Architecture, art, fashion - sustainable?
This week, I attended a panel discussion hosted by the Seattle Art Museum and by the Cascade Land Conservancy on how art, design and sustainability fit together. Lucia Athens, sustainable future strategist at CollinsWoerman, moderated the panel. Panelists were Tom Kundig of Olson Sundburg Kundig Allen Architects, Rebecca Luke, co-founder of the Sustainable Style Foundation and stylist, and Roy McMakin, Northwest artist.
The conversation twisted and turned around how sustainability intersects with art,
style and architecture, but overall, all speakers said they wanted to create something that lasted. Whether it was art, a beautiful house, or a great dress, they said it was more sustainable to create or buy something you’d use forever, rather than something that you would dispose of in a year or a decade.
The problem with that is sustainability is so new it’s not always clear what is truly sustainable (for more on this, read a previous post here or look under the tag ‘greenwashing’ below). And for art and outfits, fashions come in and out of style. Kundig summed it up nicely when he said: “Culturally, we don’t understand the decisions we’re making now and what their larger effects are… architects don’t know yet what is truly sustainable and what is not.”
Sustainabilty also means different things in different locations. In nature, it’s about being light on the land and letting nature be the focus. But in the city, he said it’s more about density. In either space, Kundig said there are many conspiring issues that must be balanced from land use to environmental concerns to planning. “How they’re resolved is what we hope is good architecture.”
I love attending discussions that bring different disciplines together, because you often get tossed out of your comfort zone.
Roy McMakin was an interesting voice to have in on the panel. One of the impediments to becoming more sustainable, he said, is the tension between individual rights and the common good. It’s hard to come together and agree something is best for everyone, he said, when this country is founded on the individual being able to do what they think is best for them.
Another point McMakin made is that honestly, we could have everything we talk about in panel discussions - from more art in public places to more sustainable infrastructure - if we just agreed to tax ourselves more and give more of our income to the common good. But realistically, how many people in Seattle would vote to do that? He has a point.
Luke pointed out that it’s important to have different disciplines sharing information
or working together on issues of sustainability, otherwise every industry ends up reinventing the wheel, which she said doesn’t need to happen. In her work with style, she said she tries to connect the experiences of different disciplines.
Unfortunately, all of these things cost money and require some serious investments. Buying a great dress that will last for years? Pricey. Buying a house designed by OSKA that reflects and respects the local environment? Pricey. Buying furniture that is art, which will become a family heirloom? Pricey. Sustainability, it seems, does not come cheap.
I leave you with this quote from McMakin: “Sustainability is partly the idea that it’s not ephemeral, it’s used for a long time … but we’re humans. We do stuff. We have ideas … I’m an artist. I want to create stuff but how do you deal with the impacts of what you do?”
Tags: Architecture, art, fashion, Greenwashing
Loading ...
January 24th, 2009 at 11:32 am
The picture of the Delta Shelter is beautiful BUT I wonder how they store the wood that is needed since this part of the country is very cold and of course I assume they have to carry it upstairs… a good way to get warm but lots of exercise
January 26th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I like this post-thank you for these thoughts. It’s an important topic, because as a culture, we are being asked remake outmoded societal structures that are not working for us anymore.
Sustainability does not need to cost more. It’s about rethinking the way you use the resources you have at your disposal. It has cost more because we’ve been paying for the learning curve that comes with a paradigm shift. I don’t believe this will continue, as sustainability will become the baseline standard. As a culture, we consume lots of cheap stuff that doesn’t last, so affording sustainability is about reallocation of personal resources and a fundamental shift in values. Do you want 5 cheap pairs of shoes (that you charged on your credit card and didn’t finish paying for before they went out of style or wore out), or one pair of quality, handcrafted pair that lasts 20 years (that you saved up and paid cash for)? That’s the change we are being asked to make.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on this conversation and think about the intersection of choice and consciousness. One way to see the paradigm shift is to think about the time frame that choices are made in. Are we applying the seventh generation test or simply thinking about the immediate future? That is to say, is there thought/consciousness about the impact a decision today has on the children 100 years from now. Looking at the state of our environmental/social/economic world, I think we know the general direction of the answer.
Kundig acknowledges that we don’t even know what is truly sustainable. The are complex systems at play and as advanced as the economic and scientific disciplines get, they are dealing with imperfect knowledge. A nuance that I’ve recently been wrestling with is how sustainability is used as an adjective vs. a noun. Sustainable business. . .sustainable development (an opportunity for some real talk here). . .versus the condition of sustainability. The former, I believe, builds on the body of knowledge that tries to break complex systems into its parts to understand it. The latter, I believe, focuses on conscious choices as a means to reach a state of sustainability.
What really is sustainability? It seems that it is the condition of life being able to flourish indefinitely. . .of security, confidence, realized interdependence, . . .in short, observing the golden rule with a seventh generation perspective.
** Something to think about…I stumbled upon this ‘idea’ in conversation with a friend. If the golden rule is really the only rule that a “conscious” society would need, how about using that as a “consciousness indicator”? The formula we came up with is:
Consciousness indicator = inverse of the number of laws/rules in a given society. When you’ve reached 1, that’s like sweet music. Everyone is on the 1.
The theory is less consciousness = more laws.
Of course, there’s already been some holes poked in it, but it’s just a way to start thinking about how laws can reflect the level of consciousness.
When we reach a level of 1, then we live in sustainability.
Currently there are 50 Codes in US Law, each containing a substantial amount of details about how to behave. Let’s just say there are 50 laws in the US….that’s would give us 1/50 or a consciousness indicator of .02 Wouldn’t it be nice if we were at .02:)
January 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Hi Readers, thanks so much for the incredibly thoughtful comments!
Uppergeorgetowner, you spoke about relocation of resources. That makes sense for those of us who can afford to relocate our resources… and consider the value of buying one pair of good quality shoes, vs five pairs of cheap shoes. But what about the family that struggles even to buy that one pair of shoes? Is sustainability, by its definition, a term and way of living for the wealthy or at least well off? And even if sustainability does become the baseline, I doubt that things (like shoes) that are better quality and will last a long time, will really drop in prices.
BGI’er I thought your point about sustainability as an adjective vs. a condition was really interesting. But even bringing the seventh generation perspective into our own decisions can be difficult when we aren’t sure exactly what is going to the best decision in the long run, speaking again to the idea that we really don’t know what is sustainable yet. There are way too many examples of this to count (paper v. plastic, mercury in light bulbs, disposing of hybrid batteries). It seems difficult, if not impossible, to truly calculate the seventh generation effect of a choice with so little answers. And if sustainability is the condition of life being able to flourish indefinitely…. is anything at all sustainable?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Katie, I appreciate what you’re saying. There’s a distinction between true poverty - which is the inability to afford basic needs - and what most US residents, experience (I’m not talking about global poverty, which is a different discussion altogether). The official US poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5%, yet the median income in the US was around $50,000 per year, based on the last US census report issued in August of 2008. Most of us can afford to make different choices. Yet your point raises another issue, that is about allocation of resources across a population and what sustainability means on societal level. Another big topic to tackle!