Introduction:



    The history of design is intricately tied to the development and innovation of new materials. The field of Industrial design was birthed by the Industrial revolution and the effects of mass-manufacturing and marketing. While there is a lineage of artisan and craft pursuits in the design field, these movements often sit on the peripherals of the field. This work is frequently relegated to galleries and collectors rather than implemented broadly. The “Industrial” field of design’s inclination towards mass-production and marketing has lead to a hierarchy in materiality. For the industrial designer the criteria of longevity, rarity, cost-effectiveness, and workmanship create a cultural sense of what materials are deemed most valuable. At the top of this hierarchy, plastics and petrochemicals reign supreme. They are incredibly cost effective, take generations to decompose, and are based in the rarity of petroleum extraction. The development of CAD and injection molding have created workmanship in the attention to form and complex surfacing in plastic parts. Below plastics in the hierarchy are traditional materials with thousands of years of development: Wood, metals, and stone. These emphasize traditional workmanship as a marketable value, and rely on rarity and extraction to be desirable. Finally, at the bottom of the hierarchy are waste products and materials extracted from natural materials that lack longevity. Paper products, fibers/cloth, repurposed biomass, and mycelium all exist in this category.


    While this hierarchy has been massively successful for the development of products and CMF, it has been disastrous for our environment and labor practices. In working with biomaterials, such as mycelium, there is a question posed: Can we establish the values of low-carbon footprints, slow growth, and biodegradability as desirable within this hierarchy development of products and CMF, it has been disastrous for our environment and labor practices. In working with biomaterials, such as mycelium, there is a question posed: Can we establish the values of low-carbon footprints, slow growth, and biodegradability as desirable within this hierarchy?

    When comparing mycelium directly to plastic solutions, it is a largely inferior material. It takes weeks to grow, requires fringe expert knowledge, and lacks the control over form that designers have become accustomed to. As an industrial material, mycelium currently lacks the chemical make-up to truly compete with the strength and form-language of plastics, wood, metals, or stone. While it’s novelty as a biomaterial has attracted attention and marketing around the future of this material, it is hard to imagine a future for it replacing plastics, even in niche areas like packaging.

    This project mostly argues for another approach to this material, where special attention is paid to the odd and unique properties of this material that are just beginning to be uncovered. Mycelium’s ability to embed itself in other processes, such as wood-working, 3D-printing, and laser-cutting, allows us to explore new potentials for finding forms and use-cases. While there is certainly value in creating exemplary objects and product applications, the true value of this material is constantly be discovered and rediscovered in open-ended prototypes. For examples of these sort of projects, check out our Highlighted Use Cases. These projects are best explored by students in environments free from immediate market-pressures

    By connecting a variety of use cases, white papers, resources, guides and supply-lists, Mycopedia is a resource for designers to build upon and experiment with Mycelium in novel and sensible approaches. While acknowledging its current shortcomings, Mycopedia is optimistic in the potential of mycelium as a designed biomaterial. A better world is possible, and we hope to meet you there.