In contrast to entirely disordered crystal structures and perfectly grown single crystals, which are described by rotational and translational symmetries, quasicrystals with their forbidden rotational symmetry (5-, 8-, 10- or 12-fold point symmetry) and non-existent translational order seem to be lost between these two traditional categories. Despite having local symmetry and long-range orientational order, which cannot be found in amorphous crystals, quasicrystals, with not having any periodicity in their structure, contradict even idealized crystals. Quasicrystals embody aperiodic structures. In order to represent this oppositional phenomenon, these two crystal structures are brought into dialogue. Classifications of crystals are not mutually exclusive in the depicted arrangement but are in discourse with each other. It is an embodiment of the so-called “in-between”. A spatiality that is not defined and fixed, but constituted by spanning between them.
Determining in-between crystals is not about to identify and to refer them to a specific crystal space like in the table of crystallography. It only illustrates that the crystal space is generic. It depends on how to treat and challenge the distinct crystal classes in order to emphasize their compatible similarity that stands for this representative crystallized discourse. By that, it is possible to intermingle different crystals that are supposed to be contrary. It is not that one can only be referred to another, it is the correlation of one to many. This opens up a multi-dimensional space for making these incompatible assumptions.