Investigate Aalto’s Biological Approach to Standardisation and How This Implicated His Design Process

“Nature herself is the world’s best standardisation committee, but in nature standardisation is practised almost exclusively in the smallest possible units, the cells…. Architectural standardisation must take the same path.  The result is millions of flexible combinations in which one never encounters the stereotyped.”^[1]

What is a brick? Is it just a small rectangular lump of fired clay or can it be something superior and innovative when elevated in architecture as an ‘Art’. Mies Van de Rohe once said ‘God is in the details’^[2] alluding to the necessity for architects to ponder even the most minute aspects of their composition.

 In this essay, I intend to investigate Aalto’s biological approach to standardisation and how this implicated his design process. In addition to this I want to explore the various methods and experimentation of standardised bricks by Alvar Aalto in attempt to elevate the material from the homogenized into an ‘Art’.

What is Art? Subjectivity and opinion varies and dominates the historical narrative of art but the most profound intention for most artists is to achieve an Intimate connection with an audience.^[3] Alvar Aalto, known for his humanist approach to Modern Architecture, cared about designing architecture that was based on real human values and its surrounding connection with place.^[4]

It is interesting that in this period of mechanisation and industrialisation, many of Aalto’s contemporaries focused on the use of Concrete and Steel in their buildings, Aalto found such fascination in Brick. Brick was of course a nostalgic and familiar material to humans. A brick is a sign for earth and fire, its tactile weight and scale can be imagined on 1:1 to humans.^[5] This connection isn’t surprising considering bricks rich history. It is of course the result of early standardisation. It is noteworthy that the categorization of bricks associated them to a certain place, clay, colour, surface and size. This posed a vital problem for their standardisation. Establishing a set of rules for the norm in one country reflected the political interests of the time. Modernization called for de-territorialisation of the ‘brick regions” by proposing international and national brick standards. Aalto believed that a brick must inhabit its proper place by fulfilling its society’s and cultural requirements.^[6] He proposed that “if it is made correctly, properly processed from the countries own raw materials, if it is used in the correct way….it is the basic element in the environment that creates social well being”.^[7]

In 1941 Aalto gave a series of lectures focusing on the Swiss cities criticizing Standardisation in architecture. He argued that it was based on the car manufacturing models regardless of the crucial differences between their connection to site and human interaction. The standardisation of architectural components should be centred off models found in Biology and nature according to Aalto. He used an example of a Magnolia flower; how the richness of their form came from the millions of identical cells and the numerous combinations that could be created using one flexible cell.^[8] Aalto developed this metaphorical connection between brick to a living cell and that the way to avoid formalism would be to follow the same path of flexibility and adaptability.

This form of Biomimetic Architectural thought process is fascinating in discourse and in theory for it does not presuppose and define inspiration as exclusively a pure natural form but the binary synthesis of the aesthetics of nature and the science behind why and how it occurs.  Aalto also stated that centralizing standardisation results in “Psychological slums”^[9]. Humans are dependent on the changing shapes of nature and thus there is a need for Elastic Standardisation^[10].

When Aalto was commissioned for the design of MIT Baker Dormitory, Form followed Nature as well as functionality. Views of the nearby Charles River shaped the fluid building to allow every student an idyllic view and connection with their surrounding nature. A simple slab building wouldn’t allow an adequate number of rooms and so there was a need for a curve.^[11] Unlike in later examples, the bricks that Aalto used to create this curve were not specialist. The solution to his problem was in the usually unregarded mortar joint. The mortar had to carry the curve, but at what expense to the integrity of the detail.^[12] 

The nature of a brick fitting into its own role and retaining its form makes me question if this method of innovative standardisation gives any validity and purpose to the brick at all.

Regardless, the quality of the bricks used in the structure are very charismatic, overburnt and distorted.^[13] [14] Aalto stated that he was looking for the:

 “Lousiest bricks of the world”^[15]

This intentional imperfection contrasts drastically against the way Mies Van der Rohe viewed the portrayal of god in the details.

Aalto’s approach of not rejecting any bricks for their appearance can be viewed as being more humanist and less intimidating. Imperfections in materiality not only create an interesting texture but simultaneously provide a trace of human efforts and spirt.

Flaws seem a strange thing for us to admire but often visual perfection doesn’t stand the test of time, Aalto built with this in mind.

In contrast for Caruso St John their ideal of ‘quality’ materialises from meticulously drawing every impeccable brick and joint and translating it to site through craft and care.^[16]

It’s undeniable that again the recurring theme of creating an emotive response is evident in all that attempt to create architectural quality in details as found in art.

Aalto designed for human needs, a student who lived in the dormitory said:

“Great architecture isn’t just trying to be art, It’s functional…. It seems like Simmons Hall is really Impersonal and bare. It feels like a hotel, not a home.”^[17]

This quotation show how the inhabitants feel about Baker House in contrast to the nearby Simmons Hall designed by Steven Holl. Holl generally utilised concrete and aluminium while Aalto’s usage of the nostalgic and warm brick created the favoured choice with students. This shows how materiality and detail can influence a human’s connection with a structure.