Taxonomy

Geometry of Roughness

We explore the innovative potential of open taxonomies in the design of structures and structure systems. The formation of taxonomies is considered a creative act in itself, as it directs the search within an infinite space of possible structures; it gives texture to this space and provides momentary orientation.

We refer to taxonomies here not in the sense of standard biological classifications, but as systems of structural and architectural commonalities crystallized in the sorting of rich nanographic material. The associations formed in this process are unconstrained by established species’ relations, occasionally they run in parallel but often counter to them. Accordingly, the terms used in these taxonomies do not adhere to biological nomenclatures, but refer to architectural expression. Our approach to classification is taxonomy and not typology, even though typology is the disciplinary method associated with architecture, and taxonomy is considered a field of biology. While we study architectural and structural conditions, and not biological ones, our approach to classification is taxonomy and not typology. Taxonomy classifies according to observable and measurable characteristics, it has no idealized point of reference (datum). Typology on the other hand refers to concepts rather than empirical cases, to idealized constructs rather than objects of reality. The model of design we are developing relates to speculative realities more than it does to ideal types, so when exploring classification as a design method, it privileges the taxonomoteric approach over the typological one. In any case, all classification systems must be open. Closed classification systems do not hold much potential for design innovation as they refer to a finite set of ideas, in the case of architectural typology to a determinate canon of building types and design expression. They are self referential systems that assume an essence for the categories they establish. Items assigned to these categories are thus essentially confined; they cannot migrate or unfold across categories. In this way closed classification systems prevent the growth and dissemination of ideas.

Open classifications on the other hand can stimulate speculation and the forming of ideas, as they suggest unrealized potential. Notably, we refer to the multiplicity of such systems, as we reject the notion that one classification system can serve as a generic sorting apparatus for all things that exist or could exist. We embrace the thought that there are infinite ways in which we can view the world, and thus we explore the design potential of one taxonomy in an infinite set of such systems. Open classifications are temporarily anchored at nodes of similarities shared among observable objects (here structures) within a given field of exploration. The suggestive moment (of design innovation) occurs, when pairings of such associations describe an immanent yet not realized object; this is when the blind probing focuses, the space of possible design ideas gains texture.

Figure 2: Mendeleev’s Periodic Table of 1871 Figure 3: Ununpentium, Moscovium, Element 115

A model for such open system classification that stimulates innovation is Mendeleev’s periodic table. (fig) It first directed the search for naturally occurring elements that had not been discovered, and more recently has governed the quest for possible elements, those that can be synthesized. Mendeleev realised that the physical and chemical properties of elements were related to their atomic mass in a periodic way, and he arranged them in a matrix so that groups of elements with similar properties fell into shared columns. Significantly he left holes in the matrix, open cells to be occupied by elements that were not discovered, but that would or could exist (if his periodic law was true.) When Mendeleev published his periodic table in 1869, there were 59 elements on it and 33 open cells for missing elements. He predicted the specific properties of some and thus directed the search, accelerated the discovery of these elements, which was concluded during his lifetime. Since then synthetic elements have been created, those that were not predicted by Mendeleev, but that fit in the systematic of his periodic table. Encouraged by a system of open classification, scientists since create new elements by slamming existing ones into each other. (fig) As an analog to speculative design (in discussion) we consider this a form of directed blind probing.

The periodic table serves as an example for the innovative potential of open taxonomies, and the related discussion of synthetic elements serves as a reference for the dissolving boundary between natural and human-made structures.

Figure 4: Frei Otto’s Lebende und nicht lebende Natur Figure 5: Frei Otto’s BIC chart of structural performance

Another example for open classifications can be found in Frei Otto’s work on the categorization of structure systems. According to Otto, the building structures and ‘natural structures’ that we have been occupying for ten thousand years are still not entirely understood, nor were they put in meaningful relations. His matrices of principal systems and applied structures have open cells, which distinguishes them from other closed, or completed classification systems, common in standard engineering manuals. They invite to fill in blank spots and thus direct the search for novel structures.

In the 1960s Otto developed various forms of structure systems categorizations at The Institute for Lightweight Structures in Stuttgart. Some of these systems were conceived as schematic diagrams that address relations between structures in nature, art and engineering (fig) expressing cosmological interests in the origin and evolutionary relations. Other classifications define and put in relation highly specific parameters of structures, including load cases, form, material and modes of redirecting forces. His most rigorous and detailed explorations map and compare the performance of various structures - engineered and ‘natural’ - and establish an “economical” principle. (fig) He invents a new physical performance unit, the Bic, that puts an object’s mass and structural capacity in relation. In intricate charts and drawings various structures are mapped meticulously along Bic parameters. Characteristically, they all consist of living and nonliving, natural and engineered structure, and none of them claim to chart a complete set of structures or enclosed systems.

Figure 6: SP19-Nanotectonica_FranciscoMoreno-LeonardoMartinez_Taxonomy

Figure 8 (full bleed): SP19 Taxonomy Figure 9 (bottom left): SP19 Taxonomy

Figure 10: SP19 Taxonomy Figure 11: SP12 Taxonomy Analysis

Figure 12: SP18 Taxonomy_Draft

Figure 14 (left page): SP19 Taxonomy Figure 15 (top): SP19 Photograph Figure 16 (bottom left): SP19 Photograph Figure 17 (bottom right): SP19 Photograph

Early Taxonomies

Figure 18 (below): The first Nanotectonoca taxonomy chart was produced in our undergraduate design studio at Pratt Institute in 2007. The “SEMatrix” featured 25 specimen along five tectonic categories; each one recorded at three different magnifications and analyzed in a drawing and paper model.

Figure 19 (right page): A more comprehensive “species taxonomy” was produced in our research seminar at University Kassel in 2008. The focus here was on cross-species tectonic families, with crossing lines in the chart identifying architectural commonalities that run counter to biological families.

In both cases the chart is based on original Nanotectonica SEM material produced in our studio - either in the physical studio space at Pratt, with a desktop SEM, provided with generous support by Hitachi, or during semiweekly studio visits to Kassel University’s Interdisciplinary Nanotechnology Institute. In both cases the work was performed as a research studio collective. More recent examples of SEM Taxonomies (2010-2020) are based in part on ‘found’ SEM material from various sources, in addition to original Nano-

Figure 20 (top): SP13 Taxonomy Figure 21 (bottom): SP13 Taxonomy

Figure 22: SP12 Taxonomy

Figure 23: SP12 Taxonomy

Figure 24: SP12 Taxonomy Figure 25: SP13 Taxonomy Figure 26: SP15 Taxonomy Figure 27: SP14 Taxonomy Figure 28: SP18 Taxonomy

Figure 33: SP14 Taxonomy01

Figure 34: SP14Taxonomy Figure 29 (top left): SP15 Taxonomy Figure 30 (bottom left): SP16 Taxonomy Figure 31 (top right): SP14 Taxonomy Figure 32 (bottom right): SP15 Taxonomy