• Part of
    Ubiquity Network logo
    Submit a journal article Submit a book proposal

    Read Chapter
  • No readable formats available
  • Greg Lynn’s Embryological House Project: The “Technology” and Metaphors of Metorsmof Architecture

    Karen Burns

    Chapter from the book: Architecture Schools in Australasia, A. 2007. Association of Architecture Schools in Australasia.


    This paper offers a close reading of one architectural text engaged in “knowledge transfer”: the use of evolutionary biology discourse as an explanatory account and authority claim supporting Greg Lynn’s Embryological House Project (2000). This essay addresses the twin conference themes of knowledge transfer and the potential threat posed to the specificity of architectural techniques. By offering a detailed reading, this paper argues that information transfer is not an innocuous activity, but involves the critical transformation of source material. This paper argues that technology transfer should acknowledge the workings of an ever-present technology, the “technology of architecture”. This term designates the set of techniques governing the reworking of material from domains exterior to architecture, into material pliable for architecture. In this paper architecture’s evolutionary theory borrowings, provides an exemplary instance of information transfer marked by displacement, not straightforward transmission.

    Chapter Metrics:

    How to cite this chapter
    Burns, K. 2007. Greg Lynn’s Embryological House Project: The “Technology” and Metaphors of Metorsmof Architecture. In: Architecture Schools in Australasia, A (ed.), Association of Architecture Schools in Australasia. Sydney: UTS ePRESS. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/aab.q

    This is an Open Access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (unless stated otherwise), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Copyright is retained by the author(s).

    Peer Review Information

    This book has been peer reviewed. See our Peer Review Policies for more information.

    Additional Information

    Published on Sept. 27, 2007


    comments powered by Disqus