Inke Arns
Visitor
Moderator
| Posts: 6 |   |
Karma: 0
|
Dan/Andrasek's abstract - 2006/05/07 13:05
OK, here are some more thoughts concerning Gheorghe Dan’s and Alisa Andrasek’s abstract:
Gheorghe Dan and Alisa Andrasek propose in their abstract entitled „Phylotic BodyScapes | Entheogenic Gardens: poly-scalar heterotopic botany“ the development of a computational and production system that could generate ever new cultural and biological phenotypes out of the existing ones. The system would be „suitable for biomimetics and cultural mimetics, fashion, design and architecture“. Through processes of intensive genetic computation and extensive cross-breeding of genetic patterns (according to the authors, „design is understood as genetic inscription“) ever new forms could be generated in order to populate „real and irreal gardens patterned as phantasmagorical bodyscapes“.
But what’s the concrete aim of growing, mutating and hybridizing ad infinitum existing phenotypes and thus creating ever new forms? To put it provocatively: Is this generative design approach of interest beyond the field of design? And is it interesting in the field of design?
In your abstract, you write that „Gardens were always optimistic reflections of the world“. This is an interesting observation I think. It implies that today gardens (like the one you propose, possibly?) could have turned into the exact opposite: into pessimistic reflections of the world, breeding the worst potentialities one could think of. Do you take this possibility into consideration in your project?
You seem to imply that evolution essentially is something positive, or, to put it more precisely, that it alyways develops things towards the better, optimizing their shapes. Could the idea of an evolutionary development that turns out bad (i.e. that develops the worst possible forms/shapes) be of interest for design (provided that you are aiming at the field of design)?
Curious,
Inke
|
