This wee book arrived through my letterbox today – a companion to the same author’s book on workmanship that seems well-known within the Knots community and elsewhwere in WW cyberspace. I found the workmanship book illuminating and useful – it certainly changed my own woodworking towards that “take a risk and find out” approach as well as “make each piece more natural via a lack of perfection from the unique workman’s hand and eye”.
SO, I was somewhat taken aback by Mr Pye’s begining his Design book with what seems to be a rather vitriolic attack on the notion of “form follows function” as a design principle. Initial reading seems to indicate that Mr P may be attacking a paper tiger because his definitions of “form” and of “function” seem to be very limited in a way that suits his argument agin’ the idea.
I”ve only got through the first chapter but the message seems to be:
Design may be confined somewhat by the intended usage of a thing but a particular purpose may be served by many different styles and configurations of materials. Moreover, no design serves only the intended purpose and many other unintended functions or behaviours inevitably get included within any designed thing.
Therefore form does not follow function, since many forms can perform the same function and many different functional capabilities may emerge unintended from any particular form.
However, it seems to my skeptical eye that Mr P is confining “form” to a very narrow definion, namely shape. Also that “function” is being defined to include only some sort of predetermined (intended) purpose determined by a self-conscious designer. My understanding (which I took to be the usual ones) of “form” and “function” have different definitions.
“Form” includes all kinds of attributes such as the hardness, elasticity and other physical properties. It may also include surface properties such as colour or pattern. If someone asks, “What is the form of table X” it would be insufficient to just describe the shape. It matters whether the table is wood, metal or cardboard; what the surface presents; and (of course) what shapes are involved along with their juxtapositions.
“Function” includes not just specific intended purposes but all of those behaviours (wanted and unwanted, anticipated and otherwise) that a thing provides. Functionality of a thing can be independent of the user even if the designer and user did anticipate some of that functionality; but also if a function is actually implemented by no one but is instead just a behaviour of the thing if and when stimulated in a certain way.
If these wider definitions are allowed then “form follows function” begins to seem more feasible as a design principle. The designer is now attempting (probably via many practical implementatons that are tested and refined) to not only provide a greater and greater efficiency of intended function but also to eliminate or reduce all the unintended ones. As a consequence, the designer is attempting to find not just the most efficient shape but also the best materials, their properties and the configuration of them that will refine intended function and eliminate spurious behaviour.
This is not to say that any design becomes so pure it only functions at 100% efficiency and as intended, perfectly free of any other behaviour. But some designs (those following the principle) tend that way whilst others tend in the other direction. Shaker as opposed to the stuff Louis XVI commissioned.
And perhaps the Shaker principle of “simplicity” is a very succinct summary of that “form follows function” principle?
Other views, comments and even savage refutations all welcome.
Lataxe, from the pink settee.
Replies
Overall, the text is rather
Overall, the text is somehow waffly and comes across to me as imprecise, or perhaps the description I'm looking for is pedantic, but hedging. It also seems to rely significantly on intellectual and verbal gymnastics. It's an interesting read all the same, and I think valuable as a source of information, even if it's sometimes difficult to winkle out the point he makes. It reminds me of the curate's egg, although that may not be truly fair. However, I recommend that students of design read it and ponder the issues he raises to help develop their own take on the subject, their direction and/or focus. Slainte.
Richard.. Good one..
I'm looking for is pedantic, but hedging. It also seems to rely significantly on intellectual and verbal gymnastics.
I'd say what I do all the time and some if not all of the other folks here in Knots. I'd say,,, we tend to impress sometimes but almost all are like a old MGM movie from 1930 to 1945.. We are at least entertaining...
I never judge any person buy the words they type in here unless they are down right nasty.. Very few 'nasties' I have ever seen in here over the years.
I think and then I type. My brain and fingers do not always get along well for some reason. I wish all the world got along as well as we do here in Knots and all the other forms here.
I have to admit that I had to look up what a 'curate's egg' was! I guess sort of like me trying to cook anything. I have to eat burnt food very often!
Useful phrases to make a choice
Design theory I used to teach in a class about architecture, is about finding an excuse to make a choice. How big, how wide how tall. If someone asks why you did something... you'd better have an answer. Theory reduces the number to a manageable quantity and a "reason" for doing something.
Louis Sullivan is the man credited with the phrase "form follows function... actually what he said was "form ever follows function" and the function of his buildings was to express the new American ideal, and the form that he was talking about was "organic design" rather than neo-clasical ornament.
More or less after his death his phrase was used by the folks in Europe to banish ornament and herald the modern movement...probably we own form follows function as most understand it to the Bauhaus schools. The phrase is a slogan to convey an agenda. It gives you a reason for doing something. It probably papers over the underlying argument made by your Mr P that there is no reason.
Here are some other theories:
"God is found in light" the excuse used to abandon dark Romanesque churches for light filled Gothic ones.
"Architecture is frozen music..." arguing that because the ear found pleasure in a string vibrating in simple whole number ratios (1:2, 3:4 etc), the eye would be pleased by rooms and forms in pure pure whole number ratios.
Pudgins 18th century argument for neo gothic architecture in the principals that there should be no feature about a building which is not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety and ornament should be limited to the essential structure of the building.
Le Corbusier two Fibonacci series used to size rooms and heights in his buildings, who's starting point was the perfect man, a six foot high fictional detective.
There are many theories. If you find one useful, use it. But remember that the words are just a tool, like a plane or saw to support a greater effort.
Peter
Word-knives
Peter,
Many wise words in your post, especially that "words are just a tool" remark. This seems to be a truism forgot by Mr Pye when proposing his definitions and categories concerning design. It is easy to forget that our particular language uses words and the associated meanings to slice up the reality of the world in this way or that. One language's reality is another's mumbo-jumbo and vice versa (which must make life as a translator a very difficult occupation)..
However......
The "form follows function" principle has always seemed to me a possible candidate for inclusion in that small collection of principles that may transcend language and its categories. The justification I offer for this claim is that an intelligence lacking words, those language-knives for chopping up reality in to various kinds of parts, could use the FFF principle to refine a tool or other object intended for use, from worse to better. The process would be trial and error in which best-guesses become better with each trial.
In fact, this principle and the associated mechanism seems to be the basis of the whole evolutionary concept. Nature throws up a novel configuration of primary elements (and later, collections of such elements). Some combine and mutate in ways that perform better, functionally within a given environment, than others. These survive and contribute to the next round of refinement.
In this scenario there is no intended purpose but there is design. The basic mechanism seems to be "form follows function". The functionally superior (at dealing wth a particular environment) is superior because of its form (not just shape but composition, configuration, materials and so forth). Forms which do not function optimally perish (entirely or as fodder in the next evolution).
As human designers we often use the same mechanism but merely demarcate the environment in order to define the kinds of design that may be tried. Evolution of the designs still take place but via a "tradition", which preserves and evolves forms that function well and discards forms that don't. Language (words and concerpts) may be involved as helpers in the tradition but aren't really needed. Many practical traditions are transmitted and evolved via doing / showing not speaking or writing.
Or so I might argue. Would you care to refute this idea that "form follows function" is a design principle that transcends words and cultures?
Conversely, are there any other design principles that might be generated from base-reality rather than just from a cultural style-choice? For example, those principles centred on various mathematical relationships and the properties of numbers?
Lataxe
Many wise words in your post, especially that "words are just a tool" remark.
I would say many words posted can be like using a straight razor for a marking knife...
Of Blonds and Old Men
Lataxe,
Curiously the whole notion of form and function can be overlaid on the distinction between craft and fine art. Craft is constrained by function and serving a purpose. Fine art is not... The more functions an object has to perform, the less chance it has of rising to be an art form. Or so the logic went as one group of craftsmen tried to elevate their social status over another group years ago. If form follows function, it clearly follows most closely in craft. One has to play artful games with words defining function and form and it still may fall short an axiom for design.
Mr. Wright kept trying to invent new furniture designs to complement his interiors. They run the gamut from elegant to weird and to judge them as highly successful one has to define "function" as being complementary to the larger geometry of the building and ignore the expected function of providing comfort and usefulness. Think of the tippy three legged metal chairs he inflicted on the workers of the Johnson Wax building. But I understand they still use them. Function clearly has many meanings.
Your example of a blind mutating creature misses the point that their function is to successfully reproduce and continue their species. I know it's a leap, but if that is the function of a species, it is humorous to see it's effect on human behavior. They say, in natural selection, what is important from a male's point of view in selecting a mate is fertility. So in our society women advertise our fertility by being thin, accented breast and hips and blond hair of a preteen girl. Women selecting a mate look for someone rich enough and strong enough to provide for their children over many years. So women go for wealthy, powerful men, old or not. It seems form ever follows function. Perhaps you are right
Peter
Form, shape, and other unique terms
I've no desire whatsoever to discuss if form follows function or vice versa. I'd only like to say that I think you are totally butchering the definitions of form and shape.
Shape exists in two dimensions only. Draw a square onto a piece of paper. You drew a shape. Now draw five more squares adjoining the first. Cut and fold appropriately and you will have created a form. The form exists in three dimensions. The terms shape and form are not interchangable although one would never know that by listening to most people using the terms in their speech.
Texture, hardness, color (or colour) and the like describe other things. They do not enhance or qualify form.
Taxonomies
Sap,
AIn't your definition of form a purely taxonomic one, since there is nothing in reality that has only the kind of form you are speaking of (shape). Real forms also have all those other attributes besides their dimensions in space-time? Plato may think we are all cave shadows but he was grinding various axes all with an "ideal" label attached.
How can we meaningfully talk about a table or a saw without including all the attributes it posseses besides its dimensions?
Lataxe
Back to basics
La,
My point is simply that objects, or rather, the make-up of objects, are described by a dozen or so terms: volume, shape, line, surface, weight, color, etc. This list includes form. You seem to keep wanting to lump all other attributes of an object into that of its form. But they are fine things unto themselves and thus deserve to be discussed independently.
"How can we meaningfully talk about a table or a saw without including all the attributes it posseses besides its dimensions?"
We cannot meaningfully dissect the object (table or saw) without including all it possesses. But we don't want to confuse each other by lumping shape (for example) into form. They are two separate attributes.
Sapwood
Shapes have two dimensions, height and width. Forms exist in three dimensions, height, width, and depth.
What I think of the two words.
I wonder how to define a shop drawing of a design that has curved surfaces?
Does not a simple drawing have shape and form? My brain gives shapes form if shading is added or I have prior knowledge of a similar object. See: http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/wag/Am_Wood_Screws.pdf
The link above shows a Bombay chest and screws.... The PDF shows (pictures and illustrations). I think 'shapes' of different types. The PDF only has height and width. I look at the objects in the PDF and I see 'forms' of the objects. Page 9 of the pdf shows a bombay chest and a common wood screw (OK.. common screw at the time).
I realize that my comment is off topic but I had to add my thoughts. To my way for thinking, shape and form are only words that somebody put a collection of words to try and define it.
I think the human mind 'sees' form mostly. After a few seconds of learning about some shape we first see in 2D..
We first see shapes and then we learn about what that shape really is. After, they are no longer a 'shape'. We now see a 'form' of that object. Yes, we do understand that it is still a 'shape' BUT we know there is very much more about any 2D object we see.
it certainly changed my own woodworking towards that "take a risk and find out" .. I do that often. It is a 'risk' but often turns out better than what I expected in the first place.
I usually am restricted to making some object that has to fit someplace in a home with certain sizes I was given to make it at. I usually, but not always, make what they wanted.
Like a bench I made for my oldest daughter. She gave me measurements for what she wanted. I made it. She found that it was uncomfortable to sit upon... I gave the bench to her oldest daughter (My wonderful oldest grandbaby) who has longer legs.. She loved it!
Design is in the eye of the receiver.. Even if made to what they wanted in the first place.
Lataxe,
I too, found Mr Pye's book on Workmanship more appealing than the one on design. And I too was put off by his semantic ducking and weaving around the form follows function chestnut.
I posit the question, "What is the function of a table?" Well, to support the things you put upon it. So it follows, "What ought its form to be?" Flat and horizontal. If you have something in your hand, and wish to put it down, what do you look for? Some thing that has a flat top. If you are in the woods, you look for a flat rock, or the stump of a tree. Some thing that has the form that will function as a table.
Pyramidal, would not be a form that follows the function of being a table, there being only one point, the very "top", that can function as a table. Your cat's back will not do.
Similarly, what is the form of a shelter? Roof-like, at a minimum, hollow, at best. A stone overhang will provide minimal shelter, a hollow log, better, a tent, better yet. A room with a view, perfect. The flour sifter in the cupboard, not so much. Cupboard itself, maybe.
As has been pointed out, shape is not equivalent to form, which is a concept more broad.
What is the study of form called? Something like topology, topography? Wherein, a coffeecup with a loop handle is considered to be the same as a doughnut.
Ray
Semantic traps
Ray, ole formulator,
Ah those semanticals: how they do paper-over and obscure realities, especially when one becomes over-learned in the wordy department. I have confused myself utterly, pastimes, whilst cogitating with the language-knives instead of casting myself into an experience-bath. No doubt I will continue to do so as these word-ridden habits are hard to kick.
Perhaps part of the horror felt by many designer-chappies at the "form follows function" notion is that (if it is taken as a Fundamental) the idea would seem to undermine other design-drivers, particularly those that enjoy decorative aspects or the addition of a symbology-layer. But surely there is room for any number of design styles and convolutes, especially since they may occupy a huge potential design "space" known as fashion.
In nature a successful design often fills a limited niche within the current ecology and effectively prevents other designs that might succeed in that niche from ever evolving. When there are designers involved, such as the human brain and its ideas, as well as the vast ecology of culture, there is surely room and opportunity for even the most outlandish and utterly disfunctional designs to emerge. Consider a number of the more outrageous designer-makers of studio or contemporary-style furniture. Not to mention some of that olden-day gadrooned stuff. Or a McKrap boogher as foodstuff. :-)
***
I am looking at that handsome zebrano trestle table currently being admired within the gallery threads. It's shape (let alone its wider form) is largely dictated by the functional needs of the potential users. It may serve other purposes (a stand for changing a lightbulb) but they are incidental. There are slight decorative and style-choices involved too but the overall form says "engineered to do X". A trestle table seems designed not only to perform the intended function but to also minimize other spurious uses - to seek economy of function, form, amount of material and every other aspect.
If one looks at more primitive yet well-evolved examples of large dining tables (as I have been doing in Sizergh castle just yesterday) the functionality is even more pronounced, with virtually no added decorative or symbolic elements. And something about these simple items is very attractive. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the inherent decorative and symbolic aspects of age-darknened quarter-sawn oak planks and members of massive aspect does have something to do with that attractiveness too......
Lataxe, formed to function hisself (one leg or two heads jes wouldnae work) by lovely Mother Nature.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled