Progression, change and Balance

Functionalism - “the notion that objects made to be used should be simple, honest, and direct; well adapted to their purpose; bare of ornament; standardized; machine-made, and reasonably priced; and expressive of their structure and materials - has defined the course of progressive design for most of the century.” (George Marcus, Functionalism, 1995, p.9.)

Is functionalism a good thing? What are the short term and long term socio-economic, cultural and ecological ramifications of functionalism? What is reasonably priced? As an idea l it is a noble dream of a Utopian world with “good” design for all. But who decides what is good design? In practice it has lead designers to beautiful solutions and terrible ones as well. Un-necessary ornamentation does not necessarily mean bad design, design is in and of itself about ornamentation. Without industrial design everything would look like engineers “designed” it. What of those who like ornamentation? It falls to designers to set the tone but this in and of itself is subjective and as such subject to change at any moment.

On a macro level we all like ornamentation, if we didn’t “that looks like an engineer designed it” would not have a negative connotation and industrial designers would not exist. It is in nature to want things that we perceive to be pretty. Perceiving an object to be beautiful gives it value and even more if others perceive it to be valuable as well. On a micro level we individually decide on the amount of ornamentation we prefer. Functionalism can be a great perspective to design from but not the only perspective to design from. Much of the avant-garde come not from need but from desire and it is the avant-garde that pushes the envelope and shows us a glimpse of the future. The founders of functionalism were great designers but not because of functionalism but rather functionalism became popular because of the great designers. It was a reaction to what had come before and without excessive ornamentation, extreme contrast, functionalism would just be plain and boring. If everything was functionalist people would start to design using excessive ornamentation to find contrast and balance. Seeking change, contrast and balance are what life is about. Without it we would, maybe have, become complacent, jaded, indifferent and bored. We must find the comfortable balance through innovative thoughtful design not matter the amount of ornamentation.

We currently live in a time of uncertainty and crisis. The environment is in a precarious state, the world economy is headed down the drain, people are becoming more isolationist by the minute. How did you we get here? The concept of “democratic” design is partially responsible. The concept of universally accessible design has led us to deplete resource at an incredible rate, fill/create landfills at an incredible rate and consume beyond our means and need. Designing reasonably priced products in this day and age generally means making sacrifices in materials, construction and design. Also the accessibility of products has fostered gluttony. We acquire things for the sake of having things and discard things recently acquired to make room to acquire new things we don’t need. Having more “stuff” does not make it better. Part of the problem is we are not satiated by a so-so product, or at best only for a short period of time. It’s like eating fast food, you go through the motions of eating, you tastes vaguely of it real counterpart but does not contain the same amount of nourishment and thus your body tells you to eat more. At this point you have a choice eat more crap or take the time, spend the many and make the effort to cook something that will taste better and nourish you longer. You can eat far less if it contains the right ingredients. You avoid obesity and are healthier of body and spirit. This translates to design as well designed, well fabricated products will take you farther and keep you content for longer.

The tenets of functionalism, as stated by George Marcus, may not be the solution for the future, in fact if ones believes the tenets then it is at least partially responsible for the problem. This is not to say functionalism is bad it has lead to some incredible designs. The change we as designers need to affect is that there needs to be accountability. There needs to be a revolution in design where designers are held accountable for their designs. Some might argue that designers are not always to blame for a bad design, that it is often the engineers or “bean counters” that ruin a perfectly good design and it may be a valid point, but not the less it starts with the designer and we need to get away from our “pass the buck” culture. Along with this and/or as a result of it we need to be more considerate in our designs by designing products that will encourage a much needed paradigm shift. Shifting our habits and mind set towards conservation and quality. Recognizing the difference between that which we want and that which we need. By changing what peoples perception of “accessible” is from cheap, short term acquisition to quality long term investment. We think nothing of getting a loan for fifteen thousand dollars to buy a car in this country yet we balk at a chair that costs eight hundred, even though a quality chair will prove to be beautiful and useful asset long after most cars will be rusting in a landfill somewhere. It is a dangerous prospect that to endure as a race we, the designers, must run the risk of designing ourselves into extinction by designing better, more durable, more timeless products. Also by designing better products less will be needed this has the negative side effect of needing less labor which translates to less jobs. Perhaps, and hopefully, it will only mean more work to produce less volume and higher quality. Change is needed. We should start now.