In generative design a designer does not create the final product but rather a system, algorithm or tool that in turn generates the final product. Some generative tools create many iterations and others lead to one product. The designer does not design the painting but rather the brush or the method. Instead of the still life one could develop "painting by numbers" for example. Take Joris Laarman. Joris created the Bone Chair using a software tool that simulates bone growth. GM created that tool to model efficient structures for its cars.  This caused C. Sven Johnson to ask a rather pertinent question on twitter, "Who is the designer of the "Bone Chair"?

And the question is not an easy one to answer. Is it Joris? The researcher that came up with the bone algorithm? The software developers that made the tool? The physical principles behind the algorithm? The scientists that discovered those principles? God or nature? All of the above? I for one have no answer. I do know however that generative design has a bright future.

The marriage of tech and design is all around us. In a world where everything is designed a meta "way to design" that algorithmically cuts through the clutter is very appealing. A perfect design algorithm could potentially engender choice in design the same way that Google's PageRank set of algorithms do for the web. And this is what generative design already partially does. It simplifies design by codifying it and somewhere within lies the promise of "true", "simple" & "beautiful" design.

With technologies such as 3D printing letting everyone design or co-design things there is also a real need for generative tools. They allow for unique designs but since each is machine made, the marriage is a conceptually comfortable and inexpensive one. Also, rather than forcing the customer into a "blank canvas conundrum" whereby the sheer possibility overwhelms them to the point inactivity, generated models could lead to choice or guided choice in design.

Boston based design duo Nervous System (who will be featured in a Shapeways interview soon) write code in Processing that makes beautiful rings and other items. Jessica Rosenkrantz & Jesse Louis-Rosenberg, who make up Nervous, even provide the tools they use to make their jewelry free of charge to other designers on their site. 

Belgian design duo Unfold (also the subject of an upcoming interview) who had a breakthrough with their ceramic 3D printing process recently also exhibited at Bits N' Pieces with their Brain Wave Sofa. In this design an EEG was used to "design" the sofa.

Jan Habraken (we will interview him also) & Willem Derks developed Chairgenics for the Bits n' Pieces show. For Chairgenics they created a chair genome and "bred" chairs in order to create the perfect chair.   

Singapore based software company Genometri makes technology that designs objects. Their Angel's on Shapeways for example are all generated & all unique.  

Mitchell Whitelaw also made the weather bracelet a bracelet that displays the weather of Canberra.

Michael Piasecki's Cellular Bowl, is beautiful & generated entirely in Processing.

Justin Marshall's Generated ring is made with a suite of generated design software.

Mendel Heit also makes lovely objects using Shapeways & Processing.

Generative design has a myriad of applications. I anticipate that generative design will grow beyond the borders of the systems they are now. One the one hand ever more whimsical "data representations" will fall short of the strictest scope of generative design. On the other hand the nature of generative design will change. Whereas now the designer designs the tool that creates the product more involvement from "consumers" and more "intelligence" in the software will evolve. At the same time the "pure algorithm" will be ignored or augmented by the designer struggling to regain more input into the final object. To me the resulting movement will not be generative design in the purest sense. Rather it will be "Dasign"or data driven design. This design may be evolutionary, algorithmic or generative design but not necessarily rely on any of these for its core inspiration or make up. It will simply have the intersection of data and design as a identifiable characteristic. 

In the future I would expect to see many different data representations, Mii creators, "quiz design" and ultimately profile based design in a lot of different applications.

Data representations could be any representation of data turned into an object. A medallion based on the types of sites you visit as per your browser history. An earing where the thickness of the heart is the number of times it has been broken and the width is the number of times you've broken others. A portrait that does not show you but rather your facial symmetry (or lack thereof).

"Mii creator design" refines the sets of different generations of designs based on the users choices. Using the Nintendo Mii Creator it is already possible to with several generations come to a likeness of yourself or someone else. A similar system for bowls would quickly allow a person to, by simply choosing the design that best matched their preference out of the generated subset, come up with their designs.

In "quiz design" you answer a few questions, "what's your favorite movie? your favorite song? Which picture do you like best? etc. Based on your answers the piece of software will then design the appropriate bowl. This might seem a bit far fetched but the necessary pieces for it are being built as we speak. Initial implementations would also not be that difficult but just have to have a dataset to start off with. This set could then evolve over time.

Profile based design goes further still by assuming, based on previous web searches & purchases, choices and content enjoyed, which designs you would enjoy. This is a rather compelling technology for online retailers to put it lightly and they will drive adoption for it. If you are a designer you should to not sit still until Amazon or Facebook come out with the "you would like to create this" recommendation engine. I urge any and every designer to explore the wealth of possibility that is generative design, right now.    

So there is this fruit company. It is one of the biggest fruit company's out there. It makes high margin, high concept, very expensive fruit. They used to be mocked because they made incompatible fruit that was all about looks. Now they are lauded for exactly the same reasons. This fruit company cares a lot about its Intellectual Property. They would like to protect the magic that lets them sell more than 60,000,000 identical things each year while retaining a feel of exclusivity. They like to send people letters. And one look above into the adoring but somewhat disdainful eyes of James Potter tells you that these letters will not be ignored. The image below of the waving alien is an example, used here for educational purposes only, of an inappropriate use of the Apple logo.This is an example of something we would not like to see on Shapeways.

Since a several people are making items that are MP3 player accessories we thought it prudent to point you to some trademark guidelines. You can find Apple's trademark guidelines for 3rd parties here. And from them one gets the impression that the 1st and 2nd parties, is where its at. The trademark guidelines are written by lawyers and lawyers are expensive. In order to justify this expense they tend to be baffling. You would be good at being baffling also if you were being paid $500 an hour to tell people stuff they already know in such a way as to make them doubt that they know it. But, if you are a designer and want people to respect your IP, then setting a good example can not hurt.

Apple states that you are only allowed to use their logo if you are an authorized reseller. For educational use you can have a look at the above logo. The above image is an educational illustration of an inappropriate use of the Apple logo. You could not use such a logo on your products. You are also not allowed to imply that Apple endorses you. So "Apple loves Joris", or "Iphones love to be cuddled by my Iphone case" would not be OK. When making an Apple accessory, it is OK to say, "Compatible with Apple Ipod." "For use with Apple TV" or "Compatible with Iphone" is OK. But, Apple gets nervous when you call your product 3DprintedIpodcase or "Apple wants you to buy my 3D print" or "Authorized Apple 3D print."

Apple also prohibits people from making any kind of merchandise with its logo on it. You are also not allowed to say anything mean to or about Apple. As such, I would like to apologize to Apple on behalf of the entire world for what we said about the Ipad.

For a completely mysterious reason you are also not allowed to mention things such as: Appletree, Apple Cart, Jackintosh or PodMart. The last one is a shame really because I could see PodMart become a totally huge retailer of stasis pods. And Jackintosh should be a great descriptor for the nonsense Apple fanboys sprout. Also, Appletree is not incorrect English but copyright infringement. "Think Different" is both. Throw Leopard or Snow Leopard Rug, are not mentioned nor are MacPoorBro or Uwork. Lets say you wanted to make an Apprika for example. For educational use only the image below illustrates that such a use of the Apple logo would be inappropriate.

Please also pay attention to some of Apple's lesser known wordmarks such as Shake and Safari, the latter especially if you are Kenyan. Aperture might not sound relevant now but come the apocalypse I'd like to see who can beat Jobs with regards to that trademark.

I am completely not kidding about the following: Apple does not want you to take a picture of an Ipod being used or shown next to your accessory. Only very few companies have the permission to do this. So even if you buy the Ipod you are not allowed to photograph it next to your accessory. Our previous statement was incorrect. You can show a picture of your Apple compatible item with an Apple product. Any kind of rendering is not allowed however.

As a suggested step I would add “Joris is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Apple Inc” to any and all communications. Yes, this will make twitter challenging & birthday cards seem stand-ofish but it is better to be safe than sorry. 

On the up side you can however get a lovely Powered by Darwin web button. This is completely free and a lovely accessory for people who like evolution.

On a completely unrelated note: the top image is the property of Apple, the second, third and fourth images are used under a Creative Commons Attribution License and remixed by people who will remain nameless.

We shot a quick video showing you some of the test models we made for the Alumide material in the sunlight. You get to see Bathsheba's Bioform & Vorodo,  Virtox's Gyro the cube & TriMatrix, DeLaVega's Ball Bearing & ejisfun's Ferris Wheel. I should really have opened with "we 3D printed a Ferris Wheel." We're offering the Alumide material until the 14th of March. The material is polyamide mixed with Aluminum. It is rigid but less strong than White, Strong & Flexible. I think it looks lovely and am sure that Alumide would be Frtiz Lang's favorite 3D printing material.

Evan Malone was one of the crucial people behind the Fab@Home project which demonstrated to many that desktop 3D printing was not a pipe dream but a usable technology. He has now founded NextFab Studio and the NextFab Organization. NextFab Studio is a Philadelphia based organization that is a hackerspace that you can go to in order to make & invent things. The NextFab Organization hopes to spread learning and information about all the open source design and fabrication technologies available. I am a fanboy and tried not to swoon.

Joris Peels: Will everyone really make everything?

Evan Malone: No. I believe there will always be economy of scale in certain processes, and simple practical constraints, like the size of objects, or the amount of power required to work with certain materials that will prevent individuals from making everything.  Personal fabrication technology is a new branch of manufacturing – I doubt it will replace the entire tree.

Joris Peels: Won't people be too lazy? Won't this only be for nerds?

Evan Malone: It is a good thing that people have diverse interests, as civilization requires vastly many other roles than product innovation.

Joris Peels: Do you believe in microproduction, of brands of one, of everyone being their own business?                      

Evan Malone: This is merely artisan craftsmanship with new tools.  It has been around since Neolithic humans made stone tools – some people were good at it and everyone wants the best.  It has its place, but it will not replace all other forms of innovation and commerce.