In contrast with Oxman’s Krebs Cycle of Creativity” mentioned in the first chapter of this investigation that focuses on the creation of creativity or “creative ATP” by cycling through the practices of science, engineering, design, and art, my methodology focuses on using creativity to materialize and synthesize tangible prototypes. Therefore, this method is named after the Calvin cycle; a cycle in an organism during photosynthesis that, in contrast to Krebs’s Cycle, uses ATP and other chemicals to fix carbon into sugars. In the same manner “Calvin Cycle of Prototyping” use creativity to convert ideas into prototypes.

The Calvin Cycle of Prototyping starts with radical “what if….” question that initiates the cycle. Some of the what if questions are: What if our dress can sense our biological data and aesthetically display them on our body? What if our breakfast is 3D printed base on our state of mind?, What if we can listen to music base in our DNA?

Creativity is the essential part of the cycle in every step. These “what if” questions as the entry point require creativity for thinking outside the box and initiate provoking discussions that lead to radical ideas .

The radical ideas are the conceptual design of the prototype that embodies the radical question aiming to produce the experience suggested by the question. For example, the radical idea for “What if our breakfast is 3D printed base on our state of mind?” is the food 3D printer that connects to EEG device and emotion classification algorithm, which allow the person to experience having food created the base on his/her emotion.

To take the idea to the actual prototype requires technical skills including scientific knowledge, engineering skills, and design process. Base on the framing of the prototype, it can be viewed as an art piece, solution, or product. However, the ecology of prototypes generated through this cycle can lead to the creation of framework or theory that further discuss the connection between each prototype.

The prototypes are used to test and interact with people to see how it spurs new kind of human-technology interactions. The interactions can be interpreted and speculated further by stretching the imagination into thinking about the future consequences, and the ethical considerations of the prototype. This reflection will finally inspire a new “what if” question that will continue the Calvin Cycle of Prototyping.