Objectified: The paradigm of construct
I’ve not seen ‘Objectified’ , but from this clip of Jonathan Ive talking about the design and construction of the Macbook Air, it rings very true to what I’m striving for. Essentially its the goal to make ideas, system and methods appear effortlessly, as if by magic to the user.
The hardest part as described in a talk at TED, is with finding a reason for things – the goal of science is to find the best explanation of something that has the littlest variation. This is crucially what spurns innovation, development and understanding. This ‘best explanation’ analogy is basically what designers, engineers, inventors etc strive for too. The goal of their product is to feel it was the only way for it to exist and be used.


Phil Earnhardt 12:45 pm on October 3, 2009 Permalink |
That’s a beautiful little piece, Charles.
The word “biotensegrity” was coined by Dr. Stephen Levin (biotensegrity.com). The field includes tensegrity on a cellular level (pioneered by Ingber) and on a musculoskeletal level (pioneered by Levin). Tom Flemons, author of the piece you reference on intensiondesigns.com, collaborates with Levin on his model-making.
The implications of a moving tensegrity are very different from the stationary sculptures of Snelson. Levin notes that the non-hookean (nonlinear) stress/strain response of tensegrity is critical for nature because it’s far more efficient. Virtually all of today’s robots use a “levers and hinges” model for their movement; such designs will be eternally constrained in their mechanical efficiency. Roboticists are starting to mimic nature’s loosely-coupled structures; robots will eventually be able to “go with the flow”.
The question I’ve seen nobody ask: when did nature first learn to use tensegrity for the gross structure of its creatures? As you note, the myriad advantages of tensegrity make it the clear choice for life. But these floating structures are a huge evolutionary leap from a stack of cells. My guess is that the Cambrian explosion is rooted in that exact leap, but I have no qualification to do anything but wildly speculate about that.
One other piece of the puzzle is fascial tissue, the third fractal/pervasive network in our body. Thomas Myers has thought about this extensively; his paper “Spatial Medicine” should be quite inspiring. The Rolfers know fascial tissue better than anyone; it’s no surprise that Myers studied under Ida Rolf. His book “Anatomy Trains” is a fantastic text: a tensegrity-oriented mapping of the long lines of tension in our musculoskeletal network.
I found your post through Achim Luhn (@xozzox on twitter).
Charles 4:26 pm on October 3, 2009 Permalink |
Thanks Phil, That was a great reply
I’ve only just started looking into tensegrity and its remarkable how it just seems to fit the models we build pretty correctly – they idea that nature evolved to use non-linear tension is amazing. And the fact that this tension model produces the same mathematical results, the same limits that mathematical models produce is incredible.
I’ts as if these are the ground rules of nature, in every part from the cellular level all the way up to muscles, bones and tissue level.
I will take a look a look at the paper you mentioned and the book.