Advertisement

A Philosophical Approach for Distinguishing “Green Design” from Environmental Art

  • Sue Spaid
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

In this paper, I begin by analyzing several environmental design projects that are difficult to distinguish from environmental art projects, so as to tease out obvious distinctions between these two fields’ practical aspirations. I then employ Arthur Danto’s Theory of Action, as described in his 1979 essay “Basic Actions and Basic Concepts,” to show how design’s outcomes differ from those of artistic actions, even though both effectively entail actions. Unlike design actions, artistic actions prompt interpretations or greater reflection, since artwork meanings are comparatively polyvalent. I next discuss what Bruno Latour describes as the semiotic question of meaning, in particular, the relationship between the designer’s guiding principles and his/her design’s implicit values, which articulate those principles. I then discuss the importance of design’s entwining conception and making. Lastly, I return to the urgency awaiting environmental designers, whose most successful nature-based solutions, whether sustainable architecture, large-scale public works, or edible foodstuff will result from either efforts to recover “lost” practices or innovative strategies for translating nature’s processes. “Green designers,” especially, owe it to their public to tap what Latour terms design’s normative question, so as to optimize resource management and sustainable design.

Keywords

Nature-based solutions Environmental Normative Good design 

References

  1. Danto, A. (1979). Basic actions and basic concepts. Review of Metaphysics, 32.Google Scholar
  2. Danto, A. (1981). Transfiguration of the commonplace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Golonu, B. (2008). “Greening the revolution..” Art Papers. November/December.Google Scholar
  4. Haeg, F. (2010). Edible Estates. New York: Metropolis Books.Google Scholar
  5. Latour, B. (2008). A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In Networks of Design. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL- GB.pdf. Retrieved 29 Dec 2015.
  6. Margolin, V. (2006). In S. Smith & V. Margolin (Eds.), Beyond green: Toward a sustainable art. Chicago: Smart Museum of Art.Google Scholar
  7. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Spaid, S. (2002). Ecovention: Current art to transform ecologies. Cincinnati: Contemporary Arts Center.Google Scholar
  9. Spaid, S. (2012). Green acres: Artists farming fields, greenhouses and abandoned lots. Cincinnati: Contemporary Arts Center.Google Scholar
  10. Spaid, S. (2016a). The future of environmental art or reimagining a sustainable art practice? Real-world problems. In Sustainable art facing the need for regeneration, responsibility and relations. Wrocłov: University of Wrocłov.Google Scholar
  11. Spaid, S. (2016b). “Danto’s Artworld: Where Nine Indiscernible Red Squares Yield Nine Distinct Contents.” Proceedings from the 2014 Meeting of the Spanish and Portuguese Society for Aesthetics.Google Scholar
  12. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected the distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ScholarBelgiumUK

Personalised recommendations