Saturday, October 25, 2008

The Definition of Function

I thought that one of the most interesting things that I have learned thus far, or rather have thought about so far, this semester is the concept of function, and what it means to design. The function of any thing is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists”, or in terms of synonyms it means a purpose. This is a very general and vague definition, however, as it could be applied to basically any noun that one could think of, since in one way or another everything in the universe has to have a purpose of some sort. Some of these purposes might be more important than others, or more significantly noticeable than others, such as the difference between the reason for the wheels on a car or the perhaps less significant addition of a hood ornament to the same vehicle. In this case, the wheels have a much more important function because they are key to the actual mechanics of the vehicle, what makes it work, essentially what defines it as a car. The hood ornament has a function as well, however, in that it is a type of branding for the car and thus transversely the company that makes the car. It’s function is less about the machinery of the car and more about what makes this particular car attractive to an individual who might be then more likely to buy it. This is only one example of the different types of functions that may be applied to any particular thing. However, this does not fully explain the definition of function as it applies to design, and particularly industrial design.
Almost instantly upon being introduced to the field of Industrial Design, we are confronted with the phrase “form follows function”, the basic motto of functionalist and modern design. This phrase becomes most prevalent in context with the Bauhaus school of design and craftsmanship, which emphasized the importance of a departure from ornamentation and needless decoration and a return to the basics of what makes the design or work of art what it is. These new ideals in modern design, embodied in the works of designers such as Walter Gropius, tend to represent a very literal translation of the word function, and somewhat limits the interpretation of what function might be. This literal approach intuitively defines function as being about the reason something is physically made. It has to do less with the branding as in the hood ornament in the example above, and more with the reason any aspect of the aesthetic components of a design are there, and whether they really should be there or not. In this structural sense it seems more important to strip away the excess of something to define its function and less important to realize function as a reason for why the product is actually being made, or what effect it will have on a given user or user group, or even the effect it might have on the space around it. It tends to focus on function as only being about what defines the product, but not what defines the future of that product or the resulting impact that product might have. There is a much broader spectrum of what function can be than is commonly accepted as being the proper functionalist way of design, and more possibilities of how it can pertain to the world.
Function can be more than a reason each component of a product works the way it does. It can also mean the reason a product was made to begin with, and how that reason aids in the life of a user and therefore makes the purpose of the product to create an end result that effects some aspect of a person’s life. One example of another method of functionalist design involves design for affordability, that is design with the intention in mind of creating something that can be bought by an intended user group and then used. It is one thing to design a beautiful work of art that costs twelve thousand dollars, but if it can’t be afforded by a common person, or at least the major percentage of people, then its function is simply to be a work of art: not a product. Conversely, however, if one were to design a chair that could be constructed from simple materials, with cheap labor costs, and thus go on the market for a reasonable price yet still be designed with aesthetic beauty and reliability involved, then that becomes its function; it is no longer simply a piece of furniture whose function is to support a human being’s weight.
In looking at products as topics for our timelines, I originally kept in mind the idea of functionalist design as meaning only that the form of a product or object is secondary to the function, and that the form should be defined by the literal, physical function of the object. However, now I realize that there is much more to functionalist design that I did not take into account. For instance, for my chair timeline I chose to do a beanbag chair and its history, because I thought it was a very good example of how the form of an object is defined by its function. In the case of a beanbag chair, it basically has no form other than to be functional, because its purpose is to mold ergonomically to an individual and that is exactly what is does, although it is basically a blob of fabric. However now I realize that not only should I have been looking for examples of how a beanbag chair serves a need, and how that could be a function. Perhaps its function is to occupy a space the way it does, or rather conserve space, or to create an aesthetic difference in a space. The possibilities for what could be defined as function are seemingly endless, and that is, so far, one of the most important things I have learned in class.

No comments: