SHAPE GRAMMARS

SIGGRAPH 2009 Course

Mine Özkar, Assistant Professor George Stiny, Professor of Computation

Middle East Technical University Department of Architecture
Faculty of Architecture Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Architecture Cambridge, MA 02138
Ankara, 06531 USA
TURKEY
Contact email: [email protected]
 SHAPE GRAMMARS
SIGGRAPH 2009 Course

Lecturers: Mine Özkar, METU, and George Stiny, MIT

The theory of shape grammars, first launched by Stiny and Gips in 1972, defines a
formalism to support the ambiguity in creative processes that is generally ruled
out by quantitative and symbolic computations. Since then, it has evolved into a
groundbreaking pragmatist philosophy of shape and design. It is implemented in
fields varying from architecture, art, graphic design, industrial product design to
computer visualization. This course offers basic knowledge on the theory and
some advanced issues useful for its implementation.

The course will be in two consecutive sessions which are introductory and
advanced and last 1 ¾ hrs each. The two-partite introductory lecture presents
the fundamentals of the theory, focusing on the basic knowledge of shapes,
shape algebras, and shape rules in order to explain how shape grammars
translate visual and spatial thinking into design computation. Examples of shape
grammar applications in design analysis and synthesis will be presented.
Attendees with further and more technical interest in the topic are encouraged
to follow the advanced lecture which initially dwells on the computational
devices of shape grammars then to discuss a number of selected studies on the
computational implementation of the shape grammar idea.

Prerequisites: No prerequisites for the first session other than enthusiasm for
shapes and a keen interest in looking and seeing. For the second session,
general knowledge of the theory of shape grammars, which can be acquired in
the first session.
 SHAPE GRAMMARS
SIGGRAPH 2009 Course

SYLLABUS

Session 1 – Introduction
8:30 – The theory
1. What are shape grammars?
2. Describing shape grammars in terms of seeing and counting
3. Describing shape grammars as a rule-based system
4. Decompositions
5. The mathematical set-up of shape grammars
6. Basic elements: shapes, labels, weights
7. Shape algebras
8. Shape boundaries
9. Part relations: embedding, overlapping, discrete elements
10. Euclidean transformations
11. Maximal shapes
12. Boolean operations on shapes

Break

9:30 – What to do with it?

13. The arts
14. Cultural heritage
15. Procedural modeling of architecture
16. Mass-customized housing
17. Economy of architectural manufacturing
18. Classifying architectural form
19. Building brand identity
20. Movement grammar in interaction design
21. Arts and Crafts
22. Understanding design possibilities (in design education)

Close, Q&A

Session 2 – Advanced Issues

10:30 – Recursion, Identity, Embedding
1. Recursion is the key to calculating.
2. Units create designs with blind ease.
3. Recursion and identity go just so far.
4. Embedding alters everything.
5. Seeing never ends.

Break

11:30 – Recursion, Identity, Embedding continued

7. Hierarchies are seductive.
8. The value of embedding is that units and hierarchies never get in the way.
9. Recursion plus embedding includes recursion plus identity.

Close, Q&A
1
 Shape Grammars

George Stiny, MIT

Mine Özkar, METU

| SIGGRAPH 2009

(1) It is such a delight to be talking about shape grammars at this convention. And it
is a great challenge. Not only because the audience is diverse, but also because the
shape grammar theory itself dwells on something that is quite obvious but we take
for granted. With my students back at home, I sometimes manage to talk so
convincingly about the theory that they say “we knew that!” But my real aim is to get
them start thinking about how they use it. We could aim for something similar here.
Some of the things I say will seem quite mundane, but I encourage the audience to
think whether they use or not use these in what they do, or how they think about
their work.

2
 Part I – Introduction to the Theory

Mine Özkar Introduction to Shape Grammars | SIGGRAPH 2009

(2) Title page to Session I

3
 What are shape grammars?

a) A computation theory
that defines a formalism to represent visual (and
spatial) thinking;
that handles ambiguities which symbols do
away with.

b) A philosophy of looking at the world

that is not through learnt or imposed definitions
but through those that have a practical
meaning at a given point in time;
that values the continuity of matter and
flexibility in how to cut it up into its parts.

(3) Shape grammars may be described at two levels. Firstly, it is a computation

theory that defines a formalism to represent visual, or even spatial, thinking. At the
same time, it handles ambiguities which digital computing does away with. Off the
center, marginal,
The phrase shape grammar more literally refers to visual design grammars.
At the second level, the theory represents a philosophy of looking at the world that
is not through learnt or imposed decompositions (definitions) but through those that
have a practical meaning at that point in time.

4
 What are shape grammars?

Stiny and Gips, Shape Grammars and Generative Specification,

in Best Computer Papers of 1971

(4) Shape grammars were first introduced in the beginning of the 70s by George
Stiny and James Gips. Published as one of the best computer papers of 1971, their
“Shape Grammars and Generative Specification” paper introduced a set of
generative rules for a few paintings done by Stiny himself.
The three paintings in the article, are from a series called Urform. These are going
to be the basis for illustrating various concepts of shape grammars in this part of the
lecture.

5
 What are shape grammars?

“Design is calculating.”

(5) Stiny (2006) claims that design is calculating while expanding the meaning of
calculation to visual thinking via his theory of shape grammars. The motto “design is
calculating,” was a starting point in 1971 as well. The reasoning behind a visual
product was described using a grammar-like formalism with a vocabulary, a set of
rules, and a series of computations that produced designs as if they were
“sentences”.

6
 Seeing and Counting

Computing --- computare (to count)

Calculating --- calculus (pebble)

(6) Stiny often equates the terms design, visual reasoning and calculation. This
claim firstly enunciates an understanding that design has reasoning within.
Secondly, in the theory of shape grammars, the terms calculation and computation,
which are often interchangeably used, are seen under a new light.
It is important to reflect on seeing and counting simultaneously to understand the
key idea in SG.
I have put up a graphic of the abacus to represent counting, which is at the root of
computing and calculating. Beads, discrete and of one kind, are counted. Counting
is one aspect of reasoning.
Visual calculation on the other hand, gives room for seeing as well as for counting.

7
 Seeing and Counting

How does one calculate with shapes?

Urform II, George Stiny, 1970, acryclic on canvas 30 ins x 57

ins, blue, red, orange, yellow.

(7) Questions arise. How does one calculate with shapes? Do visual kinds of
thinking exclude calculation? Or does calculation reduced to counting exclude visual
and spatial kinds of thinking? Stiny argues that one has to really ‘see’ in order to
count and that ‘seeing’ is where creativity lies.

8
 Seeing and Counting

Counting requires discrete parts.

(8) As in the abacus, counting requires discrete parts.

9
 Seeing and Counting

(9) One can divide Urform II into smallest possible discrete bits, perhaps into dots
on the screen, each assigned with a different color code. This image shows a small
section of the imagined screen of dots.
These smallest primitives are countable but irrelevant in the perception of the
whole.

10
 Seeing and Counting

But the painting is not simply the sum of

discrete parts known beforehand.

(10) Alternatively, one can divide Urform II into some obvious parts, distinct
therefore countable. There are two of … However, the painting is possibly a much
more dynamically formed formal arrangement and is not simply a sum of discrete
parts that were known before hand.

11
 Seeing and Counting

One can see different parts to count.

(11) There are always some other parts to see. Moreover, these may be the
meaningful parts, or parts that are surprisingly merged with one another. In the
visual world, there are wholes that coexist, and they share parts, or parts of parts.
This image shows a part that is not readily there but can be seen.

12
 Seeing and Counting

Once seen, parts can be counted.

(12) Calculation then, is to see first, then count. Key idea. What we take for granted
is seeing. This way, we can calculate with different parts each time we look at
Urform II. The shape shown exists in ten instances in Urform II: one large, nine
small ones.

13
 Seeing and Counting

Varying parts and wholes coexist.

(13)

14
 Seeing and Counting

Parts and wholes coincide.

(14)

15
 Seeing and Counting

The shape grammar way of seeing and counting

is visual rules that tell: “see the left side and then
replace it with what is on the right.”

(15) Stiny and Gip’s explanation for the process behind the Urform series is a visual
rule that tells one to see the left side to replace it with the right side. The illustration
shows one such possible rule. These kinds of rules form the basis of shape
grammars.

16
 Seeing and Counting

I can see two instances of the shape on the

left side of the rule.

(16) This is how it basically works. Looking for the left side in an initial shape set, in
this case Urform I, one can see two instances of it.

17
 Seeing and Counting

I apply my rule to one of them.

(17) The second one is rotated 180o.

18
 Seeing and Counting

(18) The rule is applied to the second one shown.

19
 Seeing and Counting

Or to both.

(19) The rule is then applied to the first instance.

20
 A rule-based system

A → B

Shape grammars is a rule-based formalism.

Rules show the particular shapes to be replaced and
the manner in which they are replaced. The
marker shows how to align the two shapes.
Rather than “if A, then B,” visual rules say “see SHAPE1,
do SHAPE2.”

(20) Shape grammars is a rule-based formalism. This aspect is

picked up more easily. Applications…
A shape rule has two steps when applied: a recognition of a
particular shape shown on the left side and its possible
replacement shown on the right side.
The defined rule is operational. The arrow indicates an action.
The unique feature of a shape rule is that the left and right side are visually
considered. As opposed to symbols, shapes can be looked at and seen differently.
This is due to their inherent ambiguities.

21
 Useful Decompositions

(21) Because shapes are visual, they can be decomposed in infinitely many ways.
There should be no preconceived decompositions and primitives acquired through
such operations. Visual rules, which are subjective, will call for various
decompositions.
For example, let us look at one of the most popular examples Stiny (2006) gives to
explain why we need to be computing with visual rules. There is a shape, composed
of three triangles that will be rotated around its center. The only catch is, it will be
rotated by a rule that says “rotate triangle.”

22
 Useful Decompositions

(22)

23
 Useful Decompositions

The visual rule: rotate an equilateral triangle

180o around its center.

(23)

24
 Useful Decompositions

⇒ ⇒ ⇒

⇒ ⇒ ⇒

⇒ ⇒

Stiny’s nine-step computation where the initial shape

of “three triangles” is redefined as “two triangles” at
steps 4 and 6.

(24) In the nine step computation, Stiny shows that the initial definition of the shape,
that is ‘three triangles’, changes in step 4 and then back again in step 6.
Decompositions should not be timeless. The initial shape could have been drawn as
three triangles, six lines, or 9 lines. Whatever the history, a new definition can
always come up while working with shapes. What you see is what you get. This is
motivation to see more. Ambiguity should be maintained.
Any questions?

25
 The mathematical set-up

Shapes, Labels and Weights

Shape algebras
Boundaries of shapes
Part relations of shapes
Euclidean transformations
Maximal shapes
Boolean operations with shapes

(25) The mathematical set-up of the theory includes general definitions of shapes,
shape, weight and label algebras, shape boundaries, the most important of all part
relations, Euclidean transformations, maximal shapes, and Boolean operations with
shapes.

26
 Shapes, labels, weights

Basic elements of shapes are points, lines, planes,

and solids, with labels, if necessary, to give abstract
information about them, and weights, as indicators
of magnitudes of some formal attributes.

(26) Shapes can be points, lines, planes, solids or combinations of these. Shapes
also can have labels that indicate additional information about them and weights
that indicate the magnitude of some formal properties. Labels are useful for adding
more constraints necessary for tasks such as establishing the order in which rules
are applied in computations.

27
 Shape algebras

U0 0 U0 1 U0 2 U0 3
U1 1 U1 2 U1 3
U2 2 U2 3
U3 3

Shapes are categorized under different shape

algebras. The left index shows the dimension of
the basic elements, and the right index shows the
dimension in which these basic elements are
combined in shapes.

(27) Basic elements in shapes are categorized under different shape algebras. The
indices indicate the dimension of the basic element and the dimension of the space
in which these elements are combined and transformed.

28
 Shape algebras

U0 0 U0 1 U0 2 U0 3
U1 1 U1 2 U1 3
U2 2 U2 3
U3 3

Atomic algebras
(of points in space)

(28) All shape algebras that have 0 for the first index are atomic. A basic element
within these algebras can only be a point and has no parts other than itself. Beads
on the abacus belong here. Symbols (even if visual), for example, are elements of
these algebras and have a dimension of zero. Also, units that add up to a sum of
units belong in these algebras but in those that have the second index higher than
1.

29
 Shape algebras

U0 0 U0 1 U0 2 U0 3
U1 1 U1 2 U1 3
U2 2 U2 3
U3 3

Boolean algebra
(of zeroes and ones)

(29) The algebra where both indices are 0 is Boolean. There are only two values,
null and one. Something either is or is not.

30
 Shape algebras

U0 0 U0 1 U0 2 U0 3
U1 1 U1 2 U1 3
U2 2 U2 3
U3 3

Algebras with part relations

(30) All algebras with the indices equal to or larger than one, show different
properties than atomic algebras. They do not have atoms but shapes with parts
such as lines, planes, solids, etc. The number of members within a set in one of
those algebras does not have to be finite. For example, in algebra U11, on a line
space, there can be infinitely many lines of different lengths.

31
 Shape boundaries

Algebra Basic Number Boundary

elements of parts shapes

U0 j points finite none

U1 j lines infinite U0 j
U2 j planes infinite U1 j
U3 j solids infinite U2 j

(31) There is a clear relation between the categories of basic elements belonging to
different algebras. The boundaries of solids are plane shapes, the boundaries of
planes are line shapes, the boundaries of lines are points whereas points have no
boundary.
Number of parts is finite in point algebras, in others no… hence the ambiguities.

32
 Shape boundaries

U12 and U22 algebras are combined when utilizing

the relation between shapes and shapes on their
boundaries.

(32) Shape boundaries constitute a practical relation between shapes, which, in

turn, helps us in the way we visually think.
The rule in the illustration is in U12+U22 algebras combined. Parts of plane
boundaries appear as line shapes and are utilized in generating the final form with
planes.

33
 Part relations

Three types of part relations are those of

overlapping,
embedded, or
discrete shapes

(33) Part relations are what differentiates shapes from atoms. Three kinds of part
relations are between overlapping, embedding and discrete shapes.

34
 Part relations

discrete

(34) Planes with no shared boundaries are discrete.

35
 Part relations

(35) Shapes that share a common boundary but have no part in common are also
discrete.

36
 Part relations

(36) The two planes highlighted in slides 36 and 37 share a common boundary, but
share no plane parts.

37
 Part relations

discrete

(37) Thus they are discrete despite the common boundary.

38
 Part relations

overlapping

(38) Those shapes that share a common part overlap.

39
 Part relations

overlapping

(39) The two planes shown share a common part, and are overlapping. Both
shapes have parts that are not common with the other.

40
 Part relations

embedding

(40) Those shapes that share a common part overlap.

41
 Part relations

embedding

(41) If two shapes have common parts and at least one of these shapes has no part
that is not a part of the other, then this shape is said to be embedded within the
other. The darker shape is embedded within the larger and lighter colored shape.

42
 Euclidean transformations

Rotation
Translation
Mirror reflection
Scaling
…and combinations of these

(42) Euclidean transformations that are used in shape grammars are translation,
scaling, rotating and reflecting along with their combinations. In the example of the
painting, I can relocate the left side of the rule that I showed in so many places
using these transformations. I can scale it down and up, I can see its rotations, I can
see its reflections, and I can see it in multiple places, which are illustrated in slides
44 through 48.

43
 Euclidean transformations

(43) Let us start with any perceived shape within Urform II.

44
 Euclidean transformations

scaling

(44) I can identify it in a smaller size.

45
 Euclidean transformations

reflection

(45) I can identify it in a mirror reflection.

46
 Euclidean transformations

rotation

(46) I can identify it in a 90o counter clock wise rotation.

47
 Euclidean transformations

translation

(47) I can identify it in another location in the painting.

48
 Boolean operations on shapes

Sum
A+B
Difference
A–B
Product
A · B = A – (A – B)
Symmetric difference
A B = (A – B) + (B – A)
A B = (A + B) – (A · B)

(48) Within the defined shape algebras, we can add and subtract shapes of the
same kind of basic elements. We can also take their unions and products. This is
basically how we compute the visual rules.
We can combine algebras to do Boolean operations on different kinds of basic
elements in parallel.

49
 Boolean operations on shapes

Symmetric difference of two planar shapes

+ =

Sum of two line shapes

(49) Here are illustrations to possible Boolean operations on shapes based on the
Urform series. The first operation shows the symmetric difference of two plane
shapes of the same weight in U22 whereas the second operation shows the sum of
the boundaries of these two planes in U12.

50
 Boolean operations on shapes

(50) Let us assume that there are three initial shapes for another set of examples of
operations on shapes of equal weight value in U22.

51
 Boolean operations on shapes

- =

(51) Firstly, the difference of shapes one and two is calculated.

52
 Boolean operations on shapes

+ =

(52) Then, the sum of shapes two and three is calculated and…

53
 Boolean operations on shapes

- =

(53) … subtracted from the result of the first step.

54
 Boolean operations on shapes

. =

(54) Continuing with the operations, the product of shapes two and three …

55
 Boolean operations on shapes

(55) … is followed by the symmetric difference of the two.

56
 Boolean operations on shapes

+ + =

(56) The three shapes, newly emerged from these operations, are assigned
different weights and summed up.

Up until this point, we have shown how shape algebras, Boolean operations and
part relations all work separately for computing with shapes. In the next part, more
examples, from actual applications, will be utilized to illustrate these concepts
further and together.

57
 Mine Özkar Introduction to Shape Grammars | SIGGRAPH 2009

(57) Break

58
 What to do with it?

Mine Özkar Introduction to Shape Grammars | SIGGRAPH 2009

(1) In this section, we will dwell on a selected set of existing and possible
applications of the theory in various design related areas. In addition to architecture,
where it is most popular, there are quite a few different venues that shape
grammars are applied in, from crafting to brand identity, and from interaction design
to urban design. Examples usually are categorized as analysis, synthesis or a
combination of both approaches in design, all useful for different needs.
Additionally, examples can be viewed according to whether they primarily make use
of the rule-based approach (i.e. description of design decisions with rules and the
design process as computations with these rules) which is straight forward to
understand and apply from a systematic perspective, or of the unique formalism that
allows for part relation (embedding) in the application of rules (i.e. computation
without the need for predefined primitives and open to surprises). Looking at the
upcoming examples, I would like to encourage you to engage in seeing parts as
much as in understanding the recurring rules.

1
 The arts

FIGURE

Ilhan Koman, Rolling Lady out of metal foil, 1983 (on the left) and PI series, 1980-
1983 (on the right, photographed by Tayfun Tuncelli). Source: T. Akgun, A.
Koman and E. Akleman, 2006, Developable Sculptures of Ilhan Koman,
Proceedings of Bridges 2006, London.

(2) Exploring formal constructions in art are directly relevant to the explorations that
the theory of shape grammars dwells on and encourages. Ilhan Koman, a Turkish
artist who has lived and produced mostly in Sweden, has dedicated his life to the
systematic study of simple geometric forms and the variety attained from their
derivatives. He stands for a conscious artist persona whose work is teaching to
many art and design students on the pragmatic relation of art with mathematics and
geometry. His works are mostly cases of recurring spatial relations that transform.
The Rolling Lady is the display of two instances of a particular geometric shape
spatially connected to one another. The PI series explore the different degrees in
which a spatial relationship can be applied and that its recursions lead to various
results. Although Koman is not quoted for having utilized shape grammars, his
works showcase the theory from within the field.

2
 The arts

FIGURE

Richard Diebenkorn, Ocean Park No. 111, oil and charcoal on canvas, 336.2 x
336.7 cm (1978), and steps in its generation from the grammar. Source: Joan L.
Kirsch and Russell A. Kirsch, 1988,The Anatomy of Painting Style: Description with
Computer Rules, Leonardo, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 437-444.

(3) Russell Kirsch is not only known as the creator of the first digital image but also
as one of the earlier people who embraced the idea of a rule-based picture
grammar. In a study dating back to 1988, Kirsch and Kirsch analyze and define a
grammar for Diebenkorn’s Ocean Park painting series.

3
 The arts

Source: J. A. Martino, 2006, The Immediacy of the Artist's Mark in Shape

Computation: from Visualization to Representation. Doctoral Thesis. UMI Order
Number: AAI0809838., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (with permission of
the author)

(4) Focusing on the “fluidity of the artist’s mark” on the canvas and attributing due
value to seeing shapes as they are, Jacquelyn Martino identifies a curvilinear shape
grammar in analysing her own art work and process.
The art work presented here to sample the style is an early digital painting in the
Devotion series. On the right are three rules that show early phases of development
of another work of similar process.

4
 Cultural heritage

FIGURE

Source: Xiu Wu Huang, Cheryl Kolak Dudek, Lydia Sharman, Fred E. Szabo, 2005,
From Form to Content: Using Shape Grammars for Image Visualization, Ninth
International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV'05), pp.439-444.

(5) Understanding, preserving, continuing, reinterpreting and progressing processes

behind forms of cultural heritage is an important and developing application field for
shape grammar studies. These studies may employ both the analysis of design
corpus and synthesis of new designs if relevant to the context. Additionally,
developing computer aids for such analysis and synthesis is of great practical value.
In this example, we see a study that not only analyses a traditional craft of cloth
patterns, namely Kuba cloth, but also introduces the notion of “intelligent tracing” of
such forms and their spatial relations using computer visualization tools built in
Mathematica. The illustrations are of a sample Kuba cloth (on the left), initial
modular shapes (in the middle), and the Kuba grammar rules with left and right
hand sides (on the right).

5
 Cultural heritage

(6) Islamic patterns have been of interest to the Shape Grammars community for
some time. The studies so far dwell on the recursion of modules or tiles under
Euclidean transformations. The continuity, perhaps the most important theological
concept employed in these patterns, actually might be calling for a more thorough
analysis of varying parts and wholes in perception. These patterns are not only
works to be admired on facades of historic buildings or interior artifacts of various
material, but also systems of lines that showcase geometric construction to many
design students. Therefore the study of the process of how they are constructed,
not as tesselation of tiles according to one scholar argument, may be quite relevant
in synthesis of new ones.

6
 Cultural heritage

Source: Ö. Bakırer, 1981, Selçuklu Öncesi ve Selçuklu Dönemi Anadolu

Mimarisinde Tugla Kullanımı [The use of brick in Anatolian architecture in pre-
Seljuk and Seljuk era]. Ankara, Turkey, ODTÜ. (with permission of the author)

(7) Ömür Bakirer has observed in ancient documents that the patterns are
constructed based on regular tesselations of circles. This is a different approach
than identifying tiles that repeat. Lines are continuous and present different parts
and wholes to the eye.

7
 Cultural heritage

(8) The basic visual rule to build the tesselation of circles is that each new circle is
drawn with reference to an existing circle passing through its center, and at the
same time centering on its perimeter. If this rule application is not narrowed,
tesselations can be as varied as the group shown below the rule.

8
 Cultural heritage

(9) Nonetheless, circles are deterministically arranged, and overlaying grids of new
lines are constructed.

9
 Cultural heritage

(10) New lines are added as groups of them start making up the shapes of the final
pattern.

10
 Cultural heritage

(11) Alternatively new circle tesselations with circles of varying sizes can be
introduced.

11
 Cultural heritage

(12) In the abundance of what one can see, various polygons can also come forth.

12
 Cultural heritage

(13) The polygon in the previous slide is actually from an existing example carved in
stone. One can identify different repeating tiles, stars or polygons each time one
looks. Wholes keep changing to the eye. To approach these constructions as tilings
could be an underestimation in most cases.

13
 Cultural heritage

(14) There are more complex examples where tiles are not easy to read at all!

14
 Cultural heritage

FIGURE

Source: Peter J. Lu and Paul J. Steinhardt, 2007, Decagonal and Quasi-Crystalline

Tilings in Medieval Islamic Architecture, Science 315 (5815), pp. 1106-1110.
Supporting Online Material.

(15) A recent and most celebrated work on quasi-crystalline Islamic tilings highlight
the understanding of these patterns as tesselations of predefined units. The end
product however still allows for different readings of parts and wholes.

15
 Cultural heritage

(16) These patterns also exist in 3D and as structural architectural elements and not
just decoration. In muqarnas, units are pre-cut and carefully placed to form a
continuous inverted cascade.

16
 Cultural heritage

FIGURE

Source: Gülru Necipoğlu, 1995, The Topkapi Scroll—Geometry and Ornament in

Islamic Architecture, Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities,
Santa Monica, CA.

(17) In the infamous Topkapi Scroll, a documentation of the repertory of geometric

designs dating back to the 15th and 16th centuries, we see that the geometric
relations between units are pre-studied and documented in drawings that reveal the
geometric understanding behind them to guide the craftsmen in the manufacturing
of these designs.

17
 Cultural heritage

FIGURE

Source: Armen Ghazarian and Robert Ousterhout, 2001, A Muqarnas Drawing

from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during
the Middle Ages, Muqarnas, Vol. 18, pp. 141-154.

(18) Since most muqarnas are architectural elements that enclose spaces, full
understanding of their construction and possible synthesis of new designs may be
extremely relevant in restituting or restoring ruins. The photograph shows what is
left from a muqarnas in an Armenian church as an example to suggest that the
knowledge of its grammar might help in completing its missing parts.

18
 Procedural modeling of architecture

Sources: P. Müller, P. Wonka, S. Haegler, A. Ulmer, and L. Van Gool, 2006,

Procedural modeling of buildings. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3 (Jul. 2006), 614-623.
Y. I. Parish and P. Müller, 2001, Procedural modeling of cities. In Proceedings of
the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and interactive Techniques
SIGGRAPH '01. ACM, New York, NY, 301-308.

(19) Continuing on the thread of cultural heritage, another group of examples are
from modeling of architecture or urban environments. The procedural modeling of
Pompeii, as shown here, is one of the results of a study that may contribute to
understanding and appreciating historic built environments. The study, in fact, has
broader implications from building facades to building city structures such as roads,
or constructing virtual gaming environments. The models are based on context
sensitive shape grammar rules.
For more information and examples see
http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/~pmueller/wiki/CityEngine/Documents

19
 Procedural modeling of architecture

Source: M. Lipp, P. Wonka, and M. Wimmer, 2008, Interactive visual editing of

grammars for procedural architecture. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3 (Aug. 2008), 1-
10.

(20) Lipp, Wonka and Wimmer take the approach of procedural modeling to the
next level and allow for interaction to edit rulebases visually rather than through the
script.

20
 Mass-customized housing

FIGURE

Source: J P Duarte, 2005, Towards the mass customization of housing: the

grammar of Siza’s houses at Malagueira, Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 32(3), pp. 347-380.

(21) One of the well known applications of the theory of shape grammars in
architecture is the Siza grammars developed by Jose Duarte for mass customizing
social housing by a world renown Portugese architect. The project comprises of an
analysis of Siza’s Malagueira housing design corpus, developing its detailed shape
grammar that Siza himself is content about, and the synthesis of new designs in
which the users are actively involved through a computer interface.

21
 Mass-customized housing

FIGURE

Habitat for Humanity Housing Grammar, Kotsopoulos 2005

(22) In architecture, mass housing is a significant issue especially in developing

countries. Shape grammars that can help designers enumerate customized
alternatives without much cost are crucial in sustaining desired built environments
that meet standards at the least. Sotirios Kotsopoulos has also dwelled on this
notion in his entry for a Habitat for Humanity housing competition with a proposed
shape grammar.

22
 Mass-customized housing

FIGURE

Habitat for Humanity Housing Grammar, Kotsopoulos 2005

(23) Parametric rules for general massing of units, and modularity were key
elements of the proposal.

23
 Economy of architectural manufacturing

FIGURE

Source: M. Botha and L. Sass, 2006, Instant House: Design and digital fabrication
of housing for developing environments, CAADRIA 2006 [Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in
Asia] Kumamoto, Japan, pp. 209-216.

(24) Botha and Sass introduce mass customization in housing with elevated
concern for economy and environmental conditions. The grammars they utilize allow
for adaptation in designs based on changing conditions.

24
 Economy of architectural manufacturing

FIGURE

Source: M. Botha and L. Sass, 2006, Instant House: Design and digital fabrication
of housing for developing environments, CAADRIA 2006 [Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in
Asia] Kumamoto, Japan, pp. 209-216.

(25) Their approach also addressed fast and transportable housing production
needs in natural disaster emergency and poverty stricken locations.

25
 Economy of architectural manufacturing

FIGURE

Source: L. Sass, 2007, Synthesis of design production with integrated digital

fabrication, Automation in Construction, Vol. 16, No.03, pp. 298-310.

(26) Sass’s approach overall aims to integrate design synthesis based on changing
needs with digital fabrication for a low cost but customized production in the end.

26
 Economy of architectural manufacturing

FIGURE

Sources: L. Sass, 2005, A Wood Frame Grammar, Computer Aided Architectural

Design Futures 2005 [Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures Vienna, Austria, pp. 383-392.
L. Sass, 2007, Synthesis of design production with integrated digital fabrication,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 16, No.03, pp. 298-310.

(27) The wood frame grammar that is the construction system in these examples
was developed by Sass. The tables show, in part, the rule set of joints or how larger
parts come together (on the left) and the classification of building component types
and their relations (on the right).

27
 Classifying architectural form

FIGURE

Source: Naomi Ando, Nobuhiro Yamahata, Syuta Masumi, Masahiro Chatani,

2001, Shape Grammar and Form Properties of Architectural Figures, Journal for
Geometry and Graphics, Volume 5, No. 1, 23-33.

(28) Another application of the theory in relation with architecture is the attempt to
classify general architectural forms through a grammar based on a set of common
properties (of changing values).

28
 Building brand identity

FIGURE

Source: J.P. McCormack, J. Cagan and C.M. Vogel, 2004, Speaking the Buick
Language: Capturing, Understanding and Exploring Brand Identity with Shape
Grammars, Design Studies 25, pp. 1–29.

(29) In an application in the industrial design field, shape grammars are utilized to
showcase an established brand identity for Buick cars. In the figure above a sample
of novel Buicks are shown. The variety is created to address specific needs or
desires.

29
 Movement grammar in interaction design

FIGURE

Source: A. Asokan and J. Cagan, 2005, Defining cultural identities using

grammars: an exploration of "cultural languages" to create meaningful
experiences, Proceedings of the Conference on Designing for User Experiences
DUX05, pp. 2-11.

(30) Asokan and Cagan introduce the “movement grammar” for actions of coffee
drinking in a specific culture. They perform and analysis of movement rituals to form
a grammar, and use this grammar in the design of objects that are directly utilized in
the said actions. They address the unique notion of movement grammars, cultural
languages and interaction design simultaneously.

30
 Arts and Crafts

(31) To go back to the simple 2D shapes that we started with in the beginning of the
section, let us go back in time as well. The interest in how shapes are constructed
out of recurring parts or how they are decomposed into unprecedented parts has
existed for a long time. In A Theory of Pure Design, Ross, Harvard professor,
shows, in as early as 1907, how to construct various shapes out of parts. Source:
Denman W. Ross, 1907, A Theory of Pure Design: Harmony, Balance, Rhythm,
Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston and New York, p 25, 40, 41, 46, and 65.
The first shows varying distance in the spatial relation of points, the second shows a
symmetric group of mirror-reflected curvilinear parts, the third, fourth, and fifth show
transformations of arcs compiled in groups to bring about continuous forms. Ross
utilized this grammar and likes of it in creating wallpaper patterns as the one shown.

31
 Arts and Crafts

FIGURE

Source: Daniel Kornhauser, 2002, Designing a Craft Computing Environment for

Non-Industrial Settings, unpublished M.S. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

(32) One of Ross’s contemporaries, the Mexican artist Best Maugard, introduced a
basic vocabulary of shapes that Daniel Kornhauser puts to use in his research on
craft computing. Best Maugard writes, “The suggestions and rules that we will follow
are simple and easily understood by everyone. They are quickly grasped and
retained in the mind of the student. In this method, there are seven simple motifs
and signs, which we consider as fundamental, and a few rules to follow, and these,
once in the student’s memory, will enable him to make an infinite number of
combinations and designs…” See Adolfo Best-Maugard, 1926, A Method for
Creative Design, Alfred A. Knopf, New York and London, p 1-2. He aims to identify
a finite global vocabulary of basic elements and sees design as combinatorial
arrangement of these elements. His vocabulary is quite strict and limited compared
to Ross’s. Nonetheless, Kornhauser understands the value and utilizes this
vocabulary to develop spatial relations and rules that result in designs ready to be
crafted.

32
 Arts and Crafts

FIGURE

Source: Daniel Kornhauser, 2002, Designing a Craft Computing Environment for

Non-Industrial Settings, unpublished M.S. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

(33) Kornhauser shows the design and manufacturing process for a copper plate,
from the digital tool to the hand crafting.

33
 Arts and Crafts

FIGURE

Source: Daniel Kornhauser, 2002, Designing a Craft Computing Environment for

Non-Industrial Settings, unpublished M.S. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

(34) Kornhauser illustrates, through numerous screenshots, the digital crafting of a

spider web design.

34
 Understanding design possibilities
1 1 1 2 2

3 3 3 2 2

3 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 6

7 7 6 6 6

7 7 8 8 8

10 9 9 9 8

10 10 10 11 11
®
12 12 12 11 11

12 13 13 13 13

14 14 14 14 15

15 15 15 16 16

17 17 17 16 16

17 18 18 18 18

19 19 19 19 20

21 21 20 20 20

21 22 22 22 22

(35) The theory can also be utilized to introduce beginning design students to an
understanding of the design process in which decisions are traced, questioned,
exploited to the full extent of possibilities. In a very simple formal organization
exercise, the top left figure is an actual proposal to a given problem that asked for
the arrangement of 9 identical units in a square format. In a scenario where possible
spatial relations of two units are tried first (the visual rule given above), the complex
internal arrangement of the unit is reduced down to one line. Eight transformed
instances of this unit is given in the middle row. This reduced version already
provides many possibilities to try out. On the right, the alternate black and white
shadings are also introduced increasing the possibilities. The three layouts below
left, showcase different arrangements of just these pairings in a group of 9 units.
That the theory of shape grammars could be applied in design education to
demystify design processes in the eyes of the novice designer is perhaps among its
most valuable traits towards societies that are more design oriented.

35
 The End of the Introduction

Mine Özkar | SIGGRAPH 2009

(36)

36
 Part II – Recursion, Identity, Embedding

George Stiny Recursion, Identity, Embedding | SIGGRAPH 2009

Title page to Session II

(1) Recursion is the key to calculating in the way Turing and others recommend,
and a staple today in logic, linguistics, and computer science – in fact, wherever
calculating is tried. The way recursion works is clear when rules are used to
change arrangements of independent units or symbols in a combinatory process. In
this example, a rule made up of squares inscribes a small square in a big one. The
square in the left side of the rule occurs twice in the right side to provide another
place for the rule to apply again.
(2) The Russian constructivist Jacob Tchérnikhov uses the rule for squares and
another rule just like it for quadrilaterals in these designs in black and white.
(3) Rules and recursion define Chinese window grilles. These lattice designs
are called ice-rays.

5
(4) The rules for ice-rays divide polygons into polygons. The division rule
x → div(x) and the addition rule x → x’ + x’’ are equivalent, when div(x)
divides x into x’ and x’’. The polygons x, x’, and x’’ are always triangles,
quadrilaterals, or pentagons.

6
(5) The rules apply in this way to create an ice-ray lattice.

7
(6) This ice-ray was shown at SIGGRAPH 2008 in the first SIGGRAPH exhibit on
design and computation.
(7) Some ice-rays are produced in a definite way.

9
(8) Rules are applied from left to right. It’s the same in action painting when
up strokes and down strokes alternate across a surface.

10
(9) Rules make smaller divisions to add finer detail.

11
(10) Multiple divisions are also possible with tri-axial motifs, and motifs with
four, five, and six axes.

12
(11) In these ice-rays, there’s an initial division with a multi-axial motif.

13
(12) This ice-ray is also from the SIGGRAPH 2008 exhibit.
(13) It’s easy to define rules for symmetrical ice-rays and ones with other special
properties.
(14) This ice-ray lattice is created almost entirely with tri-axial divisions.

16
(15) The ice-ray is one of my favorites, because its divisions are so novel.
(16) Ice-rays modulate light and cast changing shadows.
(17) The recursive division/addition rules for ice-rays can be used in many
other ways, too. For example, the top figure is a painting by Georges
Vantongerloo, and the bottom figure is a plan by the architect Alvaro Siza.
Both have perpendicular divisions.

19
(18) This is a painting by Fritz Glarner. Angles vary, but not by much.

20
(19) These plans show the two floors in a medieval building in Venice.

21
(20) The ground floor has perpendicular divisions, and the upper floor has parallel
divisions. The plans look different because of this.
 Current systems are not only remarkably
inflexible, but tend to hang on to ontological
commitments more than is necessary. Thus Step 1
consider this sequence of computer
drawings. Suppose that the figure in step 2
was created by first drawing a square, then
duplicating it, as suggested in step 1, and
then placing the second square so as to
superimpose its left edge on the right edge
of the first one. If you or I were to draw this,
Step 2
we could coherently say: now let us take out
the middle vertical line, and leave a
rectangle with a 2:1 aspect ratio, as
suggested in step 3. But only recently have
we begun to know how to build systems that
support these kinds of multiple perspectives
on a single situation (even multiple Step 3
perspectives of much the same kind, let
alone perspectives in different, or even
incommensurable, conceptual schemes).

On the Origin of Objects

Brian Cantwell Smith (1998)

(21) Recursion may not be all there is to calculating when it comes to visual
experience. This is the problem shape grammars solved more than thirty years ago.
The key is to use recursion with embedding instead of identity – to calculate with
shapes by seeing and not with units or symbols by counting. This may go beyond
what Turing originally had in mind. It asks what calculating would be like if Turing
had been an artist/designer and not a logician. Embedding alters everything. One
shape is embedded in another shape if it can be cut out or traced. Units aren’t
defined in advance, because there’s no telling what they are ahead of calculating.
They change freely as rules are applied. This isn’t so with identity. Units are defined
once and for all at the start, in some sort of precalculating before rules are tried.
Units stay the same. In combination, they determine (limit) what there is to see and
how to go on. But this contrast may be misleading. Calculating isn’t a dichotomy: at
the very least, calculating by seeing includes calculating by counting, because
identity is a special case of embedding.
(22) These designs are created recursively by combining triangles. They’re the
units. The design f(n +1) is four copies of the design f(n), so triangles are times
four. If there’s a single triangle to start, f(n) = 4n. But visual experience may
disagree. How many triangles are in f(2)? There are 42 = 16 and 12 more. And
that’s not the half of it – what about the two squares in f(1), and the cross and 2 x 2
grid in f(2)? These new figures may be easier to see than triangles. They really
stand out. Can I calculate with them if triangles disappear? Where do the triangles
go?
(23) It’s true that f(3) = 64, but what does f(3) look like? Do you see any triangles?
How many? Four copies of f(2) are in f(3). Do the figures in f(2) stand out? In
general, 4m copies of f(n) are in f(n+m). Are these copies or the figures in them
obvious? Aren’t there other things to see? Is anything salient now a combination of
triangles or anything you’ve seen before? It’s easy to combine units in designs, but
the process is blind – it misses the variability in visual experience. Recursion and
identity go just so far. They’re visually incomplete. Embedding fills in the rest, so
that you can calculate with anything you see.
(24) There are two squares.
(25) Two squares are lots of things – four triangles, and also pentagons and
hexagons in various ways.
(26) A rule that translates polygons also rotates them! Polygons are
embedded in surprising ways that may ignore what you’ve done. There’s no
record of this to block your way, and nothing to remember. Anything you see
can be used to go on.

28
 A polygon is a closed plane figure with n sides.

n=3 n=4 n = 12 n=7

(27) How are polygons defined? Wikipedia gives a definition and helpful examples.
(28) Maybe these figures are polygons, too – pentagons and heptagons.
(29) Then there are K’s – big ones and little ones – like those in my
dictionary.

31
(30) Big K’s come in any size.
(31) There are just as many little k’s.
(32) Whether it’s for a big K or a little k, the series is dense. There are myriads to
see.
(33) Seeing makes a difference. Both of these building plans (diagrams) are based
on two squares, but they’re articulated in alternative ways to express different
things. The plans may even be opposites. One plan uses four K brackets to define
exterior walls and interior corners, while the other plan uses four triangular pieces
for exterior corners and interior walls.
(34) This is a lesson that’s taught in the third grade. It’s a plan or map of a
room. The schoolchildren draw it and describe what they find. There’s seeing
and saying.

36
(35) This is the key for the objects in the room. It’s a list of rules to see
what’s there. Are these rules shapes or symbols? Do they apply in terms of
embedding or identity? The lesson is a nice way to introduce such
questions, although educators may not know it. (This may be one of the
many times in school when children are expected to give up their fickle ways
and learn an adult answer, that is to say, to trade embedding for identity
(creativity for greater certainty) as rules are tried. Then it seems that the
purpose of education is to limit what there is to see and take what little
remains seriously. The loss of ambiguity and breadth may make
communication and shared understanding easier – some value to the
community is undeniable – but the cost is too high if you aren’t free to look
again. Calculating with shapes and rules – seeing – doesn’t work by rote.
It’s an open-ended process that’s independent of what you’ve done or may
remember. What you see may change erratically at any time. It’s always a
surprise!)

37
(36) How many tables are in the drawing? How many desks? How can you
tell? What do you see? What did my daughter say when she was asked to
count tables and desks? How did I reply? What answer did the teacher
expect? Are there other ways to do this? When do embedding and identity
agree?

Tables Desks Rules

Teacher 2 1 Symbols (identity)
Catherine 3 1 Shapes (embedding + isometry)
Dad 5 4 Shapes (embedding + similarity)

38
(37) This is another kind of Chinese window grille based on a checkerboard
lattice. The squares in a grid are filled with H’s that go this way or that on
alternating diagonals.

39
(38) Here are more examples of the same kind of lattice design.

40
(39) These are the motifs that are used in the squares in the underlying grid.
They alternate horizontally and vertically, and may be easier to find than H’s.

41
(40) What do you see? Is this merely a checkerboard?

42
(41) A vector field goes through the lattice from left to right. It’s for everyone to see.
(42) Maybe the forces are in equilibrium.
(43) No, it’s an illusion! What a neat way to go from physics to a trick of perception.
With embedding, you can change your mind about what you see every time you
look.
(44) Seeing never ends. Look again.

46
(45) It may help to erase the grid to create a new lattice design.

47
(46) The lattice is an array of squares.
(47) The lattice is a tessellation of Greek crosses in a figure-ground reversal.
(48) Is this a checkerboard lattice?

50
(49) The grid is rotated 45°, and a new motif is oriented left or right on
diagonals. This is an effective way to create a checkerboard lattice, but
there’s usually more to calculate once the lattice is done. It’s easy to go on
with embedding.

51
(50) What do you see? Maybe octagons, octagon-squares, and
supplementary squares – but surely, not a checkerboard. The grid and the
motif have disappeared.

52
(51) This is a Palladian villa plan. It uses the same kinds of rules that are used for
Chinese window lattices. The same rules can do all sorts of different things.
(52) This partial catalog shows 20 possible plans.
(53) All of these plans were created by the rules. Palladio designed some of them.
Can you guess which ones? Even the experts are fooled. The confusion is telling!
(54) A rule to translate polygons rotates them when rules are defined with
embedding. There are other ways to calculate like this, too, in the same
family of shapes.

56
(55) A rule that rotates triangles about their centers keeps these points fixed.
But the rule also rotates a pinwheel, so that these points change. This can’t
be right. Is it a new paradox? It isn’t something to think about, it’s something
to see.

57
(56) This is the way the rule is used to calculate. Three triangles are two,
and two triangles are three when there’s embedding. Isn’t this cheating?

58
(57) Hierarchies are a seductive way to show how things work by dividing them into
independent parts and mapping their relationships. Hierarchies take work – they
make your brain hum – and they reward the effort with an aura of understanding.
Many find hierarchies indispensible. They make things memorable and
comprehensible. Rules also define hierarchies when they apply recursively. But
this may be a clumsy and disappointing way to describe what’s going on with
embedding, because then things change. Parts aren’t independent – they fuse and
divide freely, with scant regard for what they were before. Nonetheless, comparing
alternative hierarchies may help to show how complicated it can be to turn seeing
into counting when you calculate.
(58) An erasing rule defines rival hierarchies for the same shape. There are three
triangles or two in the way I’ve been calculating.
(59) This is how the triangles in the hierarchies are related. What these triangles
have in common divides them retrospectively to define finer units that are consistent
with both hierarchies and that augment them.
(60) This is how to change one hierarchy into another. The graphs are isomorphic –
the one shows the switch from three triangles to two, while the other goes from two
triangles to three. It may get complicated when units are moved around. There are
apt to be knots and tangles. But this kind of thinking is tedious and unnecessary. It’s
much easier to see three triangles or two, to switch what you see whenever you like
without worrying about what units there are and where they go. That’s the value of
embedding. Units and hierarchies never get in the way. They aren’t needed to
calculate, and they aren’t needed to see.
(61) Here’s another example with triangles and squares.
(62) Four triangles are two squares, and vice versa. With embedding, it’s easy to
switch back and forth at any time. But with identity, this isn’t as straightforward. It’s
hard to find the units that allow for this kind of change, especially before calculating
begins. How do you know that triangles are going to be squares or anything else –
maybe pentagons, hexagons, or K’s? You may need the prior ability to calculate
with shapes and embedding in order to define the units you need to calculate with
identity – either that, or a special kind of prescience. Or maybe calculating with
embedding is merely pseudo-calculating. You do it to learn how to calculate. But
then, what’s the point of calculating if you already know the answer? Perhaps it’s to
save time and effort doing the same kind of problem again. Ice-rays are like that,
and so are checkerboard lattices. Of course, creating these designs is only a start.
There’s always something new to see. In art and design, it’s hard just to do it again
and not to see and do more.
(63) These are the hierarchies for four triangles and two squares.
(64) This is the way the triangles and squares in the hierarchies match up to define
finer units to add to the hierarchies.
(65) This is the way the hierarchies are changed one into the other. It’s a little more
complicated than it was before with three triangles and two, but the pattern is clear.
(66) The two previous examples open an ongoing series of triangles, triangles and
squares, triangles and pentagons, etc.
(67) The shapes in the series can be elaborated with rules. The number of different
ways of seeing the shapes in each row in terms of triangles, triangles and squares,
triangles and pentagons, etc. grows exponentially – the number of ways for the n-th
shape is the n-th Fibonacci number, when Fibonacci numbers go 1, 2, 3, ⋅⋅⋅ . Of
course, there are other polygons in the shapes, and many other surprises, too, that
may pop in and out of view. There’s no dismissing any of this without serious risk.
It’s impossible to tell in advance what will be of use or when it might be needed.
(68) These are some of the simple rules I’ve been using with embedding to
calculate with shapes.
(69) Twin lattices order various types of rules for art and design. Whatever
creativity implies is possible when recursion and embedding are used
together to calculate. For example, it’s easy to do everything on the fly, to
change what you see as you go on in a visual kind of improvisation.

71
(70) Paul Klee did this drawing – it’s a “palm-leaf umbrella.” But it looks more
like a fan. Try using the rules in the first lattice to make it. Is this easier to do
with the rules in the second lattice?

72
 RECURSION + IDENTITY
Zero-dimensional units, letters and words

RECURSION + EMBEDDING
Higher dimensional elements, shapes

(71) Recursion plus embedding (calculating by seeing in the artist’s/designer’s way)

includes recursion plus identity (calculating by counting in Turing’s way). Calculating
by seeing extends calculating by counting. The inverse of this relationship is
something to think about, too. Can recursion plus identity do (simulate) everything
that recursion plus embedding does? This is an open question worth trying. But
perhaps there’s no complete answer, just many ad hoc ones. For example, the
answer is yes for shapes made up of points, lines, planes, and solids in the
algebras Uij, and their extensions with labels (numbers, symbols, etc.) and weights
(colors, materials, properties, etc.) in the algebras Vij and W ij. This is a good start,
and, in fact, it covers a lot. If you need more, there are also affirmative answers for
conics, and cubic curves and surfaces. Or better yet, add to this list!

73
(72) Don’t forget Klee’s drawing! Try the rules – they really work.

74
 The End

George Stiny Recursion, Identity, Embedding | SIGGRAPH 2009

(73) Break
 SHAPE GRAMMARS
SIGGRAPH 2009 Course

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Main reference
Stiny, George, 2006, Shape, MIT Press

References

Akgun, T, Koman, A, and Akleman, E., 2006, Developable Sculptures of Ilhan Koman,
Proceedings of Bridges 2006, London.

Ando, N, Yamahata, N, Masumi, S, Chatani, M, 2001, Shape Grammar and Form

Properties of Architectural Figures, Journal for Geometry and Graphics, Volume 5, No. 1,
23-33.

Asokan, A and Cagan, J, 2005, Defining cultural identities using grammars: an exploration
of "cultural languages" to create meaningful experiences, Proceedings of the
Conference on Designing for User Experiences DUX05, pp. 2-11.

Bakırer, Ö., 1981, Selçuklu Öncesi ve Selçuklu Dönemi Anadolu Mimarisinde Tugla
Kullanımı [The use of brick in Anatolian architecture in pre-Seljuk and Seljuk era]. Ankara,
Turkey, ODTÜ.

Best-Maugard, A, 1926, A Method for Creative Design, Alfred A. Knopf, New York and
London, p 1-2.

Botha, M, Sass, L, 2006, Instant House: Design and digital fabrication of housing for
developing environments, CAADRIA 2006 [Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia] Kumamoto,
Japan, pp. 209-216.

Duarte, J P, 2005, Towards the customization of mass-housing: the grammar of Siza’s

houses at Malagueira, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, pp. 347-380

Ghazarian, A and Ousterhout, R, 2001, A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century

Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages, Muqarnas, Vol.
18, pp. 141-154.

Huang, X W, Kolak Dudek, C, Sharman, L, Szabo, F E, 2005, From Form to Content: Using
Shape Grammars for Image Visualization, Ninth International Conference on Information
Visualisation (IV'05), pp.439-444.

Kirsch, J L and Kirsch, R A, 1988, The Anatomy of Painting Style: Description with Computer
Rules, Leonardo, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 437-444.

Kornhauser, D, 2002, Designing a Craft Computing Environment for Non-Industrial Settings,

unpublished M.S. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Lipp, M, Wonka, P, and Wimmer, M, 2008, Interactive visual editing of grammars for
procedural architecture. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3 (Aug. 2008), 1-10.

Lu, P J, and Steinhardt, P J, 2007, Decagonal and Quasi-Crystalline Tilings in Medieval

Islamic Architecture, Science 315 (5815), pp. 1106-1110. Supporting Online Material.

Martino, J A, 2006, The Immediacy of the Artist's Mark in Shape Computation: from
Visualization to Representation. Doctoral Thesis. UMI Order Number: AAI0809838.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

McCormack, J P, Cagan, J, and Vogel, C M, 2004, Speaking the Buick Language:

Capturing, Understanding and Exploring Brand Identity with Shape Grammars, Design
Studies 25, pp. 1–29.

Müller, P, Wonka, P, Haegler, S, Ulmer, A, and Van Gool, L, 2006, Procedural modeling of
buildings. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3 (Jul. 2006), 614-623.

Necipoğlu, G, 1995, The Topkapi Scroll—Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture,

Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica, CA.

Parish, Y I and Müller, P, 2001, Procedural modeling of cities. In Proceedings of the 28th
Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and interactive Techniques SIGGRAPH '01.
ACM, New York, NY, 301-308.

Ross, D W, 1907, A Theory of Pure Design: Harmony, Balance, Rhythm, Houghton, Mifflin
and Company, Boston and New York.

Sass, L, 2005, A Wood Frame Grammar, Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures
2005 [Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Aided
Architectural Design Futures Vienna, Austria, pp. 383-392.

Sass, L, 2007, Synthesis of design production with integrated digital fabrication,

Automation in Construction, Vol. 16, No.03, pp. 298-310.

Stiny, G and Gips, J, 1972, Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification, Petrocelli
OR (ed) Best computer papers of 1971, pp. 125-135

Suggested readings

Chase, S, 2005, Generative design tools for novice designers: Issues for selection,
Automation in Construction 14 (6), pp. 689-698.

Chomsky, N. 1957, Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague

Flemming, U, 1987a, More than the sum of parts: the grammar of Queen Anne houses,
Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design 14 pp. 323-350

Flemming, U, 1990, Syntactic Structures in Architecture, The Electronic Design Studio, MIT
Press, Cambridge pp. 31-47

Knight, T, 1980, The generation of Hepplewhite-style chair back designs, Environment and
Planning B: Planning andDesign 7 pp. 227-238
Knight, T, 1986, ‘Transformation of the Meander Motif on Greek Geometric Pottery’
Design Computing 1 pp. 29-67

Knight, T, 1989, ‘Transformations of De Stijl art: the paintings of Georges Vantongerloo and
Fritz Glarner’ Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 16 pp. 51-98

Koning H, and Eizenberg, J, 1981, The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie
houses, Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 8 pp. 295-323

Kotsopoulos, S D, Constructing Design Concepts: A computational approach to the

synthesis of architectural form, Doctorate Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

McGill, M C, 2002, Shaper2D: visual software for learning shape grammars, in: K.
Koszewski, S. Wrona (Eds.), Design e-ducation: Connecting the Real and the Virtual,
Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural
Design in Europe, eCAADe, Warsaw, pp. 148– 151.

Prats, M, Earl, C, Garner, S and Jowers, I, 2006, Shape exploration of designs in a style:
Toward generation of product designs, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis and Manufacturing 20, pp. 201–215.

Sass, L, 2007, A Palladian construction grammar-design reasoning with shape grammars

and rapid prototyping Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34 pp. 87-106

Stiny, G and Mitchell, W J, 1978, The Palladian grammar, Environment and Planning B 5
pp. 5-18

Stiny, G, 1977, Ice-ray: a note on Chinese lattice designs, Environment and Planning B4
pp. 89-98

Stiny, G, 1980, Kindergarten grammars: designing with Froebel’s building gifts,

Environment and Planning B 3, pp. 409-462

Tapia, M, 1999, A visual implementation of a shape grammar system, Environment and

Planning. B, Planning and Design 26 (1), pp. 59– 73.

Wang, Y, Duarte, J P, 2002, Automatic generation and fabrication of designs,

Automation in Construction 11 (3), pp. 291– 302.