Hypernaturalization

Definition

Hypernaturalization names the transformation Blaine Brownell identifies in contemporary design: the movement from the mechanized interior to the hypernatural condition — "a state defined by the aspiration to extend, amplify, or transcend natural capacities by partnering with nature in a focused and intensified manner" (Brownell 2018; term from Brownell & Swackhamer, Hypernatural, 2015). The concept is framed as the reversal of Le Corbusier's 1923 dictum: where "the house is a machine for living" named "the ultimate separation between a synthetic interior environment and the natural world beyond," the contemporary axiom "would be that the house is not a machine for living, but rather a living machine." Crucially, the hypernatural is neither nature restored nor nature refused: it is nature intensified — a third term beyond the natural and the artificial, produced by "partnering" rather than by either separation or imitation. Interior environments become "increasingly shaped by smart materials, active monitoring and sensing systems, occupant-attuned environmental technologies, and planted living surfaces."

Brownell organizes the field's intersections with the natural sciences into three approaches: properties (the structure and composition of elements — living walls that phytoremediate air, animal architecture, interiors as archives of natural knowledge), processes (natural fabrication — additive printing modelled on wasps and barnacles, silk spun by silkworms, crystal growth, termite digestion), and phenomena (transformational qualities — simulated clouds and daylight, circadian and humidity-responsive surfaces). The method's cost is control: "designers engaging in this kind of work must relinquish some control," becoming "directors of the design experiments they set into motion" rather than managers of all details.

Key Thinkers

• Blaine Brownell — the concept's author and namer (with Marc Swackhamer, Hypernatural: Architecture's New Relationship with Nature, 2015); the three-approach framework (properties/processes/phenomena) and the "living machine" reversal.
• Marc Swackhamer — co-author of Hypernatural (2015); see satterfield-blair-swackhamer-marc.
• Peter Eisenman — the concept's deliberate neighbour: "unnatural nature" as a computational third category between man-made and natural; the hypernatural as its biological counterpart. See unnatural-nature.
• Le Corbusier — the negative pole: "machine for living" as the separation thesis the hypernaturalization thesis reverses. See machine-for-living.

Related Concepts

• machine-for-living — the dictum reversed: "not a machine for living, but rather a living machine."
• mechanization — the historical process hypernaturalization answers: mechanization signified separation from nature; hypernaturalization converges technology with the natural sciences.
• unnatural-nature — the computational twin: both name a third category between man-made and natural; Eisenman compresses natural time by computation, Brownell amplifies natural capacity by partnership.
• animal-architecture — the properties-approach realm: "structures created for the habitation of non-human species."
• biophilia — the well-being warrant the hypernatural materials programme shares with the grotto register (artificial-grotto, performative-ornament).
• ecology / sustainability — the normative frame: "a deeper knowledge about natural systems and processes is considered critical to making responsible environmental choices in design."
• nonhumans — the agency question: silkworms, termites, and a calf as fabricators; "a new kind of material agency in which biological, chemical, or physical processes are allowed to run their course."
• interactive-architecture / sentient-spaces — the phenomena-approach kin: "animate, responsive, and sentient surfaces and spaces."
• authorship — the control inversion: the designer as "director of the design experiments" — cf. Satterfield & Swackhamer's repositioned authorship along the production-stream.

Source Support

Sources in the wiki that discuss this concept:

• "Living" rooms: The hypernaturalization of the interior (Brownell 2018) — the concept's source: the definition, the Le Corbusier reversal, the properties/processes/phenomena framework, the exemplars (AMPS living wall, Seed Cathedral, Silk Pavilion, Seizure, Truffle, Cloudscapes, Rain Room, Bloom, HygroSkin, Stratus), and the serendipity/control trade-off (Yoshioka quoted).

Open Questions

• Is "hypernatural" a genuine third category or biomimicry rebranded? Every exemplar is nature doing what nature does, directed by designers — where does "transcend" begin?
• Does the "living machine" escape mechanization or culminate it — a machine whose parts are alive?
• The chapter concedes "a comprehensive accounting of environmental, social, and economic effects has yet to be conducted" — can the hypernatural's sustainability claim survive that audit?
• What is the domestic hypernatural? The title promises "living rooms" but the exemplars are pavilions, facades, and installations.