See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249562528

Metadesign as an Emergent Design Culture

Article  in  Leonardo · August 2005

DOI: 10.1162/0024094054762098

CITATIONS READS
32 733

1 author:

Elisa Giaccardi
Delft University of Technology
89 PUBLICATIONS   1,742 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research through Design for Values   View project

Meedoen = Groeien! View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elisa Giaccardi on 15 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

T H E O R E T I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E

Metadesign as an
Emergent Design Culture

Elisa Giaccardi
ABSTRACT

E very time the word metadesign is used, it causes

even more confusion than the word design. The term seems
vague, elusive. Semantically, the principal meaning of the
of integrating systems and setting
actions in order to create environ-
ments in which people may culti-
T he concept of metadesign
was adopted in the 1980s
regarding the use of information
technologies in relation to art,
cultural theories and design
practices (from interactive art
Greek word meta- when used as a prefix is “change of place, vate “creative conversations” and to biotechnological design). This
order, or nature” [1]. Historically, since the 1960s, the term take control of the context of their article introduces theories and
metadesign has been used to focus on the possibilities of “de- cultural and aesthetic production practices of metadesign and
contributes to the unfolding of
signing the design”—possibilities that later, in the 1980s, were (Fig. 1).
metadesign as an emergent
realized by using information technologies. In the last two Some years later, in his 1995 essay design culture, calling for an
decades, the idea of metadesign has appeared as both a theo- “Networked Art and Virtual Com- expansion of the creative
retical issue and an operational methodology; however, it has munities” [4], Derrick De Kerck- process in the new design
always been an isolated concept, producing neither an estab- hove defined metadesign as a space engendered by informa-
tion technologies.
lished approach nor a coherent theory. The development of quality of the new art forms that
the notion of metadesign can be categorized as critical and were emerging over the Web in its
reflexive thinking about the boundaries and scope of design, early years. According to De Kerck-
aimed at coping with the complexity of natural human inter- hove, metadesign is the kind of de-
action made tangible by technology. Metadesign seeks to trans- sign that puts the tools rather than the object of design in the
form this complexity into an opportunity for new forms of users’ hands, and defines the conditions for the process of in-
creativity and sociability. This text aims at tracing the devel- teraction rather than the process itself. However, in subsequent
opment of the notion of metadesign and the multiplicity of writings [5], De Kerckhove has addressed metadesign as a
its definitions by offering a map of correlated concepts and es- model of design actually mediated by digital networks rather
tablishing the foundations of metadesign as a distinct and than an emerging quality of design promoted by art experi-
emergent design culture. mentation. As such, metadesign can be described as the de-
sign of tools, parameters and operating conditions that allow
an infinite flexibility in tailoring the industrial product and
METADESIGN IN ARTISTIC enable the end-user to take charge of the final design by choos-
AND CULTURAL DEBATE ing among many different options.
Within the artistic and cultural debate, the idea of metadesign In the same period, Paul Virilio expressed shock at Stelarc’s
has primarily addressed the emergence of digital networks and techno-performances. In his book The Art of the Motor [6], pub-
biotechnologies. Both represent alternatives to “juridical” lished in 1995, Virilio wrote that he feared the advent of a neu-
models of communication, interaction and life—as embodied rological form of design directed at shaping our perceptual
by mass media and moral law. and cognitive systems via information processing and further
In 1986, at the time of the emergence of advanced tele- directed at reorganizing the organic according to a machinic
communications and the first virtual communities, Gene model. He called the aftermath of this “technomorphization”
Youngblood wrote “Metadesign: Toward a Postmodernism of of society “metadesign.”
Reconstruction” for Ars Electronica [2]. Inspired by the pio- Biologist Humberto Maturana refuted the idea that such a
neering work of Kit Galloway and Sherrie Rabinowitz [3], process of adaptation to electronic media can ever take place
Youngblood defined metadesign as a strategy for instigating a in his emblematic 1997 paper “Metadesign” [7]. In this paper,
revolution in the communication world and overcoming the Maturana argued that if a process of metadesign as design of
broadcasting style of mass culture. As such, metadesign deals living systems does exist, this enlarges the issue of design to
with the creation of context rather than content; it is a mode include the nature of our very existence, and it implies an
epistemological and ethical rethinking of the relations be-
tween human beings and technology. He strongly disputed any
Elisa Giaccardi (theorist, researcher, designer), Center for LifeLong Learning and Design deterministic understanding of biological evolution, and there-
(L3D), University of Colorado, ECOT 717, 430 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0430, U.S.A.
E-mail: <giaccard@cs.colorado.edu>. Web: <http://x2.i-dat.org/~eg/>.
fore of “human design.” From Maturana’s perspective, meta-
design is a dynamic work of art: It produces an aesthetic
experience of the world that is intertwined with our social and
Article Frontispiece. NOX, V2_Lab, 1998. (© NOX Architects) By technological present. Like art, metadesign has the potential
means of their metadesign technique, NOX Architects adapt archi-
to open up new relational dimensions and create a grounding
tecture to evolution. Their architecture is an interface for a dynamic
organization of space in which visitors act upon architectural struc- reality in the course of human history.
tures that respond in real time to their needs. The social construction of reality is for Maturana—from a

©2005 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 342–349, 2005 343
design perspective—an ethical impera-
tive, as it is for Youngblood [8] and Gal-
loway and Rabinowitz [9]. On this point,
Eugene Thacker, in a workshop paper,
“Bioethics and Bio-ethics,” for the 2002
conference “Towards Human Technolo-
gies” [10], explicitly tackled the question
of biotechnological design and bioethics.
In this paper, Thacker tried to clarify that
even though metadesign is a kind of de-
sign that is not instrumental, but ethical,
it is nevertheless not based on a moral
law. Metadesign must allow a social mode
of existence that is flexible and based on
mutual processes of affecting and being
affected rather than on a juridical model.
According to Thacker, metadesign repre-
sents a critical and creative investigation
into the possibilities of transformation of
human beings and culture.
The ideas expressed around the last
decades of the 20th century by these few
but crucial theoretical writings on meta-
design—reflecting on the scope, bound-
aries and qualities of the expanded
design space that is engendered by in-
formation technologies—have found
some conceptual frameworks and opera-
tive methodologies in several application
domains. These ideas combine here with
design theory and methodology with
promising results.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
AND PRACTICES OF
METADESIGN
The notion of metadesign has been ap-
plied in many fields, including graphic
design, industrial design, information ar-
chitecture and system design. These ap-
plications have focused differently on the
concepts associated with metadesign,
ranging from processes of high-order de-
sign to participation and co-evolution.
However, these concepts are often tied
together.
The idea of reflexive thinking about
design has been commonly translated in
the application field as the “design of a
design process.” In graphic design and
industrial design, in particular, metade-
sign has primarily been connected to the
idea of working with computational
structures on a higher level of design
[11]. Because a computational object has
a discrete structure, parts of the object
can be easily accessed, modified and sub-
stituted by other parts; it is not fixed and
it can be generated and manipulated
without actually drawing it. In this con-
text, metadesign can be associated with
the passage from traditional typography
to interface design [12]. John Maeda
[13], in a series of short essays published
in Japan for MdN Magazine in 1995, men-

Fig. 1. Mobile Image, Electronic Cafe International, 1984. (© Kit Galloway and Sherrie Rabinowitz) An early example of a metadesign
environment, ECI was a telecommunications system characterized as an accessible, flexible and end-user-modifiable system that allowed
users the greatest possible freedom to design and control their own information environments.

344 Giaccardi, Metadesign


Fig. 2. John Maeda, reactive graphics, 1995. (© John Maeda) Maeda’s metadesign technique
allows generation of visual experiences that involve the viewers in the creation of the form
by responding to their inputs in real time.
tioned the concept of metadesign in re-
lation to his idea of graphic design not
as printed image but as “reactive” com-
puter programs (Fig. 2). In architec-
ture, similarly, Lars Spuybroek promotes
metadesign techniques [14] as tools for
constructing dynamic spaces where peo-
ple can unpredictably and creatively
interact with their environment (Arti-
cle Frontispiece, Fig. 3 and Color Plate F
No. 2).
Considering the capability of code to
define “transformation rules,” Celestino
Fig. 3. NOX, V2_Lab, 1998.
(© NOX Architects) Lars
Spuybroek and colleagues
progress seamlessly from a
computer-generated process
of forces, vectors and springs
to the flowing transition—for
instance, between floor and
tables—allowing people to
interact with their environment
in a more open and creative
manner.
Soddu has addressed metadesign as the
design of an “artificial DNA” since 1989
[15]. In his work, the objective is the de-
sign of “species of design”: the designer
is the producer of an “executable idea”
(the generative code), and the consumer
is the one who chooses one of its possi-
ble realizations. The creative process de-
fines a “seed” able to generate endless
variations recognizable as belonging to
the same idea but open to change by the
client. Thus, the final consumer will
choose from this endless sequence of
variations the result that better fits his or
her needs and subjectivity (Fig. 4). Like
De Kerckhove [16], Soddu empowers the
user as consumer, making him or her
proactive, but does not question the
user’s passive role as designer. Evolution
here is the result of the execution of a no-
tation and its exploration, rather than
the aftermath of the user’s full partici-
pation in the creative process. In this gen-
erative process model, the “seed” can be
defined and modified only by the de-
signer.
In the last few years, two organizations
have been working on frameworks and
applications of metadesign: the Labo-
ratory for Architecture and Urbanism
(Lab[au]), a collective of artists, archi-
tects and computer scientists based in
Brussels; and the Center for LifeLong
Learning and Design (L3D) of the Uni-
versity of Colorado at Boulder. These two
organizations have developed research
agendas that incorporate most of the
aforementioned theoretical statements
and operational methodologies.
Lab[au] has adopted the term metade-
sign with the objective of enacting a new
discipline of information architecture
[17]. For Lab[au], metadesign is a mat-
ter of the setting of codes that allow data
to be organized in spatial and temporal
forms—that is, a design process of a
higher order. Participation and evolu-
tion, however, are important. The inte-
gration of user interaction over time is a
key element in the collective’s work, and
it represents an active component in
the structuring of information itself. Sim-
Giaccardi, Metadesign 345
Fig. 4. Celestino Soddu, Generated architectures to increase the Hong Kong identity, 2002. (© Celestino Soddu) In this metaproject, a mayor can
customize the “morphogenetic code” of evolution for his or her town and use it to control the future identity of the local environment.
ilar to Galloway and Rabinowitz [18],
Lab[au] focuses on the construction of
electronic spaces, viewing information
not as content but as an environment in
which users’ perceptual and cognitive ca-
pabilities can be expanded (Fig. 5).
At the Center for LifeLong Learning
and Design, however, metadesign seems
to have undergone a conceptual and op-
erational development that places it
in the context of current debate in de-
sign theory and methodology. Gerhard
Fischer and his colleagues, particularly
in the last few years [19], have consis-
tently focused on metadesign. Concep-
tually, metadesign represents to them the
question of how to create new media and
environments that allow users, when
needed and desired, to act as designers
and be creative. By providing users with
social and technical support, the envi-
ronments designed at L3D are intended
to sustain users as the actual “owners of
problems” [20]. Operationally, meta-
design is viewed at L3D as a design
methodology characterized by activities,
346 Giaccardi, Metadesign
processes and techniques focused on cre-
ating socio-technical environments that
empower users actively and collabora-
tively to engage with the original de-
signer(s) in the continuous development
of a system and to design solutions that
range from the creation of content to the
modification of code (Fig. 6). The con-
ceptual framework developed at L3D re-
flects some important objectives shared
with user-centered and participatory de-
sign, but it transcends these objectives by
changing the processes by which systems
and content are designed. To Fischer and
his colleagues, it is clear that existing de-
sign frameworks and methodologies are
insufficient to cope with the emergent as-
pects of reality and to support creative
practices [21].
UNFOLDING METADESIGN
AS AN EMERGENT DESIGN
CULTURE
By tracing a conceptual map of metade-
sign theories and applications, we can see
that some elements emerge as crucial: a
focus on the design of general structures
and processes, rather than on fixed ob-
jects and contents; the need for methods
and techniques that are fluid, rather than
prescriptive (such as diagramming or
seeding [22]); the call for environments
that can evolve; and the necessity of re-
lational settings that allow systems to be
based on a mutual and open process of
affecting and being affected.
Considering the current debate in de-
sign theory and methodology, we see that
the contours of this map reveal a
thoughtful reflection on controversial de-
sign issues, such as the problems of an-
ticipation, participation and emergence
[23]. Users’ needs and tasks, as well as sit-
uations and behaviors, cannot be fully an-
ticipated at design time because they are
ill-defined and change over time. There-
fore, users need to be engaged in the
problem-framing/problem-solving pro-
cess, both when the system is designed
and when the system is used. Keeping the
system open to participation and evolu-
Fig. 5. Lab[au], i-Tube, 1999. (© Lab[au]) A metadesign environment, this project proposes a graphical user interface and a navigation
system for on-line databanks based on cartographies that display information as a process-oriented and generative space. Information
is transformed into membranes that are then folded into space according to user-defined parameters and behaviors.
tion at use time is meant to join social and
technical systems, not only to make them
optimized and efficient, but also to let
new conditions, interactions and rela-
tionships emerge. In this way—by sus-
taining emergence and evolution—new
forms of sociability and creativity can de-
velop and innovation can be fostered.
The focus of metadesign on the success-
ful integration of methodologies of de-
sign by anticipation, participation and
emergence translates into the identifica-
tion of a multidimensional design space
[24].
Whereas operational similarities show
metadesign to be a consistent develop-
ment in design theory and methodology,
the cultural path that metadesign theo-
ries and applications reveal is not unidi-
rectional. On one side, metadesign has
been considered as a networked model
of design aimed at product refinement,
personalization and mass customization.
According to this approach, metadesign
is conceived as a new praxis of design that
does not question the role of the user in
the process of production as consumer
but rather empowers the user in this role.
This development relies on operational
assumptions about metadesign, but it
does not fully achieve its potential as a
new design culture. On the other side,
and more interestingly, metadesign has
been conceived as co-creation: a shared
design endeavor aimed at sustaining
emergence, evolution and adaptation.
According to this development, the op-
erational terms and potential of design-
ing at a higher-order level must be joined
to a more reflexive and collaborative
practice of design.
Art practice and cultural debate have significant and based on a similar call for
been extremely active in promoting the expansion of human creativity. Some
metadesign as a reflexive method of overlaps, in particular, are interesting
thinking about and beyond design, and can be pointed out as further indi-
rather than as a new praxis of design cations of how metadesign actually ex-
[25]. The idea of metadesign developed presses the emergence of a new culture,
by Yevgeny N. Lazarev and colleagues somehow at the convergence of art and
as a result of a reflection on the emerg- design. The idea of the interactive artist
ing relationships among art, technology as a “systems designer,” for instance, elab-
and science is another case. Concerned orated by Margot Lovejoy in her book
with an expansion of human creativity, Postmodern Currents: Art and Artists in the
Lazarev writes: Age of Electronic Media [27], recalls Gal-
loway and Rabinowitz’s [28] idea of
The specific perspectives of metadesign the metadesigner as a “systems integra-
are hard to define since it is quite a new
phenomenon. But one can already see tor.” Even more interestingly, some ideas
an exceptional vitality in this trend, expressed by Roy Ascott in his article
whether it remains within the domain of “The A-Z of Interactive Arts” [29] recall
design or transforms into a phenomenon the operational methodology typical of
of human creativity that has never ex-
isted or been possible before [26].
metadesign: the idea of “seeding,” de-
fined as a way of designing that should re-
The connections between metadesign, place top-down designing; the idea of a
telematic culture and interactive art are “non-trivial interactivity,” conceived as an
Fig. 6. L3D, The Seeding, Evolutionary Growth, and Reseeding (SER) Process Model.
(© L3D, University of Colorado) This process model is applied to the metadesign environ-
ments developed at L3D in order to integrate “design time” and “use time,” and to allow
users to act as designers at different stages of the continuous development of a system.
Giaccardi, Metadesign 347
open-ended and infinite interactivity
capable of accommodating always-new
variables; and the idea of “open-ended
systems” (OES), in which interaction
takes place within networked and evolv-
ing systems that put the user or the envi-
ronment in control of the interaction
itself.
IS METADESIGN A WORK OF
ART OR A WORK OF SCIENCE?
This paper introduces and promotes
metadesign not simply as a new design
methodology, but as a cultural develop-
ment exploring the new design space en-
gendered by information technologies
and ultimately concerned with expand-
ing the creative process of emergence
and invention of the world.
Metadesign represents a cultural shift
from design as “planning” to design as
“seeding.” By promoting collaborative
and transformational practices of design
that can support new modes of human
interaction and sustain an expansion of
the creative process, metadesign is de-
veloping toward new ways of under-
standing and planning with the goal of
producing more open and evolving sys-
tems of interaction. Metadesign can be
seen not only as a design approach in-
forming a specific design methodology
for the development of interactive media
and environments but also as a form of
cultural strategy informing and integrat-
ing different domains. Rather than a new
model of design, metadesign represents a
constructive mode of design: an en-
hancement of the creative process at the
convergence of “art” and “science.”
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank (in alphabetical order):
Manuel Abendroth, Ernesto Arias, Marco Brizzi, Hal
Eden, Gerhard Fischer, Kit Galloway, John Maeda,
Anders Mörch, NOX, Jonathan Ostwald, Sherrie Ra-
binowitz, Celestino Soddu, Yunwen Ye and the re-
viewers.
References and Notes
1. See terms such as metalinguistics and metadata, but
also metamorphosis.
2. Gene Youngblood, “Metadesign: Toward a Post-
modernism of Reconstruction,” in Ars Electronica Cat-
alog (Linz, Austria: Linzer Veranstaltungsgesellschaft,
1986), <http://www.aec.at/en/archives/festival_
einstieg.asp>.
3. See <http://www.ecafe.com/>.
4. Derrick De Kerckhove, “Networked Art and Vir-
tual Communities,” in Claude Faure et al., eds., Ars-
lab: I Sensi del Virtuale (Milan, Italy: Fabbri Editore,
1995) pp. 103–110.
5. See in particular Derrick De Kerckhove, Connected
Intelligence: The Arrival of the Web Society (Toronto, On-
tario: Somerville House, 1997).
348 Giaccardi, Metadesign
6. Paul Virilio, The Art of the Motor, Julie Rose, trans.
(Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press,
1995).
7. Available at <http://www.hum.auc.dk/~rasand/
Artikler/metadesign.htm>.
8. Youngblood [2].
9. See [3].
10. Eugene Thacker, “Bioethics and Bio-ethics,” in
Towards Human Technologies Conference (Brisbane, Aus-
tralia: University of Queensland, 2002) <http://
www.uq.edu.au/gsm/Confpapers/thacker1.doc>;
see also Eugene Thacker, Biomedia (Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2004).
11. In industrial design, for instance, metadesign is
primarily used to mean the construction of a tem-
plate that makes a product “that thing” without ac-
tually designing it.
12. I owe this consideration to Lev Manovich, with
whom I had a short e-mail correspondence on the
relationships between metadesign and interface de-
sign.
13. See <http://www.maedastudio.com/>.
14. See in particular Lars Spuybroek and Cho Im Sik,
“Diagramming: Lars Spuybroek Interviewed by Cho
Im Sik,” in R.S. Vasudevan et al., eds., Sarai Reader
02: The Cities of Everyday Life (Delhi, India: Sarai—
The New Media Initiative; Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands: Society for Old and New Media, 2002) pp.
243–248.
15. Soddu first adopted the term metadesign in his
book Città Aleatorie (Milan, Italy: Masson Editore,
1989). Later, he started to substitute the term argenic
design for metadesign. The Generative Art conference,
which he has organized annually since 1998, gathers
artists and designers who adopt and question metade-
sign from a generative perspective; see <http://
www.generativeart.com>.
16. See De Kerckhove [4] and [5].
17. See in particular Lab[au], “MetaDeSign: The Set-
ting of a Discipline,” in l’ARCA, No. 178 (February
2003) pp. 2–5. See also <http://www.lab-au.com>.
18. See [3].
19. See in particular Gerhard Fischer and Elisa Gi-
accardi, “Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future
of End User Development,” in H. Lieberman et al.,
eds., End User Development: Empowering People to Flex-
ibly Employ Advanced Information and Communication
Technology (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, in press).
20. For an understanding of the set of concerns sur-
rounding the development of a metadesign frame-
work at L3D, see in particular Gerhard Fischer,
“Social Creativity, Symmetry of Ignorance and Meta-
Design,” in Linda Candy and Ernest Edmonds, eds.,
Proceedings of the Third Conference on Creativity & Cog-
nition (New York, NY: ACM Press, 1999) pp. 116–123;
see also Ernesto Arias et al., “Transcending the In-
dividual Human Mind: Creating Shared Under-
standing through Collaborative Design,” in J. Carroll,
ed., Human Computer Interaction in the New Millennium
(New York, NY: ACM Press; Boston, MA: Addison-
Wesley, 2001) pp. 347–372.
21. See Elisa Giaccardi and Gerhard Fischer, “Cre-
ativity and Evolution: A Metadesign Perspective,” in
the Sixth International Conference of the European
Academy of Design (EAD06) on Design, System, Evo-
lution (Bremen, Germany: University of the Arts,
29–31 March 2005).
22. From a metadesign perspective, seeding is a par-
ticipatory and evolutionary technique that allows the
modification of a system and its adaptation to users’
emerging needs. The SER Process Model (Fig. 6) ar-
ticulates this technique in three different stages
(Seeding, Evolutionary Growth, Reseeding).
23. For a more detailed description of the design is-
sues raised by metadesign, see Elisa Giaccardi, Prin-
ciples of Metadesign: Processes and Levels of Co-Creation
in the New Design Space, Ph.D. diss. (Plymouth, U.K.:
CAiiA-STAR, University of Plymouth, 2004).
24. For a more detailed description of the design
space entailed by metadesign, see Giaccardi [23].
25. Here, “reflexive” is used to indicate not only the
critical attitude of reflecting upon oneself, but also
the process of transformation that such a behavior
involves.
26. Yevgeny N. Lazarev, “The Art of Metadesign,”
Leonardo 27, No. 5, 423–425 (1994) p. 425.
27. Margot Lovejoy, Postmodern Currents: Art and
Artists in the Age of Electronic Media, 2nd Ed. (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997).
28. See [3].
29. Roy Ascott, “The A-Z of Interactive Arts,” Leonardo
Electronic Almanac 3, No. 9 (September 1995),
<http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/LEA/TEXT/
Vol_3/lea_v3_n09.txt>.
30. Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences and the Artificial
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969).
31. Here I mean “making” in general—that is, any
human activity where some kind of production is im-
plied.
32. Richard Buchanan and Victor Margolin, eds., Dis-
covering Design: Explorations in Design Studies (Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
33. Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences and the Artificial,
3rd Rev. Version (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).
Glossary
co-creation—the emergent process of constructing
and sharing intelligent and meaningful activities, ex-
pressed by a socio-technical environment conceptu-
alized as a complex system.
co-evolution—the evolution of a socio-technical en-
vironment conceived as a living entity, by which
changes of each participant in the interaction process
(either the software or the human subjects, variously
organized) influence the evolution of the other par-
ticipants. In metadesign, co-evolution can occur by
either gradual or disruptive adaptation.
design—generally conceived as the conception and
planning of the artificial (or the invented) as a nor-
mative form of science (“how things ought to be”)
in contrast to natural sciences (“how things are”)
[30]. Design is better defined today as an inquiry and
experimentation in the activity of “making” [31].
That is, design is a humanistic enterprise in which
the subject matter is not fixed [32] and is meant
to allow us to envision possibilities and elaborate
them (“how things might be”) in order to enable
people to experience the world in more and richer
ways [33].
emergence—the stage of metadesign in which plan-
ning is superseded by participation and the open
processes of co-evolution and co-creation. The pro-
motion of tacit knowledge and situated action—and
consequently new forms of creativity and sociabil-
ity—is crucial at this stage.
evolutionary design—evolutionary design can be ei-
ther generative or interactive—that is, it can rely on
either the absolute autonomy of the software or the
human guidance of the process; the further devel-
opment of an initial “seed” (or a structure created by
the seed) to adapt it to needs that were not accounted
for in the original design. It aims at the best possible
solutions through cycles of either parameterization
or exploration.
generative design—the design of a piece of software
(“seed”) capable of autonomously generating design
proposals by notation and execution. It allows the
 generation of endless variations recognizable as be-
longing to the same designer.
metadesign—conceived as the design of a “metapro-
ject,” metadesign shares with generative and evolu-
tionary design the focus on the design of initial
conditions or “seeds.” In this sense, it methodolog-
ically comprises both generative and evolutionary
design. However, metadesign transcends them by in-
corporating the principles of participation and emer-
gence and by changing the way in which systems and
content are designed (see co-evolution and co-creation).
Manuscript received 7 June 2004.
Elisa Giaccardi has a background that brings
together humanities, media and design. An
abstract of her doctoral dissertation is avail-
able on LABS at: <http://leonardolabs.
pomona.edu/>. She is currently a Research As-
sociate at the Center for LifeLong Learning
and Design (L3D), University of Colorado at
Boulder. In her work, Giaccardi combines in-
teraction design, media arts and cultural
management. She has lectured and published
on several occasions and she is a member of
editorial boards and committees for MIT Press,
ACM and The European Journal of Higher
Arts Education. Her interdisciplinary research
in the convergence of communication tech-
nologies and the humanities was awarded the
European grant “Ideas for the Future” by Fon-
dazione Eni Enrico Mattei in 2001.

A WORD OF THANKS

Thanks to Our Supporters

Leonardo Codex Sforza Monument La Gioconda Flying Machine

($5,000 and above) (The Bronze Horse) (Mona Lisa) ($250 to $499)
The California Tamarack Foundation ($1,000 to $4,999) ($500 to $999) Ray Bradbury
College of Extended Learning, Martin Anderson Lars Ole Belhage George Gessert
San Francisco State University Art Science Research Lab James D. Burke Oliver Grau
CRSS Architects Lisa Bornstein Una Dora Copley Curtis Karnow
The Ford Foundation Donna Cox Arana Greenberg Ed Payne and Liss Fain
Interval Research Corporation Creative Disturbance Rosemary Jackson Mark Resch
Roger Malina Char Davies Alan Malina Eric Roll
The Malina Trust The Daniel Langlois Foundation Michael Punt Sonia Sheridan
Rockefeller Foundation Penny Finnie Isabel Maxwell Christian Simm
The San Francisco Art Institute Steve Forestieri Merrill Lynch Foundation Darlene Tong
Al Smith Intel Corporation Emanuel Nadler Jonathan Willard
U.S. National Endowment for the Arts Marjorie Malina Sam Okoshken Barbara Lee Williams
Christine Malina-Maxwell Joel Silverman
Sonya Rapoport
Itsuo Sakane
School of the Art Institute
of Chicago
Martin Segal
Makepeace Tsao
Rhode Island School of Design
University of Plymouth, U.K.
University of Texas at Dallas

Angel
($249 and under) Steve Dietz Zdenek Kocib Beverly Reiser
Aaron Alpar Augus Dorbie Kenji Kohiyama Ron Rocco
Charles Ames Hubert Duprat Thomas Kostusiak David Rosenboom
Art Science Collaborations Inc. Elmer Duncan Kathleen Laziza Peter Rudolfi
(ASCI) Michele Emmer Levi Family Foundation Mr. and Mrs. Robert Russett
Roy Ascott Lawrence Fane Guy Levrier Colin Sanderson
Yasuhiro Asoo William Fawley Carl Machover Piero Scaruffi
Bret Battey Theodosia Ferguson William Marchant Patricia Search
Marc Battier John Fobes Delle Maxwell Edward Shanken
Mark and Lauren Beam Alan & Mickey Friedman Elliot Mazer Allan Shields
Patricia Bentson Ryozo Fujii Kevin Meehan Gregory C. Shubin
Timothy Binkley David Gamper Minneapolis College of Leonard Shlain
Anna Campbell Bliss Jonathan & Donna R. Gennick Art & Design Joel Slayton
Deborah Branton Ken Goldberg Mit Mitropoulos John Slorp
Bettina Brendel Pamela Grant-Ryan Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton Kirill Sokolov
Robert A. Brown Michael Joaquin Grey Jacques Mandelbrojt Rejane Spitz
Ronald Brown Karen Guzak Jason Monberg Anait Stephens
Willi Bruns Isabel Hayden Roger Mulkey Robert Strizich
Leif Brush Craig Harris Frieder Nake The Sun Microsystems
Annick Bureaud Linda Dalrymple Henderson Barbara Nessim Foundation, Inc.
David Carrier Margaret Hermann Alex Nicoloff Tamiko Thiel
Rosa Casarez-Levison Doris Herrick Greg Niemeyer Rodrigo B. Toledo
Katherine Casida Lynn Hershman Hiroshi Ninomiya Heinz Trauboth
Joel Chadabe Estate of Dick Higgins Jack Ox Mark Tribe
Richard Clar Anthony Hill Elaine Petschek Joan Truckenbrod
Computer Art Studio/Gunter Schulz Toshiyuki Hiruma Anne Brooks Pfister Roman Verostko
Holly Crawford Gerald Holton Victor A. Pickett Alexandre Vitkine
Ivo Cristante Hungarian University Sheila Pinkel Natalie & Mark Whitson
Elizabeth Crumley of Crafts & Design Ann Pizzorusso Alan Thompson & Sharon A.
Mary & Michael Cunningam Amy Ione Frank Popper Widmayer
Danish Film Festival Raymond Jurgens Herbert & Joan Webster Price Richard A. Wilson
Bob Davis Eduardo Kac Patric Prince Stephen Wilson
Goery Delacote Robert Kadesch Wolf Rainer Gary Zellerbach
Lily Diaz Melinda Klayman Harry Rand Robert Zimmerman
Emma Lou Diemer Ken Knowlton Trudy Reagan

Giaccardi, Metadesign 349

View publication stats