PseudoTecture by George Avraam

George Robert Henry Avraam

Pseudo

adjective, not genuine; spurious or sham.

The convergence between the physical and the virtual.

On a wooden deck on the starboard side of the ship looking across the expanse of ocean which stretches as far as the eye can see. The soft yellow light pierces the sun setting beneath the fog haze of the water. Audible waves crashing against the hull and the whistling of sea breezes. I tilt my head upwards and look to the sky, my eyes are drawn along the antique mask frame splintering at its edges, where the expansive white silk wings bulge as natures breathe caresses them into form. It seems so real.

But it isn’t. Its fake. It’s really fragments of pixels poised across a screen.

It’s PseudoTecture. Built environments which appears and feels like it’s there but isn’t.

Figure 1 Tom Crago’s, ‘Materials’ Virtual Reality artwork at the NGV Triennial

This ‘experience’ was looking into the latest expressions into virtual reality (VR), an artwork created by digital artist and game designer Tom Cragos for the National Gallery of Victoria’s Triennial 2017. Architecture and technology have finally met up with each other, where the syncing of movement and sight are realised. Brunelleschi would be proud of these optical renditions which render his perspective experiments so accurately on paper (or more so on screen). The formation of artificial vanishing points, foreshortening and

horizon lines which calculates the tilt of your head in line with what is virtually represented. Brunelleschi was not thinking about this when he represented his theory of how to accurately draw the baptistry of The Duomo but this premise if we are able to project space then we are also able to think into the future is more than applicable than ever before.

Figure 2 Left, Tom Cragos in artwork capture , ‘Materials’ NGV, Triennial Figure 3 Above, Headset and virtual reality enclosure, ‘Materials’ NGV Triennial

The Principles of PseudoTecture

â&#x20AC;&#x153;technology is the answer, but what is the question?â&#x20AC;? - Cedric Price 9

Architecture and our experience of it is progressing towards something that is no longer a physical entity. It is no longer bounded by its physical manifestation. Our society and its social, cultural and interactional elements is formed around fragmentations of pixels on a screen. Everything is online, virtual and digitised. Often distanced from the real thing. Yet architecture should remain tangible, physical and in the present? If we have progressed so far into the digital realm, then why canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t architecture be experienced in the digital ether too? There is to be a cross mutation between the digital and the physical. This is about experiencing architecture in the digital with embedded physical tendencies to excel realism.

Classical architecture is dead. The paradigm of classical â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;built formâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; architecture and notion of styles have achieved nothing in progressing the discipline. Rabid Like a cancer, what we have built plagues the globe like an unrelenting cyst. PseudoTecture is an attack on the notion of architecture. No longer confined to buildings but one of virtual-physical worlds, the ultimate creator of experience not limited by capitalism, structure, clients or users. The concept of PsuedoTecture is a systems approach to architecture where the architect can realise a building and environment through the hybridity of virtual reality (VR) and harnessing artificial intelligent (AI) nanotechnology and swarm robotics. PseudoTecture is the breaker from the shackles of restrictions chocking the discipline.

We are obsessed with the utopian from Archigram to the Metabolists we want the ideal but we were confined squeezed, drained by realities which destroy our visions, exiling them to be confined on paper. PseudoTecture allows the user and the architect to live their most perversive desires, most wildest structures and experiences never before seen within architectures discourse. Its the creation of an allencompassing realistic immersive experience formulating visual, audible, physical and interactional relationship with architecture without the need to physically create the building at all. PseudoTecture is a system of dreams, the dreams of the architect and the dreams of the user.

The Controlled Temporal

Figure 4

Blur Building, Diller and Scofidio+Renfro,

The notion of The Controlled Temporal starts with Diller Scofidio+Renfro’s ‘Blur Building’. It explores breaking down architecture into constituent parts, a transition from previously stereotomic and tectonic architecture to that of the temporal. Yet elements of the temporal within this case are merely a mist of artificially formed fog1 without control or containment. PsuedoTecture provokes a controlling of these temporal entities on a minuet scale. If this combined with the optical realism of interactive game mechanics within VR there is the

potential to create architecture which can exhibit an immersive experience. The idea of the temporal isn’t new to architecture or fields of science and art but the ability to control particles or matter will add much needed substance and meaning which Diller Scofidio+Renfro simply could not create, nor desired to.

1. Mark Dorrian, “Cloud Architecture,” Radical Philosophy, 144, (July/August 2007): 29.

Figure 5 Left, Blur Building Swiss Expo 2002 on Lake Neuchatel, uses the properties of water and mist projected from the frame to create a haze of ‘Formless’ architecture. Figure 6 Above, series of experiences of the building , although the purpose of the building is more defined around creating an architecture which ‘sells’ an experience for capital gain rather than any practical applications.

Stereotomic

Tectonic

Figure 7 The progression of architectural form throughout history from Stereotomic, Tectonic to the Temporal. PseudoTecture is the opportunity to create the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Controlled Temporalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; formulating a new paradigm of architectural form though using technology to control elements of a minuet scale and using the visual elements of virtual reality .

Temporal

Controlled Temporal

Tactility & Feeling

Figure 8

The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Kilobotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; using AI to collectively create shapes as programmed by the algorithm

Figure 9 The ‘Mixed reality’ experience of walking the plank over a city scape which connects virtual reality with physical objects to create an immersive experience. Despite this experience is limiting as a room can only used for fixed programs and has spatial restraints.

Limitations of VR’s immersive technology is not within the audible or visual experience but sensory engagement with the relational in terms of tactility and physical touch. This includes the ability to feel objects and materials in a tangible way. PseudoTecture harnesses direct control over individual pieces of the temporal, allowing the creation of the other two sensory experiences which are non-existent within virtual reality. There have already been progressions of virtual reality where green screens are used with physical

objects which are embedded within a virtual reality environment creating a more immersive experience. Yet these are confined to a singular program or experience without the ability to adapt and change. PseudoTecture with the ability to control and move particulate matter within these environments allows the architecture to serve innumerable programs or built forms not constrained by space or physics using self-organising programmable swarm robots.

Figure 10 The ‘Kilobot’ is the size of a coin, allowing the complex arrangement of variable shapes due to its small size

Swarm robotics is the convergence of numerous robots which communicate and work collectively to complete a specific task. Their algorithms being based on social organisms within nature which undergo collaborative behaviours such as schooling of fish, flocking of birds or insect movements2-3. These robots and their ability to work collectively to formulate patterns, tasks and forms aim to progress the discipline into unmarked territory. They have already emerged within applications of science technology and biomedicine through nanotechnology. The ‘Kilobots’ by Michael Rubenstein can form specific basic tasks. Through the input of shapes, the algorithm allows each robot to function and make decisions of how to efficiently form the shape collectively4. Within PsuedoTecture these types of advancements in technology become applicable through their ability to form shapes and therefore tactile experiences. As the user moves through space, swarm robots arrange to create texture and physicality which the user can directly

interact with. As technology progresses the swarming robots can be arranged with greater accuracy and on a minuet level. The finer grained the resolution the more realistic tactile sensory engagement where not just basic forms can be represented but even textures and detailed physical profiles.

2. Haitao Zhao et al., “Self-Adaptive Collective Motion of Swarm Robots,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 15, no. 4 (2018): 1533. doi: 10.1109/TASE.2018.2840828 3. Ken Sugawara and Toshinori Watanabe, “Swarming Robots – Collective Behaviour of Interacting Robots,” Proceedings of the 41st SICE Annual Conference, no. 5 (2002): 3214, doi: 10.1109/SICE.2002.1195626 4. Varner, Josh CassidyJohanna, Josh Cassidy, and Johanna Varner, “Can A Thousand Tiny Swarming Robots Outsmart Nature?” KQED, September 27, 2016, https://www.kqed.org/science/131005/can-a-thousand-tinyswarming-robots-outsmart-nature.

Figure 11 Rubenstein from the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Self Organising Systems Research Group at Harvard Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; forms bots using swarming algorithms which can form complex shapes through interacting with each other and making decisions on how to arrange themselves based on a set of rules using AI

Figure 12 Swarming nanorobotics application within science and biomedicine. Associate Professor Li Zhang from Chinese University of Hong Kong where the programmers tune the applied magnetic fields controlling these to performing a wide range of structural changes, including extending, shrinking, splitting, and merging, all with a high degree of accuracy.

Figure 13 Swarming technology can be used to formulate textures therefore creating the physical entities within a virtual environment, the smaller and more accurate these robots can arrange the more detailed tactile experience which can be created when touching the surface of these formations.

Movement & Transition

Figure 14 detailed view of a pinscreen show how shadows are cast to form animation and scenes from Jim Zipper a pinscreen animation by Alexandre Roy 26

Figure 15 Alexeieff and Parkers, Pinscreen animation ‘Night on Bald Mountain’ 1933, the creation of shadows from the pinscreen exhibits a transition from static engraving techniques to those of movement within animation where frames, scenes and movies can be created.

The discourse of architecture has stagnated because of the inability to embrace kinetics. We have been infatuated with refining aesthetics rather than focusing on technological systems which will supersede the current modes of practice. Virtual Reality alone lacks the experiential properties of transitioning through space. Within ‘What about Space?’, Eeva-liisa Pelkonen discusses the idea of space as a “dynamic system” where space and being become “co-dependant” on one another5. What she highlights is that space needs to undergo a progression to further architectural discourse. PsuedoTecture creates this experience of being in space through sensory and metamorphic illusions. This allows for the being to interact with space and form without intrinsically needing to create the built environment whilst fulfilling a sensory experience holistically. PseudoTecture harnesses a system which the employs the virtual optical renditions with adaptable minuet

physical swarms, allowing the creation of architectural form which resembles any form, shape or vision. In PsuedoTecture moving through space can be realised with swarming and nanotechnology fragments which arrange themselves to form a tactile terrain. Alexandre Alexeieff and Claire Parkers ‘Pin Screens’ during the 1930’s, formulated this transition from the static to that of collective formations with the combination of moveable discrete elements. The conglomeration of each discrete pin collectively creates texture, animations and scenes. Alexeieff and Parker within ‘Night on Bald Mountain’ (1933) the first pinscreen animation film encapsulates the transition from static to animation. He invented the pinscreen so when light casts across the series of discrete, repetitive pins, they formed an image cast in shadow6. It was through this progression of technology and Alexeieff’s system that art was able to transition from something of static nature such as engraving to fluid

Figure 16

Alexeieff and Parkers, Pinscreen animation ‘The Nose’ 1967.

movie animation. Similarly, architecture needs to undergo this transition as it embodies statis rather than systems and technology condemning progression of creation. Through discrete control of nanotechnology each minuet particle uses AI to converge into forms controlled by the architect. Like pinscreens when the pins move it allows for the creation of the next frame of the animation, when the swarm robots rearrange it allows the user to experience a different part of the architecture physically whilst syncing

with optical renditions of virtual reality. In Alexeieff’s own words when one manipulates the Pinscreen it “makes the absent present”7.

5. E. Pelkonen, “What about Space?” In (Non-)Essential Knowledge for (New) Architecture, eds. David Lyle Hays (New York: 306090, 2013), 102-107. 6. Camille Bertherat, “Alexandre Alexeieff, Claire Parker and the Pinscreen: From engraving to animated engraving”. Seminar on Visual Culture, (2016): 10. 7. Bertherat,”Alexandre Alexeieff,” 15.

Vir

t ua

l Re

ali t y A p V is u p e al A ara nce rchite

Po si

t io

ctu

ral

Po si

t io

Po si

t io

Figure 17 Using swarm robotics the formation of different surfaces and forms can be achieved, this allowing the creation of physical entities within a virtual environment. As the user moves throughout the environment the swarms will rearrange to create the physical within a direct close relation to the user. This represents a transition from static architecture to one of transition movement and forces. 31

Network Embeddism

Figure 18

A touch through a digital-physical network

Kenneth Frampton famously argued for ‘Critical Regionalism’ the local, cultural and “peculiarities of a particular place”8. Yet peculiarities of place are obsolete in a digital age of placelessness. Ratti poises a modern alternative as ‘Network Specifism’ where multitudes of people contribute to a project with the ability for synchronised workflows which create global networks which are humanly “relational”9. PseudoTecture provokes an alternative network. The primary functions of architecture revolves around the notion of how people relate to one another within space and this collective vision of space. ‘Network Embeddism’ formulates like Ratti suggests “the peculiarities of a particular network”10, but rather than creation its about users being embedded physically across networks. Physical reactional tendencies are created as force can be applied to the nanotechnology accurately formulating changes in movements. What was cyberspace can now

become physical-cyberspace. Bodies mimicked by nanotechnology allowing you to interact whilst being physically detached. This network formulates the “programmatic alchemy”1, as Koolhaas would describe the delight of connecting absurd experiences, where “Eating oysters with boxing gloves naked,on the ninth floor11” is clearly not out of reach. This done across virtualphysical networks wherever you are with whoever you desire, dead, real or even fictitious. This cross mutation of physical and virtual environment harnesses a connection where people can feel, touch, indulge and physically relate over a virtual network. The absurd can become reality. 8. Kenneth Frampton, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays On Postmodern Culture, eds. Hal Foster (Seattle: Bay Press),16-30 9. Carlo Ratti et al. , “The power of networks: Beyond Critical Regionalism“ The Architectural Review, published 23 July 2013, https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/the-power-of-networksbeyond-critical-regionalism/8651014.article 10. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau (Graphic Designer), “Bigness or the problem of the Large” in S,M,L,XL. (New York: Monacelli Press, 1998), 512. 11. Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York : a Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. (New York :Monacelli Press, 1994), 155.

Figure 19 Nano and swarm robotics can mimic bodily forms therefore creating physical interaction between users across networks as each person is translated into each others virtual-physical PseudoTecture environment.

Input Undefined

Figure 20 Cedric Price, Fun Palace for Joan Littlewood Project, Stratford East, London, England (Aerial perspective from cockpit) 1959-1961, Cut-and-pasted painted paper on gelatin silver print with white ink (22.2 x 26.7 cm), Museum of Modern Art (MoMa)

Figure 21 Fun Palace for Joan Littlewood Project, Stratford East, London, England (Perspective) 1959–1961, Ink, crayon, and graphite on gelatin silver print, with self-adhesive paper dot (34.3 x 67.3 cm). Museum of Modern Art (MoMa).

PsuedoTecture’s, ‘Input Undefined’ is the creation of architecture which features indeterminacy and is reactional to the architects and users inputs overtime. Cedric Price with Joan Littlewood’s ‘Fun Palace’ (1959-1961) forms a similar conceptual outcome of indeterminacy and customisable architecture through technology. The ‘Fun Palace’ provided an expanded view which encompasses future thinking surrounding “information technology, cybernetics and game theory”12. As Littlewood describes “nothing is to last more than ten days… no legacy of noble contemporary architecture, quickly dating.”13 It is the valuable ideas of impermanency,

variable program and adaptable programmatic ideas which created a “fluid program”14. PsuedoTecture’s acts as a modern counterpart where it embodies realistic virtual environment formulating indeterminacy in functionality, adaptable program and sensory experiences controlled by emerging technologies.

In contemporary context Stan Allen discusses “fields” within architecture as consisting of “complex selfregulating orders”. Allen formulates that architecture should encumber a “fluid...approach”addressing changes and the “dynamics of use”15. Greg Lynns ‘Animate Form’ claims animation as an evolution of architecture, where traditional architectural visions of ‘Stasis’ embodying ideas of “permanence”, “timelessness” and “neutral space” will not progress the discipline. He argues for transition to those of “active space of forces” and “anticipated motion”16. More recently Mario Carpo in his latest writing ‘Particlised–Computational Discretism’ (2019) discusses the transition of architectural paradigms from the continuous to the discrete,“disjointed, disconnected and fragmentary” forming an “aggregational” way of building at different scales. He discusses the approach of cellular automa (CA) which uses models which divides “continuous matter, into rows of indivisible cells, then writing rules that describe simple interactions between each cell”. AI which can inherently data manage this “granularity” gives rise to the “computational discretism or particularised”17. All of these theories

evoke the transition of architecture from a singular static entity to that of the collective adaptable series of discrete elements with moveable forces. This ‘particulised’ theory are core to PsuedoTecture, where AI will control, manage and arrange on a minute scale through nanotechnology and therefore create granularity of architectural form. This combination with VR allows the creation of immersive but adaptable architectural experiences which encumbers all the senses of the user.

12. Stanley Mathews,“The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” In Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 59, no. 3 (Feb 2006): 39, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40480644. 13. Joan Littlewood, “A Laboratory of Fun,” The New Scientist 38 (May 14, 1964): 432-433. 14. Mathews,“The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture”, 40. 15. Stan Allen, “Distributions, Combinations, Fields”. Architecture and Urbanism, no. 8 (n.d): 4. 16. Greg Lynn, Animate Form, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 23. 17. Mario Carpo,“Particlised – Computational Discretism, or The Rise of the Digital Discrete”,Discrete Reappraising the Digital in Architecture 89, no.2 (March/April 2019): 90, Architectural Design (AD).

PseudoTecture redefines architecture. Its both metaphorically and physically a remedy to the limiting static architectural conditions of the current era. PseudoTectures is all-material, non-contextual systems approach which harnesses all-encompassing experiences. Its a freeing of the architects mind to create without limits and for the user an experience which embodies their dreams and fantasies to live within without constraints. In light of modern megastructures that are “purely quantitative”18, Koolhaas exclaims “fuck context”19, yet PseudoTecture is the context and the building. Its as small as a bathroom of swarming minute entities but as big as the universe, forever expanding for as far as the architect can create. It provides the atmosphere, comradery and collective ecstasy of mass gathering like Albert Speer without the associated genocide or destruction. Its the relational, connection to everyone fictional and real, past and present, yet no one is exactly there. PseudoTecture and Architecture forms a dichotomy. Its a new life to the pointless styles, boring iconic and the physical. Its all we ever wanted as architects and the human race. Architecture without limits.

18. Koolhaas, “Bigness”, 502 19. Koolhaas, “Bigness”, 499

References Allen, Stan. “Distributions, Combinations, Fields”. Architecture and Urbanism, no. 8 (n.d): 3-16. Bertherat, Camille. “Alexandre Alexeieff, Claire Parker and the Pinscreen: From engraving to animated engraving”. Seminar on Visual Culture, (2016): 1-32. Carpo, Mario. “Particlised – Computational Discretism, or The Rise of the Digital Discrete”. Discrete Reappraising the Digital in Architecture 89, no.2 (March/April 2019): 87-94. Architectural Design (AD). Dorrian, Mark. “Cloud Architecture.” Radical Philosophy 144, (July/August 2007): 28-29. Joan Littlewood, “A Laboratory of Fun,” The New Scientist 38 (May 14, 1964): 432-433. Koolhaas, Rem, and Bruce Mau (Graphic Designer). “Bigness or the problem of the Large.” in S,M,L,XL , 415-516. New York: Monacelli Press, 1998 Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York : a Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York: Monacelli Press, 1994 Lynn, Greg. Animate Form. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Mathews, Stanley. “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy.” In Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 59, no. 3 (Feb 2006): 39-48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40480644. Pelkonen, Eeva-Liisa. “What about Space.?” In (Non-)Essential Knowledge for (New) Architecture, edited by David Lyle Hays, 102-107. New York: 306090, 2013 Ratti, C., A. Picon, A. Haw, M. Claudel,. , “The power of networks: Beyond Critical Regionalism“ The Architectural Review, published 23 July 2013, https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/the- power-of-networks-beyond-critical-regionalism/8651014.article Sugawara, Ken, and Toshinori Watanabe. “Swarming Robots – Collective Behaviour of Interacting Robots.” Proceedings of the 41st SICE Annual Conference, no. 5 (2002): 3214-3215. doi: 10.1109/SICE.2002.1195626 Varner, Josh CassidyJohanna, Josh Cassidy, and Johanna Varner. “Can A Thousand Tiny Swarming Robots Outsmart Nature?” KQED, September 27, 2016. https://www.kqed.org/science/131005/can-a-thousand-tiny-swarming-robots-outsmart-nature. Zhao, Haitao, Hai Liu, Yiu-Wing Leung, Xiaowen Chu. “Self-Adaptive Collective Motion of Swarm Robots.” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 15, no. 4 (October 2018): 1533- 1545. doi: 10.1109/TASE.2018.2840828 Frampton, Kenneth. Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays On Postmodern Culture, eds. Hal Foster, 16-30. Seattle: Bay Press, 1983.

List of Figures Fig. 1. Tom Crago’s, Materials, 2017, Virtual Reality artwork at the National Gallery of Victoria Triennial, Melbourne. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://finearts-music.unimelb.edu.au/about-us/news/an- interview-with-tom-crago,-the-artist-behind-materials-at-the-ngv-triennial Fig. 2. Tom Crago’s, Materials, 2017, Virtual Reality artwork at the National Gallery of Victoria Triennial, Melbourne. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://finearts-music.unimelb.edu.au/about-us/news/an- interview-with-tom-crago%2C-the-artist-behind-materials-at-the-ngv-triennial Fig. 3. Tom Crago’s, Materials, 2017, Virtual Reality artwork at the National Gallery of Victoria Triennial, Melbourne. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/art-and-design/ article/sailing-vast-ship-inside-ngv Fig. 4. Beat Widmer and Dirk Hebel (Photography), Blur Building, Diller and Scofidio+Renfro, Swiss Expo 2002 Accessed October 11, 2019. https://dsrny.com/project/blur-building Fig. 5. Beat Widmer and Dirk Hebel (Photography), Blur Building, Diller and Scofidio+Renfro. Swiss Expo 2002 Accessed October 11, 2019. https://dsrny.com/project/blur-building Fig. 6. Beat Widmer and Dirk Hebel (Photography), Blur Building, Diller and Scofidio+Renfro. Swiss Expo 2002 Accessed October 11, 2019. https://dsrny.com/project/blur-building Fig. 7. George Robert Henry Avraam, “The progression of architectural form “, 2019, Digital Media/Modeling Fig. 8. Josh Cassidy (Photography),Michael Rubenstein’s Kilobots, by the Self Organising Systems Research Group at Harvard University, 2010. Digital Photograph. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://www.kqed. org/science/131005/can-a-thousand-tiny-swarming-robots-outsmart-nature. Fig. 9. Smosh Games, VR Plank Challenge, 2017, Stills from Video. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=6zgoOyPQJO8&t=104s Fig. 10. Josh Cassidy (Photography),Michael Rubenstein’s Kilobots by the Self Organising Systems Research Group at Harvard University, 2010. Digital Photograph. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://www.kqed. org/science/131005/can-a-thousand-tiny-swarming-robots-outsmart-nature. Fig 11. Josh Cassidy and Johanna Varmer of Deep Look, Can A Thousand Tony Swarming Robots Outsmart Nature?, 2015, Stills from Video. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://www.kqed. org/science/131005/can-a-thousand-tiny-swarming-robots-outsmart-nature. Fig 12. Cat Wang, Hong Kong Scientist Develop new Nano Swarm Robots, 2018. Accessed November 12, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/health/nano-swarm-robots-intl/index.html Fig. 13. George Robert Henry Avraam, Swarming technology to form textures, 2019, Digital Media/Modeling. Fig. 14. Alexandre Roy, Jim Zipper (pinscreen animation). Accessed 12 November 2019. Fig. 15. Alexeieff and Parkers, Night on Bald Mountain, 1933, Pinscreen animation. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYbjW7XrWDo

List of Figures Continue Fig 16. Alexeieff and Parkers, The Nose, 1967, Pinscreen animation. Accessed October 11, 2019. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=rFmCLVow0ts&t=303s Fig. 17. George Robert Henry Avraam, Using swarm robotics the formation of different surfaces and forms can be achieved, 2019, Digital Media/Modeling. Fig. 18. George Robert Henry Avraam, Touch through the Digital Network, 2019, Digital Media/Modeling. Fig. 19. George Robert Henry Avraam, Nano and swarm robotics can mimic bodily forms , Digital Media/ Modeling. Fig. 20. Cedric Price, Fun Palace for Joan Littlewood Project, Stratford East, London, England (Aerial perspective from cockpit) 1959-1961, Cut-and-pasted painted paper on gelatin silver print with white ink (22.2x 26.7 cm), Accessed October 11, 2019. Museum of Modern Art (MoMa) https://www.moma.org/ collection/works/844?artist_id=7986&locale=en&page=1&sov_referrer=artist. Fig. 21. Cedric Price, Fun Palace for Joan Littlewood Project, Stratford East, London, England (Perspective) 1959â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1961, Ink, crayon, and graphite on gelatin silver print, with self-adhesive paper dot (34.3 x 67.3 cm). Accessed October 11, 2019. Museum of Modern Art (MoMa). https://www.moma.org/ collection/works/845?artist_id=7986&locale=en&page=1&sov_referrer=artist