Eidogenesis of the Artificial: The Case of the Relationships between Models of the “Natural Image” and Cellular Automata

The old concept of eidos summed up those of “form” and “image” of an object; this is the subject covered here, supporting a realistic theory of conception and design, as opposed to the anti-realism of the postmodern age and its media conception of “image”. Nowadays it is believed that some ways of conceiving the form and image of the artefacts—according to the current tendency towards naturalisation in social science, which has followed the converging technological and scientific progress of the third industrial revolution—derive from particular morphogenetic (ontogenetic and phylogenetic) models developed in natural science. From this point of view, the subject of “natural images” has become a central issue, which can be interpreted in two considerably different meanings: (1) as perceptual characteristics of natural environments; (2) as a format of visions. The issue of “natural images” (by incorporating the meanings 1–2) is a morphological matter, which is highly relevant to both the natural (cognitive) and cultural (anthropologic) points of view in visual studies and theory of images. In other words, the topic allows some remarks on the ways the concepts of “form” and “image” equally concern Naturalia and Artificialia. This difference measures the complexity of the issue that we exemplify only in the case of cellular automata, but with a particular focus on the simultaneous new emerging meanings of the term “image”. The different specific meanings of “image” articulate the themes of the essay: from the image interpreted as shape, eidos and Bild—i.e., as objective geometry (the shape of things)—to its definition in terms of Gestalt, i.e., as subjective geometry (format of perception).