Faber Futures

Helped make biodesign a discussion not only about new materials but about responsibility when designing with living systems. This profile examines origins, method, concrete projects and influence rather than promotional self-description.

Editorial thesis

Faber Futures matters to VANSMITHLAB not as a catalogue of famous projects. Helped make biodesign a discussion not only about new materials but about responsibility when designing with living systems. The central interest is the mechanism: connects biotechnology, design and systems research, treating living organisms not as decoration but as possible production platforms.1

Reader question

What exactly in the method of Faber Futures changed professional practice, and why can that influence not be reduced to a recognisable style or client list?

Short answer

Faber Futures was founded in London in 2018. Its founders include Natsai Audrey Chieza. Its practice works through a clear principle: connects biotechnology, design and systems research, treating living organisms not as decoration but as possible production platforms.1 Helped make biodesign a discussion not only about new materials but about responsibility when designing with living systems.1

1. Origins and context

Faber Futures was founded in London in 2018. Its founders include Natsai Audrey Chieza. The organisation emerged within a professional context in which tools, markets and cultural expectations were changing the definition of the discipline itself. Faber Futures entered that process not as an isolated author but as a collective structure capable of turning a method into repeatable practice.1

2. How the method works

The core principle can be stated simply: connects biotechnology, design and systems research, treating living organisms not as decoration but as possible production platforms. This matters because method defines not an exterior style but a way of making decisions: what to research, which constraints matter, where conflict lies and how form connects to use. The repeatability of that approach is what makes institutional influence visible.1

3. Project Coelicolor: first anchor example

Project Coelicolor. Research into pigments from Streptomyces coelicolor demonstrated biological textile dyeing while raising questions of control, scale and ethics. The example matters as observable evidence of method: the relationship between problem and form can be inspected in a specific object, image, space or system rather than accepted from studio rhetoric.1

4. Biodesign as a system: second anchor example

Biodesign as a system. The studio’s organisational work moves beyond single materials into supply chains, policy and conditions for biotechnology adoption. The second example tests whether the approach remains coherent when scale, client, medium and cultural context change. It is therefore evidence of a working system rather than an addition to a list of famous projects.1

5. A system rather than a single device

With Faber Futures, it is more useful to look for a system of choices than one repeated visual gesture. Connects biotechnology, design and systems research, treating living organisms not as decoration but as possible production platforms. Similarity between projects may therefore lie in research procedure, team organisation, material attitude or sequence of work rather than identical form. VANSMITHLAB records authorship through mechanism rather than superficial resemblance.

6. Influence on the discipline

Helped make biodesign a discussion not only about new materials but about responsibility when designing with living systems. Influence becomes visible when questions and working methods enter the practice of other authors, schools, clients or institutions. This does not necessarily mean direct imitation; more often the range of acceptable solutions and the professional vocabulary itself changes.1

7. Critical distance

An experimental material is not sustainable simply because it is biological or recycled. Feedstock, energy, lifespan, scalability and end-of-life all require evidence. This matters for Faber Futures because reputation can turn successful decisions into universal mythology. VANSMITHLAB separates documented fact, interpretation and editorial judgment: influence is recognised without replacing analysis of limits, context and collective authorship.

8. Why the organisation matters now

Faber Futures continues under Natsai Audrey Chieza as a research-led design company in biotechnology.1 The relevance of the profile is not defined only by current commissions. The practice remains a useful comparison point because it reveals which professional questions survive changing technologies and fashions and which belonged to a specific historical moment.