Nothing new with this debate.

Form follows function seems like good sense but on closer examination it becomes problematic and open to interpretation. Linking the relationship between the ‘form’ of an object and its intended purpose is a good idea for designers and architects, but it is not always by itself a complete design solution. Defining the precise meaning(s) of the phrase ‘form follows function’ opens a discussion of design integrity. The New Strength of Style takes this debate and turns it 180 degrees.

2 Replies to “Nothing new with this debate.”

  1. The meaning behind “form follows function” is that “something should look like what it does.” I disagree entirely. It should hint at it, but never take it’s visual form from a pure function, not unless it purely utilitarian.

  2. In the late 1910s the two principles of “form follows function” and “ornament is a crime” were effectively adopted by the designers of the Bauhaus and applied to the production of everyday objects like chairs, bedframes, toothbrushes, tunics, and teapots. Some of those forms were refined and purified to such an extreme degree that they became unusable by humans, but generally the Bauhaus still constructively influences the look, feel and function of consumer goods down to the present day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.