Function vs. Form: Rescuing Design from Insanity
March 3rd, 2008 in Web Design Worldview
by: Matthew Griffin
The debate over function and form has raged in the design community for over a century and a half. Artists and craftsmen in every design discipline have wrestled, and continue to wrestle, with the tension of function and form every day. In web design this tension is especially pronounced because the success of our work requires an almost mathematical balance of function and beauty. That's why it's imperative we have a solid grasp on the history and philosophy that has shaped our own approach to solving this dilemma. Why function? Why form? Once I've answered those questions, I'll present the Christian worldview of design and briefly map out a practical Christian approach to design.
The Roots of Modern-day Design Philosophy
In the latter part of the 19th century, early pioneers of modern graphic design fell prey to the burgeoning modernist philosophy of their day. They began to hold up functional design as the only real design. As a result, ornamental style gave way to simple geometric shapes; intricate detail melted into flat planes filled with pure hues. But as their reductionist approach worked its way into mainstream design, its proponents realized that the new approach failed to satisfy the human desire for beauty. They struggled to explain why their design didn't work without eye-pleasing form. As the utilitarian modernist philosophies began to recede in the second half of twentieth century, the relativism of post-modernism gradually moved in to fill the void (I am referring to the the overarching worldview of post-modernism, not the graphic design style of the 1970s and 80s commonly called post-modernist design). But this new philosophy of design was eventually befuddled by the opposite question—why should our beautiful, subjective design be functional?
When a philosophy starts with nothing but matter in motion (modernism), ideas like beauty can't be explained. They can be denied altogether, written off as illusions created by complex evolutionary happenstance. But that isn't a satisfactory explanation of reality or humanity. As the realization of the absurdity sets in, the modernist ideology eventually digresses to a point where all function is rejected and replaced with complete relativism (post-modernism).
In the post-modern view, the definition of beauty changes from person to person; placing it safely on a high shelf where the modernist can't touch it. But when post-modernism's system of subjectivism is applied to reality, we run into another dead-end. After all, we must function as if truth is real. For example, try applying post-modern relativism to programming or engineering—it doesn't work. Again, we are left with a philosophy of design that is broken.
Designers, both at the peak and trough of this philosophical sine wave, have sought the unification of two worldviews that are irreparably broken—neither worldview can be applied successfully to all areas of life. A broken worldview will always end in a final state of absurdity.
Modernism and Post-Modernism Applied
The practical results of these two competing philosophies have been extreme and ridiculous. Modernist designers find the ultimate end of their philosophy in a solid black square printed on a canvas—the perfect symbol of unbroken unity. And way out in left field, the post-modernists find the end of their road in photographs of urinals and meaningless paint splatter. It's fortunate that most designers don't work these philosophies out to their logical conclusions. There is no place in reality for either of these approaches. In order to maintain a foot in reality, I've found that most modern graphic designers and web designers unwittingly hold both views simultaneously in an irrational tension. This tension keeps them from floating too far one way or the other, but as you will see, this irrational balancing act is unnecessary in the Christian worldview.
Reclaiming the Rulebook
Everyday, we should thank our creator, the triune God of the universe, that we have not been left to such deficient answers as those described above. Utility or beauty? Practical or Spiritual? Terrestrial or transcendent? Where should design reside? We have the answer, and it's time we started creating design culture that makes sense.
In order to do this we have to recognize and reject the assumptive foundation that's been imposed on us by modernist and post-modernist design philosophies. We must reestablish the highest category of design—"purposeful" design. In a Christian worldview, functional and beautiful design are sub-categories of purposeful design. Since Christianity finds the glory of God to be the goal and purpose of mankind, all design which accomplishes this goal is purposeful.
Similar to the humanist/modernist view, the practical aid of mankind (function) does fit into the Christian understanding of purposeful. But purposeful design also encompasses the realm of traditional fine arts (form). Fine arts, or "art for art's sake" as one famous designer labeled it, projects the majesty and complexity of the human mind. Ultimately this forces us to marvel at the designer of the designer, placing fine arts firmly in the purposeful category.
We see then that form and function are actually overlapping concepts—a spectrum. Neither can be completely extricated from the other. An overly simplistic view of the form/function model without the establishment of all-encompassing purpose will lead to an extreme, inappropriate, or repetitive application of style. At worst it will lead to the complete rejection of all design on one side of the function/form spectrum.
Applying Function and Form in a Christian Worldview
We've gone down a pretty deep well in this article but now we can clearly see that the Christian system of thought keeps us from going off the deep end while simultaneously providing an unbroken worldview that is intellectually satisfying.
With purpose at the core of every endeavor into web design, the ultimate purpose of each project should be considered before style and spatial composition are developed. Since purpose is the ultimate aim of any design, the level of function or beauty should follow purpose. Form should bow to function when the primary purpose of a work is to assist mankind. And function should concede to form when the primary purpose of a work is to display the creativity of the designer or craftsman. In either case, credit for design should always be deferred to the the giver of intelligence—the transcendent God.
The topic of Christian worldview in web design really deserves a more in-depth article, but I think this is a good starting point. I will continue to develop and explain the Christian view of web design in the months to come—most likely in the form of a multi-part series. Keep a lookout for that and please send me any questions or comments in the meantime.
- 27 Comments
- 14615 Views
Comments
Posted By: Brad C on 03/03/08
Interesting take Matthew. I have to admit I got a little lost reading through, I'll have to reread it later. I look forward to reading more of these posts.
Posted By: Logan L on 03/03/08
Unfortunately the polarising mindset of religion has infected theories on actual things. Many designs have both high form (beauty) and high function. Many are both ugly and useless. A field of design or study does not automatically exclude function or beauty. This kind of limiting belief is exactly why theologians should stick to their knitting rather than trying to pattern forward-looking, vital movements on their old-fashioned, divisive and limiting beliefs. One might as well ask a medieval priest about the United Nations.
Posted By: on 03/03/08
Thanks for the comment, Logan. But it seems almost as if you read a different article and then commented on this one. In the first part of your comment you are in agreement with my final conclusion�we need a unifying philosophy of design that encompasses both function and beauty. Somehow, though, you think you are disagreeing with me. Then, in a very creative reach into the goody bag of anti-religious cliches, you accuse my "old-fashioned, divisive beliefs" of polarizing the design field. We can clearly see that the polarization lies in the modernist/post-modernist fight. They are the ones at the two extremes. I hope this clears up any confusion.
Posted By: Steven Snell on 03/04/08
Matt, Thanks for the article. Very interesting information that I have never given much thought to.
Posted By: Cara Pinle on 03/04/08
I'm so sorry, I couldn't keep reading after the first paragraph. "...I'll present the Christian worldview of design and briefly map out a practical Christian approach to design."
Posted By: on 03/04/08
Cara, that's too bad. Thanks for reading the first paragraph, but I think you would have enjoyed the rest of it.
Posted By: Art Dahm on 03/04/08
"In either case, credit for design should always be deferred to the the giver of intelligence�the transcendent God." How is this specific to Christian beliefs? Can it also be applied to any belief system that incorporates a "Creator"? It is always interesting to get a glimpse into how other people's minds work. In our line of work it is important to strike a balance between form and function and having an all-encompassing purpose helps achieve that goal. Whether the purpose of a design is serving a higher power or one's own internal sense of harmony, the end result is the same.
Posted By: on 03/04/08
Ah, a post-modernist... Welcome. I don't suppose that giving credit to a creator is unique to Christianity. But in this article, crediting a creator is never held up as unique. The unique aspect of a Christian worldview is that it presents a full-orbed system of thought--an unbroken philosophy that makes both function and beauty relevant. You mentioned that the result of design is the same whether its goal is serving a higher power or achieving internal harmony. I doubt anyone would find much comfort in knowing that the designer of a beautiful but defective bridge found a great internal sense of harmony in his design. I think you will agree that purpose is the biggest factor in the effectiveness of design.
Posted By: GABerkhouse on 03/05/08
Matthew, this is some good grist for the cogitation mill. Coming at this topic from a different sector, it is interesting that postmoderns are rightly pointing a refreshingly honest "that-emperor-has-no-clothes" finger at Darwninist religion (which never was able to produce a naturalistic mechanism to explain its theories), and are openly considering in both Christian and "secular" camps the possibility of "intelligent design." If in fact there be a Master Designer, who with no tension synthesizes form and function--a hummingbird, I think all would agree, is a pretty fair synthesis of form and function--perhaps, as you suggest, merely mortal designers would do well to "think his thoughts after him" as they engage in their craft.
Posted By: on 03/05/08
It's an honor to have you here, Greg. Thanks for the insightful comment.
Posted By: Andrea Peltrin on 03/06/08
Interesting reading, Matthew. A great book about the history of book design where the reader can clearly see the "reductionist" approach first taken by the German Bauhaus school and after by the Swiss school is "Bauhaus, modernism and the illustrated book" by Alan Bartram. Even Baskerville and Bodoni started to remove graphic decorations from their books, but it seem to me it was a decision based on personal taste, not dictated by a precise worldview.
Posted By: Spacebat on 03/06/08
Here's a practical christian approach to design. Accept a particular irrational ideology based on politically expedient stories of extremely dubious historical veracity. Frequently reinforce this mind set with rituals, so you can more easily dismiss some of the greatest intellectual achievements in history. Then start designing, but don't be too surprised when you find your vocation to reflect a microcosm of the fantasy you've been indoctrinated with. Accept that your epiphanies won't ring true to people who aren't infected with the same cluster of self reinforcing memes. Keep designing, there is no reason believing these things will stop you from learning to do it well. However, without the exercise of critical faculties sufficient to dispense with ancient afterlife myths, you may find the rational discernment of design principles is hindered.
Posted By: on 03/06/08
Spacebat, not sure what to say to that. A lot of name calling, not a lot of substance. Andrea, thanks for the recommendation. Another good read, if you're interested in the history of design, is Megg's History of Graphic Design. I see exactly what you are saying about taste, but in reality every design movement from Bauhaus to De stijl does actually proceed from an overarching worldview. There was just not enough room in this article to develop this proposition to its full extent. But check back in the near future for a series of articles on the subject.
Posted By: Spacebat on 03/07/08
Sorry Matthew, it was late and I get bothered by people forcing everything through an ideological lens, particularly when the ideology relates to the subject tangentially at best. You'll note that I called nobody any names, but it was a bit vitriolic. (Still I'd like to see any historical evidence independent of the early roman church that jesus of nazareth ever existed. And why are there so many similarities between jesus and earlier pagan figures such as attis?) Its a little ironic that my response was due to a lack of substantiated statements in your post. I take exception to your portrayal of evolutionary happenstance as meaningless and not satisfying. The notion of the relativism of beauty predates christianity (3rd century BC greek origin of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'). That is not to say that there are not aspects of beauty that are universal to humans, or that may be universal to other terran species, either natural or in the future, artificial. Function and purpose are likewise not at all antithetical to postmodern design. They are elements to be used in achieving the ends of the designer, but the designer may have different ideas to you.
Posted By: Matthew Griffin on 03/07/08
Spacebat, as I said, I will be developing this theme much more in depth in the near future and I think my treatment of the subject should answer most of your questions. This isn't a blog about the historical validity of Christ's existence so I'll leave that discussion up to greater minds than my own. But in the future, you should choose more reliable historical commentary than the likes of the Zeitgeist Movie and Acharya S. You might try G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man for a quick refutation.
Posted By: Spacebat on 03/07/08
Hi Matthew, I haven't seen either of those. There are plenty of respectable sources for this stuff (forgive me if I doubt those who go in for regular irrationality reinforcement sessions).
Posted By: Sarah on 04/04/09
I will start with this, I am a christian, and I am a designer. I believe that God is the source of all creativity, and that he gives creativity to all mankind, as skills and as gifts. I think what you have just written is ridiculous. i think this idea is flawed. This article gave me no practical insight into bettering myself as a designer. It is of no consequence to apply a "christian worldview" to design theories, as I believe that good design supersedes religious beliefs. Design is design, just because one is a christian doesn't make his/her designs any more purposeful than one who is of secular belief. "The topic of Christian worldview in web design really deserves a more in-depth article", I completely disagree. I think you are wasting your time and your creative energy on dissecting these ideas, as they bear no fruit!
Posted By: Matthew Grffin on 04/06/09
Sarah, I'm sorry. I don't really understand your position. You may need to clarify, but I'll try to address at least one point that I understood. You said "It is of no consequence to apply a 'Christian Worldview' to design theories." Modernism was applied to design and we got cities that are concrete jungles. Pessimistic existentialism was applied to design and we got chaos and absurdity. These worldviews have had real tangible effects through design on the world in which we live. To say that the Christian worldview will have no effect on design is niave. And I think it's especially niave and irrational after your first statement that "God is the source of all creativity." The truth is that if you don't look to God for purpose in your design, you will look somewhere else. And when God's purpose is exchanged for a false purpose, the actions/creativity used to achieve that purpose will change as well. There's really not any way around that.
Posted By: on 09/29/09
This piece falls prey to a pathology I like to refer to as a Grand Theory Of Where It All Went Wrong (or GTOWIAWW for short). Religious conservatives are often prone to such theories. They offer a simplistic, sweeping explanation for decades or centuries of culture and history... and give the believer a convenient excuse for disengaging from and rejecting the contemporary world.
Posted By: Lemon on 09/29/09
As someone who doesn't consider themselves to be religious I found your articles and comments pretty interesting albeit flawed. I feel like you've ignored both the historical context and technological advances that went into making both of these movements in design viable as well the ability for designers to work within the spectrum of function and form without the need for making an ideological stance. At the same time I agree with you that purpose driven design, that takes the ultimate use into account and can function along the spectrum of form and beauty is the right design philosophy but that it really has nothing to do with religion beyond the mold you force it into. I applaud you for your article, I find reading about design through other perspectives ultimately enlightening, as questioning our methods, reasoning, and purpose in these things keeps us advancing design. I also like the idea of trying to reconcile your worldview with a passion for design and even though I disagree with you, if it makes you a better designer, if it gives you tools to extend your craft - then more power to you.
Posted By: Matthew Griffin on 09/29/09
MDC, thanks for the comment. I agree that many (religious conservatives and otherwise) are guilty of looking to a golden age and hand wringing about where things went wrong. But if that's what you think I'm doing here, you've missed the point. And if you read any of my other writing, you would see why. I don't reject contemporary culture except where I believe it is wrong or unjust. I'm not a fundamentalist. I can, in fact, agree with and applaud many aspects of postmodernism in our culture. It has broken us free from the death grip of modernism and given us back our personality and diversity. But it is also lacking in many ways because is only partial truth. I don't want to get back to a golden age. I want to press forward to the redemption of all culture and creation. But I'm sure that is a much more scandalous statement than the one you originally accused me of making so I guess we're back to square one.
Posted By: Matthew Griffin on 09/29/09
Lemon, I appreciate your willingness to listen and consider. That's more than many are willing to give. But understand that I'm not pursuing a view of design that is helpful to me personally. I am pursuing a correct view of design, one that every designer can hold.