Parametric and Algorithmic Design: Faux Forms?

Parametric and Algorithmic Design: Faux Forms? Architecture is often practiced in a world dominated by the many, the client or the public and in many cases only understood by the few. Architecture has been relatively unsuccessful at moving forward with the world often failing to relate and communicate with cultural shifts, changing ways of life and the advancement of technology. Where other design related practices such as the automotive industry have blossomed, re seeded, re grown and regenerated with shifts in the way people live and the technology of the present, architecture seems to have floundered. As a result architects currently work in an environment employing century old technologies, with a client market which avoids risks to personal gain at all cost and a public which often still sees the president seen in architectural history as the very form of a relevant architectural future. The masses seem bewildered by the possibilities presented by the possibilities of the present. Even fellow practitioners and academics with in the architectural discipline would appear to be slightly taken aback by the possibilities now available to us. Not just on a technological level, but the impact that these new techniques ma have on the very basics of architectural theory and form. This brings me to my question Parametric and Algorithmic Design: Faux Forms or a Relevant Architecture? Computer aided design changed many design orientated professions such as the automotive and aeronautical industries as far back as the 1980s when they were first properly developed. A digital revolution if you will. Compare this to architecture where production and design still use techniques, theory and knowledge developed during the industrial revolution. Although the majority, if not all architects do use some form of computer aided design techniques the boundaries can still be pushed further. Processes such as BIM (building information modelling) are starting to become a real force in architectural design in places such as the USA. BIM is a process where the architect does not simply draw a line as with traditional drawing techniques or with programs such as AutoCAD (which to an extent, is simply a digital version of a traditional drawing) but instead when an architect draws a line, he draws a wall, with the possibility to combine this information with a limitless selection of pr operties be they size, cost, structural or how they relate to other members in a design. BIM begins to hand back the title of Master Craftsman to the architect, where the architect can see how design develops as a whole and make changes accordingly. Parametric and algorithmic architectures are currently at the forefront of the BIM architectural thinking, they are the products of the few created using advanced computer scripting techniques and individually written pieces of software. Using the latest design technologies available to us, combining this with the modern materials and production techniques often developed in fields which have embraced the digital revolution more openly, parametric and algorithmic design can begin to challenge cultural, technological and historical boundaries which architects have maybe failed to fully challenge in the recent past. Parametric design is a process based not n fixed metric quantities such as traditional design but instead, based a consistent network of relationships between individual objects, the bricks are different but they are connected with the same bond. This allows changes to a single element whilst working with other components within a system. In a similar way to that of parametric design, developments in scripting have allowed for algorithmic design processes to advance. These allow complex forms to be grown from simple methods while preserving specific qualities. In the most basic sense, a user defines a set of rules, and the software would arrange the form according to the rules. If parametric design is a method for control and manipulation of design elements within a network of any scale, algorithmic design is a system and objects producing complex form based on simple component rules. With the combination of these methods, principles, modern production techniques and materials parametric and algorithmic architectures have the potential to push architecture, beyond doubt into the 21st century. Age old architectural problems and theory such as form vs. material and form vs. function can begin to be solved in new ways, construction times can be reduced, materials can be managed more efficiently, and building qualities can be improved significantly. In the analysis and comparison of two projects utilising parametric and algorithmic architectural design principles, I aim to fully understand how relevant these forms and methods of producing architecture really are when compared to their traditional counterparts. I have selected my examples from opposite ends of the architectural scale size wise, but from a similar family of traditional public architectural type form, analysing how relevant the parametric forms are in relation to different situations and settings. My first investigation, looks at a temporary theatre located within the site of Corbusiers Carpenter Centre A collaboration between architecture Firm MOS studios and artist Pierre Huyghe, selected for its truly unique location and its contemporary play on the more traditional theatre / pavilion / bandstand form. Theatres are traditionally very grand buildings, for thousands of years they have been part of human culture with forms as far back as ancient Greece still found in theatre design. This coupled with its band stand / park pavilion like size associated with formal pavilions form around the Victorian age made the project particularly interesting. The challenge for MOS studios was to produce a take on the theatre whilst reacting appropriately to its location in what is an extremely prominent place. The design in basic form is similar to that of any regular theatre with raked seating, unhindered viewing and high-quality acoustics but it was with the use of parametric processes that a theatre which corresponds to the individual conditions of the site has been produced. The theatre sits in the underbelly of the Carpenter Centre by Le Corbusier, commissioned to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the building. Corbusiers Carpenter centre is the centre for the visual arts at Harvard University, MA. Completed in 1942 the building is the only building ever completed by Corbusier in the United States of America and the last to be completed during his life time although he never actually visited the building due to ill health. The building corresponds with Corbusiers five points of architecture (as seen in the Villa Savoye, France) with interior elements such as the ramp, a dominant feature, exploding out from the inside of the building providing an s shaped walkway continuing into the environment. Curved partitions also extend through the main walls of the building in to the surrounding areas swinging to and from the pilotis which support them. This creates a series of interpenetrating interior and exterior events running along the promenade ramp. Within the design of the Carpenter Centre you can see the elements of projects spanning the entire career of Corbusier modified and adapted into this building. The puppet theatre itself, like Corbusiers Carpenter Centre, was designed with a set of parameters or architectural rules if will. These parameters were derived from a given brief and limitations of the space created by the Carpenter centre itself. To avoid damaging the Carpenter Centre no contact with either the ceiling or the buildings supporting structural systems was permitted. Therefore, fitting the puppet theatre in between these important structural barriers became key. The architect has described the theatre as an organ placed in a new host, it has a feel similar but not exactly that of a parasitic structure. Is seems not to be taking away, leaching from the Carpenter, but adding to it, giving it new life as though it really is a new organ, a new heart. This imagery is reinforced in the choice of materials for the theatre, further expressing the feel of new life. The main self supporting structure is a polycarbonate, clad on the outside with a moss. The moss adds heat and noi se insulation, absorbing sound from the nearby street with sound quality being of paramount importance in practicality of a working theatre. At night light from within the theatre glows through the light polycarbonate moss giving a green glow, as if it really is a new organ, a new hub from which life stems into the Carpenter Centre. The rounded form of the theatre was produced though the parametric manipulation of elongated diamond shaped panel units, each one individual in form, each one connected through the same set of parameters. This parametric manipulation was created through the limitations of site, the need for self supporting structural integrity, the use and the restrictions of fabrication processes during production. The ultimate form is therefore created through a system of analysis where the most efficient form was deduced using the parametric system. Most of the theatre was prefabricated and assembled off site. The elongated diamonds were designed to be produced from a single flat piece of polycarbonate minimising both manufacturing times and wasted materials. Each of the 500 pieces was CAM cut, before being folded into three dimensional forms with points drilled to connect each of the diamond forms. The entire structure could then be assembled by connecting the panels using simple tools. The use o f simple hand tools meant that the theatre could rapidly be assembled and dissembled, suitable to the temporary nature of the structure, it was imperative that the structure could not only be dissembled, but left no permanent trace of its construction on the carpenter centre. This again was made possible through the use of parametric design. Each panel is 3 in depth and spans over 15 at the centre; they were stiffened with a foam insert to help with rigidity with the combination of strategic panels being placed inside out, thus acting as key stones. These strategic inside out keystone panels also act as skylights, allowing light to travel both in to and out of the theatre. When assembled the panels dissipate forces around the skin of the theatre, creating the self supporting monocoque structure. The monocoque structure mean that mo permanent fixings or structural supports had to be made with the Carpenter Centre, therefore the puppet theatre became connected through its relevance as a design but remained separate as a structural object. With the puppet theatre sitting in a sunken exterior courtyard underneath the Carpenter Centre, the change in level of 1.25m between the street side and the courtyard had to be addressed, and so this became one of the key parameters in the design. This was overcome by incorporating the 1.25m change in level in to the raked theatre seating, with the actual performance stage sitting at the lower level of the courtyard. As you enter the puppet theatre at street level, the elongated diamond forms combine with the change in height and almost surreal sizing of the puppet theatre itself to creating a visual illusion, a false perspective. This invites the visitor into the theatre with a sense of magic and curiosity, drawing the eyes towards the stage end where the parametric boundary lines of the diamond forms stop abruptly with the introduction of the stage. The use of this optical illusion helps to reinforce the sense of theatre, a sense of magic that I feel could be easily have been misse d or overlooked with the use of other materials or construction techniques. You could maybe say that similar forms could have been created in concrete or wood, but then the all important play of light created by the polycarbonate panels chosen would have been missed. With the combination of material and parametric design theatre is actually incorporated into the design of the structure. The Glossy polycarbonate panels also reflect light, creating an ambient glowing light during performances, with the only lighting coming from the puppet show itself, this transforms the theatre into a glowing lantern at night, projecting its energy onto the bare barren concrete surfaces of the Carpenter Centre. It seems to work well in a juxtaposition between the high-tech nature of the design and the connection created with what is a very ancient form of entertainment, connected by lighting which would seem to draw you in a similar way to that of a candle light. During the day the reflectance is reversed when the natural light brings the exterior surroundings into the puppet theatre, this focuses the attention on what is happening in the outside world, the walls almost become the walls of an aboriginal cave, telling the stories of the exterior world as they are happening. This connection to the outside world through the reflectance of light is reinforced by the framing of a single t ree which sits beyond the entrance of the theatre. It frames the view with some purpose whilst creating a sense that the tree could possibly ask as some barrier, a limit to the boundary of the theatres threshold. Through extensive analysis and research this theatre and its host building, the carpenter centre I believe that this truly is a remarkable form, an excellent piece of design. The theatre works with and answers to every one of its parametric challenges. Through the use of parametric design I feel that a form has been created that would otherwise never have been imagined or realised. The organic form of the theatre, created using very non organic production techniques answers to the brief on so many levels. It creates this new heart, new hub for the Carpenter Centre. It does not try and mimic the great modernist architecture used by Corbusier himself, but in no regard does it fight against it, it somehow moves in to an architecture beyond, with each individual member of the theatre being very geometric, but arranged in an intelligent way, produce a form which is more organic. Neither structures the same but they do work together. The puppet theatre design speaks of the Carpenter centre today; it speaks not of the architecture and the Carpenter Centre of the past, but the architecture, the people and the Carpenter Centre of the future. The architects could have chosen so many different approaches to producing a pavilion of sort on this site but Im positive they would have struggled to produce a design that overall worked more responsively with the entirety of the design challenge presented. The second example of parametric architecture that I have analysed is the Mercedes Benz Museum, Un Studio, Stuttgart 2005 with parametric and algorithmic working by Designtoproduction. This example of parametric design was selected not for its obviously parametric appearance but for the way in which parametric modelling combined with BIM was used in the construction and design of what can only be seen as a truly revolutionary building. Today the majority of the worlds exceptional historical, cultural and artistic pieces of are all in place, the future of the museum, as seen with this, the Mercedes Benz museum, lies with those who can fully communicate a specialist collection, what they are about and where they came from. They have the capability to stimulate a culture much more than a generalist collection, the works, the cars in the museum coud be seen to speak much more of the people that the majority of todays art. This is where the use of parametric design can be seen to influen ce and completely communicate the work of Mercedes in a new way. The importance of museum design has been at the forefront of architectural thinking since Frank Lloyd Wright first challenged the plan of the museum with the design of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York, 1969. Since then museum has been challenged again and again by a multitude of architects such as Renzo Piano Richard Rodgers with The Pompidou Centre, Paris, 1977 and Daniel Libeskind with the Jewish Museum, Berlin, opened 2001. The Mercedes Benz Museum can be seen to relate to all of these examples in its pursuit to step forward away from the regular, to challenge the spaces, circulation paths and forms of a museum, to create a museum of purpose. The success of a museum depends upon the inventiveness of its internal arrangement, spaces created and its ability to exhibit artefacts within these spaces in a relevant way. The museum will / has become famous not only in the continuing line of challenging museum architecture starting with buildings such as Frank Lloyd Wrights Guggenheim in New York but for putting the digital design process firmly on the map. Stuttgart is home of the Mercedes Benz brand, and so with the need of a new museum, UN studios were chosen to redesign a new museum on a new site close to the main gateway to the city, where the old museum had previously been located in a dedicated building within the actual Mercedes factory. The design is based on a concept involving the over laying of three circular forms in plan with the removal of the central space creating a triangular shaped building height atrium area. In section the building raises over eight floors in a double helix form, maximising space and providing 16,500 square meters of useable space on a relatively small footprint. Originally the brief brought to UN studio suggested that the building should be no more than two storeys high with worries that any more height in the building may cause complications with exhibits, for example the manoeuvring and exhibiting of lorries, circulation problems around such large pieces and structural integrity of the building w ith extremely heavy exhibit loads. With the site being situated so close to a major motorway it was soon suggested by UN studios that the building should be taller relating to the close situation to the motorway, seeing that problems such as circulation and weight of exhibits could be overcome with the correct knowledge and attitude towards the project. The circulation system used in the Mercedes Benz Museum s similar to that used in the pompidou centre Paris, with the circulation running around the external facade of the building. In a similar way, the circulation can be seen to draw clear links with the ramp like circulation of the Guggenheim New York. The main difference with both of these buildings is that the Mercedes Benz museum has, through advanced construction techniques combined with the use of parametric modelling is able to convey the main forces applied to the building to a structural core through floor slabs rather than perimeter, therefore fully liberating the facade and plan of the building. The visitor enters the building on the ground floor where they are met by the vast scale of the open atrium. This ground floor is home to the general facilities expected of a large museum; reception, gift shop and cafe but it is where the tour begins that the form really takes a leap forward. The museum is designed so the visitor is transported to the eighth and top floor of the building before working their way down double helix form ramps on a tour that would take approximately six hours to complete in entirety. Transportation to the top floor is a celebration in movement itself, the visitor is transported via a portal like elevator with limited viewing; flashes of projected imagery are seen from the inside. Once at the top floor, two tours split from the starting location each following one of the double helix ramps, each following a different side to Mercedes vast history. The two tours known as Collection and Myth vary in their exhibits with the Collection tour being more of a h istoric timeline of Mercedes design and the Myth tour taking more romantic, cultural take on Mercedes history, featuring some of the companys greatest designs and cars previously owned by the likes of Ringo Starr. As a result the special feel of the two tours h seen designed to vary and adapt to the various exhibitions enormously. The Collection tour is flooded with natural, truthful lighting whilst the Myth tour is illuminated in a much more theatrical way, mimicking the romance and glory associated with its exhibits. The tour paths do cross at various points through the vertical of the space, allowing the visitor to pick and choose between the two tours. The eight levels of the building are separated into regular and special areas, based on their functions within the museum and their impact of the structure as a whole. The levels alternate between single and double height spaces as they progress through the vertical of the building. Classical sculptors such as Bernini and Brancusi knew the importance of the pedestal, they were masters of this, once again the pedestal has been utilized in this museum, creating views, highlighting without blinding and focusing the visitors attention where it is needed. Not only have plinths been used but with the employment the semi circular ramps which hug the exterior boundaries of the building, perspectives have been produced, providing new, interesting and invigorating views of the exhibitions. Viewing the leaf shaped, semi circular, exhibition spaces from a multitude of heights as you descend through the building generates a series of panoramic overviews. Visitors see the exhibits from higher, low er, closer and more distant view points. No viewing angle is ever quite the same, and the normal head on viewed approach is avoided, there is a sense that you will never capture every view throughout the tour, that the building is constantly changing, twisting around and beyond you, that you as the visitor never quite fully understand where you are within the building. Together the pedestal, panoramic viewing spaces and constantly twisting forms create a new special complexity within the form of a museum. Never before has something been exhibited like this before. There is a constant feel of movement within the exhibits and the form of the building. The museum tries to set the static in motion says one German architectural critic, as if it wants to prove that the architecture is still alive, it has been said to explore motion in all of its possible expressions. The whole acts as an accelerator for the different, unpredictable and sometime incomprehensible spaces presented to the vis itor. The open plan has been achieved through the ability to transmit vertical loads to the central distribution cores via the floor slabs with the facade systems carrying limited vertical loading. The floor slabs within the exhibition areas cover an area of almost 30m without intermediate structural columns, made possible through the use of parametric modelling and advanced structural calculation. In addition to the actual exhibit weights and live loads such as visitors to the museum the floor slabs also have to transfer a significant amount of the horizontal load from the twisted exterior structural system to the huge central tri column core of the building. The floors slight curvature and incline help to create a truly dynamic space around the cars aswell as creating the structural support for the building. The floor folds, becomes the wall before folding again to become the ceiling. UN studios most recent works have been described as relating to and recalling ways in which baroque architects worked and diagrammed their work. Van Berkel, co founder of UN studio, amused by the comparison says I have been really fascinated by Bernini and Borromini. Not just in their buildings but by their incredible ability to cast their discipline into question with innovative representation techniques. These techniques are imperative in the means of bridging the gap between the abstract of thought and the realism of building construction, they become essential when beginning to comprehend how a structure may work and how building may operate. They open new horizons and give architecture a holistic dimension, a means of creating volumes that respond dire ctly to project requirements. As an ultimate statement: The Mercedes Benz Museum by UN studio could not have been created without the help and research offered by Designtoproduction and their parametric work. There was limited time to design what can only be described as one of the most complicated structures in modern time, and so, over two hundred and forty six different companies and engineering firms were employed to help with the production of the Mercedes Benz Museum. Designtoproduction were able to provide solutions to the gaps between separating design and production. This was imperative as these steps are interconnected, they highly influence each other and with so many different teams working on the project, strong design and production links were needed. Parametric design proved to be the key to the buildings success in this regard. The only solution was to control the geometry of the building as completely as possible using the latest computer technology Ben van Berkel, UN Studios co founder and direc tor. The intertwining forms of the Mercedes Benz Museum meant that the forms could barely be described using standard plans and sections, yet contractors needed working plans, sections and details to construct the building. From the basic geometry of 2D parametric modelling, the edges were transformed in to constantly rising 3D forms by layering levels; ultimately the 3D volumes of the structure began to rise from the layering of plans. For different building components the geometry was directly taken from the model, thus closing the chain of information from early design stages until the construction and fabrication. For example, the formwork for doubly curved surfaces was accurately developed into plain boards taken from information in the parametric model. Designers dont think in numbers, they think in relationships, in connections, in the whole. CAD packages do not think in relations, they think purely in numbers, they do not care for relationships or what they represent within the form or design of building. The parametric CAD models that Designtoproduction produced combined these numbers behind the developing building in a set of a parameters, dictating what would work and what would not; therefore thousands of numbers become merely a handful of meaningful parameters. The parametric model for the Mercedes Benz Museum was not only part of the design but key to the construction. It linked the participating trades in the building in a harmonic whole with the architect acting once again as the master craftsman at the helm, overseeing the construction as a whole. Unlike those who use digital architecture merely for aesthetic qualities, UN studios have gone beyond anyone else in the means of imaginatively managing a building through a des ign with a mathematical parametric model, without compromising the initial design principles, cramping the design with formal or preconceived solutions. The Guardians architecture critic Jonathan Glancy has described the building as jet-age baroque. The use of parametric design tools, the architect had been able to design and create a building which seems as though it is a product of or closely linked with the Mercedes Benz brand. It screams movement, technology, the future, and the impossible. If you think about this building in any other sense, an exhibitor of modern art, an exhibitor of any other form of specialist collection or historical artefact it simply would not work. The building would seem to be truly purposely tailored to the client and purpose, that of exhibiting the greatest works of Mercedes Benz, with this, the museum is already seen by many as one of the single most astonishing buildings of the new century. The Image of God | Literature Review The Image of God | Literature Review The term image is everything is truer today than its ever been before. Whether its the designer clothes a person is wearing, place of residence, the car they drive or the calculated lines they recite, presentation is now replacing content when it comes to discerning the authenticity and character of a person. This is the measure by which people are valued nowadays; superficially and without substance. Unfortunately and sadly this is also true within the church. We lack concern when it comes to the true character of an individual, but we care more about their gifts and talents. Its seems like society and the church are captivated and awestricken with an individuals false persona, and television personalities rather than a persons character. This standard is used chiefly because of the materialistic and/or secular nature of todays society. Much of this is done either consciously, or subconsciously, in an effort to enhance ones image as seen through the eyes of man, ones friends, family, peers, and even society in general. All that being said, the term, image is everything is alive and well. However, it shouldnt have validity for the reasons described above, but rather because man is created in the image and likeness of God. This is the true image that should shape the manner in which Orthodox Christians live their lives. Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1: 26-27) The significance of man being created in Gods image is sometimes overlooked due to the complete silence of the rest of the Old Testament on this subject (In the Image and Likeness of God by Vladimir Lossky). However, the Orthodox Church lays the utmost emphasis on the image of God in man (The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware). To acquire the likeness of God is to become deified or to become a god by grace, this is the ultimate goal of Orthodox Christians. According to the church fathers, the terms image and likeness do not mean the exact same thing. In general, the term image can be thought of as the powers with which each one of us is endowed by God from the moment of our existence. By making proper us of being created in His image, each one of has the ability to acquire Gods likeness or to be deified. (1) Oddly, its meaning image of God has been debated, a hot topic, if you will, for centuries in and outside of the church. Most theologians argued that it is the human mind the capacity to exercise reason or rationality, the intellect which marks us as being made in the image of God. It also distinguishes us from animals. The argument for this is that God himself can be described as acting in accordance with reason. Gods actions, Christians affirm, are always consistent with Gods inherent qualities, such as love, justice and mercy. God is consistent and trustworthy, and so can be said to be characterized by perfect reason. In creating human beings, God gives them, uniquely, a capacity for reason that reflects Gods own reason. It is in this respect that Christians believe we are in Gods image. (2) I. Image: The image of God is a key concept in Christian theology. It is foundational to Christian thinking about human identity, human significance, bioethics, and other topics. Many Christians see evolution as incompatible with the image of God. How could Gods image bearers have evolved from simpler life forms? Doesnt image-bearing require miraculous creation of humans rather than shared ancestry with chimpanzees? When in the evolutionary process did humans attain this image? These questions are tied to many other issues concerning human origins, including the soul, the fall, and the historicity of Adam and Eve. The phrase image of God does not appear many times in the Bible, but the importance of the concept is emphasized by its repetition in the scripture: Then God said, let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27) Herein, its clear that part of bearing Gods image is ruling over the animals. Genesis 9:5-6 reveals another aspect of image bearing: all human lifeblood is sacred because all humans are made in the image of God. The emphasis on Judeo-Christian thought on the sanctity of human life is derived in part from this passage. In the New Testament, the idea is expanded further as Christ is revealed as the true image of the invisible God. (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15). Being made in the image of God, says Lyons and Thompson, does not refer to the physical body, the posture, or the authoritative aspect of man. It is true that the word image (Hebrew tselem) is a term used in certain contexts within the Old Testament to refer to a model or to idols (and thus can refer to a similarity in physical appearance). It cant and doesnt denote such meaning in Genesis 1:26-27, nor in any of the other passages referring to the imago Dei (image of God). God is not like unto gold, or silver, or stone (i.e., He is not physical; Acts 17:29). As Ashby Camp observed: God, of course, is a spirit (Jn. 4:24), and the O.T. stresses his in corporeality and invisibility (see Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 4:15-16). So, the resemblance no doubt relates to some nonphysical aspect(s) of humanity (1999, p. 44). Since it is the case that a spirit hath not flesh and bones (Luke 24:39; cf. Matthew 16:17), then man does not bear the image of God in his physical nature. (6) Creation in the image of God distinguishes humankind from all other life forms said Milne in Know the Truth. Additionally, he said, traditional interpretations of the image refer to features such as human knowledge, moral awareness, original moral perfection and immortality. He goes on to say some scholars argue for a physical meaning for the image. And he also declares that others have argued for humanitys alleged Trinitarian constitution, or the image as human dominion. (Gen.1:26-28.) They are looking forward to the renewal of the dominion in the kingdom of God through Christ, the embodiment of the image. (Heb. 2:5-9) Furthermore, more recent interpretation Milne says, has spoken of the social nature of the image, human experience as being-in-community reflecting the divine being-in-community of the Godhead. Barth extended this interpretation specifically to the man-woman relationship. (Gen. 1:27) God created (humanity) in his own imageà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Male and female he created the m. Irenaeus distinguished between the image, which he identified with human reason and moral freedom, and the likeness, he identified with original righteousness. He taught that only the likeness was lost in fall. This interpretation was followed through the medieval period and contributed to its essentially optimistic view of human nature. Luther, however, says that there is a case of Hebrew parallelism in Genesis 1:26. He believed image and likeness were synonyms; what was true for one was true for the other. The image of God, he said, has therefore been totally lost and can be restored only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit. There is a variety of views on how the image has been affected by the fall. A common view is that the image of God refers to the human abilities which separate us from the animals. Still, scientists have found that abilities like communication and rationality are also present in animals on a basic level. Another view is theologians do not see the image of God as human abilities, but instead it as our capacity for a relationship with God. Other theologians see it as our commission to represent Gods kingdom on earth. Either way, the author says God has given us our spiritual capacities and calls us to bear his image. (3) Nevertheless, Milne says the bible doesnt actually refer to a total loss of the image of God. (Gen 9:6, 1Cor. 11:7 and James 3:9.) Calvin, spoke of relics of the image of God in fallen humanity, which, while affording no basis for humanitys justification, still distinguish them from the animal creation account for the undoubted gifts and achievements of non-Christians. Dutch scholars, in the reformed tradition, such as A. Kuyper and H. Bavinck, spoke in this connection of common grace, whereby God in his pity restrains the worst effects of the fall and renders social life tolerable for humankind. (4) Lyons and Thompson communicate that, through the years, numerous scholars have suggested that the image of God spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27 refers to some sort of spiritual perfection that was lost at the time of mans fall, and thus is incomprehensible to us today. Genesis tells us that man was created in a special way, bearing the stamp of God upon him which the animals did not bear. Unfortunately Genesis also tells us that he lost this stamp. While Adam himself was created with this image, his disobedience so robbed him of it that all his children thereafter bore not the image of God but his-and even his likeness (1975, pp. 103, 109, first emp. added, last emp. in orig.) When we see in Genesis 1:26-27 that man was created in the image and likeness of God, does the language refer only to Adam and Eve as these writers would have us to believe? Or does it refer to all mankind in general? It is the authors position that the image of God spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27 does not refer to some kind of spiritual perfection, especially considering the fact that the members of the Godhead (Who created man) are omniscient and therefore knew that man would sin. Reformer Martin Luther claimed that the image was an original righteousness that was lost completely. He averred: I am afraid that since the loss of this image through sin, we cannot understand it to any extent (as quoted in Dyrness, 1972, 15:163, emp. added). John Calvin similarly spoke of the image of God as having been destroyed by sin, obliterated by the fall, and utterly defaced by mans unrighteousness (see Hoekema, 1986, p. 43). Yet, at other times, he took a less hard-core approach and vacillated between a complete loss and a partial loss of the image. In his commentary on Genesis, he wrote: But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us, yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed (as quoted in Hoekema, p. 45, emp. added). Keil and Delitzsch commented that the concrete essence of the divine likeness was shattered by sin; and it is only through Christ, the brightness of the glory of God and the expression of His essence (Heb. 1:3), that our nature is transformed into the image of God again (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24) [1996, 1:39]. Canadian anthropologist Arthur C. Custance, in his book, Man in Adam and in Christ, observed. Feinberg, in speaking of the image of God as what he called an inalienable part of mans constitution, spoke of that image as currently being in a marred, corrupted, and impaired state (1972, 129:245). Hoekema elaborated on the same point when he wrote: in other words, there is also a sense in which human beings no longer properly bear the image of God, and therefore need to be renewed in that image. We could say that in this latter sense the image of God in man has been marred and corrupted by sin. Nevertheless, we must still see fallen man as an image-bearer of God, but as one who by nature images God in a distorted way (1986, p. 31). (6) II Likeness: Jim Schicatano believes that likeness and image are different. Likeness, he says, doesnt convey such preciseness as image. To be like someone means you possess many, but not all of the characteristics of that person. Obviously, man does not possess Gods omnipotence, wisdom, righteousness, perfection, ability to create, and divineness, he said. (5) In these others (along with Lyons and Thompson) differs with Schicatano in relations to the image/likeness of God. They say, the image (tselem) of God does not refer to something different than the likeness (demuth) of God. The Greek and Latin church fathers frequently suggested a distinction between the two words. They taught that tselem referred to the physical, and demuth to the ethical, part of the divine image (Feinberg, 1972, 129:237). Other theologians (like Irenaeus, A.D. 130-c. 200) taught that image denoted mans unchangeable essence (viz., his freedom and rationality), whereas likeness referred to the changing part of man (i.e., his relationship with God). Thus the former related to the very nature of man, while the latter was that which could be lost (Crawford, 1966, 77:233). As of 1972, this still was the official view of the Roman Catholic Church (Feinberg, 129:237). They go on to say despite the influence of those who claim that these words carry very different ideas about the image of God, a careful study of such passages as Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-3, and 9:6 reveals that, in fact, these two Hebrew words do not speak of two different entities. Likeness simply emphasizes the image. As William Dyrness noted in regard to tselem and demuth: The two words should be seen as having complementary rather than competing meanings. The first stresses the image of God as its being shaped and the second express its being like the original in significant ways (1972, 15:162). Charles Feinberg, writing on The Image of God in the respected religious journal Bibliotheca Sacra, agreed when he remarked: A careful study of Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1,3; and 9:6 will show beyond question that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the two Hebrew terms are not referring to two different entities. In short, use reveals the words are used interchangeably (1972, 129:237). There actually is no good evidence for making any distinction between the two. In fact, the words are essentially synonymous in this context. Keil and Delitzsch remarked in their commentary on Genesis that the two words are merely combined to add intensity to the thought (1996, 1:39). As Clark puts it: Man is not two images and to distinguish between image and likeness is fanciful exegesis (1969, 12:216). (6) III Dominion: In relations to dominion, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what exactly God meant when he said, Let hem have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28 ) Schicatano believes we are like God in the sense that we have been given sovereignty over the entire Earth. God is responsible for the creation of the universe, and likewise, we are responsible for our world. This sovereignty, however, is not a birthright of ours. It is a sacred gift, given to us from God; it is a delegated responsibility. Just as God has created and formed our world to His liking, we are capable of changing it and managing it to our liking. So, it is this responsibility that has been entrusted to us. It must not be taken for granted because ultimately we are answerable to God for the conditions of planet Earth and the state of our fellow human beings. (5) However, Lyons and Thompson dont share Schicatano belief. They convey that the image is not mans domination of the lower creation around him. In a letter to the editor that Norman Snaith penned to the Expository Times in 1974, he boldly claimed: The meaning is that God created man to be his agent, his representative in ruling all living creatures, and he was given sufficient (to quote the psalm) honor and glory to do this. Biblically speaking, the phrase image of God has nothing to do with morals or any sort of ideals; it refers only to mans domination of the world and everything that is in it. It says nothing about the nature of God, but everything concerning the function of man (1974, 86:24, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.). In regard to this kind of thinking, we would be wise to remember that man must exist before dominion can be invested in him, and that man has authority because of the truth that he is made in the image or likeness of God. Also, the authority is not the cause of the image or likeness, but the image and likeness is the ground of the authority (Chafer, 1943, 100:481, emp. added). In commenting on this subject James Hastings wrote: The view that the Divine image consists in dominion over the creatures cannot be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure, and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man, already made in the image of God. The truth is that the image marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not the essence, of the Divine image (1976, 1:48, emp. added). Dominion, Keil and Delitzsch noted, is unquestionably ascribed to man simply as the consequence or effluence of his likeness to God (1996, 1:39). As William H. Baker commented: [I]t is the presence of the image of God in people that makes them able to exercise dominion over the earth. Dominion itself is not what constitutes the image (1991, p. 39, emp. in orig.). Although somewhat closely related to the image of God, exercising dominion over the world is not itself that image. (6) Conclusion: Perhaps while on earth we may never totally understand what is meant by these verses. But, upon research, some theologians, Christian Orthodoxy believe we are still in the image of God, others concur that when man fell his image was marred. And some agreed it was lost. However, without a doubt, what is clear is that in mankind, God has completed His final creation of the Creation Story. Lets consider what King David said of our creation and our special place among all of Gods creations. When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. (Psalms 8:3-8 NIV) With the diversity of views, most (Christian orthodox) agree that each of us have been made in the image and likeness of God, and because of this, we are capable of determining our own destiny. Unlike the plants and animals, God has endowed us with the ability to form a relationship with Him, the ability to increase our knowledge and wisdom, and the responsibility of caring for the world that He has given us. As His primary creations, we are obligated to imitate and show evidence of His divineness in every area of life. Some may find it complimentary that we have been made in His image. But, because of evolution many no longer treasure this mystery. Matter-of-fact, some have become irresponsible stewards and have neglected the responsibilities that it entails. Above all of His earthly creations, God has endowed man/womankind with a unique soul holding us responsible for all of our actions. (5) One day we will give an account to the Creator how weve managed; our temples, our lives, family, resources, businesses, ministries, blessings, and this planet called earth. Each author seems to have scriptural evidence to support their theory on this controversial and highly debatable topic. But, there was another point of agreeableness among them: some of the characteristics were which represent man/woman being formed in the image of God. To name a few, we are creators, God created the heavens and the earth, were relational, God is relational, we are communicators, God is a communicator, we are spiritual beings as God is a Spirit, and we are intellectual beings who reasons, God is intelligent and reasons too. When we fully grasp what it means to bear Gods image, we are amazingly struck with the boundless, grandeur of our possibilities and the tragedy of our unrealized potential! To be fully human is to completely reflect Gods image. Furthermore, though all humans possess these godlike capacities, each of us has the potential to express them uniquely because Gods image has been imprinted peculiarly on each of us. (7) In Gods infinite creativity there are no duplications. Everybody is an original and is created in the image of God, which according to Orthodox Christians can never be lost. Endnotes/ Works sited: 1) http://www.stgeorgeserbian.us/darren/darren03.html 2) V. Plater- In the Image of God: http://www.virtualplater.org.uk/?page_id=2054 3) BioLogos: How could humans have evolved and still be created in the Image of God? BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that all things hold together in Christ. [Col 1:17] Daniel Harrell, Senior Minister, Colonial Church, Edina, Minn.- http://biologos.org/questions/image-of-god 4) Text Book; Know the truth, by Bruce Milne 5) Jim Schicatano,Created in the Image and Likeness of God. http://thebibleandscience.webs.com/articles/image.htm 6) Lyons and Thompson- In the Image and Likeness of God. Eric Lyons, M.Min. Bert Thompson, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11article=149 7) Dick Staub- What Made in the Image of God Really Means By Dick Staub, March 4, 2013 (Taking a second look at a very misunderstood part of our faith.) http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/deeper-walk/features/23549-qmade-in-the-image-of-godq