Niklas,
and all other interested

I find _dynamic form_ intriguing, and agreeing with Jonas, finding it highly relevant to  the design of interactive artefacts, where we are dependant on time to do any kind of design; as with pace, rhythm etc.

I just want to provide a few comments which might spur discussions, I hope, and further your understanding of what you are trying to accomplish. They are more interpretations of the answers you're seeking, than answering the questions you pose.

INTERPRETATION
Just defining _dynamic form_ presupposes that there is a concept _static form_, devoid of all dynamicity. Does these "as opposed to" concepts provide new insights on design, or do they reestablish and strengthen the "traditional" _static_ concept? Would another starting point, such as looking at the >dynamicity of form> (in any material...), provide a more open ended process without preconceived juxtapositions? Just ponder a bit over John Cages 4' 33'' as being music, or a work of art.

The definition you've chosen "form that can be modified over time in response to different external or internal stimuli" as a basis is vague, or weak. What does it mean that something has _dynamic form_? What suffices to be counted as _dynamic_? Lets turn to a material view for exploration of the concept; jelly? Bi-metals? Corrosion? A glass turning warmer when you hold it? Erosion? A melody? Rotating an object, or changing perspective? And what about interpretation and understanding? It might just turn out that the distinction between _dynamic_ and _static_ is not meaningful, or at least only meaningful in a very specific view of the world (a world where actions we do require that we distinguish between static and dynamic for those action to exist). Or it might just turn out that static form merely is a special case of, or a limitation to, dynamic form. That is, there might be no need defining dynamic form separately from form, but instead static form needs to be defined as!
 a limiting perspective on form.

To continue on the same theme; who is the agent that is allowed to modify the form? Is there a need for an agent to modify the form?

Or to take an epistemological view; in a Heideggerian sense all form is always already dynamic, in that it goes from ready-to-hand to ready-at-hand.

HISTORY
_Dynamic form_ is a concept which needs to be related to other concepts/properties such as plasticity, elasticity, flexibility, etc. Especially if one deals with partly tangible materials, partly non-tangible/virtual materials. This is one point where your definitional work begins. You might want to look at a framework such as the one in http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1997/008/.

You might want to look for examples within landscaping (designing with movement, aging and growth in mind), urban design (designing with movement, changing plans and aging of buildings in mind), dramaturgy, dance, film, and even literature (such as the reader's response school...). And of course not the least; interactive art, e.g. Ken Feingold, Daniel Rozin, Simon Biggs, Chris Hales, just to mention a few.

You should also look carefully into the young but productive area of HCI/usability/interaction design; you will be surprised over the sheer amount of dynamic form (mostly of interactive computer based artifacts, of course), that has been produced and reflected over.

best wishes
Stefan Holmlid
Usability and Interaction Design researcher
Ericsson Radio Systems
LinLab
Tel:+46 13 28 42 17
Fax:+46 13 28 73 70
mailto:[log in to unmask]