Grammars for Making Revisited

  • Djordje KrsticEmail author
Conference paper


The domain of shape grammars has been recently extended to include the field of making. This paper examines what makes abstract shapes look like concrete spatial entities (things) and what changes to the shape grammar formalism are needed to support calculations with things. Several new grammars capable of handling things are developed. Algebras supporting these are briefly addressed as well.


  1. 1.
    Knight TW, Stiny G (2015) Making grammars: from computing with shapes to computing with things. Des Stud 41:8–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stiny G (1990) What is a design. Environ Plann B Plann Des 17:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krstic D (2014) Algebras of shapes revisited. In: Gero JS (ed) DCC’12. Springer Science + Business Media B. V, pp 361–376Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlson C, Woodbury R, McKelvey R (1991) An introduction to structure and structure grammars. Environ Plann B Plann Des 18:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krstic D (2001) Algebras and grammars for shapes and their boundaries. Environ Plann B Plann Des 17:97–103Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Earl CF (1997) Shape boundaries. Environ Plann B Plann Des 17:669–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krstic D (2017) From shape computations to shape decompositions. In: Gero JS (ed) DCC’16. Springer Science + Business Media B. V, pp 361–376Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knight TW (1994) Transformations in design: a formal approach to stylistic change and innovation in visual arts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stiny G (1996) Useless rules. Environ Plann B Plann & Des 23:235–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stiny G (2012) What rule(s) should I use? Nexus Network J 13:15–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stiny G (1992) Weights. Environ Plann B Plann Des 19:413–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stiny G (1994) Shape rules: closure, continuity, and emergence. Environ Plann B Plann Des 21:S49–S78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krstic D (2005) Shape decompositions and their algebras. AIEDAM 19:261–276Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knight TW (2017) Craft, performance, and grammars. In: 2nd International workshop on cultural DNAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BioSig TechnologiesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations