Form and Function: Past, Present, and Future

Erin Marshall VLST Sector C Senior Thesis Paper May 2010

Table of Contents

Introduction3 Part One: Form Follows Function5 Part Two: Form follows function follows evolution..........................24 Conclusion41 Bibliography.43

Introduction In this paper, I will address the changing nature of the relationship between form and function as design concepts. I will begin with a discussion of the well-known phrase Form follows function, coined by the American architect Louis Sullivan in his 1896 article, The tall office building artistically considered. In this influential treatise Sullivan stated, 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. My thesis will examine this idea of form following function as it has been as realized in the evolution of Modernist ideas from the dawn of the twentieth century onward, and culminating in an analysis of the impact current issues are having on this relationshipas well as how it may be shaped by future innovations in design. This dynamic will be studied in depth through an analysis of, as a unifying concept, the changing meanings and applications of the oft-used dictum, Form follows function. In Part One, I will analyze the history of this phrase by identifying a few key individuals, such as Louis Sullivan and Adolf Loos, and movements, including the Bauhaus school, that were instrumental in its development. I will demonstrate the manner in which the theoretical ideas of Sullivan, Loos and Walter Gropiusfounder and developer of the Bauhaus ideologywere not only shaped in part by the central tenets of Form follows function, but would in turn become crucial to the advancement of Mid-century Modernism and the International Style as significant movements of twentieth-century design. These movements, among several others, responded to the challenge posed by these theorists to create design that elevates function through the elimination of unnecessary form.

In Part Two, I will discuss the continuing legacy of Form follows function, addressing elements of the concept which are still firmly engrained in the process and principles of contemporary design. I will argue that this concept has been key in establishing the contemporary field of professional design as one of social and cultural necessity, giving it a new prominence in both elite circles and the every day life of people in the developed world. However, I will also show that the intent behind this phrase in its original incarnation is no longer sufficient to meet all of our needs in the twenty-first century and beyond. Instead, in order for design to continue its evolution, the physical and material expression of the phrase Form follows function is currently undergoingand will continue to undergoa level of transformation so drastic that its originator Louis Sullivan would be highly surprised by its current and future applications.

Part One: Form follows function Louis Sullivan In order to comprehend the future of the phrase, Form follows function, one must first look to the past and consider the context in which it was first developed, at the very end of the nineteenth century. As stated earlier, American architect Louis Sullivan coined the phrase in his 1896 essay, The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Unbeknownst to him its alliterated version (dropping the ever from the phrase to make it an elegant string of fs) would become crucial to the formation of subsequent ideas about what modern would mean for many architects and designers in the twentieth century. Although Sullivans essay deals directly with an issue that was quite pressing at the time, the manner in which office buildings would be constructed, its central theory was the product of over two decades of Sullivans philosophical evolution as an architect. While studying any piece of writing penned by Sullivan, it is impossible to ignore the influence that nature had on his world view as well as his approach to architecture. In The tall office building artistically considered, this inspiration is evident in his description of the operation of form and function in nature: Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. (4) According to his own Autobiography of an Idea, Sullivans appreciation for the processes of nature was present even when he was a child; he recalls fondly memories of exploring the land surrounding his grandparents house and examining all that he found there (54-67). But this was not all childish play; Sullivan credits these days with developing his most prized qualities: keen accuracy of observation, and lively interest in all constructive affairs

(Sullivan, 62). One may also infer that studying nature and its functional efficiency would impact his theories later on, even informing his entire approach to form and function. In addition to nature, Sullivan notes another major influence: a teacher from his childhood by the name of Moses Woolson. He claims that Woolson, whom he greatly respected, helped to channel his inquisitiveness and love of nature into an alertness and concentration that would serve him well later on (Sullivan, 168), and as a result, his insight into the relationship of function and structure deepened rapidly (Sullivan, 173). Woolson was so admired by Sullivan that he would later be held as a standard to which Sullivan would compare other educators, even his professors at M.I.T. (Sullivan, 189) The latter comparison occurred as the young architect began to move away from the instruction he had received at Tech, as he called it; as he began to depart from the architectural status quo (Sullivan, 186). According to Sullivan, his dissatisfaction with academia, and the architectural education being imparted at M.I.T., arose during his studies of the Five Orders of Architecture,the classical styles of the Doric, the Ionic, the Corinthian, the Tuscan, and the Compositewhich he felt pressured to uphold as an unquestionable standard of perfection (Sullivan, 186-187). Sullivan by nature was not given to that kind of faith, instead choosing the creative power and glory of man, and freedom as ideals that he deemed to be more deserving of his loyalty (Sullivan, 187). As he puts it, the only conclusions he drew from these lessons in the Orders were that they really were fairy tales of the long ago, now by the learned made rigid, mechanical and inane in the books he was pursuing, wherein they were stultified, for lack of common sense and human feeling (Sullivan, 187). To him, these standards of the past were irrelevant to those living and requiring architectural solutions in the present.

In time, the sciences and the driving principles of engineering became an important influence in Sullivans search for a more meaningful approach to architecture. The more knowledge he gained about the subject, the more he realized that the engineers were the only men who could face a problem squarely; who knew a problem when they saw it (Sullivan, 246). For him, the field of engineering served in contrast to the architectural mind, which lacked this directness, this simplicity, this singleness of purpose which Sullivan felt was required to tackle such problems effectively (246). To put it another way, he felt that engineers took action while architects were more about talk than effective results. He gained even more insight into a potential solution to his concerns in the form of the Scientific Method, seeing in it a power of solution he long had fruitlessly been seeking. His key to an outlook took shape in the scientific method of approach to that which lay behind appearances; a relentless method whereby to arrive at the truth by tireless pursuit (Sullivan, 250). Sullivans search for a solution would come to fruition in Chicago during the 1880s and 1890s. As he recalls in his autobiography, he came of age during the time of a great industrial boom in the city. He talks about how 1880 became the zero hour of an amazing expansion Manufacturing expanded with incredible rapidity, and the building industry took on an organizing definition (Sullivan, 308). He also takes note of the overall climate of Chicago during the time: As to the residential districts, there were increasing indications of pride and display, for rich men were already being thrust up by the mass (Sullivan, 304). It is in this environment, at age 25, not long after partnering with Adler and becoming a full-fledged architect, the theory he had been developing truly began to solidify into something he could begin to apply: He could now, undisturbed, start on the course of practical experimentation he long had in mind (Sullivan, 257). This was essentially the birth of his theory: This meantthat

he would put to the test a formula he had evolved, through long contemplation of living things, namely that form follows function, which would meanthat architecture might again become a living art, if this formula were but adhered to (Sullivan, 258). The essay in which Sullivan introduces his theory was in part a response to an issue of much debate among his contemporaries: how to express the form of the newly-conceived tall office building, or skyscraper (Office Building, 1). On the debate, he remarks that The attempts, moreover, did not rest on any basic principle, therefore the squabblings as to priority are so much piffle. The problem of the tall office building had not been solved, because the solution had not been sought within the problem itselfwithin its inherent nature (Sullivan, 311). He complains that some speculators have thus far taken the wrong approach, proposing designs which are based too heavily on previous architectural knowledge and history, rather than the specific requirements of this largely new building form. In discussion of previous attempts at envisioning the tall office building, he first refers to some already-proposed ideasthat it should take the shape of a Greek column, or that it should vary along the height of the building and offers a solution that he hopes will encourage architects to approach the problem in the most logical way possible. It is important to note Sullivans rejection of this approach, which consists of trying too hard to re-appropriate and reapply styles from the past; regardless of whether those styles adequately serve present purposes or not. Sullivan rejects such repurposing by saying that the tall office building should not, must not, be made a field for the display of architectural knowledge in the encyclopedic sense; that too much learning in this instance is fully as dangerous, as obnoxious, as too little learning (Office Building, 3) By this he implies that prior knowledge and education can sometimes impede the process of successful design by distracting the designer with historical solutions that do not meet current goals and needs of the

project. This indictment can be seen as a wholesale rejection of design philosophies past, whose primary methods consisted of just that, suggesting that design in the coming era should be free from the constricting limitations of academic proscriptions, and aim to be closer to the way things evolve in natureby whose timeline of success human efforts pale in comparison.

Figure 1 The ornate and historically-inspired Chicago Water Tower, completed in 1869 by William Boyington; compared to the clean, practical lines of Sullivans Wainwright Building, completed 1891. [image credit: flickr user zol87, Library of Congress, respectively.]

In thinking about the matter, Sullivan says that it is of the very essence of every problem that it contains and suggests its own solution. (Office Building, 1) He explains that, when trying to decide what form this new type of building will take, it is best to consider how things take shape in nature. According to Sullivan, the forms of things in nature are so inherently suitable for that organism or object that they just seem right to us, so suitable that we could not imagine them being anything other than what they are. We may read this observation as Sullivans belief in the rationale for this phenomenon as lying in the divine evolution of forms in

order to best support and allow for the optimal functioning of that thing, be it plant, animal, or other natural element: It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and 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. (emphasis his) (Office Building, 4) Put another way, Sullivans definition of form follows function, at least in terms of architecture, is the following: the form of a building should take its cue from the manner in which that building will be used (its function). To him, this is an observable principle of nature, a principle that we should use to inform the things that we as humans make as well. Sullivan proposes that, since this is a concept that has worked so well in nature (and even we are evidence of this success), it makes perfect sense to apply it to architecture as well. Expanding on this point, Sullivan says that in order to determine what form the building should take, one must consider how that building will be used, dividing it into specific functions which vary according to location within the building. He outlines these: a basement, for boilers, pipes and other mechanical features; the first floor will likely be used for commercial space, shops, and also needs a central entrance which is easy to locate and navigate; the floor above this for other commercial space; above that one, an inordinate number of floors dedicated to office spaces, uniform in nature and compartmentalized; and an attic space for additional mechanical necessities. Thus, it would naturally follow, says Sullivan, that the first two floors will be considerably loftier in height than the floors above it for office spaces, the office floors need not be different from each other, and so on. In short, the form of the building should be derived from how the building and its various components will be used. If designed in this manner, the final form will just make sense, as do things we see in nature.

10

Adolf Loos Equally important to the evolution of the modern functional design idea that grew out of Sullivans phrase form follows functionand, thus, to the roots of modern designis an essay published by the Czech-born architect Adolf Loos in 1908, entitled Ornament and Crime. In the essay, it is clear that Loos makes some extremely bold claims about the dangers of architectural ornament that were a reaction to the social mores and ideas of his time. In response to what he identifies as the widely-held preference for elaborately-embellished items, Loos denounces ornament as a negative predilection ensconced within the taste of turn-of-the-century European society. For instance, in an essay published in 1898 on the topic of interior design, Loos clearly expresses his disapproval of his peers recent fascination with textiles, claiming it has ushered in the rule of the upholsterer, a reign of terror that still gives us nightmares, and has resulted in an overabundance of [s]ilks and satins, plush and Makart bouquets of peacock feathers and dried grasses, dust and a lack of light and air, door curtains and carpets and so on, as well as pieces of furniture so completely upholstered that the woodwork could no longer be seen. (Loos, 52) Similarly excessive trends were also evident in metal and woodworking and nearly every conceivable area of craftsmanshiptrends that were more a product of the demands of the consuming public than any desire of craft workers to promote such indulgence. While Loos was responding to a trend in his society which he considered to be frivolous excess, there was much that led to the formation of his ideas, his personal background foremost among them. His upbringing was of particular influence. In addition, Loos military service, which brought him at one point to Vienna, exposed him to fine leather and silver goods that, he felt, did not require such ornate decoration in order to exude a sense of high quality and elegance. Joseph Rykwert, a writer for established art journal, Studio International, makes note

11

of this, saying that these items inspired in Loos a passion for smooth and precious surfaces, (Rykwert, 1) which would later re-emerge in the ideas presented in his writings. In Hands Off!, an essay Loos published in 1917, he esteems leather items such as boots and shoes, luggage and saddlery, as well as cigarette cases and watches of unadorned metal manufacture, as examples of superior craftsmanship. (Loos 179-180) In the same essay, he avows that construction pure and simple was to take the place ofthe luxuriant decoration of past epochs. (181) Proposing an idea that would later be echoed in the principles of many modernist movements, he purports the following: Straight lines, right-angled edges, that is the way the craftsman works who has an eye to function, and has tools and material at hand. (181)

Figure 2 The streamlined aesthetic of Loos Villa Mller in Prague (1928), compared to the elaborate excess of an Art Nouveau interiorAlphonse Mucha, Paris, 1900which would have been met with Loos disapproval. [image credit: bdonline.co.uk and Massimo Listri/CORBIS, respectively.]

Other movements were proposing similar ideas, yet Loos rejected some of their principles which did not coincide with his ownthose of Art Nouveau in particular, which had already surpassed the height of its influence at the time Ornament and Crime was published. As Rykwert explains, while those involved in the movement likewise rejected the trend toward appropriation of historical ornament, Art Nouveau architects and designers thought that a new

12

style could be created for their own time in terms of an ornamental vocabulary, drawing inspiration from nature instead. (2) However, in another essay investigating the essential practicality of chairs and other everyday items, Loos suggests that even this proposed application of ornament is unnecessary when he argues that Nothing in nature is superfluous, and it is the degree of functional value, when combined with the harmony of the other parts, that we call pure beauty. (63) Not only does this statement reflect Louis Sullivans view of nature as the exemplar of functional efficiency, but it also implies that any pursuit of ornament as an aesthetic device is a misstep in the process of successful design. And importantly, he was influenced greatly by his idealistic understanding of concurrent developments in America, exemplified by the work of Sullivan and others. In order to make his point that excessive ornament was a crime within the world of good architectural design, Loos first establishes in Ornament and Crime that unnecessary ornament is irreversibly associated first with childishness, then logically following from that: amorality, criminals and degenerates. To justify these claims, Loos outlines the development of what he calls the ornamental urgean erotic impulse that led to the development of fine art, according to his historical viewas an outlet for said impulse. But now, he claims, that we have such acceptable outlets for this impulse, there is no reason the modern man should desire to ornament his own body (in tattoo form), or the objects that he creates unnecessarily. The only cultures for which he still deems this acceptable practice are those primitive cultures (by his standards) that have not developed suitable material outlets. From this, Loos concludes that whomever in modern society indulges in ornamental decoration must be a degenerate, or at the very least someone of low intelligence. Having set up this argument, Loos concludes that, if we

13

as cultured Western societies have higher pursuits which replace ornamentation in providing the individual pleasure, then why engage in it at all, since it no longer serves any real function? Loos teleology ends with an indictment of the indulgence in unnecessary ornament, a sin that he has deemed to be rampant in his society. He argues that, far from being a harmless pursuit, the application of ornament to buildings and objects actually impedes cultural development. His logic is that, in the modern age, we are not actually creating any new ornament, merely imitating designs and motifs of the past. Since ornament can be developed no further, it has no past and no future, and to devote any more attention to it would be to squander our potential to create new things of meaning. Loos gives further practical justifications for the elimination of ornamentwhich seem more empathetic to the plight of the average person than his previous arguments that are tinged with notions of class and elitism. He asserts that unnecessary ornament is a waste of money: it increases production costs, wastes valuable materials, and thus raises the prices of objects higher than what they should be. He says the use of ornament, for which styles and preferences change over the years, creates a cycle of disposable objects, which are wastefully discarded for new ones when the old are no longer aesthetically desirable. It is better, he says, to create objects with timeless design, which will last and still be desirable regardless of changing tastes. Secondly, he deems ornament a waste of human labor: requiring ornament and extra embellishments on functional objects adds extra work for laborers whose expected duties are already taxing; this work, of course, results in no extra pay. According to Loos, this situation results in the consequent devaluation of human labor; workers are being paid less than what their work is worth to produce objects that are more frivolous than functional (due to more time spent ornamenting and less time spent on solid construction). Without this unnecessary ornament, Loos

14

believes that the organization of the manufacturing process could be configured so that workers could have shorter hours and higher pay, as well as spend their valuable work hours making objects of better physical quality and value. Following these arguments, Loos makes a final appeal to those of high intellect, and by extrapolation, high taste, attempting to convince them of his arguments veracity by championing the rejection of unnecessary ornament as a sign of sophisticated taste. One such statement Loos makes in the essay Hands Off!which he also wrote in service of the aforementioned goal makes his attempts at validation of his views quite clear, by insisting to the skeptical reader that quality materials and good workmanship do not simply make up for a lack of ornamentation, they far surpass it in luxuriousness. (182) In this regard, his petition to his contemporaries to reconsider their tastes remains consistent throughout his body of writing. Despite the fact that his argument was in clear contradiction to the current standard of social refinement and the finer pleasures, Loos remained confident that any person of reason would agree that ornament is an excess not worth having, that in fact it impedes the development of what could otherwise be good design. Ornament and Crime, with its argument against unnecessary ornamentation, presents Loos take on Sullivans conception of form following function; The design of an object (its form) should include only that which is necessary according to: its intended use, the qualities of the materials from which it is constructed, and other practicalpurely practicalconsiderations (all in all, its function and the making of it). Following these proscriptions, Loos firmly believed, will result in a timeless object of high value, fittingly desirable to those of discerning taste.

15

The Bauhaus School The design principles developed at and championed by the Staatliches Bauhaus school in Germany between 1913 and 1930 further developed the idea of form following function first put forth by Sullivan and then Loos. At the Bauhaus many important principles of modernism were created that came to set the precedents for the way current designers view the relationship between form and function. Typical Bauhaus aesthetics rejected unnecessary ornament, focusing on a stripped-down, utilitarian approach to design which was also intended to be accessible. Reflecting on the impact of the Bauhaus, historian Peter Gay writes that: The Bauhaus persuaded designers to adopt a new, clean vocabulary in lamps, in chairs, in typography; it changed the face of modern architecture with its exhibition houses and with that model of modernity, the Dessau Bauhaus of 1926; it propagated its views with enthusiastic shows and striking pamphletsit undertook an experiment in aesthetic education unprecedented in its imaginative sense for the whole person. (Gay, 123-124) This statement only scratches the surface of the Bauhaus influence, however. In order to fully understand how Bauhaus ideas impact the idea of form following function, one must examine the schools history in more detail. In order to form a more complete picture of the Bauhaus, one must first consider the historical context in which it was founded. Several historians point out that the context of postWorld War I Germany had a significant influence on its formation. The development of the ideas behind the school came at the end of the First World War, which left Germany in a less-thandesirable condition financially, structurally, politically, and psychologically. Historian Tom Wolfe explains that Germany had been crushed in the war and humiliated at Versailles; the economy had collapsed in a delirium of inflation; the Kaiser had departed; the Social Democrats had taken power in the name of socialism, and what remained consisted largely of smoking ruins and decay. (Wolfe 14) Gay describes the development of the Bauhaus as a series of

16

sensitive responses to the political upheavals, the institutional disorder, and the spiritual effervescence of republican Germany that existed at the time of its founding. (Gay 124) The architect Walter Gropius, one of the founders of the Bauhaus, had experienced firsthand some of the violence and devastation during and after the First World Warincluding the November Revolution and the assaults of crowds on German officers, as Gay notes (122)which led to his decision to act on a radical solution to the problems he saw in a broken society: revitalization through design. Gropius choice of design as central to his vision of reshaping post-war German society confirms his conviction that design had the potential to provide unification, stability, and the improvement of the general morale of his countrymen. Judith Arthur describes this conviction as a quasi-religious notionof design as a redemptive power in its own right; a radical facilitator within the context of a nation morally and economically defeated by the First World War, citing his belief that designcould reshape a better, more integrated and ultimately democratic German society (Arthur, 11-12). Boston University professor Matthew Wilson Smith provides further insight into the radical nature of Gropius vision, describing his proposed solution to social ills as Not so much a recovery as a total reengineering of the real. (Smith 49) In many respects, Gropius faith in design as a vehicle for such drastic transformation is the influence of the Deutsche Werkbund on his development as an architect and designer. Peter Gay describes the Werkbund as an association devoted to the ennoblement of design through the collaboration of art, industry, and artisanship. (Gay 114-115) Gay also lists some of the goals of the Werkbund, noting the desire to democratize German aesthetics, to devote equal attention to all elements of the man-made environment. (115) Gropius, attuned to these concerns as a young man, swam in a sea of wordswhich bestowed on mundane objects the

17

unaccustomed stature of a metaphysical problem. (Gay 115) This, presumably, would stay in his mind as he was developing the ideas that would later manifest in the Bauhaus school. By the time Gropius established his own practice in Berlin in 1910, he had become dissatisfied with the complacency of others in the architectural field. In an analysis of Gropius rise to prominence, Peter Gay notes Gropius disdain that All too few of his fellows seemed responsive to the requirements of modern industry and modern transport, and his accusation that by pandering to the rich, they labored to secure for themselves that comfortable title, arbiter of good taste. (115) Gay also credits Gropius with identifying the agents of modern ugliness by pointing at speculators and entrepreneurs as profiteers in bad taste. (121) Considering the individuals previously discussed, these complaints seem all too familiar; Sullivans treatise on form and function was developed partly in response to the easy acceptance of his contemporaries, who were happy to merely replicate lessons from history books; Loos lifelong crusade against ornament was inspired in part by his disdain for the aesthetic status quo which had been established, and left unchecked, by the bourgeois of his society. Similarly, Gropius reflects on this penchant for the thoughtless misappropriation of historical design ideas, as Gay notes, that the bad taste and dishonest revivalism of nineteenth-century salon architecture had sprung, not from obedience to, but disregard of, the great tradition of design. (172) Intense and critical, Gropius found the architectural atmosphere around him polluted by mendacity and snobbery. The need, at least to him, was plain: if architects really wanted to develop a genuine, historically valid form of expression; they would have to revolutionize the visual education for the young and at the same time make intensive studies of mass-production in housing. (Gay 115) So, Gropius took the same need that Sullivan and Loos found for architectural and design solutions that were fitting for the technological realities and challenges

18

of twentieth-century life, and rather than merely writing about them or trying to reform his immediate peers, he found his solution in the development of a method and means for reeducating the next generation. This solution, of course, was the Bauhaus school. During its brief fourteen-year lifespan, the Bauhaus school impacted the direction of twentieth-century design by undermining traditional thought about design, and by championing a modern design aesthetic. The initial manifesto of the Bauhaus outlined three of Gropius main objectives. First: to establish architecture as the dominant design forum. Second: to undermine traditional hierarchies by elevating the status of crafts skills to a level commensurate with fine art And third: a goal which concerned the improvement of industrial products through the combined efforts of artists, industrialists and craftsmen, in other words invoking a unification of all design and arts and crafts practices (Arthur, 12). Overall, the focus of the school in its three incarnations was largely influenced by who was leading it at the time. The school started with an idea of uniting art, design and craft, but the ideas which would later define it were already present at the beginning. This unique approach to the plastic arts came at a time of great industrial change, in the advent of mass production and manufacturing, and also new developments in industrial materials. This would especially have an impact when the school moved to Dessau, which is where the truly modernist aesthetic now associated with the Bauhaus fully developed. Arthur accurately summarizes that Throughout the schools history this crafts bias featured at the very core of the Bauhaus educational philosophy of learning by doing, explains Arthur, and the school thus maintained the humanism of a crafts ethic while aspiring, certainly after 1924, to production for industry (13).

19

Figure 3 The Bauhaus building in Dessau, Germany, by Walter Gropius. Completed 1926. [image credit: Wikimedia Commons, photo contributor Tom Alt.]

Even in its early days, the Bauhaus employed a radically different teaching method that undermined traditional instruction and would set the foundation for ideas that would later prove extremely influential even today. The teaching ideology employed by Bauhaus instructors included the following: The curriculum was theoretically based, comprising an exploration of the primary components of visual language: texture, colour, form, shape and materials. Students concentrated upon manipulating formal elements of abstraction, engaged in compositional studies and also in a variety of exercises familiarising them with the possibilities and limitations of individual materials (Arthur, 14). This emphasis on individual craft changed over time, but the change was greatly accelerated when the Jewish-Hungarian artist Lzl Moholy-Nagy became involved with the school. A lot of it probably had to do with his Russian Constructivism influence. Arthur notes that he aspired to eradicate fine art altogether in favour of a modern design which would assume a machine aesthetic thoroughly commensurate with socialist ideology, (13). To

20

Moholy-Nagy, the machine symbolized standardized parts production, anonymous design and assembly. It produced industrial artefacts devoid of detail and valued for their generalized geometric configurationThe blatant anonymity of the machines making was equally inviting because it eradicated subjective expressionIt talked of a collective, universal significance, a utopian faith in the modern age being brought about by post-war mass production (Arthur, 16). At Dessau is where the school really began to develop the machine aesthetic it is now so closely associated with. As former students Marcel Breuer, Joseph Albers and others began to teach: Their presence initiated a fresh emphasis upon production-based work and an increasingly objective application of basic form to design. In this way they began to achieve a synthesis of art with new technical possibilities, moving more effectively towards a new aesthetic for machine production (Arthur, 18). Materials were an important factor in the development of this new aesthetic. Steel was particularly important, as it was seen to embody the modern ideals they sought to achieve: According to Arthur, the use of tubular steel as a design material was a supreme manifestation of the early centurys discourse with the machine. It was a machine-made product, held to be especially characteristic of modernity and aesthetic anonymity (19). It was also representative of Gropius focus on the responsibility of the designer during the very process of designing (Arthur, 19).

21

Figure 4 Nesting tables (1925) and club chairs (1927) by Marcel Breuer. The use of tubular steel and minimal form were characteristic of the Bauhaus aesthetic during that time period. [image credit: moma.org.]

The goal of unification of art and design became even more important, especially as the idea of designing for mass production became a central focus. These aims are best summarized by Arthur in her discussion of Gropius vision for the school: Walter Gropius believed that design should ideally evolve from a humanistic approach, and maintained that designs ability to respond in both form and process to the social and economic necessities of society was fundamental. He argued that the designer must at once be an artist and a craftsperson, recognising in modern abstraction the basic, forms which were akin to the rational requirements of mass-production. (20) In this way, the goals of the school in its earlier years were not lost but integrated into its new direction, which looked toward the future of design in an increasingly industrial and technological world. The analysis of the Bauhaus development and changing focus leads to a realization that the Bauhaus contribution to our idea of form following function is largely a combination of Sullivans idea of form taking shape naturally and making intuitive sense, Loos rejection of ornamentation and subsequent desire for well-and-efficiently-made utilitarian objects of timelessness and high quality, and an amalgam of the beliefs of its various directors and 22

changing manifesto. However the philosophy of the Bauhaus and its commitment to form following function differs from Loos elitist conceptions in its more democratic belief that design should be accessible to all regardless of intellectual capacity or social status.

23

Part Two: Form follows function follows evolution

Legacy: Twentieth Century Although the form follows function idea was developed primarily in response to architecture, it also had major implications for product design. Loos set the stage for this application in his critique of the lavish decorative tastes of his contemporaries by citing examples of good, simple craftsmanship of everyday goods as superior models to follow in the production and consumption of such items. And the Bauhaus school continued this, primarily at its location at Dessau, in its goal to incorporate the modern machine aesthetic into objects of everyday life, intended to be accessible to all. Following the dissipation of the school in Germany after the Nazi rise to power, many Bauhaus figures migrated to America and subsequently rose to prominence within their new context. Wolfe suggests that, upon arrival in America, they were treated very much like celebrities, and their expertise was sought after for positions in academic institutions countrywide. The list of their various appointments reads like an all-star lineup: Gropius was made head of the school of architecture at Harvard, and Breuer joined him there. Moholy-Nagy opened the New Bauhaus, which evolved into the Chicago Institute of Design. Albers opened a rural Bauhaus in the hills of North Carolina, at Black Mountain College. Mies was installed as dean of architecture at the Armour Institute in Chicago. And not just dean; master builder also. (Wolfe 46) Each of these individuals took components of the Bauhaus manifesto, adapted them to their new environments, and played a part in the diffusion of Bauhaus ideas into the consciousness of American design. On the impact of the migration of Bauhaus figures to America, Wolfe remarks that Within three years of their arrival, the course of American

24

architecture had changed, utterly. It was not so much the buildings the Germans designed in the United StatesIt was more the system of instruction they introduced. Still more, it was their very presence. (Wolfe 48) They influenced many prominent American designers and architects who would continue to have a major impact on modern design in the States, and in this way cemented the heritage of the Bauhaus schooland thus, the legacy of form follows function in American design. The secondary application of modernist ideas to product design was brought even more to the forefront following the Bauhaus migration to the U.S. Several of these figures, naturally, became prominent in the field of architecture, but their various teaching positions at universities across the country allowed their ideas to become accessible to others in the design community, including in the field of industrial design. Some authors point out that, as modernist theories were disseminated into the American consciousness, they became less affixed to the social and political context in which they were founded, and began to be applied more generally as principles of good modern design. These modernist principles, having been developed from Sullivans form follows function, and the Bauhaus method of design education and process which also emerged from it, became an influential model for industrial design practice. For instance, many writers cite Louis Sullivans ideas as a major influence on the way we think about successful design today. In outlining the new considerations of design, Nathan Crilly acknowledges that Sullivans doctrine Form follows function has informed much of design from its twentieth-century beginnings up to the present (225). There is also some legacy of Sullivans ideas within Elzbieta Kazmierczaks theory that Designers strategically bring into designs only those aspects of the object that are essential to the design objective. (9) From this, it seems that at least one aspect of Form follows functionparticularly the one which dictates

25

that only those elements essential to the goals of design have justification for inclusionhas been and will stay with us for the time being. Additionally, Kim and Boradkar acknowledge that their approach derives its essential ideological premise from Modernism. (1) They also channel the spirit of Sullivan when they note that Every object, through its appearance, informs us of what it is, and through its function advises us about what it can do. (Kim and Boradkar, 2)

Legacy Twenty-first Century Today, consumer products, such as Apples popular line of computers and personal electronics, show the modernist idea of form follows function in full force with their minimal form and sleek design. The company cemented their reputation as a contemporary devotee of modernist design with the introduction of the iPhone. With its extreme minimal design; this outstanding piece of consumer product design embodies this answer to the conjecture of future form (Hoggan et al.). Based on very simple observation, the iPhone, a rectangular slab of plastic and metal, consists of little more than a screen, with a negligible amount of surface interruption. A person who had neither seen nor heard of the device would likely be underwhelmed by such a plain piece of machinery. For those familiar with its functionality, however, this almost non-form makes perfect sense; the physical iPhone is not so much a mechanically-functioning device as a portal into the real iPhone: the expansive interface that lives beyond the screen. It can be said that, in order for the user to have the most ease of navigation within the touchscreen interface, the primary facilitator of the objects functionality, the rest of the physical form should essentially disappear. And now, with the introduction of the iPad, this type of design solution could become the rule rather than the exception. In a sense, Apple has incorporated more practical uses already

26

being fulfilled by the personal laptop and incorporating the innovative touchscreen interface and futuristic design of the iPhone, expanding the functionality while simultaneously minimizing the physical form. While much of the iPads legacy can be linked to the tablet computers which were developed in the 1990s, iPad sales just in the few months since its introduction this year, which far surpass the success of its predecessors over a decade ago, indicate that Apple has perfected a combination of modernist ideas and the application of currently developed technology which has ushered in a new era in contemporary product design.

Figure 5 With their streamlined, minimalist form, the Apple iPhone and iPad exemplify the legacy of the modernist aesthetic in contemporary design. [image credit: apple.com.]

Although Apple has taken much inspiration from the ideas once pioneered by the individuals discussed in Part One, the central feature of the iPhone and the iPad, the intangible virtual interface, shows that the simplicity of the 20th-century application of Sullivans idea misses something important about the making of such new products. What Sullivans concept can no longer explain is this: how the current relationship between form and function is mediated by those elements of functionality that are not physical, but virtual. As the concerns of contemporary design has become increasingly complex, so has

27

necessarilythe relationship between form and function. As such, the modernist ideas of the first quarter of the twentieth century, which were progressive for their time, no longer exist as they once were; on many levels, they have had to adapt along with our entire approach to design. The properties of form and function do not exist in a closed loop within contemporary design process. As the fields of industrial and architectural design have expanded over the last 80 years since the close of the Bauhaus, their status as established industries has brought new concerns and responsibilities, as well as levels of accountability which impact on the design process at every stage. In a sense, these many considerations have grown much larger than form itself. As a general observation, many of the functions of our daily life now occur in a virtual realm that is entirely intangible in a way that Sullivan, Loos, and the Bauhaus forefathers of modernism could not have predicted. The challenge for designers, then, is the following: how does one design an intermediary, a functional interface, for such interactions? If the focus is to be on the function, what then to do with form? In light of such a dilemma, several designers have responded to the challenge with forms which 1) co-exist with such functions without impeding or hindering them, and 2) reinterpret an aesthetic which references past visions of a modern future. Jane Fulton Suri, of the Palo Alto, California design firm IDEO, says the emphasis of design has shifted from designing things right to choosing the right things to design. (Green and Jordan, 13) Johan Redstrm defines one current goal of design as using the right language to express the functionality and intended use of the object (Redstrm 126). While in Kazmierczaks view, The role of a designer is to provide the form needed to make a pre-defined content/information/data/meaning, and message perceptually accessible, or to translate its one form into another. (2) As these quotes indicate, much of the focus of design has shifted from the

28

physical production of new products to the idealization of the interaction of the consumer, or user, with such items. Many writers, indeed, have argued that Sullivans dictum form follows function is no longer adequate to guide contemporary design process; while it is generally agreed upon that functional considerations should play a role in determining the form of an object, the extent of that role has been the subject of debate. At the very least, it is clear that function is not the only determining factor in form, and that formal considerations, of course, are a means rather than and end in the context of the design process. Yehuda Kalay concludes that this intuitive dissatisfaction experienced by designers is evidence that a crucial piece of the process is missing from Form follows function, that there is more to the success of fully-realized design than this simple one-to-one relationship and neither can be considered the basis for seeking the other. (Kalay, 396) As such, the outdated twentieth century slogan form follows function cannot hold, as many functions considered important in the current trend of designmainly addressing psychological realities of the end userare themselves increasingly intangible. Kazmierczak also makes a statement that seems to be a response to Sullivans view that human design activity should take direction from that of nature: Unlike many objects in life which exist for themselves (trees or animals), artifacts are objects produced for communication. As physical entities, they provide sensory stimuli for cognition. (12) This statement signals a need to move beyond the somewhat limited views of modernism, and also reinforces the point she has been making about the new role of design. Crilly claims that the reality of the current situation of design has rendered its own guiding principle too narrow to meet our contemporary needs. In his paper, he redefines function as only one of many possible influences on product form rather than as something from which form inevitably flows. (226)

29

Having done research and gained a wide spectrum of knowledge in the area of what is called human-centered design, Williams and Wellbourne-Wood quote Suris 2003 essay, saying that Designers now often challenge the wisdom of a focus on designing individual artifactsthe thing as an isolated objectwhen peoples interactions can be better supported by thinking more holistically about their activities and processes. (Williams/Wellbourne-Wood, 5) A paper by Nathan Crilly serves as an analysis of the factors that go into the process of developing a products form; based on this survey, it becomes convincingly clear that contemporary design is concerned with more than just aesthetic considerations, or even mechanical functionality.

Contemporary Design Practice The rise of the user interface and digital technology shows that it is no longer enough for designers to ensure an appropriate physical form-to-function relationship. In the past, the modernist ideal held that material form should be used as a means for achieving successful functionality, in a mechanical sense, as an end result. But now, both physical and mechanical functionality have become the means for delivering a new end product of design: the virtual user experience which exists in a realm outside the material. As new technology has heightened the development of the interface, this has created functions that are no longer met exclusively by physical means. Instead, many functions lay within, or arguably, beyond the containing frames of their so-called containing forms. In their paper, Williams and Wellbourne-Wood take the view that, rather than designing physical objects, the new focus of high-technology design has shifted to the goal of creating user experiences. They believe that design is now less about solving problems of human

30

existencedeveloping products that improve standards of living andovercoming limitations of the physical world. The role of the designer is now largely to create human experiences through design, to differentiate products from the competition and to create stronger emotional links with customers. (Williams/Wellbourne-Wood, 1) In reflection on the evolution of design practice, Suri observes that As established products have become more similar in technology, functionality, price and quality, companies have turned to design to differentiate their offerings through human-centered innovation and to create stronger emotional connections with their customers. (McDonagh et al., 13) Design writer G J van der Veen gives the reason that the new ubiquity of affordable technology has meant that matching or surpassing the functionalstandards of a competitors products will do little to grab the attention of a more knowledgeable, mature and demanding consumer led society. (McDonagh et al., 397) Regardless of the concern expressed by some critics and designers, the reality is that the product of the contemporary design process is increasingly something intangible. As mentioned, this is partially the result of technological innovation, which has changed both our needs and our means of fulfilling them. In a paper exploring new attitudes toward usability, Overbeeke and colleagues provide a novel yet insightful explanation of why technology has fundamentally changed our conception of form: What happens inside electronic products is intangibleIn contrast with mechanical components, electronic components do not impose specific forms or interactions for a design. Products have become intelligent, and intelligence has no form. Design research, quite naturally, turned to the intelligent part of humans. (Green and Jordan, 10) Following this framework, then, what is to be done about form as this trend logically continues?

31

One answer is that form will become increasingly minimal as other elements of designboth technology and end goalsbecome progressively intangible. In many ways, technology has allowed the physical features of such consumer electronics to become increasingly miniaturizedas expressed in Moores lawin order to better service and accentuate those virtual aspects of these products. On the role of technology, Suri adds that Increasingly we find ourselves designing to support complex and dynamic interactions integrating hardware and software, spaces and services. (McDonagh et al., 13) In the introduction to their research on user pleasure, Cayol and Bonhoure reflect on the impact of technology on product design: The miniaturisation of technology has brought along with it some very contradictory trends. We see now dematerialised design (where only the interface subsists and explains the functions) currently coexisting with decorated design (McDonagh et al., 105) According to John Williams and Shaun Wellbourne-Wood, This movement toward designing for experience is partly due to advances in the technologies to which many people have access and which influence their behaviorDesigners response to technologically integrated lifestyles is to design for that experience. (4) Crilly et al also note that technology can also serve as a constraint to design, saying that a number of physical constraints are imposed by the components which the product must house or by those which it must connect to. This leads the designer into a packaging exercise where the product form is partially determined by the characteristics of existing systems (237) In addition to the new and exiting, technology has also resulted, on a much less drastic scale, in the improvement of production methods, materials, and processes. With such quality construction as a universal expectation, what, then, can designers do to make their products

32

stand out among others? The answer, provided by several different writers, lies in elements of a product other than form. One way to do this is by making things progressively smaller. As one author points out, one way for designers to draw attention to their product is by showcasing its technological impressiveness; as a general rule (or, Moores law, specifically), as technology improves, its implementations become smaller, faster and more powerful. Williams and Wellbourne-Wood also cite economic reasons for why the focus of design has changed. They explain that now, having drastically improved processes of manufacturing over time, weve essentially mastered the production of physical forms, creating a situation where, Each year, thousands of new existing products hit the global design markets. (5) Rather than improving forms of goods (an area in which it is hard to achieve any truly new innovation), businesses now must seek success in the ability to wrap products and services with deliberately designed engaging experiences. (5) Crilly et al note that technology can often have an impact on the final form of an object. They suggest that designers may strive to use a products form to emphasise its underlying technology (237), referring to the fact that, due to many innovations, several products have the capability to provide better and more powerful technological functions in increasingly smaller forms, and that [if] this is likely to be a key determinant of consumer appraisal, it makes sense for the designer to highlight this as much as possible. (237) The fact thathaving become so adept at the production of physical goodsthere is not much left to drastically improve upon draws a kind of parallel to the state of ornament in the era of Sullivan and Loos; it ceased to be a viable area of exploration because there was, as Loos observed, little new to be done with it. This, of course, merits the question of whether form will soon go the way of ornament and disappear altogether.

33

To some, it seems that physical form is becoming so minimal that it runs the risk of ceasing to be a significant aspect of design altogether. Many writers, critics, professors, and designers express this opinion. Kazmierczak notes that not only are these changes occurring, but also that, now that this evolution of design is becoming the norm, usersespecially in media-savvy cultureshave come to expect them by virtue of having experienced them now so frequently. She states that they are now methodically reading the designs with the expectation that these designs were meant to be read, and that they were intended to have a significance or content that is greater thanthe subject matter presented. (13)Williams and Wellbourne-Wood also take into account that, because these technologies have become so mainstream, people come to expect the things they use to interact with them, prompting the need for designers to keep up. They state that In the past designers just designed thingsIt has become apparent however, that consumer preferences have moved from a product to an experienceand consequently mass production has given way to mass customization; utility and function have given way to a new set of requirements, beyond the object. (2)

Rise of User-Centered Design and the All-Encompassing Interface Another way to highlight the advantages of a product among competitors is to emphasize, as has already been suggested, the superior consideration of that product of the assumed needs of its user. Also, it can be inferred that, if weve exhausted the potential for physical improvement, it makes sense for product design to turn to psychological aspects of functionality. Hence, the development of user interface design as a major field of research and interest.

34

In a discussion of the relationship between user and product, Green and Jordan offer one interpretation of the current and future roles of form and function, and how usability emerges from these: Due to developments in production quality these aspects are no longer a distinguishing characteristic. Nowadays nearly all products are of reasonable quality. Thus functionality and usability become more important. Another trend is the growing application of microchips in a wide range of products. This results in an almost unlimited amount of features. The counterpart of this trend is the fact that products become more difficult to use. Therefore usability can distinguish a product from its competitors. (297) Again, production value has increased so much that the physical is almost a non-issue. So, they argue, successful usability design can be seen as a way to make one product stand out within a vast sea of equal competitors. In order to use our new awareness of the user for good, Johan Redstrm offers that We need a foundation based on an understanding of use as achievement rather than as reproduction; of the object as experienced, rather than the experience as object. (137) He seems to be saying that we are stuck between the end of one ruling dogma and the beginnings of a new ideology. Weve come to accept the idea that the term function can refer to something abstract, like an experience, not just physical, and that user interaction is necessary for the realization of function; and yet we still cant let go of the notion that the end product of a design must be an object fully realized, that we must hand the user something to interact with for which every possible detail has been fully considered. In some ways, Redstrm is justified in his insistence on keeping some control in the hands of users; considering not only the novel ways in which people use items in their homes, but also the limitless user-created applications of free open-source programs and software that

35

have sprung up in recent years (the hackabilityof technology, as he puts it) (137), it can be argued that user-centered design can indeed be a powerful tool, as long as it affords the user the freedom to participate in the process, rather than attempting to dictate interactions that have yet to occur. Regardless of ones opinion about the appropriate limits of user-centered design, its very existence signals that the concept of functionality has expanded to include not only a products capability to successfully act on the physical environment, but to act in tandem with those who use it in that environment. Kazmierczaks paper also introduces an important concept about the changing view of users: they are no longer thought of as passive users of products. When designs become interfaces replete with meanings to be interpreted, this new focus empowers the role of the receiver by acknowledging her/his essential participation in a communication process. (5)

Proposed Reinterpretations and Some Entirely New Approaches In a paper analyzing the needs of future product design, van der Veen advocates a reexamination of our understanding of functionality, saying that much of a products functionality has been reduced to purely materialistic concerns and therefore offers little in terms of engagement and interaction. (McDonagh et al., 397) Also, as several writers have indicated, there are not one, but many relationships which form and function can have with one another. One is that a given form can in fact have multiple functions. This may occur due to the disparity that often occurs between the intended function, as determined by the designer, and the novel functions resulting from the users real-life interaction with the object. There is also the acknowledgment that for any given function, a variety of forms

36

may, and do, exist which meet said function. This is immediately evident when one considers the wide selection that exists within the general category of a product. For instance, for the problem of creating adequate human seating accommodations, there exist a seemingly infinite range of possible solutions in the form of the chair (Kalay, 399); a trip to any furniture store will prove this to be true. Crilly also makes an argument related to the advanced state of consumer goods design and production. He argues that, because of the wide range of products that it has become possible to design and produce, any given function can be satisfied by a variety of different product types, and each of these types typically adopts a different product formwhilst anticipated usage influences the type of product that is designedwithin a product type designers are at liberty to shape products in many different ways. (225) Kalay argues that the relationship between form and function is much more nuanced, saying that different forms can successfully achieve similar functions, anddifferent functions can often be afforded by similar forms, and advocates an approach that accounts for performance variances of the same form/function combinations within different contexts. (396) Additionally, the over-simplicity of the phrase ignores the fact that, as other authors have pointed out, there are now a multitude of different forms that essentially were designed to support similar functions. (Kalay 398-399) Several writers have argued that context is an important consideration along with form and function. In this case, they are referring to the context in which the product will be used. One reason for advocating the inclusion of context into design considerations is the realization that the relationship between form and function is not a directly causal one. In her analysis of the recent trend in designing with focus on experience, Suri observes the importance of context as an element of a product, a force that shapes a users interaction with said product in ways far

37

beyond the influence of form and utilitarian function: There seems to be mainstream acknowledgment, at long last, that the things we design do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it is understood that they are in dynamic relationship with people, places and other things; that they carry personal, social and cultural connotations (161). According to Kalay, successful design goes deeper than Form follows function and its inverse; it necessarily incorporates context, and is mediated by the evaluation of performance. It is here that Kalay introduces the concept of performance-based design, which recognizes that the relationship between form and function is context-based, rather than causality-based, meaning that it considers the circumstances under which the two come together. (396) In a paper addressing aspects of user interaction with products, Popovic highlights the distinction famed writer Donald Norman draws between the physical and psychological considerations of users needs: Psychological variables are goals and intentions. Physical variables refer to the task to be performed. Here, people need to use physical means to achieve thisThey need to translate psychological goals and intentions into physical actionsVery often, physical variables are not the ones that the person is concerned about. (Green and Jordan, 370) This suggests that, in turn, these psychological goals need to be the primary concern of designers as well. Influenced by concepts from psychology and cognitive science, Kazmierczak takes the view that designed objects do not exist simply in and of themselves, they exist to communicate a certain meaning (of use or function)a meaning determined by the designer and actively interpreted by the user. Thus, design is not concerned merely with making objects, but with successfully conveying the desired interpretations of meanings which extend beyond the physical objects themselves. According to the author, the view of content as separate from form is

38

problematic because it does not consider the essential influence of the designer on the content. In other words, by not dealing with the relationship between form and content, it overlooks the impact of formal or sensory dimension on semantics. Kazmierczak says that, in order to stay relevant, design must advance to an alternative theoretical model which relates physical form to cognition and comprehension. (3) However, it is understood in the paper that the focus is not on that form which fulfills these goals, but its capacity to make those pre-defined, intangible contents and meanings successfully accessible to the user.

Case Studies In order to speculate about the possible future of form, consider a recently-developed technology that does away with it altogether. Skinput, as it has been christened, is a technology which applies bio-acoustics to the goal of creating an interface which exists without the requirement of a containing form (Harrison et al.).

Figure 6 Some recently developed technologieslike Skinputseem to support the views of the aforementioned writers. Here, the projected interface is demonstrated by a test subject. Could we really be seeing a future without form? [image credit: Chris Harrison, Desney Tan, Dan Morris.]

The novelty of the technology lies in the fact that it makes use of a surface which is always readily available: ones own skin. While this manifestation of the potential decline of form may

39

be extreme, the fact that it was even conceived is still representative of the trend toward effortless functionality with less and less hindrance. It is on one level representative of our demand for everything instantly accessible and necessarily portable.

40

Conclusion: The Future In a paper visualizing the future of user interface and framework development, Angeli and colleagues define and contrast two products of emerging information technology development: Cognitive artifacts are artificial tools made by human beings to support representational functions. In contrast, relationship technologies are going far beyond efficiency, building social artifactsagents that create and maintain meaningful relationships between users, groups of users and interfaces. (Green and Jordan, 99) The important thing to take away from this classification is that the latter concept represents the future direction of design: the emphasis on goals beyond those of physical form and mechanical functionality (and, as noted, efficiency). At the end of his evaluation of current design issues, John Heskett offers some related speculation about the future. On the issue of the future role of form, he poses the question of whether designers function as form-givers, determining form in a manner that allows no variationor as enablers, using the possibilities of information technology and powerful miniaturized systems to provide the means for users to adapt forms and systems to their own purposes. He concludes that both will remain in practice, although to varying degrees (193194). He also notes that because of evolving technology products and systems have the potential to be highly flexible in response to specific users needs. (194) Again, this reflects the notion that future design will address needs that can not be met with physical form alone. So, what does the future hold for Sullivans iconic phrase? Whether advocating for the assimilation of context, emotion, intuition, performance, or any number of other specific concepts into the design process, it is clear that all the authors referenced in this paper acknowledge a central idea: that successful design in the future must address those qualities of a

41

product which extend beyond the confines of physical, material form; it must learn to operate in an intangible domain which exists because we as consumers of culture and technologyand, more importantly, as thinking, feeling, reasoning humanshave constructed it and have accepted its mediation of all of our daily activities. Thus, if they are to remain relevant in the future, both form and function must learn to follow us.

42

Bibliography Allen, James Sloan. The romance of commerce and culture: Capitalism, Modernism, and the Chicago-Aspen Crusade for Cultural Reform. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2002. Arthur, Judith Carmel. Bauhaus. London: Carlton Books, 2000. Crilly, Nathan et al. Shaping things: intended consumer response and the determinants of product form. University of Cambridge. Elsevier Ltd., 2008. Gay, Peter. Art and Act: On Causes in HistoryManet, Gropius, Mondrian. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Green, William S. and Patrick W. Jordan. Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. London: Taylor & Francis, 2002. Harrison, Chris et al. Skinput: Appropriating the Body as an Input Surface. Carnegie Mellon University, 2010. Heskett, John. Toothpicks & Logos. Oxford University Press, 2002. Hoggan, Eve et al. Investigating the Effectiveness of Tactile Feedback for Mobile Touchscreens. University of Glasgow, 2008. Kalay, Yehuda Performance-based design. University of California, Berkeley. Elsevier Science B.V., 1999. Kazmierczak, Elzbieta T. Design as Meaning Making: From Making Things to the Design of Thinking. Design Issues, Vol. 19. No. 2, Spring 2003, pp. 45-59. Kim, Dongha and Prasad Boradkar. Sensibility Design. Arizona State University. Ling, Rich and Pl Roe Sundsy. The iPhone and mobile access to the internet. Loos, Adolf. Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays. Riverside, California: Ariadne Press, 1998. McDonagh et al., ed. Design and Emotion: The Experience of Everyday Things. London: Taylor & Francis, 2004. Parsons and Carlson. Functional Beauty. Oxford University Press, 2008. Pevsner, Nikolaus. Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius. Penguin Books,1964.

43

Redstrm, Johan Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Elsevier Ltd., 2005. Rosenman, M. A. and Gero, J.S. Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. University of Sydney, 2006. Rykwert, Joseph. Adolf Loos: the new vision. Studio International. Vol. 186, No. 957, 1973. Sullivan, Louis. The autobiography of an idea. New York: Dover Publications, 1956. Sullivan, Louis: The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincotts Magazine. 1896. Williams, P. John and Wellbourne-Wood, Shaun Design for Experience: a New Rationale. Wolfe, Tom. From Bauhaus to Our House. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1981.

44