Ball, Philip (2011): The Shapes of Things. In Shapes: Nature’s Patterns , Oxford University Press, pp. 1-35 1. Defining Designs: “Scientists have a rather more sophisticated view of life… which gives them hope of distinguishing it from its organic context… What is it that encourages us to typecast some forms as those made by life and others as the products of the non-living world” I would start by defining what I feel is inorganic by labeling it as something that does not reproduce itself and note that the desire to acquaint ourselves with resources and satisfy our curiosity drives us to box and label our surroundings. It also helps us to define what we can ultimately consume without compromising the human element. This also does not leave room for spontaneous manifestation of anything, but rather confines us to the ongoing development after inspiration from what has already been achieved before. Later in the article he also delves into the difference between the makings of a cell and what comprises DNA. We aren’t tangibly made of DNA but cells – however it’s still fascinating the way our DNA interacts with our cell tissue to actually impact the visual representation that cell takes on. The question he poses is “where does the structure come from?” in all things it is important to seek out the how where and why of all things when basing your design on a previously crafted form to understand its integrity. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes out of a book I like to read by Ayn Rand: “The purpose, the site, the material determines the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it’s made by one central idea and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive like a man. Its integrity is to follow its own truth” 2. Integrity: Next he presents that Scientists seeking to identify Morphology through computers developed technology and labeled it The D’Arcy Machine which collects data from radio signals, detecting signs of life to discover potential extra-terrestrial intelligence. *this concept encourages lateral thinking when it comes to recognizing our own environment for which we are designing – in other words allows us to more broadly come to a definition by examining the world under this attitude that life could be interpreted by various other means not just our own understanding. We are able to analyze our current surroundings effectively, though, should anything completely new come along our ability to determine its organic/inorganic nature is severely limited. Any assistance with this can be appreciated. Because of these scientists we are able to gain a different perspective by gleaning the important aspects of what makes an organic specimen organic, and an inorganic specimen inorganic. It is with this in mind that Ball later implores us to invest in reductionism to really be able to glean what our fundamental traits are in any design, not only that but also to address model making with the purpose of simplifying your greater ambitions to iron out flaws and loopholes. Exposing these errors is
crucial to the success or failure of your design. “We tend to think of a model as a small scale replica of the real object… for scientists; however a model is a simplified abstract description of what they think is going on in a particular phenomenon.” When you have allowed yourself to cover the boundaries, “A good model includes only those aspects thought to be essential in producing the basic phenomenon. The details may be added later” This is to allow for unexpected variables and modification upon later review.
3. Mimicry and Inspiration: Ball introduces D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, A Scottish Biologist, Mathematician and Classics Scholar who pioneered Mathematical Biology as a Scientific Research field and was notorious for his work analyzing pattern and form in nature but allegedly failed to recognize Morphology as a Scientific Discipline. The work that he did on his book On Growth and Form allows us to take on a new approach when analyzing what defines organic matter and how we should design based on that knowledge. The argument centered on the complexities of organic and inorganic forms is established between simple and intricate patterns. While Ball presented the point of view that inorganic Systems were simple as a default he also allows that D’Arcy referred to the exact opposite in his book On Growth and Form. He also went further to suggest that inorganic patterns are sometimes copied by organic matter and vice versa come design techniques. This is why the D’Arcy machine in all its complexity, in my opinion is flawed. You cannot establish a rule of thumb to give an absolute truth on what is designed to live and what is designed to be inorganic by external features and make-up alone. Mimicry also occurs. Ball states that our non-living designs mimic those in nature. I would have to disagree as I believe that mimicry only occurs when intentional, as mimicry and inspired work are two different things. We use nature mostly as a tool, component or catalyst to achieve our desired outcome which more often than not is also something that has been inspired by something that occurs naturally. This allows us to compensate for our inability to manifest new concepts, all the while appreciating that our scope for new ideas is limited to what we may individually comprehend. Inspirations occur naturally in inorganic matter. Referring to the pictures in fig. 1.6 Ball mentions that for every complex design there is a simple pattern that sparks the start of an intricate form. He later mentions in the article that “Science is about finding good enough approximations to reality to give us some understanding of it and not about capturing the whole truth” and “They include features one wants to study” This is true of any design that provides us with inspiration 4. Design vs. Creationism: Ball explores how Darwinism holds that evolutionism was the explanation of how things developed their own design as they earned it through mutation and natural selection. (Only the strongest survive)
My take on this is simply that Darwinism, although another aspect to be taken with consideration for the critical design elements it poses has its limitations as well which seems to coincide with Ball’s argument. “Darwinian evolution…provides a narrative that rationalizes how we got to where we are today. (As a result it says rather little about where we might go in the future.)” Foresight requires that you are not bound by the past- as you are with evolutionism and act on the freedom to envision - and act on what is and has not been yet designed. It’s part of the story but it’s not the full picture that we require as designers. Furthermore, Darwinist thinking places assumptions on there being efficiency in the design of the organic samples that appeal to natural selection. It doesn’t allow for demonstrations for factual reference to back it up. In effect it is mostly unsuccessful as it takes the perceived ‘weak’ competition and removes it which is an unsustainable and irrational path to take. You don’t design something based on the expectation that something weak will not be around in the future to take advantage of what has been designed and nature cannot be counted on to support that lack of ethics either. Instead it is our job to improve on nature in a way that is sustainable and does not damage or eradicate another organic system 5. Natural Restrictions: Natural restrictions were addressed – D’Arcy’s argument was presented claiming that “physical and chemical laws… play a direct role in determining shape and role in biology” and that even the amoeba is restricted by physical and chemical limitations. There are plenty of restrictions presented through this article. Covered are the laws of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and then the bounds of Aesthetics – both conceptually for the inorganic renditions we and nature create, and also organically as DNA affects living cells. There is also an element of natural Selection presented to us just to name a few. These things impact and in some cases strongly restrict the limits of design but without a theme from which to create; these parameters are obsolete. 6. Mathematics and Design: Maths paints an unambiguous picture of a structure and form whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not. We are using mathematics to describe what already occurs in nature – in fact it was nature that inspired the development of specific formulas to map it geometrically. One example he presents is in the form of a seashell. Finding mathematical expressions to explain your design keeps it concise with little margin for error. “Once we have identified an algorithm that makes the right shape that doesn’t necessarily mean it corresponds to anything that happens in the real world” However, it could potentially apply.