Abstract
Shape rules and rule schemata are compared in terms of their expressive and productive features in design inquiry. Two kinds of formal processes are discussed to facilitate the comparison. The first proceeds from shape rule instances and infers rule schemata that the shape rules can be defined in. The second proceeds from rule schemata and postulates shape rule instances that can be defined within the schemata. These two parallel processes mirror our intuition in design: the conceptual need to frame explicit actions within general frameworks of principles, and the productive need to supply general principles with an explicit system of actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 7(3):343–351
Knight TW (1994) Transformations in design: a formal approach to stylistic change and innovation in the visual arts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Stiny G (2006) Shape, talking about seeing and doing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Stiny G (2011) What rule(s) should I use? Nexus Network Journal 13:15–47
Langer SK (1957) Philosophy in a new key: a study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Knight T (2000) Shape grammars in education and practice: history and prospects. Int J Des Comput 2:67
Economou A (2001) Shape grammars in architectural design studio. In: Mitchell W, Fernandez J (eds) Proceedings of the 2000 ACSA Technology Conference. ASCA, Washington, DC, pp 75–81
Kotsopoulos S (2005) Constructing design concepts: a computational approach to the synthesis of architectural form. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Kotsopoulos S (2008) From design concepts to design descriptions. Int J Archit Comput 06(03):335–360
Kotsopoulos S (2005) A computational framework of composition, Proceedings of the 23th conference in education and research in computer aided architectural design in Europe. In: Duarte JP, Ducla-Soares G, Sampaio AZ (eds) Digital design: the quest for new paradigms. Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal, pp 515–536
Stiny G (1979) Algorithmic aesthetics: computer models for criticism and design in the arts. University of California Press, Berkeley
Krstic D (2001) Algebras and grammars for shapes and their boundaries. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 28(1):151–162
Krstic D (2005) Shape decompositions and their algebras. AIE EDAM 19(04):261–276, Cambridge University Press
Stiny G (1976) Two exercises in formal composition. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 3:187–210
March L, Steadman P (1974) The geometry of the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Economou A (1999) The symmetry lessons from Froebel building gifts. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 26(1):75–90
Mitchell W (1990) The logic of architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Grasl T, Economou A (2013) Unambiguity: difficulties in communicating shape grammar rules to a digital interpreter. In: Stouffs R, Sariyildiz, S (eds) Computation and performance: proceedings of the 31st eCAADe conference. Delft University of Technology, Delft, vol. 2, pp 617–620
Grasl T, Economou A (2013) From topologies to shapes: parametric shape grammars implemented by graphs. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 40(5):905–922
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Economou, A., Kotsopoulos, S. (2015). From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back. In: Gero, J., Hanna, S. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14955-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14956-1
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)