The complex still has plenty of awkward aspects (navigation, very closed, etc) but it is fun. One thing that hit me after reading https://x.com/culturaltutor/status/2062154740947993085 was noticing the materials. We are at Tate Modern today, and again I notice the materials.

Materials do not have to be complex to have character. https://x.com/culturaltutor/status/2062155030451339748 But I think we like complex materials more, because they are rich in subtle detail that is not arbitrary.

Diamondoid foams would be lighter and not as thermally conductive (a pure diamond building would be cold). Add a fractal trabecular structure, and there will also be texture. Since this is microscopic it would turn into optical, acoustic and tactile properties.

Compare to topological optimization; it has a very characteristic style. Here it is just shape, but we could imagine materials microstructured like this, and then gaining surface finishes of a particular kind.

Connecting back to the Foresight legacy: in a world where we can create entirely new materials, how do we make them honest and beautiful?

Suppose I want to make "diamond concrete" out of diamondoid. Blocks of pure diamond have obvious character and uses, perhaps with impurities for color. But homogeneity is boring.

There is still plenty of choice and arbitrariness here. But if one aims for utility and use a generative system of a certain kind, I bet that this family of materials would gain character like wood: recognizable, individual, variable.

There are many useful materials that look boring. Much of material beauty comes from selecting the families of material that are beautiful because of their intrinsic properties. So future beautiful materials may be more defined by generative styles and mechanisms.