#form follows function

Now, more specifically, to the Bauhaus’s most famous phrase: “Form follows function.” The form follows the function, implying that one should focus only on what is functionally necessary and avoid unnecessary elements.

This phrase is the primary criticism of the Bauhaus from the right. And from the perspective of the Fourth Political Theory, it must be said, rightly so. For modernity, whether defined by Guénon, Heidegger, Adorno, or others, is always, at its core, the reduction of everything to technical functionality and materialism. Thus, the Bauhaus is visually the epitome of modernity.

This is also connected to the fact that the principle of functionality was intended to simplify industrial mass production. As Ernst Jünger noted, the industrial worker is the central figure of modernity. The Iranian philosopher Ahmad Fardid saw the work of a craftsman as a direct expression of their existence, while uniform industrial labor is pure Gestell (enframing) and erases all traces of the existence of the workers involved.

Here, however, a small objection must be raised, as the Bauhaus, in part, sought to counteract this effect by incorporating more elements of craftsmanship into industrial production. This is why Bauhaus students were required to spend several months learning traditional craft skills.

It must also be said that the “Form follows function” principle was not invented by the Bauhaus; there were predecessors like the Austrian architect Adolf Loos with his book Ornament and Crime. (Adolf Loos, by the way, detested the Bauhaus and vehemently resisted being lumped together with them. Loos believed that the Bauhaus was too extreme and that one should not completely erase tradition and the old but should carefully consider where functionality might be improved.)

That this principle of functionality is at the core of modernity can be quickly illustrated by examples from women’s fashion (such as the Gothic Lolita subculture mentioned in the last article), where modernity means the renunciation of ornamentation (ruffles, bows, etc.), while clothing that seeks a return to tradition brings back precisely these decorative elements.

The "little Black dress", modernist womans fashion incorporating form follows function.

Gothic Lolita dress showing almost the opposite principle.

The same principle applies to typefaces. Modern typefaces are uniformly thick (while “traditional” typefaces like Fraktur use varying thicknesses to simulate natural handwriting) and use elements like serifs (small lines at the ends of strokes). Modern typefaces no longer use such elements. (Ironically, there is a very modern typeface called OCR-A, which uses serifs and has a very “futuristic” look. However, it was largely rejected as a modern typeface and is mostly used when explicitly referencing themes like science or computers. For example, two media that still use this typeface are the German band Kraftwerk and the cartoon series Pinky and the Brain.) In modernity, a minimally detailed typeface has prevailed. This goes so far that typefaces using serifs are now explicitly named to evoke ideas of antiquity and tradition, such as the typefaces Antiqua and Times New Roman. Modernity has even rejected the strikingly futuristic typefaces of the 1990s (now called “Y2K” typefaces) in favor of the simplest and least detailed typefaces.

OCR-a in Pinky and the brain

Regarding the “Form follows function” principle and technology, it must also be said that the Bauhaus, along with Italian Futurism, was one of the first design and art theories to embrace technology as an idea and explicitly wanted design objects to look technical. Earlier theories like Art Nouveau and its German counterpart, Jugendstil, attempted to hide technological advancements through natural forms and references to leaves, branches, or trees. Bauhaus design was explicitly meant to look technical.

Jugendstil street lamp

On the other hand, the Bauhaus and its successors have a tendency to partially hide technology. This is particularly interesting when compared to science fiction, especially 1980s anime like Megazone 23. In this style (sometimes called “cassette futurism”), one tries to make things appear futuristic by deliberately emphasizing parts of the technology. In contrast, Bauhaus and other functionalist styles tend to hide everything from the user that does not directly contribute to input or altering the user experience. This can partly be explained by the rejection of ornamentation, as such deliberately displayed technology (in the special effects field for films like Star Wars, also called “greebles”) often becomes a form of ornamentation itself. And modernity, architecturally, is a hatred of ornamentation.

Video arcade in megazone 23

Hell yes. I mentioned in a different post that Infinite Coffee and Protection Detail by Owlet is one of the fics that most influenced my own writing. That series is narrated (un-narrated?) by Bucky Barnes, and it has the coolest use of experimental writing I've ever seen in a fic series.

What I mean by un-narrated: there are almost no personal pronouns at all in the first ~70% of the first story. It's almost all passive voice. So, for example

Mission imperative pounds in the Asset’s chest, takes the form of increased pulse rate and respiration, a tightening of the throat. Backup is required to protect the objective’s lungs.

as a way of conveying "I got Steve out of the river but now he's dry-drowning and I'm freaking out." Like half the sentences in the fic have no subject at all, and most of the other half have these super-detached ways of referring to Bucky ("The Asset", "mission head"). By all logic it shouldn't work — presumably Owlet learned in school not to use passive voice, just like the rest of us — and yet it goddamn well does.

Because the most important rule of creative writing isn't "show don't tell"; it's "form follows function." If your character's out of breath, use short-sharp sentences. If your character's in a dream state, use long flowing ones. If your character's making love then tell us with highfalutin enchantment; if your character's fucking then use smutty cheek. If your character is experiencing something totally fictional — they got put into a sci fi machine that took out their identity — then why not convey that with a jarring lack of self-reference in their thought stream.

The early chapters' lack of self-reference gradually starts to change, as The Asset formerly known as Bucky discovers through the power of coffee and protection (as promised!) that his old identity is gone but he can still forge a new one. One of my favorite details is that the narration gradually starts calling him Barnes, but the narrator himself remains indifferent on the subject — Steve calls him "Bucky," Jarvis calls him "Sergeant," Nat calls him "James," his neighbors call him "Jimmy" — and he only freezes up when people ask him what he prefers to be called, because he doesn't want to decide.

In 1970, Lella Vignelli, along with her husband Massimo, designed a group of glass bakeware for Heller Inc. Although they receive joint credit, in “Design By: Lella Vignelli,” Massimo writes “Lella’s knowledge of cooking was critical in deciding which products to be designed and how they should develop.” The clever features of this bakeware are credited to Lella. 

Heller brochures promoted the ability of this glass bakeware not only to function well in the oven but to also look great for serving at the table. “Function and beauty can come together”

“Striations around the sides give the glass a sophisticated look–elegant enough for any table. The continuous rim around the top is practical for easy handling, and acts as a frame for the food within.” 

One ad in Home Furnishings Daily compares it to another famous bakeware:“We are not Pyrex. We are Heller. Our micro/ovenware does everything their's does. The difference is design. Heller/The alternative."

Various pieces available: 1-, 2-, & 3--quart casserole  deep loaf/paté pan 9 oz. ramekin (set of 4) 2.5-quart lasagne dish 8” square cake/bake Dish 9” pie plate oval bake dish

Although this line of bakeware is no longer in production, you can frequently find vintage pieces on your favorite auction website or local thrift store. 

Stay tuned as we’ll be highlighting more of Lella Vignelli’s work from the archives on future #WomenCrushWednesday!

You can see more of Lella’s work in “Designed by: Lella Vignelli” a free PDF book available to read and download on our website: https://www.rit.edu/vignellicenter/

take one you already have, like, say Handsome McLongDong

give him a new friend, enemy, or weed dealer

give that guy a random name, like Augustus Snipes...ingly

give Augustus Snipesingly a regular job (he makes tennis balls at the tennis ball factory) (also he sells weed because tennis balls don’t pay much) and a hobby (he plays video games with horses in them but only to maneuver the horse somewhere Horses Shouldn’t Go), and a secret passion (he fucking loves baywatch). 

decide how much he actually likes Handsome McLongDong (not so much)

decide if he’s gay (of course he’s gay)

congrats, he and Handsome are gonna be married in like three months. their beachside wedding will be extravagant. the cake will be dank. the police will be called by six separate attendees. it’s going to be amazing. 

I’d be lying if I said that I'm not an absolute sucker for retro designs like the 98 New Beetle, BMW’s first gen Mini, the Mercedes W212 and 21st century pony cars. But recently, I feel that design has become such a huge portion of cars that it doesn’t make sense anymore. At the end of the day, cars are there to drive, not look at.

The ‘form over function’ approach has brought about great sales success for so many manufacturers. Considering the car buyers today, it would make sense to spend more on design teams than engineers. Mainstream consumers these days care more about what a car looks like it can do rather than what it can actually do. The popularity of FWD crossovers and aerodynamically inefficient retro designs goes to prove this point. The worse thing is that even manufacturers are jumping into this nonsense with their marketing companies, encouraging consumers to buy cars that look the part but will not deliver what the looks promise.

Fake vents, fake exhausts, useless ground clearance and retro design with corresponding aerodynamic inefficiency seem to be the norm nowadays and the way they make the cars look justifies their lack of ability for most consumers. But in the end, these are fake. In many cases they are fake decorations that have been paid to be designed and manufactured, adding to the cost of the cars. Car enthusiasts know exactly what they are looking for in a car. However, the average consumer doesn’t have the passion nor the time to devote to learning about cars and the automobile industry. To these consumers, car manufacturers are suggesting fake products and their marketing companies are telling the consumers that buying fake is not only okay, but the smart choice.

This attention to aesthetics has become so absurd that now, when somebody says that a car is ‘well designed’, I automatically think of a car that has been paid more to look a certain way than to be capable of certain things. ‘Design’ now gives me a negative notion rather than a positive one.

Historic cars like the E-Type, the Citroen DS, the Countach, the F40, the Hummer H1, the Defender and the Discovery are considered iconic designs because the way they looked were results of efforts to make the cars function better. The few manufacturers that are doing this seems to be Tesla, Suzuki and Koenigsegg, Jeep and some others in their commercial vans or pickup truck line ups (vehicles sold to ‘professionals’ seldom get away with functionless design tricks that cost extra). Others are fooling consumers and themselves with attention to aesthetics that has no meaning at all. Fake parts and retro design will catch up to the brand image in the long run, hurting the manufacturers more than the quick buck it has brought them.

I don’t think anyone will argue that Koenigseggs look absolutely ridiculous (in a good way). What’s more appealing is that the proportions and every detail are created that way to serve a purpose. This is the reason we find wide, low cars and scoops and vents appealing. They symbolize agility, power and stability and Koenigseggs deliver in those departments.

And then there are Teslas. Not everyone likes the design of Teslas and I’ve heard and read that their design is a bit boring. Aesthetically, I agree. But their design is the result of optimization with constraints in comfort, performance, safety, efficiency, usable space and production cost. In some ways, Tesla’s design is a product of more complex algorithms and technology than that of a Koenigsegg’s.

Jeeps are so iconic that in many countries, SUVs were called Jeeps. And it wasn’t artsy designers that made the wrangler’s design so iconic, but rather its capability offroad.

I admit that Suzukis in terms of design is quite a stretch. They look cheap, underpowered and actually are cheap and underpowered. But consider this. When you buy a Suzuki, you are paying for the hybrid system, the 4WD system, lane departure warning, emergency brake assist or whatever options you’ve chosen to pay for, not for design elements that have no function. They are bare bone cars you can add anything you want and they drive exactly the way you specked them. They are way more appealing than their looks suggest, and once you realize this, they really don’t look that bad at all.

To conclude, hiring artsy design teams can boost sales of a model or two. But in essence, doing so would mean spending money that could have been spent on engineering, on aesthetics. Considering that iconic designs come from engineering excellence, investing in aesthetics over engineering will end up a bad one.

Image sources: