltop "like giant mountains" using local stone, while a glass floor reflects the real ground now suspended above the viewer's head. The concept is related to his trace-based design method (superimposing local traces from the historical grid, topography, Cartesian grid, and the scallop-shell symbol to generate form), and expresses a Derridean refusal of the metaphysical site — "there is no value of origin."
Key Thinkers
- Peter Eisenman — developed the concept through the City of Culture of Galicia; architecture as neither natural nor against nature.
- (Related: Jacques Derrida — the trace and the deconstruction of origin underpinning Eisenman's method.)
Related Concepts
- Trace — the Derridean concept and Eisenman's design method that generates unnatural nature through superimposed site traces.
- Architectural Object — Eisenman's work as paradigmatic architectural object production (the City of Culture was halted unfinished in 2013, over four times budget).
- Star Architecture — the commissioning context; Eisenman as star architect.
- Iconic Architecture — the spectacular register of unnatural nature's built form.
Source Support
Sources in the wiki that discuss this concept:
Open Questions
- Does "unnatural nature" genuinely escape representation (as Eisenman claims), or is it precisely a representation of nature — a computationally simulated naturalness that performs rather than escapes mimesis?
- How does Eisenman's claim that his architecture "never represents anything" square with the concept of the architectural object as a "branding" device — does the refusal of representation itself become a brand?