Bionic Growth [2018]_ Andreea Bunica

BIONIC GROWTH Applications of synthetic biology and robotics in architecture Dissertation [U30099] @ Oxford School of Architecture January 2018

A dissertation presented to the School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University in part fulfilment of the regulations for BA (Hons) in Architecture.

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY This dissertation is an original piece of work which is made available for copying with permission of the Head of the School of Architecture

Signed Andreea Bunica

ANDREEA BUNICA

B I O N I C G R O W T H APPLICATIONS OF SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY AND ROBOTICS IN ARCHITECTURE

G L O S S A RY

_FOREWORD _INTRODUCTION

_MUTATIONS INTRODUCTION A. COLD BODIES B. SOFT BODIES C. STRANGE BODIES

_GROWTH INTERFACE 00. THE FRANKENSTEIN A. MANIFESTO B. INTRODUCTION C. IMMERSION 01. TO GIVE LIFE A. GENESIS B. OUR HOUSE C. MATTER OF INANIMATE GROWTH D. COMMUNICATING VESSELS E. DECAY INTO EQUILIBRIUM 02. LIMITS OF THE LIMITLESS A. INTRODUCTION B. THE SKIN THEY’RE IN

_DREAMS AND NIGHTMARES _2.0 ONLY COMES AFTER 1.0 _BIBLIOGRAPHY

FOREWORD

Bionic Growth / Applications of Synthetic Biology and Robotics in Architecture

Stirred into existence as a result of a deep fascination for the synergy between artifice and nature, Bionic Growth takes the shape of a personal exploration into futurism and our place as architects.

From an almost in utero outlook on architecture- at the boundary of becoming- I delved into the subject matter as an introductory mean of defining our role at the edge of integral interdisciplinary morphism between architecture and science.

Through the lens of a becoming generalist- almost an architect and an aspiring home-made scientist- the current work takes the place of a stepping stone within my horizon of interests; by no means defined or intended as a final research thesis, the following dissertation explores on-going fascinations for machinic organicism, additive growth, fluidity and the naturalisation of the artificial.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

fig. 1 'organism a', author's work

Nature has sporadically developed under evolutionary principles far beyond common rationality- the evolution of the vegetal world presents itself as an idyllic, often mythological process, translatable through lush aesthetics and wilderness far beyond premises replicable through the man-made or the crafted.

Organisms- naturally developing through later determined processes of selective evolution- occur in contextual development with the inanimate. The living and the nonliving matter are situated in a codependent, ever-changing evolutionary state, perceived as the natural world.

The living, often perceived as related to the naturally-occurring, became the standard definition of nature. Under these premises, the crafted- the arbitrary creation of living matter, here, of the human- becomes alienated from the perception of the natural.

However, under hegelistic premises of identifying and classifying natural typology, the man-made becomes a branching class of the overarching term of ‘nature’.

Nature as the geological, the vegetal and the animal Nature as the crafted, the man-made, the synthetic The lush, mystical iconography immediately assigned to ‘nature’ is identified as ‘first nature’ in hegelistic theory; first nature is the primordial, the origin-less, the inherent matter of our surrounding environmentinclusively, humans are nature.

Applied to a contemporary environment, the offspring of nature identifies itself as belonging to the urban realm- the second nature is our quotidian nature: the city.

The difference between the two types of nature- both integral to the human beingis exponential. First nature is defined by ongoing generative processes compliant to a time-space context, while the second nature has grown to define itself as a complex of finalised morphologies.

The built, the crafted, the man-made production, the immediately understandable, falls under the terminology of ‘second nature’. In a naturally occurring environment, everything that is produced under arbitrary premises becomes secondary.

17

Contemporary urbanistic developments rely on top-down typologies, often instilling a sense of monumentality and permanence in the creation of built environments, as opposed to the constantly optimising organisms of the first nature.

The man made nature exhibits a rather brusque evolutionary path- the city grows and advances through repeated processes of demolition and reconstruction, as a reaction to its incompatibility with the everchanging identity of its inhabitants.

However, the adaptable character of the human being is dictated through intelligent encoding of the initial genome sequencethe morphological abilities an organism might exhibit during its lifetime are expanded or limited through the initial programming.

Rarely accounting for randomness and unintended-ness, the man-made architectural phenotypes encounter situations of distress in contact with inevitably occurring mutational behaviour within their urban context. The problem however, manifests itself as a reaction to the clash between incompatible phenotypes- the architectural expression of the man made is incompatible with the inherently evolving, process-based nature of the human being.

Humans are complex machines capable of effectively manipulating matter, energy and information- machines that think, feel, learn, evolve, migrate, cluster. Humans are resilient and responsive.

Similarly, in the process of creating our second nature- our synthetic nature- the finite number of possibilities our environments can become is strictly determined by our own ability to embed effective script sequences into the initial programming of the building.

The variety of paths an organism could follow during its lifespan is dictated by the complexity and the finesse of its programming.

We adapt. We grow. We die.

In an opposite scenario, where the initial variety of the programming offers limited range, the morphologic development of the organism in relation to its contextual environment is consequently reduced- the less parameters are taken into consideration during the initial programming of space, the more exposed to imminent mutations the final product becomes.

Through the use of standardized urban tissue blocks throughout the history, the urban environment became reliant on brutal forces for evolution, instead of fulfilling its dynamic urban growth potential through efficient optimisation in reaction to its context. An organism’s inability to adapt and optimise new parameters catalyses the production of mutations- at an urban level, often translatable into distress, causing severe modifications to the public

consciousness and identity.

Prominently opposed, the evolutionary patterns of the first nature propose a holistic, interchangeable interface- growth and optimisation are programmed into the genetic code of organisms before the occurrence of any mutational elements, characteristics that have been poorly integrated into the construction of the artificial morphologies that create our current urban nature.

Under these premises, the current body of work is concerned with identifying possible future scenarios through an analysis of developing synthetic biology and robotic technologies, their current applications within the realm of architecture and their speculative impact on the morphogenesis of the future city.

What if environments were composed of growth enabled organisms instead of buildings? What if the temporality of each environment would pose a scripting parameter in the DNA of our buildings?

What if the incompatibility between the nature of the phenotype and that of the environment would be minimized through intelligent construction of varied DNA sequences?

fig. 2 'fluid joint a, author's work

The emergence of architecture, biology and robotics as a joint field of study opens up the opportunity for architecture to become an interdisciplinary science, posing questions much more important than just the nature of the space that we live in.

Proposing the discussion topic almost in a utopian manner- what would be the impact of self-organising, growing environments in relationship to the sociopolitical climate? How could we use technology to avoid social distress? Which are the physical manifestations of biology, robotics and architecture? How can we build automated organisms with biological parts?

Concerned with the speculative futures resulted from the interaction between synthetic nature and primordial nature, Bionic Growth is essentially questioning the ability of our collective virtual dreams to overcome the architectural reality.

MUTATIONS

MUTATION /mjuːˈteɪʃ(ə)n/ noun = the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form which may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.

INTRODUCTION

What led up to brutal environments? What is the role of architectural morphologies into the production of mutations in the social DNA? The interaction between spatial morphologies and political ideologies is essential towards understanding dramatic changes within the social realm.

Defining the social realm as the original DNA of space and the political practice as the synthetic genotype input, the current chapter proposes an analysis of the production of architecture, here defined as the phenotype output- what is the physical manifestation of DNA in space if recombination of the genotype is attempted, but never fully completed through appropriate gene synthesis? When the city becomes the palpable expression of an artificial genotype rendered incompatible to its original social DNA sequence, how does the recalibration of equilibrium occur? How does the social realm react to an environment that is incompatible to its scripting parameters?

A. COLD BODIES /* the museum city */

fig. 3 'museum city a', author's work

The production of inanimate matter in architecture is inevitably the morphological result of emerging socio-political climates along determined time-space axes. The physical aesthetic of the resulting urban environments carries the subtleties of ideological (artificial) genotypes characteristic of the time during which they were constructed and the space in which they were constructed. As opposed to the morphological organisation of matter in nature under random principles, urbanism “did not just happen, it was constructed” ( Short, 1996 ), under arbitrary economic and political reasoning as means for establishing colonially owned territory as control centers (Short, 1996) - cities.

The artificial genotype of the city is determined under the premises of rational organisation benefiting ideological, political and economic growth without necessarily placing an emphasis over the natural morphological growth of its adjoining phenotype.

Urban planning becomes the ideal of implementing rational patterns in order to “better the environment”- to better, to reconstruct, to tame the social DNA, characterised by sporadic and random evolution of the human race.

The character and sequencing of the artificial genotype, however, fluctuates in direct relationship to its historical contextthe political intervention on architectural morphologies becomes a product of successive modes of production- following principles of marxist theory, the phenotype of a city is the product of the relationship

between the ownership of power and the availability of technological development.

The urban environment becomes submissive to a repetitive process of rise and fall of modes of production (Marx, quoted in Silva, 2016)- consequently the contemporary city becomes an eclectic mix of ruins: the ruins of previous products and trends evolved from political ideologies planned under premises of permanence at the time of their creation.

In an apparent post-revolutionary contemporary setting, the development of our cities becomes a process of integrating mutations resulted through the plethora of artificial political genotypes that occurred throughout history and their more or less successful attempts at rewriting the social identity DNA.

fig. 4 'museum city b', author's work

Under apparent democratic principles, the urban phenotype becomes overgrown through the input of its original DNA sequence- life follows its random evolutionary path in interaction with a rigid environment, producing unintended behavioural patterns as a reaction to nonadaptable spaces.

Analysing the contemporary city through a historical lens, the nature of the cities we’ve created is static and motionless (Carmona, 2014). Through successive processes of industrialisation, we produced large scale monuments, sculptures, museum exhibits- we are creators of the inanimate, the evolutionless.

Our environments are populated by cold bodies.

Initial urban planning regarded architecture as a product, rather than as a process; through an inherent top-up design methodology, the pre-networked city became a complex of separate independent entities functioning under a unifying political and social context.

Urban space became submissive to predefined generalised solutions applied to differentiated contexts (Silva, 2014). The natural congregation of organisms within networked ecosystems is overwritten through the generation of the city as a series of unrelated performative morphologies.

The function of the building, the square, the monument is defined through a limited number of input parameters. Each entity within the city is defined under individual operational principles, as opposed to the city as composed of communicating vessels.

cities as rudimentary machineries that respond to pre-planning and preorganising principles The architectural phenotype becomes an expression of restrictive artificial genetic sequences. The inherent ability of matter to transform and organise itself- scripted under the programming of the original genotype ( that of the social realm, of the natural ), is annihilated through the rigid stipulation of form through top-up design.

Mies’s constraint of matter by ideal geometry is based on an essentialist notion: that matter is formless and geometry regulates it‌ when freed from such essentializing conception, matter proves to have its own capacities of selforganization. (Reiser & Umemoto, 2006)

fig. 5 'brutalist form containment', author's work

Architecture, in correlation with controloriented political climates, developed under euclidean principles of form containment under well determined geometric premises.

The monumental in the pre-digital era is symbolic of undivided power- focused on result rather than process, the distribution of power in architecture became a replica of the distribution of power in the political realm; under the metaphor of the monument, architecture became an iconography of the architect.

Consequently, the production of space, through the symbiosis between architecture and politics, became a scene crafted for the display of power- through monumentalism, architecture became the aesthetic representation of the few: few prominent figures expressing

ownership over both state politics and the development of space; political power was unevenly distributed in the predemocratic state.

The unnatural symbiosis between the display of power and the urge for permanence resulted into an unnatural development of the city- ideology was planned and planted into nature- the inanimate forced its way in the world of the living, becoming a parasitic insertion into nature. The overarching aim of the political genome of re-scripting the original rules of the social DNA resulted into the production of life-less, static cities, incompatible with the soft nature of the human body.

We live in a museum city populated by cold bodies.

B. SOFT BODIES /* the accidental algorithm */ fig. 6 'overgrown a', author's work

“Life flows” as part of the epigenetic, the self-forming, the origin-less, with “all the vital impulses spontaneously forming itself into the all-embracing life” (Terranova, 2015) Evolution occurs through internal complexification of existing organisms in a continuous process of additive morphism.

The living and the non-living co-exist in a fluid inter-exchange of information, matter and energy, showcasing bioreceptiveness and constant contextual adaptation to one another. The synergy between the living and the non-living is summarized in a large scale machinic organism- the elements of an ecosystem exist under rules of mutual adaptation: if one element undergoes change, other elements will follow, entering an imminent, overflowing, constant optimisation process.

The non-living environmentnot possessing life according to standard terminology- pursues active systems of optimisation through constant material interaction. The non-living is capable of producing and responding to chemical reactions and physical impulses.

The artificial non-living, although in constant interaction with animate matter, does not enable the same synergetic relationship- the museum city is an environment of constant “do not touch” signs. Evolution in the context of the static city can only occur through the refusal of the animate to abide by the rules of nonliving.

Rock formations are taken over by mossthe incompatibility between soft bodies and cold bodies translates into the principle

of the overgrown: active organisms create their own accidental evolutionary processes under the host of the inactive.

In context, the term soft bodies is defined under the premises of social activity within a city- all living beings as part of a society contextually linked to an urban settlement.

In spite of the vigorous urban planning of our cities as sets of networks, blocks and services, the occurring quotidian life developed on the premises is “much more complex than a hierarchical and functional organisation of activities in cities” ( Alexander, 1965, Alexander et al., 1977).

fig. 7 'overgrown b', author's work

The living beings within a city are subject of random evolution, accounting therefore for the production of the unintended, the random and the unpredictable within the urban premises. Such sporadic evolution requires an appropriate response of the environment in order to avoid the generation of mutations.

Under the premise of the museum city, incapable of change- the living matter produces mutations within, both locally and globally, producing factors of social distress.

Although unintended, the urban space is “socially produced” and it affects “individual and collective lives” (Soja, 2011). Urban spatial causality, as defined

by Soja, refers to the active input of the social DNA towards the morphogenesis of the urban phenotype. Whereas cities abandon evolutionary properties once with their production as finalised formcities play their role and tend to adapt to their limits (Weinstock, 2013)- the development of the space is an on-going process carried on through the input of the living beings.

This naturally occurring process gathers poetic meanings in the context of peaceful environments, it becomes a definition of nature following its course. However, in the context of brusque environments defined by fixed notions of program, activity and embedded with strict notions of social order, it becomes a violation of the ideological, artificial genotype. The inherent tendency of the original DNA to take over incompatible phenotypes becomes problematic, creating disruptions between society and politics.

The disruptive interaction between fixity and flexibility, as stereotypical opposites (Carmona, 2014) becomes the inception of social distress.

C. STRANGE BODIES INFECTION fig. 8 'berlin', author's work

Under the goal of validating the principle of mutation production within the city and their role in catalysing social distress, the focus of the current subchapter falls on an analysis of socialist cities.

The premise behind discussing typologies of communist urbanism falls under the aim of reducing the theory of mutation to its essential components in order to extract simple operational parameters under which the production of distress is fostered.

Summarising, the theory of mutation speculates the idea that the incompatibilty between the social realm and the political ideology produces parasitic environments through architectural expression enabled by fixed ideology rather than sporadic social development. Under this framework, the theory proposes that urban mutations occur through the hostile interaction of living matter with the ideologic city. The evolution of the living matter is translated through unintended use of space under the premises of space designed to fulfill a finite, well-determined set of functions.

Consequently, the less parameters are taken into consideration during the initial planning of urban spaces, the more prone cities become to the production of mutations and imminently, of revolutions.

Limiting the design of top-down architecture to a reduced number of well-determined

functions produces vulnerable phenotypes: under the premise of “being overgrown by living organisms”, the rigidly programmed city becomes exposed to being taken over by unintended uses of space that occur through the imminent sporadic evolution of the living.

In this context, socialist cities are regarded to as entities programmed under exponentially fewer parameters than other rigid-city models.

Defined by Szelenyi (1996) as a complex of “less”-es: less diversity (relative scarcity of consumer services); less concentration in the use of land (absence of a land market), and less marginality (inhabitation of individual or creativity), the socialist cities of the twentieth century proposed limits in terms of size and repurposed the city centers as ideological rather than business epicenters of the society (Short, 1996).

Socialist cities were implemented replicas of soviet city planning under different geographical contexts and similar political regimes, serving propagandist ideals of the “truly far reaching city, where private ownership of land is absent, where housing is publicly owned and a single economic plan directs the national economy� (Zile, 1963).

Under the premise of overwriting the national identity, the political genotype produced standardized phenotypes under principles of directional organisation ( such as axes, piazzas, cantilevered walkways ): the city’s main purpose was to organise the quotidian life of the individual, creating a journey for the everyday life through the assignment of highly specific functions to architectural morphologies. The city became an expression of absence: of diversity, of concentration, of marginality (Zile 1963).

Cities organised under these parametersas examples, Berlin and Beijing- can be understood as representation of the duality of space: the program generated through the input of restrictive politics and the acquired function resulted through the unintended use of space.

fig. 9 'ruins', author's work

On the western edge of the square the authorities built the great hall of the people, on the eastern edge of the museum of the chinese revolution, and in the center a 37 meter-high granite obelisk as a monument to the peoples’ heroes. The square was built as a symbol of the new socialist china, the setting for mass processions, also became the setting for mass protest. The subsequent massacre became a symbol of a corrupt regime smashing popular protest. ( Short, 1998)

In Beijing, the process of monumentalizing the city took place under linear premises of destruction and reconstruction- the redevelopment of the Tian an Men square ( as the centre of gratification for the socialist regime ) and the construction of the monumental people’s hall and the museum happened under the effect of complete demolition of the preexisting structures. On the other hand, Berlin’s urban typology was generated through a brutal, chaotic process of constant destruction and reconstruction (Banjeree, undated) of public spaces under the emphasis of political regimes.

Socialism, however, highlighted notions of political space within the city through the redevelopment of the city layout by widening of the streets under the premises of coordinating one’s quotidian path within the city and catering for the need of congregation spaces under a similar scope of gratifying the marxist-leninist

regime. The redevelopment of the city under the premises of creating empty urban spaces- adulation spaces- took the shape of monumental constructions in East Berlin, such as Alexanderplatz, the Marx-Engles forum, the Palast der Republick or the Karl-Marx Allee.

Berlin has undertaken an extraordinary journey, and its persistent quest for change has left it either- as now- cautiously searching for a role, or indulging in overweening arrogance and aggression.

Its chameleon tendency to follow each new great ideology or leader, or to lurch maniacally from one grand political vision to another, has left a mesmerizing but often tragic legacy” (Alexandra Richie)

The cities became an iconoclastic representation of brutal political environmentsthe rigidity of the monumental became devoid of any adaptation abilities, creating an antisynergetic relationship in its interaction with the evolving living world. The city became a direct opposition of the organism, constantly reminding of and tantalising the abrupt differences between the forced genotype- the strict political regime- and the original social DNA inclusive of its inherent need for growth and random evolution.

The city translates as an unnatural insertion into the primordial nature- a strange, parasitic body, threatening to overtake the epigenetic characteristics of the organic nature. In this context of constant friction between a fundamentally incompatible phenotype and genotype, the strange bodies caused an infection- the socialist city became the premise of the revolution.

fig. 10 'a dual map of berlin', author's work

“today the city is looking for a function.

It knows what it was, but it still does not know what it is, let alone what it will be�

(Engert, 1980)

The genesis of the revolution took place in the piazzas, in front of the palaces, on the sidewalks of the wide streets- the congregation spaces strictly intended for gratification morphed into congregation spaces for the ignition of revolutionary behaviour. The artificial, imposed political genotype became ultimately overwritten by the natural laws of evolution.

Evolution- under the effect of the revolution- could only occur through destruction. In an attempt of ridding nature of the unnatural phenotypic expressions of the forced genotype, the monuments, the obelisks, the statues had to be eradicated.

Eveniments as such gain a mutational power over the social DNA- the genes of the revolution become heritable traits, transmitted to the next generation under the form of mutations, quietly infecting the city of future.

“Shaped by the socialist ideology and mode of production, socialist urban forms and spaces suffer the similar tragedy of moderny�

(Banerjee, undated)

Although constructed under multiplied parametric variations, the contemporary city is still populated by rigid bodies. Our environments aren’t capable of generating growth in order to accustom and replicate the growth process of soft bodies. In this context, how long will it take for our rigid cities to become fundamentally incompatible and imminently overgrown by our own social DNA? How long until the incompatibility reaches the infection stage again? How long until the next occurrence of social distress?

Speculating a future where the city remains the same and the inhabiting populations develop, the production of a new revolution becomes a certainty.

Under this premise, the relevance of morphing our cities from rigid monumental constructions to adaptive, optimised, growing entities becomes fundamental towards the production of harmonious futures.

GROWTH INTERFACE

00. THE FRANKENSTEIN

A. MANIFESTO

fig. 11 'experiment 1, author's work

Virtual dreams- our future is contained within the memory space of our virtual dreams; science-fiction is kept under captivity in virtual environments.

We dream of mechanistic organisms capable of self-organisation and growth- we imagine our cities as a forest, growing through internal complexification triggered by a constant interchange of matter, information and energy between the living and the non-living. We dream of architectures that are capable of decay- machines organised under cycles of life and reproduction; architecture that hosts the soft bodies, that responds to their evolutionary patterns and that enhances their development as living beings.

We dream of architecture as an ecosystem- artificial nature completely morphed into the primary nature.

B. INTRODUCTION

fig. 12 'experiment 2, author's work

Artificial nature worlds are second natures in that they are rule-ordered human constructions, but also that they are meant to mirror nature first. (Helmreich, 1998)

The deployment of architecture, computation and biology as a joint field of study can be traced back to the inherent need of understanding and replicating life processes through the manipulation of inanimate matter.

The ideal of creating life from nonliving matter, in itself representing the triumph of control over the random, the chaotic, the natural- has been a recurrent theme throughout history. Variations of Frankenstein-esque myths and experimental ideals have sporadically sprung into existence under different aesthetic connotations in a variegation of disciplinesfrom arts to science and literature.

Beyond the hedonistic desire of creation largely discussed through the medium of arts and humanities, science addresses the interest in creating and sustaining artificial life through a much more pragmatic lens of directed problem-solving.

The production of artificial life is largely conducted in virtual spaces, through the extensive research of natural environments.

The definition of artificial varies in sensibility and technicality both in a time and space context- the artificial is torn between the duality of being perceived either as a purely virtual representation of life through the lens of computation or a highly speculative science dealing with the translation of natural behavioural patterns into computed organisms.

However, where does the artificial become an extension of the natural?

Can non-life be life in the same time? Can life be non-life?

What is the boundary between the synthetic, the computational and the natural?

Originated within the premises of computing, artificial life insinuates the creation of biological phenomena through the progress of digital media (Santa Fe Institute, 1994)- however, through the correlation of biological computation with the advancements of responsive physical matter under the paradigm of material research, the current chapter is discussing the potential incorporation of imagined artificial natures into the physical realm.

Concerned with synthetic biology and its contextual applications in architecture, through an analysis of both analogous and digital processes, the current chapter is exploring the processes and principles behind advancing architectural morphogenetics.

C. IMMERSION

fig. 13 'experiment 3, author's work

“The path seemed obvious: the question of what life is was to be answered not by induction but by production, not by analysis but by synthesis.” (Fox Keller, 2009)

The need of understanding life and death (Ruso, Cove, 1995), their meaning and their impact over our environments came as a demand for evolutionary studies. Evolution, inherently understood through darwinian input and classical biology, became handson instead of theoretical once with the development of what became known as synthetic biology.

Stirring away from theoreticism, biology morphed its definition from the study of living organisms to the study of the non-living, through the input of syntheticism.

“Evolution has to become an experimental science, which must first be controlled and studied, then conducted and finally shaped to the use of man” (de Vrie, quoted in Campos, 2009)

The new era of synthetic biology, terminologically conveyed by Szybalski in Gene Magazine (1978) gave birth to a plethora of analogue experiments- the earliest attempt of using synthesis as means to understand the basic biology of organic growth and morphology was recorded in “La Biologie Synthetique” (1912) through the description of Stephane Leduc’s jardine chimiques. Leduc claimed to have achieved synthetic growth through a variety of osmotic and crystalline growths in solution (Campos, 2009).

While Leduc focused on the replication of form and shape, John Butler Burke at the Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge formulated the fundamental question that contains the greater meaning and purpose of synthetic biology as a discipline: Could life be produced from nonlife?

02. TO GIVE LIFE

To understand humans, we must first study bacteria (Ruso, Cove, 1995)

A. GENESIS /* self organisation of matter in nature, computing, algorithmic growth in virtual environments */

fig. 14 'cell', u.n

In order to imply biological phenomena into the production of engineered environments, one must first understand the principles of self-organisation and assembly embedded into the genetic code of individual cells.

fig. 15 Rib bone scanning electron, undated

Prior attempting to replicate mechanisms of growth at larger scale, syntheticism first delved into the replication and modification of micro organisms.

Carlson (2010) divided the study of synthetic biology into two predominant categories: the design and fabrication of novel systems and the re-design and fabrication of existing biological systems. While the first attempts scripting new morphologies from scratch, the latter relies on pre-existing natural complexities. Watts (2011) argues that disposing of the existing biological complexity altogether and pursuing independent creation of matter would be mad. He describes biology as “a beautifully engineered self-assembly system”- a system that we attempt to understand and ultimately use to our advantage, but that we do not completely distill intelectually

yet (Carlson, 2010). Consequently, the aim of re-scripting the finesse of programming found in nature becomes invasive, similarly to the way through which pre-democratic politics attempted the reprogramming of the rigid city.

Under natural laws, the creation of life itself is built on pre-existing principles: evolution requires the prior existence of stable, autonomous and self-reproducing cells possessing at least the equivalent of primitive mechanisms to support metabolism and cell division (Fox Keller, 2009 ) in order to survive. Similarly, the production of artificial organisms in modern synthetic biology requires pre-existing life systems in order to produce and reproduce new morphological entities in a holistic manner without causing distress through attempts of over-writing the pre-existing vernacular of matter.

The evolution of artifice must therefore

manifest itself as an approach to “better” nature (Watts, 2011) through adapting its systems to existing architectural progression in order to fit emerging social, political and environmental needs.

The first step towards achieving dynamic and adaptive artificial environments (Hensel, 2013) is to understand the nature of self adapting systems as programmable constructions capable of achieving and maintaining structure without external control (Hensel, 2013).

Self organisation occurs as a continuous process of adaptation through immediate reaction to stimuli from the external environment.

One of the first emerging attempts at translating natural principles into designable interfaces was replicating the organisation principles of biological matter into the realm of computation through sequencing digital genomes and following their evolution under virtually constructed epigenetic settings.

The virtual simulation of ecosystems populated by simple cellular organisms presents itself as an opportunity for testing principles of networking, cohabitation, interdependent adaptation and optimisation of organisms under the premises of a growth enabled environment.

The creation of Tierra introduced the notion of self-replicating computer environments, but also that of global collaboration towards sustaining virtual life.

Designed by Tom Ray in 1990, Tierra is an elementary replica of evolution models based on the same self-replicating technology found in computer viruses. Ray’s ideal was to create a web-based network of indefinite growth potential, populated

with growing, reproducing, competing and mutating organisms (Helmreich, 1998). While the program presented basic evolution principles such as punctuated equilibrium ( stasis of the organism under fossil form until the encounter of major evolutionary pressures ), host parasite coevolution ( reciprocal adaptivity of both the host and the parasite through selective pressures ) and density dependant natural selection, it did not account for optimisation functions - therefore, the organisms populating Tierra were not enabled to develop under self-presevation and organic phenotype morphosis principles; Tierra’s population was to come into existence under evolutionary principles strictly dependent on one’s ability to survive within the ecosystem or else, die.

fig. 16 Tierra, Tom Ray, 1990

While rudimentary in its approach to evolving computer ecosystems and nowhere as sophisticated as the modern evolutionary patterns developed under the premises of genetic algorithms, Tierra’s input to the development of artificial nature is relevant under two premises: its overarching scope of becoming a collaborative social network (where people would “donate� computer memory space in order to pursue the development of tierran organisms) and as demonstration that evolution can be achieved under simple premises and with limited resources, much similar to the processes identified in protocells.

The applications of similar self-organising eco-systems in architecture can be both translated into a physical output of

computation- through the production of robotic components for the assembly of large scale structures- and into the programmable biological components of living matter building blocks.

fig. 17, 'Logic Matter' 1, Tibbits, S., 2012

fig. 18, 'Logic Matter' 2, Tibbits, S., 2012

Purely under an in silico mean of production, simple self-organising, self-assembling artificial organisms can be currently achieved in the physical world through the input of hamiltonian paths and euler tools (methods of running a single path through an arbitrary set of points), demonstrated in the generation of macrobots and decibots in Tibbits’ (2012) project, Logic Matter. Robotic morphologies as such have demonstrated self-organising abilities at large-scale in the form of reconfigurable building blocks achieved through the incorporation of programmable mobile small joints defined under two states of existence, enabled to follow assembly instructions embedded in their own “DNA”, reacting to the environment in which they were created through principles of sensorial coordination (Tibbits, 2012).

Under the premises of robotic production, architecture can achieve desired mobility and context-driven organisation of elementshowever, purely in silico means of production become an ambition of recreating biological environments from scratch, through manipulation of completely artificial matter.

Although a step away from the production of stereotypical top-down designs, robotic morphologies on their own don’t fully endorse the process-based occurrence of grown form, classified rather under the paradigm of biomimetics than biomorphism.

Systems that incorporate principles of developmental biology and enable the exchange of biological matter between morphologies are desirable in the goal of achieving biological growth within our artificial environments. The replication of random growth principles in nature, at least

fig. 19, 'Logic Matter' 3, Tibbits, S., 2012

at the virtual computer simulation level, can be achieved through the application of L-system based programming.

Introduced in 1968, L-system based programming was initially used for the reproduction of multi-cellular growth through mathematical principles. Later, it became the algorithmic basis for successive generations of plant-modelling softwaresthe earliest version, CELIA, developed

by Baker and Herman over forty years ago, was succeeded by pfg and later cpfg (Prusinkiewics, 2000).

The later, cpfg- plant and fractal generator with continuous parameters- is capable of producing plant architectures “based on the ecological concept of a plant as a population of semi-autonomous modules, describing a growing plant as an integration of the activities of these modules” (Prusinkiewics, cited in Hensel, 2013).

fig. 20, 'L-systems' 1, Hensmeier, M., 2003

fig. 21, 'L-systems' 2, Hensmeier, M., 2003

Similarly to the previous examples, L-system based plant modelling approaches growing systems under the premise of fragmentation of form under individually modifiable units, focusing on the manipulation of an organism through controlling subcellular components towards the engineering of the whole.

Softwares such as cpfg allow the virtual growth of plant experiments under the premises of interchangeable components shared between proposed morphologies, as well as offering a platform for digitally analysing the behaviour of engineered species against physical laws and biological principles of evolution (Hensel, 2013).

The potential for engineering and simulating architecture based on the principles introduced by L-system based programming softwares is identified by Hensel as applications at the operational system of a building, under the form of “entire building systems and envelopes” informed by “multivariable input and optimised to satisfy multi-performance objectives” (Hensel, 2013).

Nonetheless, could the applications of L-system based modelling be translated at a larger-scale?

Could entire buildings become a complex of interchangeable modules, similarly to the plants simulated in cpfg? Could “plant growth” be physically achieved at a building level through the implementation of robotically produced joints, similarly to the macrobots of Logic Matter? Could modular growth be simulated through robotically operated blocks of living matter under principles of self-organisation and self-assembly? Could our environment become a network of self-replicating growing biotechnological entities, similarly to Tierra?

B. OUR HOUSE /* biobricks, open source platforms, collaborative growth, bioeconomy, biopolitics */

fig. 22, 'Microscopy', undated

In order to define the city of the future as an urbanized replica of biological ecosystems, one must first understand the synergetic relationship between natural organisms

The dynamics between organisms and environment manifest as a constant, codependent flow of matter, information and energy- an ecosystem is defined as the interaction between communities of organism populations and their environment. Equilibrium is maintained through the operation of the system as a “joint mechanism”, where all components are interlinked and “cannot exist without each other” (Poletto, Pasquero, 2012).

Translated in the language of the urban realm, the ecosystem becomes an “intricate global nervous system created by a world of information technologies” (Batty, Hudson, 2013).

Under the premise of biotechnology finding its way into the physical realm as modular biological matter blocks, the need for understanding the city as a synergetic process between its users and the environment becomes essential.

Roudavski (2009) defined the principle of “performative-place approach”, describing it as “space, dynamically constructed by its participants, contingent of the idiosyncratic involvements of these participants”. In context, space becomes a collection of individually-optimised architectural organisms that operate under synergetic premises, constantly updating the architectural phenotype of the city.

“Man- long content with his part as caretaker and subjugator of living species- is now learning the new role of creator” (early twenty century newspaper quoted in Schmidt, Kelle, Ganguli-Mitra & Vriend, 2009) Through the assimilation of biotechnology as a “mainstream science” (Carlson, 2010), the evolution of the space occurs under the premises of an open-space platform

aiming to create new building modules- the biotechnological environment becomes a collaborative space developed through active community-based projects evolving emerging parameters of programming and building with living matter.

Neri Oxman (2011) analyses the potential development of such modular building blocks speculating the potential of creating “material units” that incorporate data inclusive of their “assembly, behaviour, decay and regeneration” in the context of progressing protocell technology. Carlson (2010) speculates the implications of such developments in the context of the opensource platform- what if genetic building material could become widely accessible?

What if the modification of genetic material would become so integral to the social life that the common individual could engineer their own building blocks? What if biological building blocks would become as frequent and easy to use as IKEA furniture?

One of the successful attempts of the such is the annual iGEM competition at MIT. Developed under the aim of integrating genetic material into large mechanistic prototypes, iGEMthe international Genetically Modified Machine competition- took the shape of an opensource competition for actively evolving the advancements in the field of synthetic biology and bioengineering. The competition became open to participation for individuals without undergraduate studies in any of its fields of focus, underlining the emerging idea of the home-made scientist and integration of science into the public realm.

Other attempts at creating open-source biomaterial data bases sprung into existence in the past decade- projects such as the BioMaker Challenge, under the SynBio Fund initiative in Cambridge, or the annual SynBio Conference- work towards the same goal.

The occurrence of such movements could have a monumental impact on the inclusive development of our environments- if biotechnology became assimilated into the open-source network in the same way that programming and computation did, creating clusters of innovation, how would the biobrick of the future look like?

C. MATTER OF INANIMATE GROWTH /* chemical processes in the inanimate world, the reaction of the immaterial */

fig. 23, 'Tropisms', Oxman, N., 2006

In order to create a dialect between animate and inanimate matter, one must understand the properties of the non-living ecological environment coexisting in synergy with the living.

SYNERGY ˈsɪnədʒi/ noun = the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

Geometry does not domesticate material- it acts as a tympanum against which the material properties can propagate (Pasquairelli, Poletto, 2012)

Inanimate matter is defined as matter that does not possess life- does not show signs of consciousness, spirit or vitality. Animate matter is inherently defined as the world of the living- all organisms possessing life.

Whereas organisms, individuals and the resulting populations evolve through chemotaxis- here, the inanimate accounts for the environmental stimuli that trigger change- the evolution of the inanimate matter (elements of the natural world- i.e materials ) is dependant on its inherent conditions of growth embedded in the cellular sequence, activated through the occurrence of chemical and physical processes.

Material properties are considered intermediary agents (Oxman, 2011) between external stimuli and the physical behaviour of matter under their effect.

Neri Oxman (2011) underlines principles of similarity between the properties of

inanimate matter and protocells, under the premises that protocells- through basic biochemical processes- acquire behavioural characteristics that guide their development under simple self-organisation rules.

Through the reduction to basic rules of biology, protocells become a simplified demonstration of the interaction between inanimate matter and external stimuli, rendering them as a potent case of study for furthering material capabilities.

Protocells, as defined by Oxman (2011) are nature’s primordial soup- simple selforganized collection of lipids generated through the chemical reaction between two molecular elements. Considered “an extremely pared down and simple version of a cell”, protocells demonstrate the ability to grow, replicate, evolve and mutate. (“Exploring Life’s Origins”, 2008).

Their genesis- correlated with the study of origin of life- and their ability to produce differentiated reproductive outputs through active accumulation of biological characters is relevant in the context of understanding how one can achieve biological complexity starting with a limited number of inputs.

Commonly composed of a RNA replicase and a fatty acid membrane, the reproductive process of the protocell occurs through the addition of fatty acids from micelle collisions causing the expansion of the surface area of the protocell and resulting in elongation and the division of the membrane into two daughter protocells (“Exploring Life’s Origins”, 2008). The simple reproductive system demonstrated in protocells showcase the biological ability of matter to multiply under conditions of losing equilibrium, regaining it later once the evolutionary pressures dissipate. The interface between the two simple molecules “becomes the place of dynamic interactions” (Armstrong, 2011).

AVATAR (2011) discusses the relevance of the protocell within the discourse of creating architectural complexity- “complex life-like behaviours” achieved through the basic interaction between protocells, can be then multiplied and organised under more complex arrangements. Protocells demonstrate potential for the creation of selfreproducing, self-assembled, multicellular architectural phenotype through the manipulation of inanimate matter.

“The aim is to utilise and instrumentalise behaviours as a response to stimuli towards performance-oriented designs.” ( Hensel, 2013)

fig. 25, 'Digital protocell', Oxman, N., 2012

Through the study of the basic processes of the protocell, architecture can attempt the production of larger scale ecosystems embedded with an internal network of biological matter that demonstrates abilities of complexification in relation to environmental epigenetics.

Such attempts have been demonstrated in life-scale projects developed in the past ten years under experimental premises of generating replicating arrangements of protocells.

fig. 24, 'Prococell', n.d

fig. 26, 'Hylozoic Ground’/ Protocell architecture, Beesley, P., 2010

fig. 27, 'Protocell architecture 1 ', Iwamoto, L. 201t

fig. 28, 'Protocell architecture 2', Iwamoto, L. 2010

Lisa Iwamoto’s project Line Array attempted the generation of complex biological matter under a self-organising structural matrix under simple chemotaxis principles derived from physical, environmental and biological laws. The project proposed testing the evolutionary abilities of building with biological matter against a reduced number of parameters defined by a set of experimental pre-existing principles.

fig. 29, 'Protocell architecture 3', Iwamoto, L. 2010

Line array explores the applicability of a protocell modality to a range of structural surface formations (Iwamoto, 2011) The overarching goal of the project was to understand the congregation of inanimate molecules in relationship to “variable, localised and non-symmetrical loading conditions� (Iwamoto, 2011).

fig. 30, ‘Anthozoa‘, Oxman, N., 2013

fig. 31, ‘Gemini’ 1, Oxman, N., 2011

fig. 32, ‘Gemini’ 2, Oxman, N., 2011

Oxman (2011) assesses the relevance of initial experiments manipulating biological matter under the premise that “we must first define and demonstrate ways that enable top-down templating of bottomup processes”. Gemini, a collaboration between Neri Oxman, Stratasys and Professor W. Craig Carter demonstrates principles of domesticated containment of biological matter towards the goal of applying its properties through refined, locally-applied methods. The project- a

semi-anechoic chaise-longue, combines a mixture of digital fabrication techniques, using standard fabrication materials- timberin correlation with contained protocell systems. Here, the inherent ability of self-organisation of the protocell is used under ergonomic principles- the protocell matrix is applied to the internal cushioning of the chaise-longue, accounting for the responsiveness and adaptation abilities of biological matter in order to deliver structural support and comfort (Oxman, 2011).

fig. 33, ‘Gemini’ 3, Oxman, N., 2011

Templating, as defined in the context of Gemini, provides a domesticated framework for experimentation with synthetic biology and it concerns the implementation of simple principles of growth and responsiveness within accepted paradigms of construction and production of architecture at human scale.

The applicability of protocell technology at urban scale is speculated by Rachel Armstrong and Neil Spiller (and external collaborators to their studio, AVATAR), through their project Future Venice.

Armstrong ( 2013 ) defines protocells as a “dynamic fabric”, that without having “a central biological program such as DNA to guide them”, demonstrate life-like behaviours that she speculates under the scope of growing an artificial limestone reef underneath Venice. Central to resolving a quantifiable environmental and urban issue through reclaiming Venice, the project proposes the integration of synthetic biology and engineering into the complex realm of solving pressing urbanism issues.

‘Future Venice’ proposes the use of protocells under the paradigm of programmable droplets, engineered to move towards the darkened foundations of the historic city and, through collaborative synthesis with shellproducing marine creatures, to produce an artificial reef ( ‘University of Greenwich Research’, 2013) responding to the extensive sinking phenomena identified in Venice.

However theoretical, ‘Future Venice’ provides an approachable framework for the integration of synthetic biology within the contemporary urban nature, militating for the essential role artificial symbiosis has in the production of intelligent solutions to problems that could not be addressed under the

paradigms of previous modes of production.

Understanding nature’s relationship with materiality provides a potent theoretical basis for the production of performative architecture sprung into existence from its constraints and developing under chemotaxis principles, demonstrating an ability to “absorb changes through a modifiable geometric modelling setup” (Hensel, 2011).

fig. 31, Protocells under water, Armstrong, R., 2011

D. COMMUNICATING VESSELS /* non-linear processes, complexification, notions of urbanism, constant communication between the animate and the inanimate */

fig. 35, Communicating vessels drawings, Spiller, N., 2011

In order to enable additive growth in artificial organisms, one must first understand the organisational principles of biological morphogenesis.

MORPHOGENESIS /ˌmɔːfə(ʊ)ˈdʒɛnɪsɪs/ noun Biology: The generation of biological form and structure. Morphogenesis encompasses a broad scope of biological processes, trying to understand the maintenance, degeneration, and regeneration of tissues and organs as well as their formation.

Architecture: Group of methods that employ digital media not as representational tools for visualization but as generative tools for the derivation of form and its transformation often in an aspiration to express contextual processes in built form (Roudavski, 2009)

A machine with an underspecified goal, a machine that evolves (Pasquarelli, Poletto, 2012)

The evolutionary development of an organism over time occurs under growth parameters often assigned under the paradigm of random and sporadic evolution.

Organisms- the animate matter- develop under principles of natural complexification through non-linear growth processes determined by stimuli received from an unpredictable, variable and constantly evolving environment.

Complexification is defined as the incremental elaboration of solutions through adding new structure ( Stanley, Miikkulainen, 2004)biological form evolves through the complexification of internal networks, rather than expansion outside the premises of form; form is generated under the premise of chemotaxis.

Generative urban patterns therefore translate into a large scale, continuous process of producing evolving interlinked architectural phenotypes- similarly to nature, urbanism becomes subject of gradual development (Roudavski, 2009), relying, however on the machinic synthesis between programmed biological matter and robotic selfassembly modules as growth mechanism.

The city as a natural ecosystem has to display a “higher level integration and functionality evolving from a dynamic feedback relation” (Hensel, 2011)- the fluid city, achieved through a continuous morphogenetic process of complexification becomes a network of joint organisms that cannot exist without each other, creating a synergistic relationship of codependency ( Poletto, Pasquero, 2012). Each of the mechanisms of a city complexify individually, but in a perpetual relationship of

chemotaxis with surrounding mechanisms’ own process of complexification. The city becomes a unitary polymorphic organism.

Such behaviour is defined under the principle of communicating vesselswhen water is poured into one vessel, it overspills into its adjacent containers, reaching a state of equilibrium. The city as a polymorphic organism becomes a set of “vascular systems” and “integrated networks characterised by bundling and weaving, micro-capillary systems” (Wiscombe, 2010).

Each mechanism within the city becomes integral to the morphogenesis of the organism.

Pasquero, Poletto (2012) speculate the polymorphic city under the premises of computation capacity of generating adaptive algorithmic urban fabric. Architecture is regarded under non-linear principles of evolution, implying perpetual generation of new lines of code catalysed by the completion of the previous one and the recognition of the potential it has produced (Pasquero, Poletto, 2012), therefore constructing the algorithmic urban plan in real time, as an instantaneous reaction to the complexification of each machine in the city. The urban planning of a city

becomes a matter of perpetually generating updates to accommodate the changing conditions of its internal mechanisms.

The survival of the city in real time and real space is dependent on “participation and exchange at the various social levels and material scales”, coevolving within their context ( Pasquero, Poletto, 2012).

The city is defined as the complex of “identity, involution and synthesis” (Colletti, 2010) between its mechanisms.

fig. 36, 'The temple of repose', Spiller, N., 2010

E. DECAY INTO EQUILIBRIUM fig. 37, 'decay', author's work

/* optimisation in nature */

In order to avoid death, matter has to be capable of metamorphosis.

Natural ecosystems exist in a state of constant parametric optimisation.

Organisms are capable of regulating “ their use of energy and harness it to change their usage of raw materials” (Armstrong, 2011).

For the scope of maintaining an optimal level of energy throughout their lifespan, living systems perform optimisation processes noticeable both through the expression of their phenotype and the interaction with other living systems.

Raoul Francis (2012) argues that “every process in nature has its necessary form”, referring to the fact that form, as well as behavioural patterns, occur in nature under the principle of pursuing the shortest distance between points (Nagy, 2012). Form and consequently, its morphogenesis in time, become subject of constant optimisation in relation to chemotaxis.

Optimisation occurs at a synergetic level both at the particular scale of a given organism and at the larger scale, that of the ecosystem- energy harnessing and form finding starts within the premises of the programmable parts of the individual cell.

Adequately, under premises of codependent evolution, the programming of a cell dictactates co-optimisation of individual parameters within a given context. A cluster of cells optimises itself as a network, in chain reaction.

Optimal form finding occurs in nature as a process of avoiding resource scarcity and waste (Watts, 2011)- in architecture, in spite of our best engineering efforts to optimise top-down design, straight lines become a proliferation of the unnatural, generating “odd edges or corners� (Azambuja de Varela, 2013) that inevitably result in low efficiency constructions and poor adaptability capacities over their predicted life span.

The relevance of adopting optimisation processes similar to those found in living systems in the generation of our future bottom-up architectural prototypes translates into the pursue of morphogenesis and avoidance of death both at building and urban scale. At building scale, optimisation becomes an internal process achieved through exposure at environmental epigenetics, translated through active

morphogenesis of form for the purpose of maintaining optimal levels of energy in order to survive a lifelong interaction with unpredictable environmental conditions.

In spite of the active occurrence of decay in living organisms, nature does not become subject to death- an organism that has concluded its life cycle transfers essential genes to its offspring, therefore perpetuating the evolution of species through the new models of optimisation accomplished through new generations. Reproduction, consequently, becomes a process of optimisation in the larger context of the survival of the ecosystem.

At urban scale, consequently, the survival of mechanistic organisms is dependent on their ability to reproduce and perpetuate the fluid city through changing environmental, political and societal conditions.

03. LIMITS OF THE LIMITLESSS

A. iNTRODUCTION

How do artificial organisms develop in context? How do they relate to the place of their genesis? Is the synthetic a limitless realm of unhindered growth or does it inherit the constraints of nature through the assimilation of biological phenomena under its evolutionary paradigm?

Which is the predicted development of the synthetic in the natural world? How do replicating artificial organisms assimilate notions of vernacular, of place and of identity?

B. THE SKIN THEY’RE IN

fig. 38, 'robot skin' author's work

“The thing about the biological world that resonates and fascinates is its seemingly limitless ability to generate excess� (Wiscombe, 2010)

We like to regard the natural world as a medium of infinite possibility- of infinite growth, devoid of boundaries of genesis or oblivion. We perceive the natural as the lush, the extravagant, the excessive- furious nature capable of incontrolable, permanent growth and limitless morphogenesis.

Thompson (1917) outlines the need of understanding natural growth in the context of both the limitations imposed by evolution and the possibilities provided by purely physical forces acting on a growing organism.

Evolution is only limitless when understood in the context of the ecosystem- of the network. Regarded from a global perspective, the ecosystem does indeed display infinite growth- however, not infinite growth of its composing organisms, but infinite growth as a complex of reproducing machines and successive generation of both living and non-living matter.

Natural matter- both animate and inanimateis limited under the premises of its own skin: in nature, form develops as a reaction to

evolutionary constraints originated in the external world. Reverse to the discourse regarding the complexification of the ecosystem as originating from within, the limitations of the individual originate from the exterior. Phenotype morphosis in individuals occurs under the synthesis between external forces and the organism’s ability to react to those.

The premise of identifying the phenotype of an organism as the limitation of its development can be justified under Philip Ball’s theory of pattern formation in nature.

Ball ( 2012 ) regards the patterns of nature -symmetries, fractals, branching veins, hexagons, honeycomb structures- as design components determined by regularities developed under the order of environmental maths and physics. In his book, “Patterns in nature”, he collates seemingly chaotic natural patterns and analyses their morphogenesis under the premise that their formation is dependent on chemotaxis and equilibrium seeking.

Giving as an example the complex arrays found at Fingal’s cave- sculpted through the input of environmental forces- Ball speculates that the resulting form of natural matter is directly informed by the set of parameters occurring in the immediate context, therefore justifying the recurrence of certain patterns in seemingly un-correlated environments.

Under these premises, the genotype of an organism loses its apparently limitless characteristics- genes are necessary but not sufficient for the emergence of form ( Eble, 2003 ).

Eble (2003) argues that the random development of an organism under evolutionary dynamics produces new organisations that are subsequently encoded but not fully specified by heritable genes. The input of dynamics into the production of differentiated genes in the offspring stands as an adjoining procedure towards the occurrence of non-linearity in developmental biology.

Consequently, form is outlined by genetic input, but ultimately defined through chemotaxis.

Digital form finding has been known to support design processes characterised by the control and manipulation of formal elements as a function of the interaction between material and environment. (Oxman, 2011) Under the premises of in silico, the architectthe programmer- becomes responsible of generating sets of genes that outline the receptiveness of the organism to chemotaxis in order to achieve homogeneous, holistic growth; it becomes our responsibility to model “environmentally sensitive growth” (Hensel, 2011). Pasquero, Poletti (2012)

define the morphing role of the architect under the metaphor of the gardener: through the pursue of biological integration in silico, our fluid cities become large scale testing beds, subject to unpredictable daily or seasonal fluctuations- the gardener’s operational protocols “need to consider these fluctuations and differences in their formulas” ( Pasquero, Poletti 2012 ).

fig. 39, 'Fingal's cave', n.d

The machines of the fluid cities are subject of the same hierarchical process of phenotype variation found in nature- form is tied to the structure of the genotype-phenotype map (Eble, 2003), where the modifiable, controlable, engineered component is the genotype produced under the premises of digital design laboratories.

“The new species of architecture is ‘robust enough to be both formally and technologically innovative’, replacing a mechanistic model with a biological jungle ecology of messiness and excess” ( Wiscombe, 2006)

The phenotype, in the context of urban development, become subject of both naturally occurring physical and biological processes and to the ecology of the city itself- Ball (2012) identifies patterning processes occurring in human environments under similar premises to those found in nature in the formation of “evenly spaced waves of congestion that might appear in moving traffic, or quasi-periodic cycles in economic systems”.

Applying these principles to the generation of fluid urban ecosystems defines the city as an ecosystem capable of infinite growth, but only through the limits of complexification displayed by its individual component machines.

The growth of the city becomes subject to the ability of the machine to evolve indefinitely through reproductory processes.

CAVE MEN

A. MANIFESTO

Are we programmers of are we builders?

What are we in front of an environment of exuberant growth, exceeding the paradigms of our initial virtual dreams? What are we, as architects, in front of a city- the fluid city, the city of the future, the city that replicates biological phenomena to the extent that in itself becomes biology - that grew and morphed and synthesized past its original programmed parameters?

Are we even architects anymore? Or does the flowing morphosynthesis of blurred boundaries between disciplines, artifice and nature overspill its meanings over the very definition of the architect?

How do we define ourselves at the edge of exiting the stasis of mono-disciplinary explorations? Under what definition will architects regain equilibrium after the encounter with a transformative interdisciplinary revolution?

What are our cities, when artifice free flows as an integral component of the natural? Are they cities, or are they nature?

How do we understand this lush, exotic, overgrown landscape independent of its own genesis, optimisation and growth?

Do we become cavemen, mesmerized in front of the grandeur and intricacy of our own creation? Do we go back to the genesis of human evolution, generating a novel cycle of explorations striving to understand our nature?

fig. 40, 'minimal structural system' 1, butler, c. 2012

B. DREAMS AND NIGHTMARES

fig. 41, 'minimal structural system' 2, butler, c. 2012

fig. 42, 'minimal structural system' 3, butler, c. 2012

“Nature will be known and remade through technique and will finally become artificial� ( Paul Rabinow, 1992)

Complete synthesis- in the city of the future, the artificial and the natural have morphed into one joint machinic organism, operating in synergy with one another.

Faced with the premise of achieving science-fiction worlds through the gradual generation of evolving synthetic organisms and their definition as integral to the primordial nature, we speculate the future through a systematic morphism between dystopia and utopia principles.

Nature is what we make it (Helmreich, 1998)

fig. 43, frei otto

What is our world going to look like in a hundred years?

“Despite what politicians and bankers may want to tell us, there is no ‘getting back to normal’; we are clearly in new territory and we need to embrace new ways of thinking and new ways of acting ” (Kurzwell, 2005)

The premise of biotechnology entering the public realm as a mainstream science poses questions of economical, political and social development under the speculation of a fifth technological revolution. Peccoud (2016) argues the revolutionary potential of cyberbiology under the emerging incorporation of synthetic biology in the industry through the rise of large scale research companies such as Amyris, Synthetic Genomics and Gingko Bioworks. The point in case is supported

by Carlson (2010) outlining the potential of the biotechnology industry to be of similar emphasis as the cybernetics industry, speculating the propagation of biotech startup companies and their centralisation

into a large scale industrial hub of the proportions of Silicon Valley.

Defining cyber-biology on the edge of a fifth revolution implies significant impacts over every aspect of life, both in terms of benefits and costs (Rifkin, 1998). Rhodes (2015) emphasises the diverse effects of a potential revolution under the premise of the wide variety of applications that modern biotechnology pursues through its imminent development.

The rise of another mammoth industry brings up questions of technological ownership, societal ethics and changing political environments.

While Carlson (2010) speculates the development of biotechnology as benefitting the many, through the implementation of an open-source ecosystem, Kurzwell (2005) poses questions of political distribution of the emerging technologies, speculating ownership as belonging to the feweffectively, as Rhodes (2015) argues, the research and development of the emerging cyber-biology industry is carried on in wealthy countries (US, Europe and Japan), fact that might be signalling an unbalanced distribution of ownership over the new biologically engineered entities.

Therefore, under the premises of indeterminate growth of an industry still in its infancy (Rhodes, 2015), we speculate the future of our environments both under the premises of utopian dreams and dystopian nightmares.

Kurzwell (2005) foresees a machinic future- the theme of numerous dystopian science fiction scenarios- where the machine intelligence will surpass the capacities of human intelligence. In their 2011 manifesto, AVATAR studio outlines the primary dystopian fear based on a scenario of machine domination: “a world of

overpopulation, catastrophic climate-change and a scarcity of usable resources resulting in human and environmental devastation of an unimaginable scale”- a future of destruction, where the technological power belongs to the few and the many are left to face the consequences, similarly to previous anti-democratic regimes.

The reverse, under the same manifesto, is the diametrically opposed utopian perspective: “an unheralded period of prosperity and growth” (AVATAR, 2011) produced by the fifth technological revolution.

The species becomes [...] an animated corpse, an assemblage of organs into which diagnoses are invested and installed. The inside becomes the outside. Or, more precisely, the insides become an interior structural condition to be understood in relation to another exterior structural condition; an epidermal membrane. There is nothing but excess all the way to the bones, which is itself another excess. (Diaz Alonso, 2010)

In architecture, utopia morphs under the premises of exuberant virtual technologies that would produce lush machinic organisms- “an architecture of billowing surfaces, voluptuous skins and seductive invaginations” (Spiller, 2010), of convolution through blurred boundaries of the discipline, through layering and by interfering with linear design processes (Coletti, 2010). Under the dreams of utopia, a fifth technological revolution speculates the turn to extravagant ornamentation through the replacement of the “mechanistic model with a biological jungle ecology of messiness and excess” (Wiscombe, 2010). The utopian organism city is a city of aesthetic fluids, of interflow, of morphological extravagance, of free flowing matter- a sensorial city, a city of experiences.

In spite of our dreams of nightmares, however, the future lays on the middle grounds between utopia and dystopia.

fig. 44, 'excess', diaz alonso, h., u.n

We don’t know what the city of the future will become- it is too early to determine the precise characteristics of our nascent future. The premise of its genesis lays on the foundation of an infant technological revolution.

We don’t know under what aesthetic morphology our city will settle into equilibrium; we don’t know what the political regime will be, we don’t know whether our economic status will be prosperous or scarce.

2.0 ONLY COMES AFTER 1.0 /* conclusions*/

In spite of not knowing, as many other privileged generations before us, we are at the crossroad of past and future, witnessing change- change in the making, change produced under the microscopes of our scientists and through the inquisition of the non-scientists.

We witness change in our perception of the world- in the way we think, in what we consider ethical, ideal, idyllic; in what we dream.

We don’t know, but in spite of the inability of foreseeing the future, we are capable of speculating change in all its creative

qualities through the lens of our being.

The inhabitants of pre-democratic societies did not necessarily perceived communist political climates as an immediate violation of their inalienable rights. Only through repeated attempts of annihilating the self, of going against the very definition of the animate through obstructing environments, the society gathered a reaction- a reaction inconspicuous at first, made up of involuntary reactions of their own bodies, rather than of eloquent sequences of voluntary thoughts.

Nature- our own nature- identifies and signals distress long before we manage

to consciously perceive it; our inherent optimisation process reacts, updating our bodily state, our process of thoughts, our emotional reaction and imminently, our conscious response to environmental pressures, pursuing our organisms to return to a state of equilibrium.

Fearing the future is rendered nulle under the overarching principle of optimisation- as a living, thriving ecosystem, we’ll learn how to deal with the offspring we’ve created.

People created “useful things like sharp stones, steam and nuclear power, and figured out how to use them as safely as our society requires” (Watts, 2011)

morphogenetic desire for improving our conditions, understanding our environments, for exploring territories uncharted yet.

Evolution does not occur under linear patterns- it occurs through oppositions, through chaos, through constant processes of trial and error. Essentially, evolution occurs under the drive of the urge for constant optimisation- a continual, gradual,

Our approach of responsive, biological architecture, generated in correlation to the human body is informed by the restrictiveness of our previous environments.

We only understood the need for fluid environments through the exposure to

Evolution does not occur through unhindered states of equilibrium, but through the loss of optimal conditions and the search of regaining them.

caging cities. We understood that our previous creations- our cities 1.0- are rudimentary mechanisms only though being exposed to their inability of hosting evolving matter.

The mechanism, the deshumanisation of nature becomes a mean of re-approaching evolution ( Batty, Hudson, 2012)

We understood how under performative our machines are only when we gained the ability of understanding the intricate machineries of nature through the evolution of biology and later, of synthetic biology.

At the edge of understanding- and still discovering- the complex processes of nature, we strive to replicate its structures, to bring primordial nature back into our quotidian artificial.

Our approach to replicating natural complexity is informed through the simple fact that we gathered the means of understanding its performative, optimising and regenerative properties. Nature is not devoid of distress or of evolutionary pressures, but it channels the loss of equilibrium as an opportunity for growth.

We strive to return to nature- not to the primordial nature, but our nature, nature 2.0.

We strive to breathe life in our cities- to create ecosystems that could grow alongside us, multiplying and decaying and regenerating and bettering themselves as a response to environmental pressures,

to differentiation of genotypes, to mutationsour city 2.0 would never be torn to the ground under the premises of eradicating previous errors; our city would assimilate the errors; our city would regenerate through the production of new offsprings of the machine.

2.0 is the next step in our evolution- similarly to the way the capitalist city was the next step from the socialist city, freeing of the individual from the oppression of socialism and the modern city became the freeing of the individual from the consumerism of the capitalist city- 2.0 is the freeing of the individual from the oppression of inanimate, unresponsive space.

2.0 is the 3.0, the 4.0, the 5.0 - 2.0 is the constant need of breaking out of newly identified limitations under the premises of the previous 1.0’s.

We don’t know what limitations our city of the future will bring- we don’t know what parameters our fluid, utopian city will ignore, what parts of our existence it will cage and from what we will want to be freed- we don’t know what the next 2.0 after our current dream of cities 2.0 will be.

2.0 is just a number- constantly changing, constantly becoming; still metaphorically, always the same- we’ll always seek for a second iteration of the first.

WORD COUNT: 11709

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, C. (2007). Cyberpunk Cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), pp.122-131.

Carmona, M. (2017). Explorations in Urban Design. London: Taylor and Francis.

Armstrong, R. (2011). How Protocells Can Make ‘Stuff’ Much More Interesting.

Architectural Design, 81(2), pp.68-77.

Carpo, M. (2015). The New Science of Form-Searching. Architectural Design, 85(5), pp.22-27.

Armstrong, R. (2018). Architecture that repairs itself?. [online] Ted.com. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_ armstrong_architecture_that_repairs_ itself#t-72977 [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018].

Carroll Sean B. (2009). The making of the fittest. London: Quercus.

Ball, P. (2004). The self-made tapestry.

Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press.

Ball, P. (2012). Pattern Formation in Nature: Physical Constraints and Self-Organising Characteristics. Architectural Design, 82(2), pp.22-27.

Banerjee, T. (n.d.). Berlin, Beijing and Bucharest- legacies of socialist modernity at the end of history.

Berne, R. (2015). Creating Life from Life.

Pan Stanford.

Bitstorm.org. (2018). John Conway’s Game of Life. [online] Available at: https://bitstorm. org/gameoflife/ [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018].

Bush, G. (1990). Decision to order the divestment of a company located in Seattle, WA. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. Carlson, R. (2011). Biology is technology.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Ceccato, C. (2012). Material Articulation: Computing and Constructing Continuous Differentiation. Architectural Design, 82(2), pp.96-103.

Clear, N. (2011). AVATAR and the Politics of Protocell Architecture. Architectural Design, 81(2), pp.122-127.

Colletti, M. (2010). DigitAlia - The Other Digital Practice. Architectural Design, 80(2), pp.16-23.

Colletti, M. (2010). Exuberance and Digital Virtuosity. Architectural Design, 80(2), pp.815.

Crutchfield, J. and Schuster, P. (2003).

Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the interplay of selection, accident, neutrality, and function. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cs.cmu.edu.

(2018).

Competitive Coevolution through Evolutionary Complexification. [online] Available at: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/jair/

pub/volume21/stanley04a-html/jairhtml.html [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

Cumincad.architexturez.net. (2013).

Genetic algorithms in architecture, Pedro de Azambuja Varela. [online] Available at: https://cumincad.architexturez.net/system/ files/pdf/ecaade2013r_011.content.pdf [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].

Exploringorigins.org. (2018). Exploring Life’s Origins: Protocells. [online] Available at: http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

Gans, D. and Kuz, Z. (2003). The organic approach to architecture. Chichester: Wiley.

Gazit, E. and Mitraki, A. (2013). Plenty of Room for Biology at the Bottom. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.

Helmreich, S. (2007). Silicon second nature.

Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.

Hensel, M. (2006). Computing selforganisation: environmentally sensitive growth modelling. Architectural Design, 76(2), pp.12-17.

Hoselitz, B. (1955). The city, the factory, and economic growth. [Princeton, N.J.]: [Inter-University Study of Labor Problems in Economic Development].

Keller, E. (2010). Self-organization, selfassembly, and the inherent activity of matter.

Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.

Khan, O. (2011). An Architectural Chemistry.

Architectural Design, 81(2), pp.50-59.

Koshar, R. and Ladd, B. (1991). Urban Planning and Civic Order in Germany, 18601914. The American Historical Review, 96(5), p.1567.

Kurzweil, R. (2008). The singularity: The last word - [forum]. IEEE Spectrum, 45(10), pp.10-10.

Lefebvre, H. and Nicholson-Smith, D. (2011). The production of space. Malden, Mass. [u.a.]: Blackwell.

Lesk, A. (n.d.). Introduction to bioinformatics.

Line Array: Protocells as Dynamic Structure.

(2011). Architectural Design, 81(2), pp.112121.

Lumsden, S. (2015). Second Nature and Historical Change in Hegel’s Philosophy of History. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 24(1), pp.74-94.

Menges, A. (2012). Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design.

Architectural Design, 82(2), pp.14-21.

Menges, A. and Reichert, S. (2012). Material Capacity: Embedded Responsiveness.

Architectural Design, 82(2), pp.52-59.

Moholy-Nagy, L. (2012). New Vision. Dover Publications.

Morphogenesis.virginia.edu. (2018). What Is Morphogenesis?. [online] Available at: http://www.morphogenesis.virginia.edu/ whatis.htm [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

Oosterhuis, K., Oosterhuis, K., Oosterhuis, K. and Oosterhuis, K. (2004). Hyperbodies.

Basel: Birkhäuser.

Oxman, N. (2012). Programming Matter.

Architectural Design, 82(2), pp.88-95.

Oxman, N. (2015). Templating Design for Biology and Biology for Design. Architectural Design, 85(5), pp.100-107.

Pasquarelli, G., Solomonoff, G., Gooden, M., Rappaport, N., Stanat, J., Carranher, E. and Yost, C. (2008). Layered urbanisms.

New Haven: Yale School of Architecture.

Pdfs.semanticscholar.org.

(2010).

Urban identity policies in Berlin: from critical reconstruction to reconstructing the wall. [online] Available at: https:// p d f s . s e m a n t i c s c h o l a r. o r g / 1 6 b f / a97c8cd85aff64b4957928871cfcb03d7c8a. pdf [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

Poletto, M. and Pasquero, C. (2013).

Systemic Architecture. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Prusinkiewicz, P., Hanan, J. and Měch, R. (2018). An L-System-Based Plant Modeling Language.

Ratledge, C. and Kristiansen, B. (2013).

Basic biotechnology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Reichardt, J. (1970). Cybernetic serendipity.

London.

Roudavski, S. (2009).

Towards morphogenesis in architecture. international journal of architectural computing, 7(3), pp.345- 374.

Russo, E. and Cove, D. (1998). Genetic engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, M., Vriend, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A. and Kelle, A. (2010). Synthetic Biology.

Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Schramm, K. (2011). Landscapes of violence. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ.

Press.

Silva, P. (2016). Tactical urbanism: towards an evolutionary cities’ approach?.

Soja, E. (n.d.). Postmetropolis.

Spiller, N. (2010). Surrealistic Exuberance - Dark Matters. Architectural Design, 80(2), pp.64-69.

Turner, J. (2000). The extended organism.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Stern, D. (2011). Evolution, development, & the predictable genome. Greenwood Village (Colo.): Roberts and Co. Publishers.

Verdict Designbuild. (2018). They live: synthetic biology in architecture - Verdict Designbuild. [online] Available at: http:// www.designbuild-network.com/features/ featureleaf-review-living-buildingsbiotechnology/ [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018].

Synbio.cam.ac.uk. (2018). SynBioFund Projects — Synthetic Biology in Cambridge. [online] Available at: https://www.synbio. cam.ac.uk/synbiofund [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

Synbioconference.org.

(2018).

2018 Synthetic Biology: Engineering, Evolution & Design (SEED). [online] Available at: http:// synbioconference.org/2018 [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

S y n t h e t i c b i o l o g y. c o n f e r e n c e s e r i e s . com. (2018). Annual Synthetic Biology Conferences 2018 |Leading Tissue Engineering Events in Europe, USA, Canada, Asia and Middle East. [online] Available at: https://syntheticbiology. conferenceseries.com/ [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

Techniques and technologies in morphogenetic design, introducion. (2006).

Architectural Design, 76(2).

Terranova, C. (n.d.). Art as organism.

Tibbits, S. (2012). Design to Self-Assembly.

Architectural Design, 82(2), pp.68-73.

Watts, B. (2011). Bettering Biology?.

Architectural Design, 81(2), pp.128-134.

Welt, H. (2018). Martin Wagner: The Growing House. [online] HKW. Available at: https://www.hkw.de/en/media/ publikationen/2015_1/2015_publikation_ das_wachsende_haus_1.php [Accessed 25 Jan. 2018].

Wiscombe, T. (2010). Extreme Integration.

Architectural Design, 80(2), pp.78-87.

YouTube. (2018). epic conway’s game of life. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018].

YouTube. (2018). Project Tierra. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Wl5rRGVD0QI [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018].

Zile, Z. (1963). Programs and problems of city planning in the Soviet Union. Saint Louis.

IMAGE REFERENCES fig. 1 'organism a', author's work fig. 2 'fluid joint a, author's work fig. 4 'museum city b', author's work fig. 5 'brutalist form containment', author's work fig. 6 'overgrown a', author's work fig. 7 'overgrown b', author's work fig. 8 'berlin', author's work fig. 9 'ruins', author's work fig. 10 'a dual map of berlin', author's work fig. 11 'experiment 1, author's work fig. 12 'experiment 2, author's work fig. 13 'experiment 3, author's work fig. 14Cell. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://www. nature.com/news/genomics-the-single-life-1.11710 [Accessed 9 Jan. 2018]. fig. 15 Rib bone scanning electron microscope. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://www.agefotostock. com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/DOC11890 [Accessed 14 Jan. 2018]. fig. 16 'Tierra', Ray, T., 1990 fig. 17, 'Logic Matter' 1, Tibbits, S., 2012 fig. 18, 'Logic Matter' 2, Tibbits, S., 2012 fig. 19, 'Logic Matter' 3, Tibbits, S., 2012 fig. 20, 'L-systems' 1, Hensmeier, M., 2003 fig. 21, 'L-systems' 2, Hensmeier, M., 2003 fig. 22, Microscopy. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/basf/8046860422/ sizes/o/in/photostream/ [Accessed 12 Jan. 2018]. fig. 23, 'Tropisms', Oxman, N., 2006 fig. 24, Image of a protocell. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html [Accessed 10 Jan. 2018]. fig. 25, 'Digital protocell', Oxman, N., 2012 fig. 26 Hylozoic Ground, Protocell Architecture, Phillip Beesley. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http:// www.philipbeesleyarchitect.com/sculptures/0929_ Hylozoic_Ground_Venice/ [Accessed 15 Jan. 2018]. fig. 27 Protocell Architecture 1, Lisa Iwamoto. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://ced.berkeley.edu/ ced/faculty-staff/lisa-iwamoto [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018]. fig. 28 Protocell architecture 2, Lisa Iwamoto. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://ced.berkeley.edu/

ced/faculty-staff/lisa-iwamoto [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018]. fig. 29 Protocell architecture 3, Lisa Iwamoto. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://ced.berkeley.edu/ ced/faculty-staff/lisa-iwamoto [Accessed 26 Jan. 2018]. fig. 30 Anthozoa, Neri Oxman. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://www.materialecology.com/projects/ details/anthozoa [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018]. fig. 31 Gemini 1, Neri Oxman. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://www.materialecology.com/projects/details/gemini [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018]. fig. 32 Gemini 2, Neri Oxman. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://www.materialecology.com/projects/details/gemini [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018]. fig. 33 Gemini 3, Neri Oxman. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://www.materialecology.com/projects/details/gemini [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018]. fig. 34 Protocells under water, Rachel Armstrong. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://thisisalive.com/ future-venice-growing-an-artificial-reef-underthe-city/ [Accessed 13 Jan. 2018]. fig. 35 Communicating vessel drawings, Neil Spiller. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://www.neilspiller. com/projects/communicating-vessels/genetic-gazebo/ [Accessed 11 Jan. 2018]. fig. 36 the temple of repose, neil spiller. (2018). [image] Available at: http://www.neilspiller.com/ projects/communicating-vessels/temple-of-repose/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2018]. fig. 37, 'decay', author's work fig. 38, 'robot skin' author's work fig. 39 Fingal's cave. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-tips/inside-fingals-cave-richardson/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2018]. fig. 40 'minimal structural system' 1 based on frei otto. (2018). [image] Available at: https://wewanttolearn.wordpress.com/author/carolynoliviabutler/ page/2/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2018]. fig. 41 'minimal structural system' 2 based on frei otto. (2018). [image] Available at: https://wewanttolearn.wordpress.com/author/carolynoliviabutler/

page/2/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2018]. fig. 42 'minimal structural system' 3 based on frei otto. (2018). [image] Available at: https://wewanttolearn.wordpress.com/author/carolynoliviabutler/ page/2/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2018]. fig. 43 frei otto fig. 44 excess, hernan diaz alonso. (2018). [image] Available at: http://www.xefirotarch.com/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2018].