Shape

407 Notes to p. 389
The essence in any case would not be the copying, but the enrichment of the previous world.
James and Mr. Mutt agree—they opt for novelty and what’s new to add to what’s real. There’s
more to copying than correct spelling and rote recitation. Structure isn’t fixed—what you see is
what you get. (Copying may also reinforce Langer’s observation that many of us miss letters and
words when we read. It seems that familiar ways of looking temper the results on embedded figures
given on page 52. Keeping your eyes wide open for surprising possibilities may not be that
easy—novelty takes work and for shapes, this means calculating.) The coincidence with James is
rich indeed, as my topologies show when they’re defined retrospectively. Langer’s first quotation—‘‘Owing
to the fact that . . .’’—and mine on copying are perfect in this regard. Rules aren’t
locked in a definite past. They’re tested in a vague and ambiguous future that goes on in a new
way. The past is different in response. A series of topologies is merely what works in the
present—it’s history ready to change. Computer programs are like shapes. They’re worth a second
look. Mindful calculating makes pretty good sense.
21. U. Flemming, ‘‘The Secret of the Casa Guiliani Frigerio,’’ Environment and Planning B 8 (1981):
87–96. U. Flemming, ‘‘More than the Sum of Parts: The Grammar of Queen Anne Houses,’’ Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 14 (1987): 323–350. U. Flemming, ‘‘A Pattern Book
for Shadyside’’ (technical report, Department of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
1987). T. W. Knight, ‘‘The Generation of Hepplewhite-style Chair Back Designs,’’ Environment
and Planning B 7 (1980): 227–238. T. W. Knight, ‘‘The Forty-one Steps,’’ Environment and
Planning B 8 (1981): 97–114. T. W. Knight, Transformations in Design.