The "Art of Camouflage": Waging War on Urban Disguise

"Winston Churchill considered deception in war to be an indispensable element of léger de main, an original and sinister touch, which leaves the enemy puzzled as well as beaten." While one might not consider themselves beaten, the public's experience of camouflage - it's crossing-over to popular culture with repeatedly prolific use in the design world - is one less mentally debilitating in its reaction than it is sinister.

Deception has given way to an ethos of concealment. However, camouflages inherent qualities are often misrepresented in the pursuit of more symbolic and metaphoric representations, giving way to a subversion of it's intended purpose - exposing what it ultimately attempts to conceal.

The use of camouflage, no matter what the specific application, has certain basic requirements that must be met. First, the camouflage must be tailored to the observer. Second, the camouflage must deceive the observer into making a false judgment about the camouflaged object.  

(Lockheed Plant WW2)

The use of camouflage in the design of public spaces - whether interpreted abstractly or manifest literally - has the promise of serving a purpose not dissimilar from its military application. Fighter planes, battle ships, fuel dumps, or Lockheed's manufacturing plant all adapt to the requirements, as intended, at varying scales of observation. In fact, the latter is a true representation of attempting to minimize, or more specifically conceal the aerial impacts of our cities. Ken Smith's MOMA rooftop, however, is a more contemporary example of how the attempted use of camouflage fails to acknowledge such basic tenets, and instead draws an attention to that which it attempts to conceal through the art of "deception".

(MOMA Viewing Garden, NYC)

Comprised of 185 plastic rocks, 560 artificial boxwoods, 300 pounds of clear crushed glass, and 4 tons of recycled rubber mulch, Mr. Smith comes armed with a justification for the use of such "pop-whimsical" elements - "a riff on the art of camouflage" comparable to that of the "artificial wilderness" of Central Park created by F.L. Olmsted. With a life span of approximately seven years, however, the inaccessible garden at the MOMA is more of a temporary exhibit, aptly titled by some as "In Advance of a Totally Fucked Landfill".

While many will agree with Ken Smith in his assertion to the authenticity or permanence of our constructed (artificial) "natural" landscapes, might we question the success of his attempts to manifest a subversive environment that "blends in" and "flies under the radar"? Whether a hydro kiosk, "undesirable" activities, or simply architectural oversights, landscape architecture is used constantly as a form of camouflage throughout our environment. Unfortunately it is rarely done well and often increases ones attention to, and awareness of our environmental failings. As such, an honest acceptance of our infrastructure is dismissed, and our own denial of any possible change is perpetuated.

While we may be deceived as to the "realness" of the materials that compose this urban montage from afar, the city's inhabitants and workers that view the roof from above are left asking why? Perhaps it was the built realities of the roof, the restrictive program and function given Mr. Smith by the museum, or simply the fact that half of the materials had already been purchased for the site prior to design that resulted in this "witty and ironic viewing garden". Arguably, the irony is lost when the city is left with another roof that does little to mitigate heat gain, reduce storm water, provide an amenity and improve the life of the building. Compounding our challenges as designers, the profession is left to explain away "the fundamental issue of ameliorating or covering up the impacts of [our] constructed environment" - more "'remediation,' 'shrubbing it up,' 'contextualization,' or simply 'naturalizing'".

Certainly, art is subjective. But can we not respond to our landscape design challenges with a more researched, honest, and inventive solution - one that learns from our "natural" world and responds to changes in our environment? Perhaps utilizing the "art of camouflage" in a way that seeks to elicit over-intellectualized critique and more of an honest and sophisticated response would better serve the client and its patrons? I leave you with a few exquisite examples: