Biomorphism vs Organic Architecture

バイオモーフィズム/有機的形態 / 有機的建築

Both sit in Modern Architecture, so the question is not what they belong to but how they behave. Both are read here as style. They are reached for with some of the same intent, which is where they get confused.

Biomorphism

Extends asymmetric, continuous forms suggesting cells, bones, organs and plants into abstraction, furniture, vessels and space.

Organic Architecture

Refuses to treat building, furniture, material, terrain and light separately, designing them as one continuum that includes the place and the life lived in it.

BiomorphismOrganic Architecture
Era1930s–1960s / ongoing1900s–
FamilyModern ArchitectureModern Architecture
KindStyleStyle
CuesAsymmetric curves / Cell-like forms / Smooth continuous surfaces / Abstraction from natureIntegration with terrain / Horizontals / Natural materials / Inside-outside continuity
Best used forFurniture and vessels shaped by curves that follow the hand and body · Placing one softening element inside a hard rectilinear spaceHouses on slopes or in woodland where floors step with the ground instead of cutting it. · Projects where built in furniture and building share one module throughout.
TypeChoose letterforms without corners and set them along the contourRepeat one geometry down to signs and furniture, adding no foreign typeface.
CompositionAvoid symmetry and close the outline as one continuous lineStretch the horizontals and open from a low entry into a tall room.
MaterialMoulded plywood or resin, plaster, polished wood, joints blended into curvesLocal stone and solid timber joined by plaster and matched metalwork.
CautionAdding curves without measuring against the body leaves nothing the hand can confirm, and the object is merely round.Assembling natural materials and curves without reading contours and sun produces a shell that could stand anywhere, missing the principle that unites site, structure, furniture and movement.

IndexStyle