Editorial

What is it that distinguishes the desire to align design to natural forms, which prevailed at the turn of the century, from today‘s fascination with neo-biology, sharkskin and autonomous systems?

Around the year 1900 nature appeared to be a reservoir of ideally functioning forms, resulting from a development process extending over millions of years. Today, in the year 2000, interest is not so much in the result itself but in the principles, which have lead to an ecology enabling these forms to achieve an effective and adapted existence. Around 1900 designers and architects reconstructed nature in their drawings, photographs and experiments for the purpose of shaping the industrial econo- my. Today, however, programmers use genetic algorithms in symbol-processing machines to produce forms for which no model exists, although they still following the reproductive patterns of living systems. The aim here is also that of developing a new economy. Around 1900 design achieved a rational consciousness by copying nature. In 2000 the scientific and economical elite are giving up the idea of planning and control, since they see themselves confronted with problems of such complexity that their human brains are no longer capable of understanding them.The situation is then supposed to be rectified by using machines, controlled by programmes, which have been written by programmes, which have in turn been produced, trained and perfected by other programmes. Whereas around 1900 it was believed that all problems could be solved by ingenious planning and maintaining a clear view of the situation, it appears that present-day problems can be emulated only in cybernetic models, competing on quickly clocked platforms of real time. The forms and patterns thus produced do not originate from the human body at all, but from a code of co-evolving software. What kind of a future for design is there if the concept of planning becomes a victim of mechanical calculation?

Jörg Petruschat