Ball, Philip (2011): The Shapes of Things. In Shapes: Nature’s Patterns , Oxford University

Press, pp. 1-35

1. Defining Designs:

“Scientists have a rather more sophisticated view of life… which gives them hope of distinguishing it

from its organic context… What is it that encourages us to typecast some forms as those made by life

and others as the products of the non-living world”

I would start by defining what I feel is inorganic by labeling it as something that does not reproduce

itself and note that the desire to acquaint ourselves with resources and satisfy our curiosity drives us to

box and label our surroundings. It also helps us to define what we can ultimately consume without

compromising the human element. This also does not leave room for spontaneous manifestation of

anything, but rather confines us to the ongoing development after inspiration from what has already

been achieved before.

Later in the article he also delves into the difference between the makings of a cell and what comprises

DNA. We aren’t tangibly made of DNA but cells – however it’s still fascinating the way our DNA interacts

with our cell tissue to actually impact the visual representation that cell takes on. The question he poses

is “where does the structure come from?” in all things it is important to seek out the how where and

why of all things when basing your design on a previously crafted form to understand its integrity.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes out of a book I like to read by Ayn Rand:

“The purpose, the site, the material determines the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless

it’s made by one central idea and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive like a man. Its integrity is

to follow its own truth”

2. Integrity:

Next he presents that Scientists seeking to identify Morphology through computers developed

technology and labeled it The D’Arcy Machine which collects data from radio signals, detecting signs of

life to discover potential extra-terrestrial intelligence. *this concept encourages lateral thinking when it

comes to recognizing our own environment for which we are designing – in other words allows us to

more broadly come to a definition by examining the world under this attitude that life could be

interpreted by various other means not just our own understanding. We are able to analyze our current

surroundings effectively, though, should anything completely new come along our ability to determine

its organic/inorganic nature is severely limited. Any assistance with this can be appreciated.

Because of these scientists we are able to gain a different perspective by gleaning the important aspects

of what makes an organic specimen organic, and an inorganic specimen inorganic.

It is with this in mind that Ball later implores us to invest in reductionism to really be able to glean what

our fundamental traits are in any design, not only that but also to address model making with the

purpose of simplifying your greater ambitions to iron out flaws and loopholes. Exposing these errors is

crucial to the success or failure of your design. “We tend to think of a model as a small scale replica of

the real object… for scientists; however a model is a simplified abstract description of what they think is

going on in a particular phenomenon.” When you have allowed yourself to cover the boundaries,

“A good model includes only those aspects thought to be essential in producing the basic phenomenon.

The details may be added later” This is to allow for unexpected variables and modification upon later

review.

3. Mimicry and Inspiration:

Ball introduces D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, A Scottish Biologist, Mathematician and Classics Scholar

who pioneered Mathematical Biology as a Scientific Research field and was notorious for his work

analyzing pattern and form in nature but allegedly failed to recognize Morphology as a Scientific

Discipline. The work that he did on his book On Growth and Form allows us to take on a new approach

when analyzing what defines organic matter and how we should design based on that knowledge.

The argument centered on the complexities of organic and inorganic forms is established between

simple and intricate patterns. While Ball presented the point of view that inorganic Systems were simple

as a default he also allows that D’Arcy referred to the exact opposite in his book On Growth and Form.

He also went further to suggest that inorganic patterns are sometimes copied by organic matter and

vice versa come design techniques. This is why the D’Arcy machine in all its complexity, in my opinion is

flawed. You cannot establish a rule of thumb to give an absolute truth on what is designed to live and

what is designed to be inorganic by external features and make-up alone.

Mimicry also occurs. Ball states that our non-living designs mimic those in nature. I would have to

disagree as I believe that mimicry only occurs when intentional, as mimicry and inspired work are two

different things. We use nature mostly as a tool, component or catalyst to achieve our desired outcome

which more often than not is also something that has been inspired by something that occurs naturally.

This allows us to compensate for our inability to manifest new concepts, all the while appreciating that

our scope for new ideas is limited to what we may individually comprehend.

Inspirations occur naturally in inorganic matter. Referring to the pictures in fig. 1.6 Ball mentions that for

every complex design there is a simple pattern that sparks the start of an intricate form. He later

mentions in the article that “Science is about finding good enough approximations to reality to give us

some understanding of it and not about capturing the whole truth” and “They include features one

wants to study”

This is true of any design that provides us with inspiration

4. Design vs. Creationism:

Ball explores how Darwinism holds that evolutionism was the explanation of how things developed their

own design as they earned it through mutation and natural selection. (Only the strongest survive)

My take on this is simply that Darwinism, although another aspect to be taken with consideration for the

critical design elements it poses has its limitations as well which seems to coincide with Ball’s argument.

“Darwinian evolution…provides a narrative that rationalizes how we got to where we are today. (As a

result it says rather little about where we might go in the future.)” Foresight requires that you are not

bound by the past- as you are with evolutionism and act on the freedom to envision - and act on what is

and has not been yet designed. It’s part of the story but it’s not the full picture that we require as

designers.

Furthermore, Darwinist thinking places assumptions on there being efficiency in the design of the

organic samples that appeal to natural selection. It doesn’t allow for demonstrations for factual

reference to back it up. In effect it is mostly unsuccessful as it takes the perceived ‘weak’ competition

and removes it which is an unsustainable and irrational path to take. You don’t design something based

on the expectation that something weak will not be around in the future to take advantage of what has

been designed and nature cannot be counted on to support that lack of ethics either. Instead it is our

job to improve on nature in a way that is sustainable and does not damage or eradicate another organic

system

5. Natural Restrictions:

Natural restrictions were addressed – D’Arcy’s argument was presented claiming that “physical and

chemical laws… play a direct role in determining shape and role in biology” and that even the amoeba is

restricted by physical and chemical limitations.

There are plenty of restrictions presented through this article. Covered are the laws of Physics,

Chemistry, Biology, and then the bounds of Aesthetics – both conceptually for the inorganic renditions

we and nature create, and also organically as DNA affects living cells. There is also an element of natural

Selection presented to us just to name a few. These things impact and in some cases strongly restrict the

limits of design but without a theme from which to create; these parameters are obsolete.

6. Mathematics and Design:

Maths paints an unambiguous picture of a structure and form whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not.

We are using mathematics to describe what already occurs in nature – in fact it was nature that inspired

the development of specific formulas to map it geometrically. One example he presents is in the form of

a seashell. Finding mathematical expressions to explain your design keeps it concise with little margin

for error.

“Once we have identified an algorithm that makes the right shape that doesn’t necessarily mean it

corresponds to anything that happens in the real world”

However, it could potentially apply.