Shape

387 Background
codes, student and faculty handbooks, and standards for research overlap from school
to school, so that the ‘‘rules’’ to stop copying seem to be copied. Nonetheless, design
studios are out. They rely on seeing what your classmates are doing and putting it
to use as your own. This condones copying and encourages student work that looks
the same—it’s uncanny how often studio projects are alike and how no one ever seems
to notice. But copying is no way to show what you can do in research—so much for
reverse engineering and repeatable results in science—and in super-tough university
classes where you can earn an F. Copying isn’t allowed. It’s a question of ownership—
everyone has to do ‘‘original’’ work to guarantee that it’s his or hers. That’s how teaching
and learning are measured—by the work you do on your own—and it’s what it
means to be creative. There’s just no place for design!) As long as I don’t assume there
are units in a combinatorial process—that’s been the big problem all along: how to calculate
without symbols—it’s easy to go on in new ways and to encourage others to do
the same. Design needn’t be a mystery. You can teach it and foster mastery instead. Design
and teaching how to do it show meaningful results when there’s copying. It’s best
practice, and it’s always in process so that nothing is ever final. Results aren’t set in advance
and can’t be repeated (recited) by rote. It may be that there are some useful alternatives
to copying—anything can happen—but I wouldn’t bank on it. I’ll put my
money on shapes and rules. Calculating—yes, copying—provides a competitive advantage
that’s hard to beat.
One of the things I’ve been trying to show throughout this book is that it’s always
possible to go on in new ways when you calculate with shapes and rules. It’s
about seeing for the first time again and again without ever having to start over. Going
on, to be sure, is the way to design, but it’s hardly the way to end a book. That calls for
a conclusion. I started out in the introduction talking about seeing and doing in this
way:
[Calculating with shapes and rules] is subjective and variable—the shape grammarist’s
voice is ineluctably personal.
And this seems to be the right ending, too. In many ways, it’s just what this part of my
book has shown. I’ve taken you through many examples of what I do when I use rules
to calculate with shapes. Seeing and saying what I see are always personal. There are no
rote results, whether I copy what I see or call this something else—descriptions don’t
count. My eyes have only their own way of knowing. That’s a good reason to calculate,
and it’s why calculating works in design.
Background
The background to this part is pretty straightforward, especially if I stick to what I’ve
said in the order I’ve said it. The quotation I start off with is from Walter Smith’s testimony
to the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction of 1883. 1 Smith sets the tone
for what I go on to say. There are three points of interest. First, he equates drawing
with painting and design. Second, he’s sure that drawing can be taught rationally and
intelligently in school like language and mathematics. And third, he turns to ‘‘a great