Function Book by Samuel Horbury

Introduction: 01

This book is part of a three part series that explores the idea of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;form follows functionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and tries to determine whether this principle is an accurate representation of good design. Within this book I have focused mainly on function and allowed this to become the main element of the final outcome, causing the form to become less of a concern.

Contents: 03

Introduction to Modernism

Louis Sullivan

Josef M端ller-Brockmann

Le Corbusier

Walter Gropius

Modernism Today

Essay

Modernism: 03

Modernism in design and architecture emerged in the aftermath of the First World War and the Russian Revolution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a period when the artistic avant-garde dreamed of a new world free of conflict, greed and social inequality. It was not a style but a loose collection of ideas. Many different styles can be characterised as Modernist, but they shared certain underlying principles: a rejection of history and applied ornament; a preference for abstraction; and a belief that design and technology could transform society. With the advances of technology Modernism began to break through at the end of the 19th century into the beginning to the 20th century. Western society began to develop new ways to shape human culture and improve the constructed environment. Modernism covered many creative disciplines from design and art to influencing architecture, music and literature. The power of machines forced artists to strategically re-think their practice, the results were revolutionary and still influences designers to this very day. This

new technology provided the opportunity for mass production, and the machine itself became a theme in modernism. Influential designers of this period range from Walter Gropius from the Bauhaus to the modern architect Le Corbusier, both men were fascinated with all disciplines of design and it reflected greatly in their work.

Louis Sullivan: 05

An American architect, often called the ‘father of modernism’, Louis Sullivan originally coined the phrase ‘form ever follows function’. He believed that buildings should be built from the inside out and the form should be a direct result of the function the building is to perform.

Josef M端ller-Brockmann: 07

Josef M端ller-Brockmann was a Swiss graphic designer and teacher who is best known for his simple design and clean use of typography, traits directly influenced by Modernism. Grids are a key feature that run throughout his work and ensures that the function is always of upmost importance.

Le Corbusier: 09

Charles-Ă&#x2030;douard Jeanneret-Gris, better known as Le Corbusier, was a Swiss-French architect often referred to as one of the pioneers of modern architecture; dedicated to providing better living conditions, his values stem from that of the modernist movement.

Walter Gropius: 11

Walter Gropius was a German architect and founder of the Bauhaus school who, along with Le Corbusier, is referred to as one of the pioneers of modern architecture. The Bauhaus school was heavily influenced by Modernism and is known for its simplified forms and focus on functionality.

Modernism Today: 13

The influences of Modernism can still be seen within design being created today, but often it focuses on the aesthetics of Modernism as opposed to the meaning behind it. Design is often created according to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;form follows functionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; without any thought for what this really implies.

Is the principal ‘Form Follows Function’ an accurate representation of good design? Not to be confused with modernity, which refers to the experience of living within the modern world, modernism describes ‘a set of aesthetic movements that emerged in Europe in the 1880’s, flourished before and after the First World War and became institutionalised in the academies and art galleries of Post-Second World War Europe and America.’ (Barnard, 2005:112) It was an art movement ‘driven by the unfolding of cubism and futurism’ that Malcolm Barnard (Barnard, 2005:112) reduced into four core values and beliefs: self-reflexiveness, montage, paradox and the loss of an ‘integrated individual subject.’ It is much more complicated to distinguish when modernism in graphic design occurred, many writers having different ideas of when this was. Jobling and Crowley (Jobling and Crowley in Barnard, 2005:113) state that ‘mature’ modernism could only be seen within graphic design between the late 1920’s and late 1950’s, whereas Hollis (Hollis in Barnard, 2005:114) believes the origins

lie within Italian futurism and can be seen from around 1914 until the late 1960’s. There are two key elements to modernism within graphic design: the aesthetic of the design as well as the underlying beliefs and values that are interpreted through the design, the latter of the two being the most significant. Milton Glazer discusses this aspect, suggesting that ‘Modernism is about progress, the endless frontier and ceaseless development’; its ‘origins are in the idea of good coming from boundless technology’ and it is ‘essentially utopian’. (Glazer in Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S., Holland, DK., 1994:44) But when applied to graphic design, the core values as mentioned above can be reduced into two main themes, or principles. ‘The first is the rejection of ornament and the favouring of ‘clean’, ‘simple’, ‘non-decorated’ graphics, often in the interests of ‘clarity’ or the function that the design is to perform.’ (Barnard, 2005:112) This stems from the essay ‘Ornament and Crime’ by Adolf Loos (Loos, 2013), originally written in relation

to architecture, in which he discusses how by removing the ornamental elements of a design we are left with a much more timeless and functional design. This principle has created an iconic aesthetic that is unmistakable and discussed by numerous writers such as Katherine McCoy (McCoy in Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S., Holland, DK., 1994), Malcolm Barnard (Barnard, 2005) and Jan Tschichold (Tschichold in Barnard, 2005). McCoy talks about the old days, stating ‘Our ethic then was one of discipline, clarity, and cleanliness. The highest praise for a piece of graphic design was: “This is really clean.” We saw ourselves as sweeping away the clutter and confusion of American advertising design with a professional rationality and objectivity that would define a new American design’ (McCoy in Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S., Holland, DK., 1994:50) which describes how by removing the unnecessary ‘clutter’ from the design they were reducing confusion and increasing clarity. Jan Tschichold supports this in his book ‘Die Neue Typographie’, in which he talks about typography and states

that he too favours clean and non-decorated type, before going on to say that no ornamented font ‘meets our requirements for clarity and purity’ (Tschichold in Barnard, 2005:127). Barnard explains modernism in graphic design, saying it ‘can be identified by stylistic simplicity, a flatness of form, a taste for asymmetrical composition and the reduction of elements to a minimum’ (Barnard, 2005) which again supports this idea of clean, simple design that has been stripped down to its essential components. These three authors have all written about this element of modernist design, explaining how, aesthetically, they all favour clean design and think it enhances the clarity and function. The second, and more significant, principle is ‘Form (ever) Follows Function’, originally coined by architect Louis Sullivan within his essay ‘The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered’. In his essay he states ‘It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all

things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.’ (Sullivan, 2012) Again referring to architecture, Sullivan is also against the use of ornamentation within design and indicates that the form of a design should be a direct result of the job it is to perform. Although similar to the first principle, the term ‘form follows function’ refers more to the creation of the design as opposed to the appearance of the design itself. If creating design according to the law ‘form follows function’, you would be ensuring that the form did not affect the function of the design; in many cases the form would often be a direct response to the optimum solution. Despite initially being written with architecture in mind, both of these views are not exclusive and can be easily applied across multiple disciplines. This includes graphic design, and when applying these principles, would simply translate to a designer looking ‘to find the optimum solution to the design problem’ (Walker in Barnard, 2005:114)

and thus worrying more about the functionality of the design as opposed to its aesthetic quality. A number of creative intellects have considered the principle of ‘form follows function’, looking at the way in which function is of key importance, with aesthetics being a secondary concern. Henry Petroski (Petroski, 1992), Paul Jacques Grillo (Grillo, 1960), Massimo Vignelli (Vignelli in Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S., Holland, DK., 1994) and Beatrice Warde (Warde in Armstrong, 2009) have all commented upon the principle of ‘form follows function’, discussing the way in which the two are related. For instance, within his book ‘The Evolution of Useful Things’, Petroski discusses the idea that function is the driving force behind the evolution of all design; that in order for something to become better it must first fail. ‘Every artifact is somewhat wanting in its function, and this is what drives its evolution. Here, then, is the central idea: the form of made things is always subject to change in response to their real or perceived shortcomings, their failures

to function properly.’ (Petroski, 1992:22) He states that ‘aesthetic considerations may certainly influence, and in some cases even dominate, the process whereby a designed object comes finally to look the way it does, but they are seldom the first causes of shape and form’ (Petroski, 1992:32) This then implies that it is in fact the function of the design that decides its form and despite aesthetics being taken into consideration, these are still secondary to the function. He goes on to discuss this point further, saying ‘Tableware, for example, has clearly evolved for useful purposes… But when aesthetic considerations dominate the design of a new silverware pattern, the individual implements, no matter how striking and well balanced they may look on the table, can often leave much to be desired in their feel and use in the hand.’ (Petroski, 1992:32) Here, he discusses the way in which when the form is allowed to take priority, the function of the design begins to suffer. Beatrice Warde supports this argument, addressing a similar theory in her essay ‘The Crystal Goblet, or Why Printing Should

Be Invisible’. She poses this scenario: ‘You have two goblets before you. One is of solid gold, wrought in the most exquisite patterns. The other is of crystal-clear glass… Now the man who first chose glass instead of clay or metal to hold his wine was a “modernist” in the sense in which I am going to use that term. That is, the first thing he asked of this particular object was not “How should it look?” but “What must it do?”’ (Warde in Armstrong, 2009:40) This emphasises that the function of the design is more significant than the form, which is further supported by Massimo Vignelli when he describes his ‘commitment to improve the design of everything that can be made – to make it better. To make it better not only from a functional or mechanical point of view, but to design it to reflect cultural and ethical values, ethical integrity.’ (Vignelli in Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S., Holland, DK., 1994:51) Another example that successfully argues the rule of ‘form follows function’ is within Grillo’s book ‘Form, Function & Design’. Within his book, he discusses the way in which ancient artifacts have

been discovered that show a clear understanding of function. ‘Handles of tools designed by stone-age people show a better understanding of function than what we buy in stores today’ (Grillo, 1960). This makes a clear statement about the difference between ancient and modern design, referring to how the designs used to be a reflection of the design would be interacted with; much of modern design attempting to change this formula, and failing. The forms of these artifacts were a direct result of the function that they were designed to perform. These designers and authors all support the principle of ‘form follows function’, agreeing that in order to achieve the best design the functionality of the piece is of most importance and that all form of ornamentation, unless essential, is a crime and should therefore be removed. However, there are also a number of authors that disagree with the law of ‘form follows function’, including David Pye (Pye in Petroski, H., 1992) and Alice Rawsthorn (Rawsthorn, 2009) who have

both commented upon this, suggesting that form is not determined by the function, but is instead a decision that is made by the designer. Although Pye does agree that ‘Nothing we design or make ever really works. We can always say what it ought to do, but that it never does… Everything we design and make is an improvisation, a lash-up, something inept and provisional’, he still argues that ‘function is a fantasy… The form of designed things is decided by choice or else by chance; but it is never actually entailed by anything whatever’. (Pye, in Petroski, H., 1992:26) He is referring to the idea that due to the inevitable failure of the design, caused by our constantly changing requirements, the form cannot be decided by the function but instead must be a conscious decision. ‘The designer or his client has to choose in what degree and where there shall be failure. Thus the shape of all things is the product of arbitrary choice… It is quite impossible for any design to be “the logical outcome of the requirements” simply because, the requirements being in conflict, their logical outcome is an impossibility.’

(Pye, in Petroski, H., 1992:27) Alice Rawsthorn from The New York Times, writes ‘Thanks to digital technology, designers can squeeze so many functions into such tiny containers that there is more computing power in a basic cell phone than at NASA’s headquarters when it began in 1958. That is why the appearance of most digital products bears no relation to what they do.’ (Rawsthorn, 2009) This supports what Pye was suggesting about form being a conscious choice and not determined by the function. This idea can also be seen in Fig. 1, which is the ‘Juicy Salif’ citrus juicer designed by Phillippe Starck, a controversial piece that is celebrated as an example of form over function. The idea that Pye was discussing, the designer compromising in terms of success, in this case sacrificing function for form, can be clearly seen within this design; it has even been rumoured that Starck has said ‘It’s not meant to squeeze lemons, it is meant to start conversations’ further supporting what Pye was suggesting about preconceived failures. When talking about the juicer Don Norman, author

of ‘The Design of Everyday Things’, said ‘it’s so much fun I have it in my house, but I have it in the entryway; I don’t use it to make juice. In fact I bought the gold plated special edition and it comes with a little slip of paper that says “Don’t use this juicer to make juice, the acid will ruin the gold plating.”’ (Norman, 2009) This was designed not to make juice, but to be a conversation starter which supports what Pye was suggesting as it was never intended to be functional, this was compromised during the design process in favour of form; and because of this lack of form it has become a piece of art as opposed to a kitchen appliance. Presumably, Petroski would disagree with this design due to the lack of function; but when he says ‘The complete industrial designer seeks to make objects easier to assemble, disassemble, maintain, and use, as well as to look at’ (Petroski, 1992:32), he starts to make reference to the need for some sort of consideration of form as well as the need for function. He still feels that function is the most vital part of the design process, but has acknowledged the need for some

sort of form in order for a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;completeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; design. It is becoming clear that these authors all agree on one aspect of good design: the balance of form and function. In order to accomplish its intended goal, function needs form; and yet form without function has no purpose. Function refers to the format that best suits the project, or the budget that is available to the designer. Form is then choosing the size, colours, fonts and imagery based on the function in a way that enhances its visual appearance. Fig. 2 is an image of a cutting knife from Japanese manufacturer Global, which is a perfect example of both form and function and the way in which they can work together. It has been designed so that it functions to the highest of standards; it is deliberately shaped in a way that makes it feel and hold well in your hand. It is sharp and precise, making cutting much easier and less effort. And yet, the form has also been considered to the same extent. Although shaped in a way that holds well, it is still visually intriguing; the handle and

the blade look to be in correct proportion with each other and very well balanced, almost as though the blade becomes an extension of your arm. The clean stainless steel works in favour of sophistication, ensuring the knife appears to be expensive and elegant. Every last detail of this knife has been thought upon and considered and, despite the aesthetics being of concern within the design process, this has not had a negative impact at all upon the function; in fact the form has actually aided the function by working in unison with it, thus improving the overall function of the knife. ‘A major factor is overlooked: there can’t be form without some kind of function. If a website looks good but no one can figure out how to access the information or art, then how can it be considered a success? Yet, there can’t be function without some concept of form. The essence of function relies on form’ (Finck, 2001) As Finck is suggesting, both form and function are required in order for design to be successful; form and function are intertwined and inseparable. Despite being written about web design, this is clearly

applicable to all types of design and discusses the idea of form actually being used as a tool in order to aid the function of a design, as opposed to be secondary to it. Much like Petroski, Grillo agrees with ‘form follows function’, stating ‘We should then agree that all design, to be good, must be “functional”’ (Grillo, 1960), yet also begins to indicate that some sort of balance is required for any sort of design to be truly successful. This is implied when he states that ‘character and function cannot be disconnected’ (Grillo, 1960), reiterating what both Petroski and Finck were suggesting; balance is essential between both form and function in order to achieve good design, the two are inseparable. From the analysis of numerous authors and design, it has become clear that despite the required elements being in the equation the entire time, the law ‘form follows function’ does not accurately represent good design. It puts emphasis onto function, thus implying that form should be a secondary concern, when in actual

fact in order to create truly good design you need to ensure that there is balance and harmony between the two. You should avoid putting all of your effort into creating a functional piece with no form, or a design that is aesthetically perfect yet has no purpose as without the synergy between both form and function, the design will not be as successful as it could potentially be. In search of a more accurate representation of good design we would be required to tweak the phrase, and it would then read â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;form AND functionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, thus implying that truly good design needs both in order to become successful, without any emphasis on form or function in particular.

Bibliography: 31

Barnard, M. (2005) ‘Graphic Design as Communication’, Cornwall, Routledge. Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S., Holland, DK. (1994) ‘Looking Closer: Critical Writings on Graphic Design’, New York, Allworth Press. Armstrong, H. (2009) ‘Graphic Design Theory: Readings From The Field’, New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Petroski, H. (1992) ‘The Evolution of Useful Things’, New York, Vintage Books. Grillo, PJ. (1960) ‘Form, Function & Design’, New York, Dover Publications Inc. Loos, A. (2013) ‘Ornament and Crime’, http:// www.scribd.com/doc/118668000/ornament-andcrime, (accessed 29th January 2014).

Sullivan, L. (2012) ‘The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered’, http://www.scribd.com/ doc/104764188/Louis-Sullivan-The-Tall-OfficeBuilding-Artistically-Considered, (accessed 29th January 2014). Rawsthorn, A. (2009) ‘The Demise of ‘Form Follows Function’’, http://www.nytimes. com/2009/06/01/arts/01iht-DESIGN1. html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, (accessed 5th February 2014). Finck, N. (2001) ‘Form vs Function: Finding the Balance’, http://www.digital-web.com/articles/ form_vs_function/, (accessed 4th February 2014). Norman, D. (2009) ‘The Three Ways Good Design Make You Happy’, http://www.ted.com/talks/don_ norman_on_design_and_emotion.html, (accessed 1st February 2014).

Figure 1

Figure 2