POSESSING THE URPFLANZE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF BIOLOGY-DESIGN ANALOGY VIA BIOMIMIETIC PRACTICE

Emily Binet Royall

TC 660H Plan II Honors Program The University of Texas at Austin

November 30, 2011

_____________________________________
Riley Triggs, M.ARCH Department of Art and Art History Supervising Professor

_____________________________________
Edward M. Marcotte, PhD Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Second Reader

ABSTRACT
Author: Emily Binet Royall

Title: Posessing The Urpflanze: An Examination Of The Nature And Purpose Of Biology-Design Analogy Via Biomimietic Practice

Supervising Professor: Riley Triggs, M.ARCH

Design and science both incorporate problem solving as a means of interpreting and interacting with the natural environment. Under the abstract and recent pressure of achieving sustainability within human systems, the disciplines spheres of influence have grown increasingly proximate to one another. As a consequence of this growing relationship, Biomimicry as a method of problem solving has become popularized though its practice remains ill defined and decentralized. The first portion of this thesis is devoted to defining Biomimicry by synthesizing a variety of recent and past attempts. Though it presents itself as a cutting edge theory, Biomimicry is not a novel concept. This is because it rests upon the concept of analogy, specifically that drawn between biology and design. This form of analogy is called the biology-design analogy and distinguishes the man made, synthetic environment from the natural, organic environment. Tracing the historical practice of the analogy reveals three distinct formats: the model-building, empirical-creation, and problem-solving formats. Ultimately these methods of the biology-design analogy are practiced at various junctures in history with respect to different subject matter that evolves in tandem with the development of scientific theory and discovery. Interestingly, the biology-design analogy is utilized throughout history for the purpose of identifying and generating the Urpflanze, or ideal form that is typically associated with nature.

Dedicated to my parents who have provided me with the opportunity to explore.

CONTENTS _____________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 Introduction ............................................................................................. 5 What is biomimicry? .............................................................................. 12 The validity of the biology-design analogy ............................................. 17 Discovering the Natural World: an origin of biology-design analogy ...................................................................... 27 Organic Analogy: pastoralizing nature and extracting wisdom principles ........................................................... 34 Anatomical Analogy: understanding conditions of existence ........................................................................... 40 The Ecological Analogy: situating objects within an organic system ....................................................................... 49 Process Analogy: models for autonomous generation of form .................................................................................. 55 Organizational Analogy: finding and emulating the properties of complex systems ......................................... 69 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 81 Bibliography........................................................................................... 86 Biography .............................................................................................. 91

10

1 Introduction _____________________________________________________________

This work illustrates the at once historical and hypothetical working relationship between art and science, or more specifically between design as a methodology of creation, and biology as a practice of experimentation and observation1. Though both of these disciplines deal with creation, experimentation and discovery, the heavy emphasis design places on the process of creation typically segregates it from biology, which is viewed foremost as a method of discovery using the scientific method. Part of this thesis explores the transfer of information between these disciplines, namely how methods of design recapitulate (or ought to recapitulate) the structure and function of biological systems, and how principles of design are co-opted by biologists to understand and model biological phenomena. The remarkable polarization of these disciplines is typically the result of a common misconception that they are concerned with very different types of problems, when in fact they represent distinct facets of human capability for synthesizing solutions to the same problems. Therefore a second goal of this work is to make the case that design and biology may interact synergistically to yield fruitful and pragmatic objects, systems or organizations especially with respect to issues of sustainable development.

Currently, no formal definition for the term design exists. Instead design is broken into a series of sub-disciplines, two of which are particularly relevant to the work presented here; product and process design. Product design often requires an ability to gather information from a system in order to create an object that accomplishes a certain function in response to environmental constraints. Process design is analogous, but refers instead to the creation of functional systems that meet a certain level of efficiency. Both are referenced where the term design appears in this thesis. Alternatively biology, the study of life, involves the creation of instruments and experimental protocol for the purpose of uncovering and understanding the structure and function of biological systems.

Deep research into the worlds of design and biology illuminate the nature of their historical relationship. Traditionally, design and biology relate to each other through analogy, where the forms, methods, or systems in nature are assessed according to the criteria of an artificial, man-made context. Thus we can refer to it abstractly as the biology-design analogy, simply because it is an analogy drawn between biology and design. As elucidated by this research, the biology-design analogy takes on a variety of subject matter throughout history, often in tandem with the development of contemporary scientific theory. Three formats of the analogy specifically emerged from the body of historical literature studied regarding the integration of biology and design. The three trends that do appear I have called the problem-solving analogy, empirical-creation analogy, and the model-building analogy. These forms are discussed in detail in Chapter 2,Validating the Biology-Design Analogy, and largely focus on the actual modes of information transfer between biology and design as deciphered from both historical literature and contemporary trends. It is entirely possible that additional forms of the biology-design analogy exist, as the historical body of literature used to discern these formats is vast and rich, spanning across the fields of architecture, social science, philosophy, art, and the sciences. The reader is therefore cautioned that the formats represented here may not be inclusive of all possibilities. The three formats of analogy are demonstrated through a handful of historical styles of analogy, which are differentiated according to their subject matter. Several of these styles of analogy were first identified in Phillip Steadmans book, The Evolution of Designs, which has proven to be an outstanding resource with respect to mapping the biology-design analogy. Though it is impossible to represent these styles of analogy in

chronological order (their existence is nearly rhizomatic in nature, occurring simultaneously at different degrees across the matrix of human history), it is possible to organize them by increasing degrees of sophistication. Sophistication is defined here as a high level of affluence and maturity regarding the biology-design analogy, as characterized by an increasing awareness of the complex factors (environmental, morphological or otherwise) that govern the form and function of a biological organism or designed object. The least sophisticated of analogy styles, the organic analogy, is characterized by an idolization and aesthetic imitation of organic form as typically exhibited by examples of medieval architecture. The second is the anatomical analogy, where organic form is examined for its structural and mechanical properties, which are then imitated in engineering and architecture. DArcy Thompsons On Growth and Form, is largely responsible for the emergence of the popular phrase, form follows function, famously recapitulated by Edward Sullivan, which poses as an integral component of the theory behind the anatomical analogy. The anatomical analogy is then followed by the ecological analogy, which marks the first attempt at situating an organisms form within its environmental context, as suggested by 19th century biologist Georges Cuvier. It is the emergence of the ecological analogy in tandem with Cuviers philosophy that inspires twentieth century architecture to consider the terms of a designs environment, i.e. its social, cultural or economic climate. Contemporary work by Neri Oxman of MITs Computational Architecture department continues this thread of thought, as she explores how the ecological availability of material affects form and function. Next, the process analogy reaches a pivotal degree of sophistication as it is aligned with Darwinian concepts of evolution. The process analogy discovers how the process of evolution might

be replicated both in the anthropological analysis of the evolution of technology and the formation of an autonomous design method, eliminating the role of an intelligent designer. Finally, the organizational analogy brings us up to speed with topics in current biological research as it uncovers the potential for how the organization of complex biological systems might explicate principles of design. Here, themes of modularity, robustness and scale-free networks are juxtaposed against the Deleuzian concept of rhizomaticity, in effort to link cutting edge scientific research with one of the most popular terms in 21st century design. Great caution is given to the concept of analogy, as a large portion of this work rests upon the integrity of its use across disciplines. Therefore part of this thesis is devoted to assessing the validity of analogy as applied within the context of biology and design. Naturally, there are a number of strengths and weaknesses to an argument utilizing analogy. As Herbert Simon in The Architecture of Complexity suggests, analogy is a relevant means of transferring information between disciplines because complex systems share ubiquitous properties regardless of the nature of their context. Perhaps in a more scientific manner, the ideas presented by Simon are confirmed by Milo et al., whose paper Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex Networks extracts ubiquitous patterns of organization across networks in unrelated areas (engineering, biological and social networks). Simon contends that the use of analogy between disciplines is a fertile source of ideas, and that such analysis is capable of yielding deeper understanding of fundamental properties shared among specialized systems. However, as in any system there are significant trade-offs that must occur in order to reap the benefits of an emergent property. One trade-off for implementing analogy is that it cannot always

be taken literally. Critics of analogy, especially Steven Vogel, contend that analogy is not always relevant to an argument. With respect to the biology-design analogy, Vogel suggests that it is irresponsible to strictly imitate designs in nature, as nature does not always produce perfect forms or systems. Furthermore, Vogel suggests that in many cases human inventions are equally valuable, possibly more so, than some organic constructions:

The general point is that nature neither holds nor should be expected to hold any natural superiority, and it provides neither comfort nor example for engineer- bashers. Our technology does all kinds of things with few or no natural analogues, even things we think might be useful to other organisms (Vogel, 2003).

Arguments like Vogels are necessary because they represent a healthy level of skepticism against those claiming analogy as a solution to sustainable design problems. This thesis does not attempt to aggravate Vogel with similar claims, but rather contends that the historical pervasiveness of the biology-design analogy justifies its use on some level, and merits further research and exploration. This leads us to consider the fundamental question posed by this thesis: what the ultimate purpose of the design-biology analogy? It can only be concluded from observation of the historical trends embedded within a vast body of art and literature that the biology-design analogys central purpose is to imitate or capture the essence of a certain Urpflanze or ideal form, method or system that is always located in nature. Each

style of analogy seems to be predicated upon this notion, and attempts to seek an increasing approximation towards an organic ideal. Perception of nature as a reservoir of perfected models is consistent throughout each historical era and appears as a major trend throughout this work. Because Biomimicry operates as the current model of the biology-design analogy, and is also predicated on the notion that nature possesses ideal forms to be imitated, it is used here as the vehicle for our exploration. Though the definition of Biomimicry assumes many different forms as discussed in Chapter 1, the following definition is proposed:

Biomimicry is the examination of biological systems and artefacts for the purpose of extracting design principles that may be applied to solve physical or conceptual problems often with the objective of contributing towards a sustainable human infrastructure.

As we shall see, this definition encompasses the historical purpose and function of the biology-design analogy, and in this manner the two terms are synonymous. In the next section we will explore the terms origins and discuss how the styles of analogy relate to its development. On a final note, it is necessary to address a couple philosophical caveats that confront the arguments made in this work. In Validating the Biology-Design Analogy a distinction is made between the synthetic and organic environments. This separation of man from nature is susceptible to dispute, since it can be easily argued that man is a

10

function of nature, and as such his creations are not separate from those of nature. At this point, the biology-design analogy breaks down, since a comparison cannot be drawn between the products of two entities that are one and the same. Ive chosen to disregard this argument because although it is endlessly debatable as to whether or not man is separate from nature, the fact is that the obsessive manner with which man idolizes natural form (as qualified by the historical literature cited in chapters 2 through 8), suggests that he has historically perceived himself to be separate from, and inferior to nature. It is this perception that dictates the function of the biology-design analogy, and is the subject that is address in this thesis. The true relationship between mankinds creations and those of nature is capable of generating enough content for an entirely separate thesis. However, Karl Friedrich Schinkel comes close to what I would expect the nature of this relationship to be, making an excellent observation with respect to the applied arts, that architecture is the continuation of nature in her constructive activity. This activity is conducted through that natural product: Mankind (Shinkel 49).

11

2 What is Biomimicry? _____________________________________________________________

Biomimicry is a dynamic and often chimeric process whose definition remains as elusive as its practice. As a term, Biomimicry has suffered a half-century of revision and amendment. As a practice, Biomimicry has operated anonymously within the human creative and logical framework for centuries. Biomimicry the term had humble beginnings in Otto H. Schmitts paper Some Interesting and Useful Biomimetic Transforms," presented at the Third International Biophysics Conference in 1969. Schmitts broad concept of Biomimetics centered on the process of transmitting ideas from nature to technology. Six years later, the term made its first appearance in the 1974 edition of the Websters Dictionary accompanied by a definition that departed from Schmitts original proposal:

Biomimetics: the study of the formation, structure, or function of biologically produced substances and materials (as enzymes or silk) and biological mechanisms and processes (as protein synthesis or photosynthesis) especially for the purpose of synthesizing similar products by artificial mechanisms which mimic natural ones (Webster, 1974)."

Lets briefly consider this definition in detail. Here Biomimetics is described as the study of three properties of biological materials and mechanisms: their formation, physical structure, and function. The purpose of this study is then to generate products similar in form, structure and function to biological objects. This will be achieved by using man-

12

made mechanisms that also mimic natural machinery, where mimicry is defined as to closely resemble or simulate. Effectively, Websters definition of Biomimicry is two fold: not only are the products of Biomimicry to be mimicked from nature, but the process by which they are generated must be copied from nature as well. A quick Wikipedia search2 (cited here as a significant source due to its meme generating capabilities) gives us insight into contemporary perspectives on Biomimicry. Wikipedia casually defines Biomimcry as the examination of nature, its models, systems, processes, and elements to emulate or take inspiration from in order to solve human problems. This statement departs significantly from Websters original citation. Here, the prerequisite that we mimic natural processes in order to mimic form is lost and the three key words form, structure and function so integral to the Webster definition, are absent. Additionally, Wikipedias definition cites the purpose of Biomimicry as solving human problems, a nuance completely missing from Websters characterization. Where Biomimicry was once characterized as a process used to generate form, today this notion is replaced with popular emphasis on the vague concept of problem solving. Why has the definition of Biomimicry changed to represent a problem solving method? This may be a consequence of the budding sensation that the human race has created environmental problems that must be solved. Because Biomimicry presents itself as an environmentally sensitive design process, it has been approached by a myriad of industrial sectors ranging from architecture to business. However employment of Biomimicry in so many radically different areas makes Websters original definition
2

The preferred source, the Oxford English Dictionary, gives us a rather poor definition of the term, simply; The development and use of biomimetic materials, methods etc.; the branch of science concerned with this (OED 2011).

13

difficult to abide by. Hence, Wikipedias interpretation of the original Webster term clues us in to a legitimate shift in perspective regarding Biomimicry, possibly as a direct result of a growing sensitivity to change in the environments condition. Often communication between industries interested in applying the Biomimicry model is virtually non-existent, forcing these sectors to in turn generate their own adolescent definitions. On a cursory level, Biomimicry has been defined as the strict imitation of form and structure primarily for engineering purposes. Philip Steadman defines Biomimicry as engineering analysis of organisms and their behavior with a view to applying the same principles in design (Steadman, 2008). This definition restricts the imitation implicit in Biomimicry practice to morphological structure and function, and ignores possibilities of modeling processes or systems. Julian Vincent, a zoologist and engineer, simply defines Biomimicry as the abstraction of good design from nature. Alternatively, Physicist Yoseph Bar-Cohen emphasizes the examination of biological systems and processes as a central tenant of Biomimicry, and suggests that the act of simple imitation is archaic. Instead, Bar-Cohen says, advances in science and technology have brought humans to act beyond the simple mimicking of nature, as we may now like never before be inspired by nature and employ our tools in far superior ways3 Cohen, 2008). This definition carries the implication that the Biomimetic process is closely linked to computational efforts. Author and naturalist Janine Benyus, who is popularly considered to be the contemporary authority on Biomimicry, does not easily embrace this computational view. Benyus is clear in her assertion that models for the biomimetic process are to be directly lifted from the natural world, rather than artificially

This optimistically vague definition is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7, The Process Analogy: models for the autonomous generation of form.

14

designed by computational methods. For Benyus, human innovation should take a backseat to the superior designs already presented by nature (for this reason, I will refer to Benyuss model as strict mimicry). Benyus also suggests that in order to recognize the inherent superiority of natures designs, we must first reorganize our perception of nature into three roles: as mentor, measure and model. Both the Biomimicry Guild and Biomimicry Institute have adopted this definition, quickly rendering it the accepted model for Biomimicry practice. Clearly there is still work to be done with respect to defining Biomimicry. Though we may concede that each of these definitions accurately identifies a unique aspect of the Biomimicry practice, none recognize its historical evolution as a philosophy. Because Biomimicry is a design process relating to human interpretation of the natural world, what rests at the core of its philosophy is, in essence, an analogy. Therefore examining the development of historical analogies drawn between nature and human design provide insight into the evolution of the Biomimicry practice. It is important to note that the belief that nature can provide models for human creation is not a unique property of the term Biomimicry. This idea has appeared repeatedly throughout history, starting as early as Aristotles Natural History, and evolving to include the artificial intelligence mechanisms of Yoseph Bar-Cohen. The argument here is not that Biomimicry has been historically practiced as a complete philosophy but rather, that the elements that collectively inform contemporary Biomimicry have historically built upon each other in order to enable the philosophy exacted by the Biomimicry process today. It is in this manner that Biomimicry, as an analogy, has operated anonymously within the human logical and creative framework for a great many years. Though a name was never formally put to

15

face of biological analogy within design until the late sixties, Biomimicry as an idea and practice has lurked in human intellect for ages. How the Biomimicry philosophy came to inform contemporary design is a complicated issue to address, in part, because of the intricate historical relationship between design and biology. In attempt to navigate this complexity, we will trace the phylogeny of this relationship by focusing on the analogy drawn between biology and architecture, engineering, and product and process design, as these three modes of human creation share the most relevance to contemporary Biomimicry practice. More precisely we will examine how humans have responded to nature as a physical model for design by documenting it, idolizing it, and treating it as a sort of engineering encyclopedia. Finally, we will examine how a more sophisticated reading of natural systems informed the process of design and fueled the appreciation of architectural products as organic systems. However before we explore the nature of the biomimetic analogy formats and styles in great detail, it is necessary to understand and qualify the rhetorical concept of analogy as applicable here.

16

3 The validity of biology-design analogy _____________________________________________________________

Much of Biomimicrys essence rests upon the concept of analogy, as it requires a comparison between artificial and organic constructs. Analogy itself is a chimerical term that can assume a number of different meanings. The Greeks likened the term or analogia to proportionality in mathematics; or more specifically, to the

identity of relation between ordered pairs. This rather literal use of the term soon evolved to include more abstract arguments. Plato and Aristotle for example, posited that analogy referred to a shared abstraction between objects. For these philosophers, analogous objects did not necessarily share a physical relation, but could also be qualified by a sharing of function, ideas, or patterns. Linguists and cognitive scientists have further stretched this interpretation, defining analogy as a transferring of meaning or information from one subject to another. For scientists however, analogy appears within evolutionary theory and implies a shared physical organ or trait between two unrelated species. It is important to note that the analogous traits that appear in unrelated species are often a consequence of those species using similar adaptive strategies to overcome similar environmental challenges. An intriguing example of this can be found in the evolutionary lineage of birds and bats, which independently evolved the capacity of flight as a strategy to overcome equivalent, environmentally imposed restraints. This form of analogy is particularly relevant for the Biomimetic argument because it seems to justify how similar solutions can work for independent systems encountering analogous problems. Retrospectively, we can identify three major forms of the analogy definition. The first implies a sharing of a pattern or idea between objects, the second rests upon transfer

17

of information between subjects, and the third is qualified by a similarity of traits between unrelated systems. Biomimicry operates on all of these levels of analogy, and consequentially varies in both purpose and form. Lets next consider how analogy operates within the framework of Biomimicry, which is consists of two main environments: the synthetic and organic. Here, the synthetic environment refers to a man-made infrastructure, or all the objects (on both micro and macro scales) designed by man, and not found in nature. Several different formats for analogy-drawing exist within the Biomimicry process4. The three most prevalent forms, which appear in both historical and contemporary examples of Biomimicry, deal with problem-solving, empirical creation, and model construction. The problem-solving method occurs as follows. First, a problem is identified in the synthetic environment and an analogy is drawn from the synthetic environment, to the natural environment. If an analogous problem is identified in nature, research is conducted to identify an existing solution. The analogy is then returned, in the form of a solution, to the synthetic environment. For example, if a problem in the synthetic environment is identified, (perhaps the energy-efficiency of photovoltaics needs improvement), an analogy is drawn to nature: are there any instances of efficient conversions of sunlight to energy? If research into photosynthesis provides a solution to this problem, the solution can be translated back to the synthetic environment in a form appropriate to the human context. This final step, as we will see in the second section, requires the abstraction of design principles from nature that are ubiquitously applicable to the human environment.

For the descriptions that ensue, refer Figure 1.

18

Figure 1. Formats of the biology-design analogy. In each format the biologydesign analogy is made between synthetic and natural environments.

Problem-Solving

Synthetic

Nature

draw an analogy
19

identify a problem

identify an

The empirical-creation and model-construction methods are one-way analogies, in contrast to the two-way problem solving analogy previously discussed. In these methods of Biomimicry, the analogy is unidirectionally drawn either from the natural environment to the synthetic environment, or vice versa. Within the empirical-creation method, a feature is identified in nature, and is recreated in the synthetic environment within the appropriate contextual restraints. This method of Biomimicry is endearingly termed bioinspiration, as practitioners feel this is the only way to describe the one-way transfer of ideas from nature to the synthetic environment. Furthermore, it is not necessary that the empirical-creation method solve a problem, only that it uses features of nature to identify a hypothetical design. While the empirical-creation method is popular in the design and architecture fields, the model-construction method appeals primarily to the sciences. The model-construction theory draws an analogy in the direction opposite that of the empirical-creation analogy. Here an analogy is drawn from the synthetic world to the natural, typically in effort to understand a complex natural system. Some of these examples are a bit archaic, such as La Mettries (1709-1751) LHomme Machine (1748), where he suggests that the best model for the brain was a machine. In fact, analogies were commonly drawn between technology and organic systems during the eighteenth century in order to better comprehend complex biological phenomena. This is historically referred to as the Anatomical Analogy (Steadman, 2008) and is the subject of Chapter 5. The three formats of the biology-design analogy discussed above in turn are practiced at different junctures in history often in tandem with the development of scientific theory. Five styles of analogy (organic, anatomical, ecological, process and organizational) have emerged from a study of the historical works of a variety of

20

philosophers, designers, architects and scientists spanning several centuries. These styles of analogy are differentiated according to their subject matter, which are informed by contemporary technology and scientific discovery, increasing in sophistication over time. Figure 2 below describes the relationship between the formats of the biology-design analogy and their practice across various historical styles.

Biology-Design Analogy

Empericalcreation

Modelbuilding

Problemsolving

Organic

Anatomical

Ecological

Process

Organizational

Increasing Sophistication

Figure 2. The analogy cascade: a relationship map between Biology-Design analogy formats and historical analogy styles. Each style, varying by subject matter, can incorporate all three formats of the biology-design analogy. Sophistication as previously defined, increases along the x axis.

21

Organizational Process

Sophistication

Ecological Anatomical Organic

Development of Scientific Theory

Figure 3. Styles of analogy increase in sophistication as development of scientific theory progresses. This progression does not necessarily occur in chronological order and neither do the successive stages of analogy. Instead they are ordered by an increasing sophistication as defined in this section.

At this point it may be useful to refer back to our previous exploration of Websters Biomimicry definition and compare our findings. Recall that the object of Biomimicry was to identify features of nature especially for the purpose of synthesizing similar products. From our new vantage point we can appreciate how unsatisfactory this, and other definitions of Biomimicry are when compared to the multi-tiered complexity of its practice as exemplified by the three formats above. It is clear at least, that analogy is essential to the practice, but what can be said of the validity of analogy within these three

22

formats of Biomimicry practice? Can the abstraction of biological concepts be reasonably applied to the configuration of human systems and yield significant results? Though cautioning against the pitfalls of analogy, Herbert Simon in The Architecture of Complexity, argues that analogy across sectors is relevant. Simon examines complex systems (biological, social, economic) and extracts principles of similarity across them, thus demonstrating the validity of certain types of analogy. Simon speaks to us from the early 1960s, when the development of computers provided novel computational power allowing for the appreciation of complex systems. Simons work is largely a response to a theory generated from this newborn computational capacity; general systems theory, which abstracting from properties peculiar to physical, biological or social systems, would be applicable to all of them (Simon, 1962). General systems theory simply stipulates that complex systems share certain properties in common. Simon argues that because complex systems share similar properties, an analogy is implied between them, therefore confirming that drawing analogy across different disciplines is potentially accurate. Though Simon concedes that it may be difficult in some cases to draw relevant analogies across radically different areas, he maintains that the effectiveness of an analogy depends on whether the similarities the metaphor captures are significant or superficial (Simon, 1962). Notably, Simon identifies the behavior of adaptive systems as particularly susceptible to lucrative analogy. As his work demonstrates, properties of complex systems such as feedback loops or homeostasis share similar functions and regulatory mechanisms to social or economic systems. More generally, Simon likens the evolutionary process to human problem solving stating that:

23

a little reflection reveals that cues signaling progress play the same role in the problem-solving process that stable intermediate forms play in the biological evolutionary process (Simon, 1962).

Here Simon references the trial-and-error property of design assessment as akin to both the evolutionary process and human design process. In other words, an analogy is drawn between positive trials in problem solving and conserved forms in evolution. Though Simon appears to favor the power of analogy over its potential hazards, Steven Vogel dismisses analogy drawn between biology and design on the premise that such analogies falsely idolize natures ability to generate form. In Nature is Swell but is it Worth Copying? Vogel rather passionately criticizes Biomimetics citing examples where nature fails to operate efficiently or successfully. Vogel argues that natural selection does not produce perfect forms, but instead suffers from lack of foresight and near impossibility of cross-linkage transfer of innovations (Vogel, 2003). Furthermore, he cites human inventions such as the wheel-and-axle motif that are unrivaled by nature, and exist as perfectly viable (even superior) human designs. By these arguments, it appears as though Vogel is primarily interested in refreshing the Biomimetics field by highlighting the organic hubris of natures imperfection. But Vogels criticisms are not concerned with the integrity of the biology-design analogy so central to Biomimetics. Instead, Vogel seems to be opposing the strict-mimicry model proposed by Benyus as he concedes that, natures technology differs from our own along a host of axes, and in those differences lies the promise of Biomimetics (Vogel, 2003). Vogel thus agrees that

24

analogy is relevant but can be neither applied ubiquitously, nor in a unidirectional manner in order to accomplish anything of substance. Yoseph Bar-Cohen chimes in on this argument, stating in his book Biomimetics: Biological Inspired Technologies that, Given the limitation of todays technology, copying nature may not be the most effective approach. Many examples exist where humans using nature as inspiration have used its principles to invent far more effective solutions; flying is one such example (Bar-Cohen, 2006). It appears that just as Simon suggested, analogy cannot be applied ubiquitously but if applied selectively may yield uniquely significant results. The validity of biology-design analogy would not be so bitterly contested if it were not attractive for some reason. So what attracts us to the biology-design analogy? Traditionally, natural form was considered to be the ideal inspiration for design as a consequence of its evident symmetry and geometrical complexities. Today, concerns about the environment make the biology-design analogy attractive because of its association with harmonious adaptation to changing environmental conditions. Phillip Steadman suggests that the biology-design analogy is appealing to design because the properties of nature often imply wholeness, coherence and correlation; all features sought after by the designer or architect (Steadman, 2008). On a more politically pragmatic level, the analogy is popular in design communities seeking to legitimize their field. Because science is a discipline founded upon the rigor of experimentation and conducted through centuries of refinement via the peer-review process, it lends itself towards a reputation of legitimacy. It is for this reason that the nascent discipline of design is especially attracted to this form of validity in order to navigate the median between engineering and fine art. Via the integration of biological concepts into their practice and

25

study, the Design community may associate itself with the established doctrine of science (Teal, 2010).

26

4 Discovering the Natural World: an origin of biology-design analogy _____________________________________________________________

Just as the soul of nature has played itself out in the forms of its individual creations and the relationship of their parts one to another, so the human spirit has left its mark on the forms of art; from that a whole world of form has come into being Goethe

The biology-design analogy was born from the observation and documentation of nature, as analysis of natural phenomena is the first step towards extending biological metaphor to human processes of creation. Though documenting nature is an arguably ancient practice forming the very foundation of science itself, never did it reach a higher peak than during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, beginning with the work of Carl Linnaeus. Linnaeus is considered to be the founder of taxonomy and Systematics. Systematics is defined as the study of the diversification of life, as well as of relationships between physical features of species and organisms. Classical Systematics can be characterized by both the methods and systems processes (Steadman, 2008). The systems process works by isolating a few elements from the body plan of an organism, and examining them in detail across various species. Alternatively, the methods process describes all the features of an organism for comparison simultaneously. Ultimately, the purpose of Linnean classification techniques is to organize objects into phylogenetic lineages by examining similar morphological features across species. Systematics matured in the West during a period distinguished by an explosion of biological information and upheaval of scientific theory. As research expeditions peered into the depths of the Americas and imperialistically acquired territories, public interest in the discovery and documentation of exotic natural worlds flourished. Perception of

27

nature shifted from exotic fascination to idolization in response to the Industrial Revolution, which stirred in the popular consciousness certain nostalgia for organic form. Systematics-based classificatory illustrations such as Ernst Haeckels Kunstformen der Natur (Art Forms of Nature) became mainstream images. Consequentially, classification methods used to synthesize biological information leached into other areas of scholarship, and architects and engineers began visualizing information using the same methods as their scientific colleagues. Remarkably, the classificatory instinct of nineteenth century culture is vivid in the works of both scientists such as Ernst Haeckel, and architects like Julien-David Le Roy and Jean-Nicolas Durand, all using analogous methods of visual classificatory composition. An early employer of the methods process of Systematics was Maria Sibylla Merian, founder of etymology and publisher of Der Raupen wunderbare Verwandlung und sonderbare Blumennabrung. Der Raupen in 1679. The work was the illustrative product of a series of expeditions during which Sibylla documented exotic flora and fauna. Her exquisitely detailed drawings of organic form mark the start of a trend in visual documentation of nature, which would be come so characteristic of the Renaissance and Victorian eras.

28

Figure 4. Image from Maria Sibylla Merian s Raupen Wunderbare Verwandelung und Sonderbare Blummennahrug, 1730. Early example of aesthetic illustration of classified morphology.

Ernst Haeckel, a 19th century German biologist, naturalist and artist was perhaps one of the first individuals to formally transcend the boundaries between biology and art, using the systems process of Systematics for his work. Inspired by Sybilla, Haeckel classified hundreds of organisms ranging from the obscure Spumellaria (a class of radiolarian) to Antilopina (more commonly, the antelope). Haeckel advocated for the Darwins controversial evolutionary theory by classifying organic forms into an illustrated series of increasing morphological complexity. In addition to depicting organic symmetry, he proposed that any species within a phylogenetic tree would undergo embryonic development in the same manner as the lower organisms before it, subsequently specializing into more complex structures. This gave rise to the concept that ontogeny (an organisms individual development) recapitulated phylogeny (its evolutionary lineage). This Biogenetic Law as Haeckel termed it, was an attempt to reconcile his own observations with Darwins Evolutionary theory. Haeckels drawings 29

appear to simplify the complexity of morphological features of various organisms. His hand lovingly rearranges the tangled features of complex organic form into legible symmetries reducing them to their morphological essences. Although Haeckels ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny theory was incorrect (embryos do not sequentially assume morphologies of lower organisms but instead reflect a phylotipic stage where they exhibit homomorphism), he still managed to capture an accurate evolutionary representation of organic design by simplifying and tabulating form.

Figure 5: Left Thalamophora (Kammerlinge) from Haeckle s Art Forms in Nature. Right Louis Comfort Tiffanny Vase, 1893-96. (35.9 x 29.2 cm)

Haeckels work not only illustrated evolutionary concepts for the scientific community, it also transmitted valuable inspiration to the fine art community. The concept that

30

ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny would be later reinterpreted by architect Louis H. Sullivan as the famous phrase form follows function; a term governing much of architectural theory for the better half of the 20th century. Haeckels work also had a more immediate impact upon the designers of his own time. Evidence exists associating Ernst Haeckel to the Jugendstil movement (Germanys answer the Art Nouveau), demonstrating his clear influence on Jugendstil theory (Wichmann, 1984). Haeckels illustrated forms and symmetry extended its influence to the works of Louis Comfort Tiffany, and architect August Endell. The figure above compares Haeckels work against other pieces of the Art Nouveau movement. However, the process of classification was a functional one, not solely limited to aesthetic illustrations of the natural world. Linneauss Systematics theory of classification lent itself to exploration of evolutionary theory, and was utilized in both scientific and architectural disciplines as such. Systematicss purpose within the context of this type of exploration is succinctly described by Bary Bergdoll in Natures Architecture: The Quest for the Laws of Form and the Critique of Historicism:

The idea that the study of the generative laws underlying the diversity of natural form might engender an art which could itself parallel the productive forces of nature was a recurrent concern of architects and design theorists convinced of the adage, first explored by Goethe and other German Romantic theorists, that nature is characterized by underlying unity in variety (Bergdoll, 2007).

31

The German school of transcendental zoology, or Naturphilosophie applied Systematics to precisely these ends. Johann von Goethe, German botanist and member of the Naturphilosophie School, recognized coherence in form across species and posited that an ideal archetype or basic body plan was common amongst them. Goethe suggested that this consistent form, dubbed Urpflanze, was an idealized morphological model upon which individual species simply modified. The notion of an ideal form or object type as members of the Bauhaus movement would later call it, particularly appealed to 19th century architects, navigating a chaotic stylistic period during which various historical styles were resurrected. French architect Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760-1834),

Figure 6. Top: Image from Leroys Ruins of the Most Beautiful Monuments of Greece. Bottom: Image from Ernst Haeckels Art Forms in Nature. Similarities are seen in compositional forms of aesthetic classifications.

32

attempted to assuage this stylistic tumult by applying Linneauss methodology to determine basic, conserved elements in architecture. In Precis de Lecons and Recueil, Durand visually classifies historical buildings and their features in order to identify conserved features, or archetypes amongst historical human infrastructure. Aesthetic similarities can be easily drawn between these two works, but it is important to keep in mind that homologies also lie in both their methodology and function. Haeckel and Durands work both use the principles of Systematics via classification to identify a certain Urpflanze of their respective disciplines. Therefore if only on a cursory level, a dialogue is opened between biology and the applied arts. Because both disciplines employ the same process to achieve a similar goal (identifying an archetype of object morphology), it is now possible to draw a comparison between them. It is this precursory form of analogy upon which Biomimicry identifies its origins. In our quest to explore how the evolution of the biology-design analogy feeds our understanding of the biomimetic process, we will discuss how the organic analogy modified human perceptions of nature and the effect this had on the designed environment.

33

5 Organic Analogy: pastoralizing nature and extracting wisdom principles _____________________________________________________________

Living organisms, and works of art, are schemata, definite after their kinds, which Nature and Man respectively form by qualifying matter -J.A. Stewart

The organic analogy refers to both an aesthetic and functional association between human creations and the positive features of the natural environment. In its aesthetic interpretation, the organic analogy is endowed with a romantic idealism with respect to form in nature; that the qualities of wholeness and coherence are inherently organic, and there exists a proportional relationship between parts and the whole (Steadman, 2008). These notions of nature are perhaps intuitive because they rely on basic concepts outlined in Aristotles treatment of both living beings, and works of art in his natural history. His admiration for form in nature is resonant for example, in the Poetics, in which he advocates that tragedy possess an organic form. Organic form as an ideal to be imitated appears in a vast range of historical works, of which only a few will be discussed here. And so, just as the first lines of Aristotles Poetics suggest, let us Follow, then, the order of nature, and begin with the principles which come first. Often within the aesthetic interpretation, an analogy is drawn between an organisms appearance and a human creation, for example a building or work of art. Early examples of this apply the human form as an ideal to be imitated by architectural design. It was believed by many early thinkers that the relationships between the parts of the human body to the harmonious whole represented a divine quality (Steadman, 2008). This idea was first articulated by Vetruvius (80-15 BC), and later illustrated by Da Vincis iconic Vitruvian Man. These men supposed that certain mathematical principles

34

operated behind the symmetrical qualities of organic form, and that the replication of these principles in human design reflected a divine and cosmic order. The Greeks and Early Christians adopted the human form as a measurement for architectural design, however the idea was not cemented into practice until the Renaissance period, when the principle of humanism was popularized. Leon Batista Alberti (1402-1472) was a humanist theoretician and architect whose work De statua, emphasized that "all steps of learning should be sought from nature." Alberti stressed that the artists fundamental purpose was to imitate nature. Fifteenth to seventeenth century architecture operated largely on this principle, as the work of Francisco di Giorgio illustrates. Di Giorgio superimposed the human body over his cathedral blueprints, taking note of human proportion and composition so that these basic design principles could be replicated in construction. The preoccupation with mathematical laws operating behind organic beauty continued to dominate aesthetics especially following the discovery of the golden ratio, and Fibonacci sequence (Steadman, 2008). The discovery of these concepts delivered a dead-end punchline to the world of architectural and design theory, as it implied that an absolute character found in organic form should be carried into human design. As scientific discovery progressed to reveal the complexity of biological systems, it became increasingly difficult to justify the rote imitation of biological form in design. As Darwin was soon to qualify, absolute characters do not exist in organic form, and rather than being static they exist in a constant state of evolutionary flux. The mimicry of human form in design in order to achieve a supposedly divine, nearly astrological ideal was naive at best. This strict attempt at mimicking natural form failed to persist into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and was later considered an

35

archaic approach to architectural theory. The nineteenth century saw a revival of the organic analogy however, but this time with emphasis on the functional quality of natural design. The association of function with beauty, or functional aesthetics, is identified as the second, more refined tier of the organic-analogy, which theoretically overlaps with the anatomical analogy discussed in Chapter 5. Functional aesthetics defines an objects beauty as being intrinsic to its fitness for a particular use. Rather than worshipping natural form for its aesthetic or divine qualities, functional aesthetics makes the distinction between cursory beauty, and beauty that is the consequence of a well-designed operating system. This idea of fitness would later come to imply harmony with nature, and architects would begin to explore this notion within the context of local materials, and low carbon emissions housing (one early example of note is Bruce Goffs Bavinger House). However, we must begin our historical discussion with DArcy Thompsons treatment of the matter in his work, On Growth and Form (1915). Thompsons work is the first to hail organisms as functional designs, whose morphological beauty is tied to their functional purpose as defined by physical parameters encountered in the environment:

The form then, of any portion of matter, whether it be living or dead, and the changes of form which are apparent in its movements and in its growth , may in all cases alike be described as due to the action of force (Thompson, 1961).

36

Instead of using biological examples to inform human design, Thompson draws analogies between mechanical objects and organisms. By emphasizing the role of physics in shaping the designs of organic morphology, Thompson maintains a thread linking his work to the trends of the previous century.

Figure 7. Skull of horse, as depicted in Thompsons On Growth and Form, (1961), representing the coordinate transformation of Hyracotherium to the same scale of magnitude.

Thompsons work is of special interest for architects and engineers as manipulators of form subject to physical laws. The Forth Bridge is a primary example, also cited by Thompson as it expresses numerous qualities that are nearly identical with structures found in nature. Philip Steadman, in his chapter on organic-analogy in The Evolution of Designs cites that the tubes from which the bridge is built correspond even in detail to the structure of the cylindrical plant stalks, and their strengthening rings to the

37

joints in the bamboo stem, one of the strongest of vegetable structures (Steadman, 2008). Steadman alludes that the architects of the bridge have come to similar conclusions as nature, designing analogous forms to solve related structural problems. In a sense the analogy between biology and design therefore justified, as two different agencies (nature and man) have independently generated analogous designs to overcome similar environmental constraints. This the core argument of many Biomimetic advocates; that the biology-design analogy is legitimate because man and nature encounter the same physical laws to which any design must be efficiently adapted.

Figure 8. Forth Bridge modeled after the structural principles of plant architecture

While resembling the biology-design analogy, the aesthetic interpretation of the organic analogy remains weak because it fails to address the functional purpose of organic form, focusing instead on the topical features of symmetry and composition. The exploration of topical form in nature however, is not entirely fruitless. Nature can provide the architect or designer with valuable insight into structural integrity, as clearly

38

exemplified by designs demonstrating properties of extant biological systems, such as the Forth Bridge. Alternatively, the functional aesthetic interpretation of the organic analogy provides us with a little more leg room: because the form of an organic artefact is considered an integral consequence of its function, we can begin to steer the biologydesign analogy away from the topical, and into the realm of functional and pragmatic design.

39

6 Anatomical Analogy: understanding conditions of existence _____________________________________________________________

In art as in nature an organism is an assemblage of interdependent parts of which the structure is determined by the function and of which the form is an expression of the structure -Schuyler

Beyond the static idealization of organic form and function lies an understanding of the working relationship between the two. The anatomical-analogy appreciates that the anatomy of an organic object is a consequence of its function, and draws an analogy between the form of the organic object and the form of a designed artefact. Within the framework of Biomimicry, the anatomical analogy involves the replication of form or anatomical organization within the synthetic environment. The conceptual basis for this form of the biology-design analogy was instigated by the work of biologist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), whose revisions of morphological classification provided an opportunity to consider physical features of an object in relation to their function. Ultimately, the concept of marrying form with function propagated by the development of these ideas would come to attract the attention of architects like Violet Le Duc, and Horatio Greenough who sought the principle for its applicability to engineering. As will become evident within this chapter, Cuvier along with his contemporaries used the model-building format of analogy to develop an understanding of the principles that dictated biological form. Architects and designers would later use this information as fodder for the empirical-creation format of analogy, where organic structure is imitated in both their designs and the anthropological analysis of architectural history. For architects and scientists alike, the anatomical analogys persuasiveness comes from its acknowledgement that biological objects are more complicated than a cursory

40

examination of form would lead one to believe. The anatomical-analogy also gives a nod towards the potential complication of placing an organism within its environmental context (the primary concern of the ecological analogy). Because the anatomical analogy represents a broader range of applicability compared to the organic analogy, it remains relevant today, and can be located in the engineering work of Yoseph Bar Cohen. Cuviers work is largely responsible for providing a new framework with which to consider morphological form that is, the association of form with function in context of a bigger biological picture. Henri Milne-Edwards, a student of Cuviers described his system as an attempt to grasp the manner in which organic forms might have been invented by comparing and studying living things as if they were machines created by the industry of man (Steadman 13). Essentially, Cuvier used the model-building analogy format to build a system of characterizing organisms by their form as a consequence of function defined by an environmental context. Cuvier called the environmental characteristics that defined the function of an organism the conditions of existence, a concept adapted from Aristotles final causes, from his Natural History. The conditions of existence were principles which stated the fundamental characteristics of each and every creature, that operated as constraints upon the creature, to which its form was an intelligently designed adaptation (Cuvier developed his theories prior to the acceptance of Darwins evolutionary theory) (Steadman, 2008). The conditions of existence held two corollaries dubbed the correlation of parts, and the subordination of characters. The correlation of parts implied a functional interdependence between organs and the bodysystem that made up their context. It then follows that the existence of one organ, as a component within a system, necessarily implied the presence of other organs. The

41

subordination of characters argument stated that some features of organisms had a functional presence over others, and Cuvier argued that a classification system should be designed to acknowledge such details. Essentially the corollaries of Cuviers conditions of existence theory represented an association between observed form and environmentally dictated function. For contemporaries of Cuvier unenlightened by Mendelian genetics, situating an organ, or morphological feature within the larger framework of an operating system and functional whole was a revolutionary foresight. Cuviers classificatory theory was thus largely used as a platform guiding scientific inquiry, classification and analysis for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Cuviers corollaries were extensively explored in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by using the model-building format, i.e., using extant technology, typically machines, as models for understanding biological systems. Descartes can be credited with one of the earliest philosophical models for the body that was adapted from industrial technology, comparing the nervous system to the church organ. Decartes imagined how individual nerves might operate analogously to the hollow tubes of the organ system, channeling the subtle fluid of the animal spirit (Steadman, 2008). He was not without contemporaries who followed suit. French philosopher, La Mettrie (1709-1751) in his LHomme Machine (1748), suggested that the best model for the brain was a machine. La Mettrie even went so far as to liken the brain to a harpsichord, and believed that mechanical models opened up the possibility for new analogies between the man and machine that would reveal previously unidentified features of biological systems. By the mid twentieth century, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, would identify this method of analogy as machine-theoretical, on his journey to develop general systems theory. Early theories

42

of embryonic development around this period also incorporated the machine-theoretical theory, such as Weismanns concept of development being regulated by a number of tiny developmental machines, or analgens. It can be easily imagined how the machinetheoretical argument could translate to theories of artificial intelligence, as the early work of Jaques de Vaucanson (1709-1782) demonstrates. Vaucanson developed some of the first artificial intelligence prototypes, naming them automata. Vaucansons androids, The Flute Player, The Tambourine Player, and the Digesting Duck, all carried out simple tasks automatically, and were among the first machines built to mimic complete biological organisms. Cuviers association of form with function was also synthesized by the architectural discipline. Viollet-le-Duc states in the Dictionnaire Raisonn de lArchitecture Francaise that, Just as when seeing the leaf of a plant, one deduces from it the whole plant; from the bone of an animal, the whole animal; so from seeing a crosssection one deduces the architectural members; and from the members, the whole monument. Viollet-le-Ducs statement interprets Cuviers theory through an architectural lens, drawing upon the correlation of parts argument to classify the features of a building. For Viollet-le-Duc, an architectural monument operates on the same organizational principles as the hierarchical anatomy of an organism, and consequentially its form can also be assessed according to its function. Viollet-le-Ducs analogy was primarily drawn in relation to Gothic cathedrals, which was the chief focus of much of his anthropological work. Within the logical framework of Cuviers correlation-of-parts, Viollet-le-Duc argues that the ribs of a cathedral are a natural consequence of the shape of its vault, whose shape is determined by its function. Viollet-le-Duc suggested that this

43

logical argument could be applied to the restoration of a building, in order to predict the presence of structures, which have eroded over time. The use of Cuviers correlation of parts argument in the empirical-creation format of analogy encounters philosophical difficulties that were extensively addressed by 19th century philosophers and architectural theorists. Because this form of analogy involves the mimicking of organic structures in the synthetic context, it is necessary to question whether such an analogy is physically possible. Leopold Eidlitz (1823-1908) argues that this cannot be done without some accommodation for contextual change. In the Ideal and Imitation chapter of Nature and Function of Art, Eidlitz states that borrowing structure from nature cannot be done without making appropriate modifications:

whenever this borrowing is done, modifications of the natural form become necessary for two reasons. First, these animals and vegetables are called upon to perform functions, which they never performed in their natural conditions; and second, they are translated into a material (stone or metal), which is not the material of which nature formed them originally (Eidlitz, 1977).

Though seeming obsolete compared to the manufacturing processes of today, Eidlitz raises philosophical concerns with the empirical-creation form of analogy that are still unresolved today. He also makes an important point: that imitation of form cannot occur without making appropriate modifications to account for the differences in the synthetic environment. Furthermore he questions the very applicability of using a structure found

44

in nature for a human purpose it was not intended for. Is the integrity of the structure maintained if different materials are used to re-construct it in the synthetic environment? Can it replicate and maintain its desirable qualities in this new context? Though Eidlitz could not have possibly considered some of the technological advances making aspects of this transition more viable today (as Neri Oxmans Material Ecology research illustrates), his concern remains relevant. The Ecological Analogy section addresses what is considered to be the solution to this caveat, that the replication of the ecological system surrounding an object of Biomimicry is important for maintaining the viability of biomimicked product. Returning to historical analysis of the problem however, leads us to consider a more archaic solution, the principle of similitude. The principle of similitude developed originally by Galileo, attempts to address the problem of translating structural designs across different scales. As Steadman puts it, the principle of similitude states, in bodies which are similarly constructed or the same shape, the relations of the parts will vary with size. Essentially, because the volume of a body varies with changing linear dimensions, so too will the total surface area and hence mechanical strength of the structure, vary with changing linear dimensions (Steadman, 2008). In many cases this throws a wrench of practicality into the hypothetical products generated from anatomical analogy. However, Buckminster Fullers geodesic dome design maintains the anatomical analogys reputation, and is largely the reason for its continued practice. The geodesic dome appealed to Fuller because its omni-triangulated surface provided an inherently stable structure making it particularly strong for its weight. It has been argued that because Fuller unknowingly created a form nearly identical to one already existing in nature, that

45

certain types of structures are replicable on larger scales without regard to the original physical context which specified them. As if to confirm this presupposition, the element buckminsterfullerene was discovered in 1984, whose namesake is derived from its structure, nearly identical to that of Fullers dome.

Figure 9. Buckminster Fullers Geodesic dome design (left) compared to various allotropes of carbon (right)

Another proponent of the anatomical analogy, and perhaps its greatest enthusiast, was American architect and sculptor Horatio Grennough (1805-1852). Greenough wrote in great detail about the inherent beauty of organic structures, particularly animal bodies, and criticized American architects for mimicking European building styles, rather than

46

borrowing from extant designs in nature. Greenough pioneered the use of animal skeletons as models for his architectural work. Many of Greenoughs essays echoed the sentiments of functional aesthetics inherent to dArcy Thompsons work, though he is inappropriately credited with coinage of form follows function which we know to be associated with Louis Sullivan. For a more contemporary application of the anatomical analogy we may look towards Yoseph Bar-Cohens biomimetic work. Enamored by the structural integrity of organic structures, Bar-Cohen highlights the elegance of their potential in human design: Because of their intuitive characteristics, the use of biologically based rules allows for the making of devices and instruments that are user-friendly (Bar-Cohen, 2006). Of his book classifying hundreds of areas of Biomimicry research and development (Bar-Cohen discusses biomimetic examples ranging from impact sensitive paint mimicking bruised skin, to swallow as a composite materials producer) two examples stand out in relation to the anatomical analogy: the autonomous engineering of form via self-assembly of particles, and the multi-functionality of materials. For the former, Bar-Cohen draws an analogy between how plants and animals construct structures (via tissue growth by selfassembly of cellular components), and the potential for guided assembly of micro-devices on substrates in order to generate three-dimensional materials for the purpose of engineering a low-cost manufacturing method for batteries or semiconductors. The Biomimicry Guilds website5 highlights an example of similar research from the University of California at Santa Barbara, in which the self-assembling properties silica structures in the sea sponge were mimicked using copolypeptides of lysine and cysteine, which developed different structures in response to oxidative changes in the environment.
5

www.asknature.org

47

This multi-functionality of materials, is addressed by Bar-Cohen as an area of expanding research promising potential for product development in a variety of industrial sectors. Bar-Cohen cites the multi-functionality of materials as a natural strategy for reducing energy required for construction, a relevant technique for industrial development. Because nature has assigned multiple functions to individual materials (for example, the functions of skin are numerous including the encasement of blood, regulation of body temperature, and self-healing ability), Bar-Cohen posits that energy is not wasted on the development of isolated systems unique to each function. This has obvious implications in areas of sustainable business models for product development, especially within the sectors of materials sciences, electronics, applied mechanics and photonics.

48

7 The Ecological Analogy: situating objects within an organic system _____________________________________________________________

Functions are born of functions, and in turn, give birth or death to others. Forms emerge from forms, and others arise or descend from these. All are related, interwoven, intermeshed, interconnected, interblended. They exosmose and endosmose. Louis Sullivan

The ecological analogy is wholly centered on the notion of environmental context, and is a corollary of the anatomical analogy if we are to accept Cuviers stipulation that form is dictated by a function and function in turn, is defined by an environmental condition. Steadman admits that it is difficult to pinpoint an organisms general function, though a Darwinist argument might be that an organisms ultimate function is to reproduce. In fact the degree to which form suits function and the environment is often defined by the overall fitness of the interaction, as assessed by the organisms ability to reproduce and survive. Steadman topically defines the ecological analogy as in both animals and artefacts, form is related to function, and function is related to environment (Steadman, 2008). Note that Steadman includes objects as entities with a form and function related to the environment. As we shall see, the architectural discipline especially lends itself to the ecological analogy because it is concerned with either the production of infrastructure set within an environment, or the creation of an artificial environment itself. Several architects, Leopold Eidlitz in particular, were interested in the issue of environment, and explored how environmental constraints could operate as formgiving conditions. Eidlitzs treatise on form and function agrees with Steadman stating, in nature forms are the outcome of environment. Environment determines function, and forms are the result of function (Eidlitz, 1977). Contemporary designer Neri Oxmans work, Material Ecology distinguishes how the design process has been affected by an

49

appreciation of evolutionary concepts, shifting from a form-first to material-first design procedure. Thus the ecological analogy introduces a new layer of complexity to the biology-design analogy by considering the environmental context that dictates form and function. The development of Cuviers comparative anatomy followed by Darwins Evolutionary theory caused a historical shift in appreciation for the influence of environmental factors dictating morphology. The introduction of these theories into the philosophical sphere, lead individuals to question the validity of strict form imitation in art and architecture. Thus the reason for the ecological analogys existence is derived from the assessment that imitation of natural form is not viable, rendering the anatomical analogy obsolete. Eidlitz argues that to imitate nature in art cannot mean merely to imitate her created formsbut to apply to art the laws by which natures forms are created, and this means, to study the environments of the thing to be created (Eidlitz, 1977). Cuviers comparative anatomy also acknowledges the importance of the environment as a dictator of form and function, as represented by his conditions of existence argument. Later, Darwins evolutionary theory would confirm the role environment plays in the dictation of form. As Darwins theory famously dictates, natural selection operates as a mechanism by which phenotypes generating reproductive advantages are maintained in a population6. The ability to survive and reproduce as a consequence of successful integration of these phenotypes into the environment is

In his discussion of natural selection in The Origin of Species, Darwin asks, Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature? Ironically, Darwin personifies the organic process of natural selection by using a human activity, while architects would later consider the notion of natural selection as an inherently organic principle.

50

referred to as an individuals fitness. Fitness is specifically defined as the average contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the subsequent generation, which depends on genetic and environmental factors. We can now begin to appreciate the level of interaction between environment and form described by Darwin, and to some extent, Cuvier. Various architects and architectural theorists have synthesized different pieces of this biological argument throughout history, and applied them to develop an architectural vision of adaptation and fitness. Viollet-le-Duc was the first to translate elements of biological theory into an architectural language. In his Dictionnaire Raisonn de lArchitecture Francaise, he likens architectural style to fitness. For Viollet-le-Duc, style is what is achieved by adherence in design to logical, structural or functional principles such that, an artefact, or a creature, which is adapted will have style (Steadman, 2008). Style arises from a certain unity of intention and conception, which Viollet-le-Duc locates and praises in Greek and Roman architecture. Biological undertones are present throughout Viollet-le-Ducs work, especially with respect to the organic genesis of style. Viollet-le-Duc claims that style is not designed consciously, but rather grows organically according to fixed laws. American architect Horatio Greenough suggests one of these laws is that of adaptation which operates as the fundamental law of nature in all structure. Greenough then advocates that the study of adaptation in nature will lead the architect to uncover fundamental principles of building. Louis Sullivan considers how buildings adapt to their environments in Kindergarden Chats, where he uses a Platonian dialog between master and student to explore what constitutes an architectural environment. Within the rhetorical framework of Kindergarden Chats, it is the student

51

who sets the stage for this discussion, declaring that there must be a purpose for a building that is explainable by a relation between the formand the causes that bring it into that particular shape (Steadman, 2008). Greenough moves on to conclude that the climate of the building, the site upon which it will be built, the clients needs and the nature of the institution all contribute to a buildings environmental context. Along with these qualities, Steadman also adds the social, economic and cultural environments of a building, as well as the tastes and desires it must serve (Steadman, 2008). It appears that the ecological analogy stretches beyond the physical domain of the environment, and into a more conceptual realm when applied to architecture. Though we can consider the meteorological environment, physical materials and site-specific qualities that inform the structure of a designed object or building, we must also consider how a building facilitates social interaction, is economically feasible, and how well it accommodates its institutional purpose. Thus the fitness of a building can be measured by its ability to satisfy the requirements, or withstand the constraints imposed upon it by each of these environmental conditions. Today, the ecological analogy seems to be characterized by an overwhelming detachment from the constraints of physical form, and realistic environmental restrictions. The development of Computer Assisted Design (CAD) software has opened the floodgates for a computational approach to the derivation of form. Though there are easily thousands of CAD designs proposing fantastic conceptions of designed form, Neri Oxmans Variable Property Design (VPD) is one of the few to include an evolutionary modeling component to address the environmental affects on fitness. VPD operates as a computational model to simulate and fabricate material assemblies with varying

52

properties designed to correspond to multiple varied functional restraints (Oxman, 2010). Oxman uses the software to generate form in response to the variable properties of specific material and environmental needs, calling for a shift from a design process preeminently focused on form to one that still considers physical restraints. In her own words, this represents a shift from a geometric-centric to a material-based approach in computationally enabled form-generation. By failing to address the physical restrictions of material and environment Oxman argues, humans fail to appreciate the distinguishing trait of natures designs, which rather than seeking materials to fill a pre-existing role are instead formulaically resultant of the material and physical conditions empirically present. Oxmans scientific observation is that the economy of material is what drives form in an evolutionary process, and that allowing available materials to dictate form rather than fitting materials to an extant design, leads to more sustainable products. Interestingly, Oxman does not acknowldge Cubist painter Amde Ozenfant, who made this very argument in his 1931 manifesto, The Foundations of Modern Art. Ozenfants theory is that the forms of industrial products are first determined by the properties of materials, their functions and the demands of the economy (Steadman, 2008). It is interesting to witness the historical amnesia of such arguments, which are lost and regained over time and are a common trend that surfaces when tracing the development of the biology-design analogy. However Oxmans work can be distinguished from Ozenfants theory as she qualifies her argument with physical experimentation. Pieces such as Carpal Skin and Monocoque 2, engender form that is incredibly organic in appearance, but is actually nowhere to be found in nature. Perhaps intuitive to Oxmans argument, her work reflects the possibilities of a neo-evolutionary process of design.

53

One, which operates off of natural models of form-generation (i.e. natural selection) in order to generate an entirely new entity uniquely adapted to the environmental conditions upon which it expects to encounter. This too was previously envisioned by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy in the 1930s. Moholy-Nagy believed that it was possible to devise organically functioning works which have no such natural prototypes (Steadman, 2008). In other words, following the principles of natures methods in design would lead to a unique, sustainable form. This mimicry of organic process, in order to generate unique form is explored in detail in the next section.

Figure 10. Neri Oxmans Penumbra 2007-10. Organic in appearance, though not found in nature.

54

8 Process Analogy: models for autonomous generation of form _____________________________________________________________

Behind every form we see there is a vital something or other which we do not see, yet which makes itself visible to us in that very form. In other words, in a state of nature the form exists because of the function. -Louis Sullivan

Throughout Nature and Function of Art, Eidlitz repeatedly argues that imitating form is not sufficient for capturing the essence of natures qualities in art or architecture, and that it is instead the methods of form-creation, which ought to be imitated:

Imitation in art is commonly understood to mean the copying of natures forms as we find thembut it means more than this: it means that in the creations of art we should imitate the methods of nature in modeling her organisms, by which these organisms are endowed with an expression of the functions which they perform. In other words, natures laws in modeling organisms apply to the ideal organisms of art as well (Eidlitz, 1977).

Eidlitz proposes that studying the laws of nature sheds light on these methods, such that imitation must be directed first at acquiring a knowledge of the mechanical laws of nature. An interesting link appears here between Eidlitz and our original 1974 Webster definition of Biomimicry, as we recall how Biomimicry implied the synthesis of products by artificial mechanisms which mimicked natural ones. Here credence is given the mimicry of natures methods, or processes for the derivation of form. In this way we approximate towards a more developed understanding of Biomimicry, as not

55

merely the imitation of organic form but rather of organic process, to engender an analogous form in the synthetic construct. We thus arrive at the process analogy, which informs the artificial synthesis of form by mimicking organic processes such as those comprising evolution and developmental theory. Though there are several aspects of design that lend themselves to various combinations of these evolution principles, the concept of the evolutionary process as a whole is predominantly applied to two areas. The first is the anthropological assessment of historical trends of object design and manufacture using evolution as a model. The second is that the process of design itself is one that may be guided by Darwinian concepts. Focusing on the former, we find a demonstration of how evolution occurs in the development of technology as well as biological entities, especially within the context of technological improvement including the industrial manufacture of devices and indigenous craftsmanship of tools. The latter represents a search for an autonomous process of design that would eliminate the role of the conscious designer. Because it was thought that the evolutionary process approximates over time towards a form ideally fitted to its environment, designers sought this mechanism as a means to override the errors of the creative design process. Consequentially, the effect of evolutionary principles on design and architecture is necessarily associated with processes and automation. Propagation and adoption of Darwins evolutionary theory during the Victorian era was responsible for the leakage of evolutionary principles into concepts of design. In order to understand how designers intended to apply evolutionary principles to their work, it is necessary to have a basic understanding for Darwins theory. Evolution in a

56

very general sense is the change over time of an inherited trait occurring in a population. The substance of this trait, or phenotype is influenced by the regulation of its genetic identity, or genotype, which in turn is affected by environmental cues. Ultimately this process of natural selection occurs autonomously, as individuals whose phenotypes enable them to survive are afforded the opportunity to reproduce. Natural selection, as Darwin defined it is the preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations (Darwin, 1928). The process of natural selection bears an inherent relationship to the environment providing the criteria upon which the adaptive success of organisms will be assessed. This assessment is the fitness of a phenotype or genotype; a relative quality describing the ability to survive defined by the average contribution of a phenotype or genotype to a subsequent generations gene pool. Fitness and natural selection are related in the sense that if differences between alleles at a certain gene affect its fitness, then the frequency of those alleles will change over generations such that those with a higher fitness become more common. These biological principles were often used as models for understanding the evolution of technology from an anthropological perspective. Steadman takes this analysis to an extreme; beginning with the idea that copying an object in its manufacture is akin to the heredity of genetic material. For Steadman objects, like genes, carry information about their functioning and manufacture, and such information passes through the heads of craftsmen, so that there exists in the mind of the craftsman in some form the type, or image or model for a species of artefact, which guides him when he comes to make a new copy. Steadman envisions design as an underlying genotype that generates the object, or phenotype. It is therefore the design of an object that evolves,

57

changing from one generation of manufacturer to the next, each modifying a copy of the original by responding to the cultural and economic forces contemporary to his time. Furthermore, the copying of these forms over generations of craftsmen requires stretches of time long enough to affect the environmental constraints around an object; where if the similarity of form is to be attributed to the fact of copying, then this immediately implies a process extending over time as designs are copied (Steadman, 2008). This concept is not necessarily acceptable for all designers. Kim Baldwin in Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, argues that the mechanisms of descent in designs differ from mechanisms in evolutionary processes. According to Baldwin the event of DNA replication so vital to the evolutionary process, is not always translatable to the heredity of designs. Alternatively, the descendants are capable of representing solutions to the problems posed by prior designs rather than simply replicating or recombining their elements (Baldwin, 2000). The biological concept of fitness was also applied to an anthropological assessment of technology Fitness of the design-phenotype is defined by the constraint that local circumstances of material, manufacture and function impose upon form (Steadman, 2008). As discovered in previous sections, the environmental restrictions imposed upon a designed object are broad and conceptual, including social and economic forces. Kim Baldwin calls these restrictions an objects force of value (Baldwin, 2000) characterized by an economic force that is created and sustained by human conventions, and social interaction. Le Corbusier (1887-1965) in Vers une Architecture considered how similar environmental factors affected the evolution of designed form, and compared their effects on the evolution of motorcars and Greek temples. He stipulated that though

58

the environmental factors that affected the development of cars were informed by engineering principles and those influencing the evolution of Greek temple architecture were aesthetic, both evolutionary processes sought to approximate an ideal form or typeform. As we are reminded of Haeckels desire to locate an Urpflanze in his classifications of form, and of Di Giorgios use of human body proportions to achieve a divine compositional ideal, we can again see that the biology-design analogy is often used to link human design with a superlative natural model. But for Le Corbusier, the notion of the type-form largely has its source within Purism in painting. The Purist theory centered on the notion that simple geometric forms were capable of instilling in the viewer a primordial emotional response, un-tethered to the tainting of ones cultural experience. By visually portraying these basic shapes and forms, the artist could engage his audience a conversation of essences, using the mot fixes of a universal, plastic language. Purists chose object-types, objects of banal use possessing certain anonymity in their design, as the subjects of their work. It was believed that these objects had, as a consequence of their fluid integration into the sphere of daily use, evolved to meet an ideal standard. It was with this realization that the Purists unveiled the Law of Mechanical Selection, as applied to design:

objects tend towards a type that is determined by the evolution of forms between the ideal of maximum utility, and the satisfaction of the necessities of economical manufacture, which conform inevitably to the laws of nature.

59

Perhaps unknowingly, the Purists make an interesting biological argument: that the fitness of the object-type is derived from its ability to maximize utility while minimizing the economic expenditure of effort. We see this theme play out incessantly in nature, and can be easily modeled by a recent study conducted by Toshiuki Nakagaki in which Physarum polycephalum (yellow slime mold) replicated the map of the Tokyo railway system (See Figure 11). Researchers exploited an important element of the slime mold survival strategy: to acquire the maximum amount of nutrients possible while minimizing the amount of energy required to obtain it. It was hypothesized that rationale was analogous to that of Tokyo railway engineers, i.e. minimize the amount of energy required to get from place to place. To test this assessment, researchers placed a nugget of food on to each major city or node on a map of the Tokyo railway network, and released the slime mold to observe whether its path matched that of Tokyo engineers. Results confirmed that the degree of overlap between the networks was significant, and implying the relevance of the survival strategy across both biological and design systems (Tero et al., 2010).

60

Figure 11. Comparison of Slime-mold replicated networks with existing transportation networks. Results from Tero et al., 2010, Rules for Biologically Inspired Adaptive Network Design

Historic trends in the process of object design and manufacture follow a trial and error format that seeks to meet an object-type ideal, where subsequent generations of an object phenotype achieve an increasingly approximated fit to environmental impositions. Such is the nature of technological progress where successive generations of products are modified to overcome the errors of previous generations. As Steadman qualifies, the accumulation of structural, material and engineering knowledge and the refinement of constructional form and technique, have been the product of extended historical processes of trial and error by many generations of architects and craftsmen (Steadman 83). This trial-and-error process is Steadmans reference to the process of evolution. As we recall, 61

Herbert Simon made a similar reference in The Architecture of Complexity where he likened successful trials of problem solving to conserved morphological forms in evolution. Therefore we see an association between the evolutionary process and both aspects of existing trends in technological evolution, and methods of design problem solving. This brings us to our second area of design that has an affinity for evolutionary principles: the process of design itself is one that may be guided by Darwinian concepts. Barry Bergdoll provides an excellent summary of the history of this concept:

The idea that the study of the generative laws underlying the diversity of natural form might engender an art which could itself parallel the productive forces of nature was a recurrent concern of architects and design theorists convinced of the adage, first explored by Goethe and other German Romantic theorists, that nature is characterized by underlying unity in variety (Bergdoll, 46).

For many architects and designers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, removing the possibility of intelligent design from the biological development of form implied a certain obsolescence of the conscious designer. Consequentially, experimentations began with searching for objective processes of design mimicking the principles of natural selection. Issues with time however, hindered early explorations of this concept, as it was difficult to mimic the trial and error process of evolution that occurs over millions of years. Though the Biotechnics movement of the 1920s attempted

62

to remedy this problem with an approach to mimicking what was seen as the finished products of evolution, it was not until the development of computers and maturation of computational modeling that the time-issue of evolutionary process mimicry was resolved. Christopher Alexanders Notes on the Synthesis of Form published in 1964, is one of the earliest petitions for using computers to model evolutionary processes. Computational modeling of evolutionary processes to generate designs continues to be an area of interest for contemporary designers who find themselves situated at a crossroads between biology and design in advocacy of sustainable solutions to engineering problems. As Neri Oxman succinctly states, designers now seek to advance natures strategies in structuring matter by designing synthetic multifunctional materials competing with evolutions unrestricted time frame of design process. Fitness, not form, is what actually matters (Oxman, 2010). Evolution carries with it an insinuation that ideal (fit) forms can be derived through an automated process. This consequentially, supplants the role of the intelligent designer from the process of design. This is precisely the goal of Christopher Alexander who in his Notes on the Synthesis of Form outlines a plan for a mathematically based design system. Alexanders motive however is not to eliminate the errors of the conscious designer, but rather to introduce a more efficient method of tackling the complex nature of contemporary design problems. Alexander introduces to us the notion that there exists a structural correspondence between the pattern of a problem, and the process of designing a physical form that answers it (Alexander, 1967). He attempts to translate the features of design problems into a symbolic language that can be diagrammed to form a solution. Alexander states that using symbolism to objectively express the elements of a

63

problem and systematically form their solution are key to the development of an autonomous design system modeled after evolution. Although Alexanders theory seems a bit misplaced in practicality, he is responsible for an important idea that directed the trajectory of the process-analogy: that design problems and processes can be represented symbolically. Alexanders wanluck is that he writes from just before the dawn of the computer-age (1964), and he therefore cannot see the applicability of his work beyond pencil and paper; and so there is no way of testing the form symbolically (Alexander, 75). However the fundamental aspects of his theories inform some of the most popular trends in contemporary design, especially as a consequence of the newfound computational ability to gather information about complex systems and analyze it7. Herbert Simon, a contemporary of Alexander also preoccupied himself with the themes of complexity and its comprehension in The Architecture of Complexity. Thus Simon and Alexander mark a turning point in the 1960s with respect to the direction of the biologydesign analogy, which in its most mature form is drawn from complex systems and processes. Within the Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Alexander tackles the issue of time in evolution. He identifies this as one of the core problems faced by the conscious designer who has to make clearly conceived forms without the possibility of trial and error over time (Alexander, 1967). Prior to the dawn of computers, the trial-and-error aspect of the evolutionary process posed a significant problem for those desiring to mimic natures

Designers today are not shy to the nature of complexity, however where Alexanders interests in complex systems are consequent of a desire to improve the efficacy of the design process, contemporary designers interests in design may be located within the framework of sustainability. In brief, todays designers are preoccupied with understanding the nature of the complex social or economic systems that they design for, so that they may generate efficient, or sustainable solutions to the multifaceted problems therein.

64

methods of form generation. It was impossible to predict the success of an objectphenotype in the environment without physically building and observing it over time. One attempted solution to this problem deserves our special attention and is conceived by the Biotechnics movement of the 1920s. Biotechnics essentially proposed that objects in nature already possessed the solutions to all varieties of structural, mechanical or engineering problems and that the designer need simply copy those models.8 Ultimately, in order to find a technical solution to some given need, the biotechnical student must seek the solution of the identical need in some biological example, and then imitate that arrangement (Steadman. 2008). The effect of this tactic was to effectively borrow time, so as to skip the trial-and-error process of evolving our own designs and instead select from the library of natures pre-tested models. Rouard Franc, advocate of the Biotechnics movement, believed that there existed a unique optimal solution for every biological problem and that this solution was the necessary product of natural selection. Furthermore he thought the law of economy, or the least expenditure of energy, governs the process by which forms are perfected. Karel Honzik in Notes on Biotechnics is skeptical of Francs assertion that forms in nature are perfectly adapted, stating that evolutionary progress towards an ideal form is by no means guaranteed. However, both authors seem to limit their discussion of biotechnics to broad terms, and neither actually formulates a clear design methodology. Lewis Mumford, an architect of the period, characterized biotechnics by a flexibility and an openness to change, providing opportunities for growth (Steadman, 2008). Such broad terms were perhaps a limitation for the movement, which failed to overwhelm the field of

The familiarity of this argument does not escape us; it is nearly identical to Benyuss current model of Biomimicry.

65

architecture and design. Benyuss theory potentially faces a similar conflict, as there is a remarkable degree of similarity between her work and that of the Biotechnics. In A Biomimicry Primer, Benyus describes Biomimicry:

Its the studying of a leaf to invent a better solar cell or a coral reef to make a resilient company. The core idea is that nature has already solved many of the problems we are grappling with: energy, food production, climate control, benign chemistry, transportation, collaboration, and more. Mimicking these earth-savvy designs can help humans leapfrog to technologies thatwork as a system to create conditions conducive to life (Benyus 2).

The Biomimicry argument as posed by Janine Benyus is enticingly all inclusive: the Biomimicry approach seeks natures advice at all stages of design, and is a design discipline, a branch of science, a problem-solving method, a sustainability ethos, a movement, a stance towards nature and a new way of valuing biodiversity (Benyus 2010). However Benyus does configure some structure into her manifesto, highlighting three levels of Biomimicry: the mimicking of natural form, natural process and natural ecosystems. This is an encouraging acknowledgement of the relevance of the biologydesign analogies discussed throughout this section, though Benyus treats them with equal precedence, while we have defined them in a historical succession of sophistication9. Just

For example we have said that the aesthetic idolization of organic form characteristic of the organic analogy is not as sophisticated as the engineering applications of the anatomical analogy, and the anatomical analogy in turn, does not consider the complexity of ecological systems in which an object participates. Sophistication is defined here as a high level of affluence and maturity regarding the biology-design analogy, which is characterized by an increasing awareness

9

66

as in Biotechnics, the central idea is that nature has already evolved solutions to the problems we face, and mimicry of those solutions or at least an extraction of inspirational design principles from them, will usher in a new era of sustainability. Benyus is responding to issues of Global Warming and Biotechnics to the Industrial Revolution, but neither offers a methodology for the application of their theory. It is possible that failure to materialize theory into systemized pragmatism killed Biotechnics, and that a similar fate awaits Benyuss manifestation of the movement.

Figure 12. Visual demonstration of the iterative computational process used to generate Joris Laarmans Bone Chair (2010).

of the complex factors (environmental, morphological, or otherwise) that affect the form and function of a biological organism or designed object.

67

There instances where the process analogy is successfully implemented. Joris Laarmans work, The Bone Chair, is one of a growing number of cases where the evolutionary process is fruitfully applied to design projects. Laarman makes an amusing statement by choosing to experiment with the concept via chair-design, as it is a traditional problem relentlessly tackled by nearly all great architects and designers alike. Laarman used an algorithm adapted from Claus Matthek, a German scientist that modeled bone development as a function of strength and material, towards the objective of chair-design. The formula models shape under the condition that the amount of force supported by the form is maximized, while the amount of material required to produce it is minimized10. The algorithm was adopted by Opal, a German car company, which used it to design car parts that were optimized for maximum strength and minimal material use (Tischler, 2010). In application to the chair problem, the result is a chair that is at once aesthetic pleasing as well as perfectly functional. Although the impact of a simple chair on the overarching theme of sustainability is slim, the idea behind the exercise is significant for future experimentations with applications of evolutionary principles in design11.

10

We see here the theories of DArcy Thompson as well as the object-type philosophy of the Purists come into play, as dutifully demonstrated by our yellow slime mold.

68

9 Organizational Analogy: finding and emulating the properties of complex systems _____________________________________________________________

As we have seen in previous sections, sophistication of the biology-design analogy develops in tandem with scientific discovery and consistently revolves around the notion that nature exhibits ideal models whose benefits are captured through the act of mimicry in the design of systems or objects. Haeckels search for an Urpflanze in his morphological classifications is an example of an early identification of ideal form in nature, which inspired architects to use similar methods to identify a fundamental archetype for future directions of design. Cuviers correlation of parts argumentthat there is a necessary interdependence between elements of a system and the system itself informed the assessment of infrastructure as elements within an urban ecological system. Finally, Darwins evolutionary theory and the principle of natural selection, matriculated as an autonomous method for design problem solving and an analogy for the historical development of technology. This final manifestation of the design-biology analogy is a recent product of the late 20th century and continues to be explored and improved upon today. Since we are now well aware that the architecture and design adopt the principles of contemporary research interests in the sciences and incorporate them into the artificial construct, we may begin to wonder what the next direction of this trend will be? A substantial portion of current research in the biological sciences is devoted to

69

understanding some of natures more complex systems,12 particularly their organization and why some characteristics of their structure are evolutionarily conserved. It is thought by some that certain organizational features of developmental or evolutionary systems exist as a consequence of their efficiency and functionality, as they have survived the iterative process of natural selection. These traits are thought to contribute to the robustness of a system (a property that allows a system to maintain its functions despite perturbations). Kitano cites robustness as a fundamental feature of evolvable systems that is attained by several underlying principles that are universal to both biological organisms and sophisticated engineering systems (Kitano, 2004). Kitano makes an interesting decision to include engineering systems as an evolvable entity capable of exhibiting robustness, and apparently suggests that the increasing sophistication of any system necessitates the persistence of fundamental traits of organization. Kitano makes a subtle assertion by creating this analogy; that the study of the organizational patterns in complex biological systems (i.e. how elements of the system are interactively linked in order to generate a desired emergent property), may result in the extraction of general principles of design. This is the essence of the organizational-analogy presented in this final chapter. Our discussion will begin with an analysis of the theme of complexity in design, which was first addressed by Gilles Deleuze in A Thousand Plateaus. Here, Deleuze develops his theory of Rhizomaticity, a brand of design thinking that acknowledges the decentralized complexity of organic systems, and is adopted by

12

For example, evo-devo, a field of biology that studies the developmental processes of different organisms and compares the evolutionary relationship between them has dominated a large part of biological research since the 1990s. The discovery of homeotic genes by Edward B. Lewis in 2000, associated evo-devo with molecular genetics rendering the study of gene network and regulation systems at the forefront of the scientific research. For a comprehensive catalog of current research topics within this area see Schlosser et al.

70

contemporary designers as a method of sustainable design. Interestingly, a handful of the rhizomatic principles set forth by Deleuze are also organizational features of complex biological systems in evolution and development. As it becomes increasingly clear that these features exist in these systems for the purpose of achieving robustness, so does the argument that these characteristics should be mimicked by a designer seeking a sustainable solution to a problem, grow stronger. The theme of complexity in design is a product of the mid-twentieth century, beginning with the work of Gilles Deleuze. In 1000 Plateaus, Deleuze developed the term rhizomaticity to describe a new genre of thinking characterized by an acknowledgement of complexity and accommodation of organic, decentralized growth. This theme of decentralization exists within Deleuzes rhizomatic theory, and is a feature particularly attractive to contemporary designers seeking to transform the current methods of design based on linear order. This rebellion has been christened rhizomatic thinking and is considered to be an emerging design method that promotes nonconformity to traditional linear design processes. Randall Teal in Developing a (Nonlinear) Practice of Design Thinking, offers that the Rhizome provides the opportunity to model complexity in design thinking as opposed to linear, Platonian thought. His definition of the term is rather cryptic, that:

the rhizome leads one to acting more rhizomatically. Acting rhizomatically affords a design process that is made of a web of intensities, becomings and passings, territories and interactions; and with

71

such a structure complexities may be treated as complexities (Teal, 2010).

From this definition we can at least gather that rhizomatic thinking embraces complexity and is a characteristic of a design method that does not follow the convention of linear logic. Linear logic is described as the unidirectional flow of information within a system. As applied to the design process, the linear method begins with a set of restrictions (defined by the objects intended purpose, the clients desires, the materials available etc), continues with the manufacture of an object to meet these restrictions, and ends with the use of this object in its appropriate context. In this system, there is no opportunity for any form of feedback between the elements of the process, as it would hinder the speed of the process itself. Some designers view this as a flaw of the system whose absence of feedback often causes a high probability of error. Typically this linear design method is employed in mass production techniques characteristic of the twentieth century, which generally rely on automatic processes that execute precise formulas at high speeds (Teal, 2010). Thus the aura about rhizomatic thinking in the design world is created by its total rejection of linear design methods viewed as inefficient and unsustainable when applied to techniques of mass-production. Designers look to Deleuzian principles of Rhizomaticity as a guide to a design method alternative to those typical of mass production. Perhaps it is no surprise that some of the principles of Rhizomaticity set forth by Deleuze possess significant biological undertones, as nature is often seen as an antithesis to the synthetic construct. Three principles are particularly relevant to us particularly because of their association with

72

biological concepts, and especially features of complex biological systems. The first is the principle of connection and heterogeneity, which states that, any point of a rhizome may be connected to any other, and must be (Deleuze, 1987). The second is the principle of multiplicity, such that multiplicity has neither subject nor object, only determinations, magnitudes and dimensions that cannot increase in number without the multiplicity changing in nature. The last is the principle of asignifying rupture, or that a rhizome may be broken but will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines. The following sections will examine these principles so rampant in contemporary design, how they relate to current topics in scientific research, and what it is about them that is appealing to those proposing alternative design methods.

Connection and Heterogeneity Any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be (Deleuze 1987). This is the first principle of rhizomaticity, which suggests that to think rhizomatically requires an abandonment of notions of static interaction between elements. Instead, the nature of a complex system is such that each point within the system has a potential to be connected to others in the network, but in actuality exhibits heterogeneous connectivity. For biologists this may be reminiscent of the notion of scale-free networks, which have been extensively studied after 1999, when Albert Lazlo Barabasi first mapped the topology of a portion of the Internet. Scale-free networks are characterized by their robustness to failure as a consequence of the presence of hubs, or nodes of high connectivity within the larger network. Interestingly, hubs are not only a feature of social networks or the Internet, but also of biological networks, namely protein-protein

73

interaction networks (Jing-Dong et al., 2004). It is thought that this feature of the organizational structure of biological networks exists in order to decrease the probability that the failure of an element in the system will destroy the integrity of the system as a whole. In other words, scale free networks are particularly resistant to random node removal, but are sensitive to targeted hub elimination. This may be a biological advantage for protein networks facing occasional elimination of individual proteins via mutation. Jing-Dong alludes to this advantage as contributing factor to the robustness of protein-protein network architecture in yeast, A link between the potential scale-free topology of interactome networks and genetic robustness seems to exist, because knockouts of yeast genes encoding hubs are approximately threefold more likely to confer lethality than those of non-hubs (Dong et al., 2004). That is, in the yeast proteinprotein interactome, the presence of hubs of connectivity evolved as strategy to confer robustness.

Figure 13. Internet and yeast interactome maps. Both are scale-free networks. Left: Map of protein-protein interactions within Yeast (Saccharomyces Cerevisiae). Right: Network topology of the internet (Amin Vahdat et. al).

74

If designers are interested in generating robustness as an emergent property of their designs, is it possible to mimic the organization of complex biological networks? Can architects re-organize urban planning methods, or can designers re-model product ecologies to reflect the network behavior characteristic of robustness? R. Milos work on Network Motifs suggests that some of the robust properties of complex networks are already shared between biological and man-made systems. Milo defines network motifs as patterns of interconnections occurring in complex networks at numbers that are significantly higher than those in randomized networks (Milo et al., 2002). Milo uses a computational method to identify recurring patterns of connectivity in various genres of networks by comparing the probability of their appearance within an observed network as opposed to a set of randomized networks. Ultimately the algorithm was applied to networks across a variety of different sectors: biochemistry (transcriptional gene regulation), ecology (food webs) and engineering (electronic circuits, and the World Wide Web). Milo found a number of different patterns, some of which were repeated across different network genres. Feed forward loops13 for example, were present in nearly all experimental cases, including gene regulation, electronic circuits, food webs and the Internet. A bi-fan pattern, one in which two independent elements activate the same subset of elements within a system, was also exhibited across each genre of network tested. In many ways, Milos work experimentally confirms what Herbert Simons essay, The Architecture of Complexity theoretically suggests; that patterns are shared across

13

Feed forward loops are also considered modules in development. For an example see the next section, The Principle of Multiplicity. A popular example of a feed forward loop is the Notch pathway in which the binding of a ligand to a receptor initiates a cascade of regulatory reactions, which in turn result in the activation of a signaling molecule that inactivates the original ligand. Thus a loop is established, where each element affects the subsequent element until the process is self terminated.

75

different types of complex systems and an analogy can be thus drawn between them. This would come as no surprise to Deleuze, who describes the Rhizome as ceaselessly establishing connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences and social struggles (Deleuze 1987).

The Principle of Multiplicity As Deleuzes descripton of Rhizomaticity develops, it becomes more convoluted, evoking a spirit of all-inclusion, and consistent abstraction. The first hint of order in his narrative of the Rhizome begins with the principle of multiplicity, such that only when the multiple is treated as a substantive multiplicity, that it ceases to have any relation to the One as subject or object. Deleuze is suggesting that the intricate web of the rhizome comprises of sub-elements (multiples) that operate independently of their context, and can be consequentially recognized as multiplicities, once their independence from the system is acknowledged. This idea is reminiscent of modularity, a popular concept describing a feature of complex systems in design, architecture, evolution and development. The definition of modularity is subject to change across different disciplines, however certain aspects of the general definition are maintained especially when applied to design and biology. For both disciplines modularity is a feature of complex systems, where the system may be broken down into independent units (modules), which collectively organize to form an emergent property of the system. Generally, a module can be defined as a component of a system that operates independently of other components, or is a

76

component of a system that is repeatedly used (Schlosser, 2004)14. This definition agrees with Deleuzes concept of multiplicity, which operates as an autonomous entity within the framework of a rhizome. Schlosser however makes a distinction between two categories of modules in biology: modules that are autonomous and those that are integrated. On one hand, an integrated module has an input-output function that depends on its context and connectedness to other modules or components of the system. On the other hand, an autonomous modules role is independent of context, and its function is guaranteed independently of the overall canalization of the organism. We therefore see a schism between Deleuzes notion of a multiplicity and the biological definition of a module, which does necessarily have to be independent of the organisms function. The biological concept of a module is therefore not entirely satisfied by the Deleuzian concept of multiplicity. However, both autonomous and integrated forms of modularity, says Schlosser, exist in simultaneously and in varying degrees within biological systems. This statement is rather rhizomatic in nature, because of its acknowledgement of the complex interplay between different faces of modular organization within the larger context. Modularity is often associated with the organization of a system, into autonomous building blocks that improve the efficiency of the systems overarching function. Kim Baldwin in Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, advocates using modular design as a

Examples of modularity in biology are too numerous to consider here. In brief, there are several areas in biology that reflect modular organization. Examples include modularity in gene regulation systems, cell signaling pathways such as the Notch signaling pathway, or modular evolution of morphological features. For a detailed account of these examples see, Schlosser, G. & Wagner, G. Modularity in Development and Evolution (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2004).

14

77

means to reduce the cost of experimenting with new designs.15 In this manner, according to Baldwin, designs become flexible and capable of evolving at a modular level, while remaining open to innovation and competition (Baldwin, 2000). Similarly, modularity is thought to exist in biological systems as a feature facilitating evolution and robustness. In an introductory essay to Modularity in Development and Evolution, Gerhard Schlosser hypothesizes that the modular organization of biological systems contributed to the evolvability of organisms because it reduces the probability of trade-offs for evolutionary change. As a consequence, Schlosser states, modules that develop or operate as quasiautonomous units during the life cycle may also serve as building blocks of mosaic evolution (Schosser, 2004). The idea that modules operate as building blocks used to facilitate a higher function is in turn recapitulated by Baldwin, who concludes that modularity ought to operate as a set of independent building blocks at the core of the design process, with the objective of generating flexible, evolvable products.

The Principle of Asignifying Rupture Decentralization is a key component of the rhizome that may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines. This quality of the rhizome, that it is maintains its function despite perturbation, is remarkably similar to our previous examination of scale-free networks and robustness. Recall that scale-free networks were organized into a handful of connected hubs whose presence limited the impact that damage to a random node of the network would have on the integrity of the system. As a consequence of this network architecture, the system
Baldwin is referring to a computerized process similar to the Genr8 project, in which different parts of the computer could be designed by separate, specialized groups working independently of one another (Baldwin, 2000).
15

78

acquired a certain resistance to perturbation, which as Kitano defines, was a characteristic of robustness. Analogously, the Deleuzian principle of asignifying rupture simply suggests that the rhizome exhibit robustness. For designers adopting the Deleuzian method of rhizomatic thinking, the concept of robustness is key for the development of sustainable designs. Such designs, like many biological entities, must exhibit a resistance to disturbance whether it is physical, mechanical or financial in nature. In Biological Robustness, Kitano highlights several mechanisms responsible for ensuring the robustness of a system, which in turn are relevant principles for design. First, Kitano discusses system control as a means towards achieving robustness in a system. System control refers to the regulation of a system by tertiary elements. In biology, positive and negative feedback loops are the primary means of system regulation and are found in a wide range of regulatory networks, including circadian clock rhythms, chemotaxis and the cell cycle (Kitano, 2004). The positive and negative feedback loops explored by Milo, are also an example of system control as their function is to regulate and coordinate information within a system. Kitano notes that positive feedback loops contribute to robustness by amplifying a stimuli, typically in order to produce bistability, so that a state can be maintained as it can be distinguished from states of non-stimulation (Kitano, 2004). Negative feedback loops also facilitate a robust response to perturbation and are found primarily in bacterial chemotaxis. Feedback loops are becoming increasingly integrated in the design field, as the linear (feed-forward) process of manufacture is either is no longer in vogue for its lack of environmental friendliness. Incorporating feedback loops into models of sustainable development are also becoming progressively more popular as consumers increasingly call for the greening of industry.

79

Other mechanisms for achieving robustness introduced by Kitano are alternative mechanisms and modularity. Our previous discussion of modularity satisfies the majority of Kitanos argument, however Kitano suggests that modules can exist on a variety of different levels, which include spatial, functional and temporal modules. Alternative, or fail-safe mechanisms enhance robustness by offering multiple means of achieving a specific function, so that if one mechanism fails it may be rescued by another. This concept also called redundancy, is highlighted by Kitano as being engaged in a relationship with system control to ensure robustness (Kitano, 2004). Ultimately, system controls allow for the switching between alternative mechanisms so that the behavior of a system is maintained in response to various environmental conditions or perturbances. This concept is ripe with potential for those interested in sustainable design. Though exploration of this particular theory in design is nascent, the notion that a system can be organized into modular system-control elements that autonomously switch between states of function in response to environmental cues is especially potent. However theoretical these arguments appear to be, there is at least a degree of similarity between the way designers approach sustainable design via Rhizomatic thinking, and what scientists appear to be discovering with respect to the organizational nature of complex biological systems. Perhaps as our knowledge of these systems flourishes, so too will our ability to draw a concrete and pragmatic analogy between the organizational concepts inherent to biological systems, and those of our man-made developments.

80

10 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________
The biology-design analogy is possibly one of the most fruitful and dangerous of human creative exploits. The process of drawing analogy between the disciplines of design and science engages both our creative and scientific faculties, and offers the possibility tethering human creation to the seemingly faultless beauty of natural form and order. Such an opportunity appears to be irresistible for each generation of philosophers, theorists and craftsmen who endlessly propose new methods for finding and creating the Urpflanze. Current generations of thinkers facing the kaleidoscopic problems of climate change and sustainable development have followed suit with their predecessors. Specifically, Biomimicry has been named by some as the new method for finding our Urpflanze, and is celebrated as a vehicle of achieving sustainability through the imitation of natural forms and systems. Revisiting the proposed definition of Biomimicry from page seven we find:

Biomimicry is the examination of biological systems and artefacts for the purpose of extracting design principles that may be applied to solve physical or conceptual problems often with the objective of contributing towards a sustainable human infrastructure.

Biomimicry thus embodies the biology-design analogy because it rests upon the concept of analogy itself as biological objects are examined in order to elucidate

81

contextually relevant design principles. As can be gleaned from this definition, the analogy is based on a distinction made between the synthetic or manmade environment and the natural environment. Though it can be argued that this distinction is a fallacy, it still represents a historical trend in the perception of mans relationship with nature. The distinction between these two environments is observed not only biomimetic practice but also at various junctures in history, and is the core of the biology-design analogy. An assessment of the historical practice of the biology-design analogy qualifies the emergence of three analogy formats drawn between the synthetic and natural environments. The first of these formats is the model-building format, where extant technology is used as a model for interpreting complex biological phenomena. The second format is the empirical-creation format, which involves a direct imitation of observed natural form or phenomena with respect to synthetic context. The final and most sophisticated is the problem-solving format in which a problem is identified in the synthetic environment, an analogous problem is located in nature, and a potentially relevant solution is extracted from the natural environment in order to be realized in the synthetic one. All three of these formats are in turn practiced throughout history and can be organized into subsets of analogy differentiated by subject matter (see Figure 2). These subsets of analogy, namely the organic, anatomical, ecological, process, and organizational analogies, do not necessarily occur in chronological order throughout time but clearly follow a progression of increasing sophistication. This sophistication was defined as a high level of affluence and

82

maturity regarding the biology-design analogy, as characterized by an increasing awareness of the complex factors (environmental, morphological or otherwise) that govern the form and function of a biological organism or designed object. In turn, the awareness of complexity that governs the maturity of the biology-design analogy is informed by the development of scientific theory. Because the development of scientific theory is often chronological (scientific knowledge builds upon itself successively), the development of sophistication is associated with a forward progression of time. The simultaneously decentralized, organic growth of the biology-design analogy coupled with a loose association in time characterizes it as rhizomatic, making its history dynamic and difficult to interpret. Although the biology-design analogy has been practiced throughout history, this does not necessarily imply its validity. Can analogy be successfully drawn between biology and design to yield relevant and realistic products? Steven Vogel famously argues that this cannot be done, citing numerous flaws in the concept particularly in reference to Biomimicry. Notably, he discusses how nature cannot be idealized as the evolutionary process is not immune to flaw and does not guarantee perfection. Furthermore Vogel points to a variety of cases in which human innovation outperforms equivalent entities in nature. Hugh-Aldersey Williams also addresses the flaws of Biomimicry and the biology-design analogy, citing its aesthetic pitfalls that are lacking any sense of feasibility. These arguments essentially call for a scientific assessment of Biomimicry, and warn against the reliance on unsubstantiated fact. These arguments are therefore

83

important for the survival of the biology-design analogy, and in a sense serve to protect its integrity. If nothing else, this thesis has certainly illuminated how the theory of the biology-design analogy historically repeats itself, as man seems to suffer from a cultural amnesia regarding which theories do and dont work. It follows that these arguments against the biology-design analogy are leveraged against a variety of examples of working biology-design products also represented in this thesis. Experimental projects including Oxmans Material Ecology and Laarmans Bone Chair represent not only the tested capacity of the biologydesign analogy, but also posit exciting directions for this future. Perhaps we must therefore abandon the notion that the biology-design analogys purpose is to obtain an Urpflanze, and instead accept the organic nature of its existence and evolution. The search for this Urpflanze, or ideal form, has spanned across a myriad of disciplines and eras of history. We have uncovered its origins in Haeckels classificatory explorations and observed its manifestation into physical form as enabled by the work of DArcy Thompson and Cuvier. The Urplfanze then transformed from an ideal physical morphology into an ecology, and finally resurrected itself as a process and organizational principle. We have attempted to classify our search for the Urpflanze by classifying our methods into the problemsolving, model-building and empirical-creation analogies. Yet the ideal form, our Urpflanze, continues to elude us. Perhaps this is because our search is consistently limited by our knowledge of such a mysterious force, which in turn blinds us to its errors and malfunctions. Despite our perpetual lack of knowledge regarding the

84

interworking of natures products, it is still a fertile source for inspiration. In this manner the biology-design remains relevant, if not necessary for the generation of unique, adaptable designs. However, human ingenuity should not be blindsided. It is the synergy between human and organic innovation, achievable only through the study of biological phenomena and development of creative design methodology that will generate the Urpflanze if possible. Biologist and writer Johann Goethe, summarizes for us an invaluable lesson with respect to this concept:

Just as the soul of nature has played itself out in the forms of its individual creations and the relationship of their parts one to another, so the human spirit has left its mark on the forms of art; from that a whole world of form has come into being.

And so, we find that the Urpflanze resides within ourselves, as sentient, organic form givers operating rhizomatically and in conjunction with the organic environment.

85

Bibliography _____________________________________________________________
Images
Amaral, Luis. Yeast Proteome Network. Digital image. Ibis Northwestern. Web. Ernst Haeckel Print. Digital image. Le Livre 2 Jul. Sept. 2009. Web. Ernst Haeckel's Kunstform Der Natur. Digital image. Escape Into Life. Sept. 2010. Web. Fuller's geodesic dome design. Digital image. Geodesic Dome. Web. Image from Maria Sibylla Merian work. Digital image. Smithsonian Libraries. Smithsonian Institute. Web. Image from "On Growth and Form" Digital image. Terrain Tumblr. Oct. 2009. Web. Internet Topology Map. Digital image. Science Daily. Aug. 2007. Web. Joris Laarman's Bone Chair. Digital image. The Curated Object. International Decorative Arts Exhibitions. Web. Old Photos of Edinburgh Forth Bridge. Digital image. Old UK Photos. Web. Raycounting at FRAC. Digital image. Material Ecology Blogspot. Neri Oxman. Web. Strck, Michael. Allotropes of Carbon. Digital image. Wikipedia. Feb. 2006. Web. Tero. Slime mold network. Digital image. Biology Computes. Web. Vase, 189396. Digital image. Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Web.

Text
Alon, Uri. "Network Motifs: Theory and Experimental Approaches." Nature 8 (2007): 450-61. EBSCO. Web. Mar.-Apr. 2011. This source provides valuable commentary on the Network Motifs established by the Milo paper, whose arguments are the basis of this thesis. Aldersey-Williams, Hugh. "Towards Biomimetic Architecture." Nature Materials May 2004 3 (2004): 277-79. Jstor. Web. 2 June 2011. Critique of biomimetics as a purely aesthetic movement requiring more evidence of practical application. Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the synthesis of form . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Print. Arie, De Geus. "The Living Company." Welcome - Arie De Geus. 1997. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. <http://www.ariedegeus.com/pu blications/>. This source is an assessment of biomimetic designs in culture, and is a social commentary used for general background reading. Artzy-Randrup, Yael. "Comment on Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex Networks and Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks ." Science 305 (2004): 1107C. EBSCO. Web. 23 Apr. 2011. Commentary on network motifs to be addressed in establishment of the network motifs argument. Baldwin, C. & Clark, K. Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000) Bar-Cohen, Yoseph. Biomimetics Biologically Inspired Technologies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis, 2006. Print

86

This source provides important information regarding the role of Biomimicry in engineering and computer information systems; this book will largely help structure the second section. Bar-Cohen, Yoseph. "Biomimetics: Mimicking and Inspired-by Biology." SPIE. Proc. of SPIE Smart Structures, San Diego. March ed. Vol. 5759-02. Print. Bergdoll, Barry, Dario Gamboni, Philip Ursprung, and Angeli Sachs. Nature Design: from Inspiration to Innovation. Switzerland: Lars Mller, 2007. Print. Benyus, Janine M. "Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature by Janine M. Benyus." HarperCollins Publishers World Leading Book Publisher. Web. 03 Apr. 2011. This book provides the foundation for biomimicry s current definition and its contemporary trends. Biomimetics: Excerpt from: Interactive Architecture by Michael Fox and Miles Kemp Princeton Architectural Press Copyright 2009. This work is commentary on biomimicry s application in architecture. A good criticism. Bonner, John Tyler. The evolution of complexity by means of natural selection . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988. Print.

Engineering. Southampton: WIT, 2004. Print. This work is important for structuring the argument made in the fourth section, namely an analysis of the applicability of nature s designs in human artificial systems. Darwin, Charles, and Arthur Keith. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,. London & Toronto: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1928. Print. Deleuze, Gilles, and Flix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1987. Print. De Brie, Taylor. Design Lessons from Nature. New York City: 1974. Print. Part of the critical body of design theory that will be compared to design theory in nature. Dewey, Jennifer. Animal Architecture. New York: Orchard, 1991. Print. A tangential reading from Benyus s Biomimicry book; background reading for sections. Dogan, Fehmi. "Generic Abstraction in Design Creativity: the Case of Staatsgalerie by James Stirling." Design Studies 31 (2010): 207-36. Elsevier. Web. This work demonstrates a process within design theory that has relevance to network motifs in natural systems. Dong, Jing J. "Evidence for Dynamically Organized Modularity in the Yeast Protein-protein Interaction Network." Nature (2004): 1-6. Web. Eidlitz, Leopold. The Nature and Function of Art, More Especially of Architecture. New York: Da Capo, 1977. Print.

Braham, William. "Correalism." Williambraham.net Ecology, Technology, and Design. Web. 31 Aug. 2011. Brebbia, C. A., and M. W. Collins. Design and Nature II: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and

87

Feast, L. "Discrete and the Continuous in Architecture and Design." 2006 Design Research Society. Proc. of IADE International Conference in Lisbon, Lisbon. Vol. 0039. 1-14. Print. Fox, Michael, and Miles Kemp. Interactive Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2009. Print. Green, K. The Bio-logic of Architecture, Proceedings for the 2005 ACSA National Conference, Chicago, 522-530, 2005. An assessment of how architectural thinking is related to a similar thread of logic that natural systems operate on. Haeckel, Ernst. Art Forms in Nature. Munich: Prestel, 2009. Print. Hanczyc, Martin M. "Protocells as Smart Agents for Architectural Design." Technoetic Arts 7.2.1 (2009). Web. Scientific paper describing protocells, small units of artificial life, and how they may be used in architectural design. This work is relevant to assessment of the human application of network motifs in logical restructuring of biological processes. Harkness, John M. "Lifetime of Connections." Otto Herbert Schmitt. Bakken Library and Museum, 2001. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. Biographical piece intended to expand on the life of Otto Schmitt, who coined the term Biomimicry. Hartwell, L. H., Hopfield, J. J., Leibler, S. & Murray, A. W. From molecular to modular cell biology . Nature 402, 47 52 (1999). An intoduction to modules in scientific theory and how they inform the interpretation of complex biological systems.

Analysis of modules in various disciplines including computer science and engineering.

Hertel, Heinrich. Structure, Form, Movement. Reinhold, 1966. Print. Design treatise on structure and form which has biological implications. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. [New York]: Random House, 1961. Print. An excellent work detailing the nearly biological means by which cities operate. An examination of the emergent properties of cities, and how they might function analogously to items in nature. Kelley, Kevin. Out of Control: The Rise of the Neo-Biological Civilization. Addison-Wesley, 1994. Print. Piece detailing contemporary and future trends in Biomimicry. Kohn, Kurt W., and Mirit I. Aladjem. "Circuit Diagrams for Biological Networks." Molecular Systems Biology 17.January 2006 (2006): 1-4. Web of Science. Web. 6 Aug. 2011. Kohn develops a novel method of visualizing complex biological systems by modeling circuit diagrams and co-opting key features of such representations. Kitano, Hiroaki. "Biological Robustness." Nature 5.November 2004 (2004): 826-37. Web of Science. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. Examination of the emergent property of robustness in biological systems, its architectural features and key design principles associated with its development as a consequence of evolution. Madni, Azad M. "Transdisciplinarity: Reaching Beyond Disciplines to Find Connections." Journal of Integrated Design and Process

88

Science March 2007 11.1 (2007): 1-12. EBSCO. Web. 24 July 2011. Argument for the relevance of cross-talk between disciplines and a survey of the products of this dialog, including biomimetics. Madrazo, Leandro. "Durand and the Science of Architecture." Journal of Architectural Education 48.1 (1994): 12-24. JSTOR. Web. Mann, Stephen. Biomimetic Materials Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, 1995. Print Dealing primarily with the chemical synthesis of materials with biological applications, this piece will help expand the second section of the thesis which deals primarily with contemporary trends in Biomimicry. McGary KL, Park TJ, Woods JO, Cha HJ, Wallingford JB, Marcotte EM (April 2010). "Systematic discovery of nonobvious human disease models through orthologous phenotypes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (14): 6544 9. Milo, R. "Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex Networks." Science 298 (2002): 824-27. EBSCO. Web. 14 Apr. 2011. One of the core referenced papers of this thesis, this work defines network motifs and identifies key motifs found in both natural and artificial systems. Offner, David. Design Homology. New York City: 1995. Print. One of the contributing works to the body of design theory juxtaposed against the ideas established by the previous paper (Milo et al.) Oxman, Neri. "Structuring Materiality: Design Fabrication of

Heterogenous Materials." Architectural Design Journal (2010): 78-85. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. Petroski, Henry. Invention by Design. New York City: Harvard University Press. 1996. Print. Sah, Jure. "Sustainability." European Organisation for Sustianability. Web. 24 July 2011. <http://www.eoslife.eu>. Schatzberg, Eric. Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing Technology and Culture - Volume 40, Number 1, January 1999, pp. 152-154 Schlosser, G. & Wagner, G. (eds.) Modularity in Development and Evolution (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 2004). Simon, Herbert A. "The Architecture of Complexity." The American Philosophical Society. Proc. of The American Philosophical Society. 6th ed. Vol. 106. American Philosphical Society, 1962. 467-82. Print Analysis of complex systems and their key components redundant across various sectors and industries. Steadman, Philip. The evolution of designs: Biological analogy in architecture and the applied arts.. Rev. ed. London: Routledge, 2008. Print. Suh, Nam P.. The principles of design . New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Print. Sullivan, Louis H., and Lyndon P. Smith. Kindergarten Chats. New York: Dover Publications, 1979. Print. Teal, Randall. "Developing a (Non-Linear) Practice of Design Thinking." JADE 2010th ser. 29.3 (2010):

89

294-302. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. Teal advocates for a non-linear approach to problem solving in design citing Gilles Deleuze s rhizomatic system as a model. Tero, A. et al., "Rules for Biologically Inspired Adaptive Network Design." Science 327.5964 (2010): 439-42. Print. Thompson, D'Arcy Wentworth, and John Tyler. Bonner. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1961. Print. An important work part of the history of Biomimicry. Thompson analyses why forms persist in nature and their functional applications. Tischler, Linda. "Joris Laarman Lets His Skeletal Chairs and Hamster Cell Lamps Do Their Own Thing." Fast Company 2 Mar. 2010. Web. Toyota, Taro, Maru Naoto, and Martin M. Hanczyc. "Self-propelled Oil Droplets Consuming "fuel" Surfactant." Journal of the American Chemical Society 131 (2009). Web. An expansion on the protocell article by Hancyzic (supporting evidence and background information) Vogel, Steven. "Nature's Swell, But Is It Worth Copying?" MRS Bulletin

June 2003 (2003): 404-08. Web of Science. Web. 15 Aug. 2011. Critique of Biomimicry. Advocates that it is ineffective to merely copy nature which does not always yield the most superior designs. Viney, Christopher et al. Biomolecular Materials. Materials Research Society 292 (1992). Web. Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene-Emmanuel. Discourses on Architecture. New York: Grove, 1959. Print. An important discourse on establishing the history of Biomimicry. Discourses on architecture by Viollet le Duc demonstrates how Biomimicry has been historically practiced for centuries without necessarily assuming the sustainable implications it has today. Viollet-le-Duc, Eugne-Emmanuel. The Foundations of Architecture: Selections from the Dictionnaire Raisonn. New York: G. Braziller, 1990. Print. Wann, David. Biologic: Environmental Proection by Design. Boulder: Johnson, 1990. Print. Wichmann, S. Jugendstil Floral Funktional. Herrsching, 1984. Ziman, J. M.. Technological innovation as an evolutionary process . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.

90

Biography Emily Binet Royall graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with degrees from the College of Liberal Arts under the Plan II Honors program, and the College of Natural Sciences, majoring in Neurobiology. Her extensive research in the sciences and creative exploration of the arts have fostered an interest in interdisciplinary study and informed the work presented here. Currently she intends to continue development of a community food-sustainability project in the Austin area and looks forward to pursuing a PhD in computational architecture in the coming years.

91