Form Follows FUN

Why do things look the way they look? A very big question. So how do we answer it?

The most logical answer is form should follow function.  Everything is designed with function in mind which the form will naturally follow on from. Thinking about it from an engineering point of view this clearly makes sense; for a product to be successful it must foremost be successfully functional and the form it takes should follow on directly from the function it carries out. 

We explored this theory by going back to the beginning of time, always a good place to start. The olduvai handaxe  dates back to 1.2 million years BC and was made in a time when speech had not yet been developed. It is shaped like a teardrop and beautifully worked; It took much skill to create and was the result of much experience and careful planning.

However inspection of a particular ‘handaxe’ tells us something more about the people that made these beautiful objects. One would assume they were purely functional, these people did not make to be creative and expressive but rather to be functional- this hand axe would be the most important tool they had to keep them alive. Mr james dyson spoke about this particular handaxe and described how it in fact didn’t seem very functional at all- too large to fit comfortably in the human hand and a double edge made it dangerous to hold. Was this stone in fact a thing of beauty? A decorative piece almost like a ceremonial sword? Perhaps a status symbol or even an accessory for pulling the ladies?! Made oversized to symbolise importance and represent the social pecking order. Were these people creative people who wanted to make beautiful objects? A very early example of a contradiction of the ‘form follows function’ debate.

So if form does not always follow function then what is form based on? When you start thinking about it you realise there’s almost an endless list of influences on the aesthetics of an object…

A lot of objects reference the human form or an animal ;Characters can be built into objects to tell stories and make illusions to other things.

Branding can influence the aesthetics of a product hugely; Companies need to differentiate their products from competitors in the marketplace.

Materials and manufacturing changes the way things look as it controls the possibilities designers have to produce objects; As technology of materials and manufacturing advances then aesthetics can change and push new boundaries.

There can be a national/ regional form. Objects designed from a certain area of the world take on a form which is typical of that place. But is this still true of the internet age?

Design can follow fashion trends and reflect the current trend of the time or revert back to a previous time to create a retro feel.

So clearly form doesn’t only follow function.

I think the aesthetics of technology is the result of an eclectic mix of a number of factors. The way I see it it’s ultimately and most importantly a form of expressive art from the designer- it’s their way to communicate with the world and embed their characteristics, values and thoughts into their designs. If form only followed function I think the world of design would be a boring place. Playing with the aesthetics of a product is fun and so it should be. If you ask me, the ‘form follows function’ debate has an obvious answer : NO! It does not. Form follows FUN! That’s the beauty of design.