Dan Wilson on mon 24 jun 96
>I think there is a basic problem here with definitions, especially that of
functionalism.
Functional: 2. Designed for or adapted to a particular function or use.
3. Capable of performing; operative.
Functionality: 2. Designed for or adapted to a particular function or use.
ism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory.
Functionalism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory regarding objects
that are designed for or adapted to a particular function or use.
Use: 1. To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ.
> Someone mentioned earlier that all art is, in one sense or
>another, functional. It seems that Dan may be referring to utilitarian
>objects rather than functional ones.
Utility: The quality or condition of being useful; usefulness.
Utilitarian: 1. Of, relating to, or in the interests of utility.
Utilitarianism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory relating to the
condition of being useful.
useful: Having practical utility.
>If that is the case, then my question is how do you relate the idea of
utility to that of beauty?
beauty: 1. A delightful quality associated with harmony of form or color,
excellence of craftsmanship, truthfulness, originality, or another
property.
2. One that is beautiful, especially a beautiful woman.
3. A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling.
4. An outstanding or conspicuous example.
The Leap from Utility to Beauty
If I create an object from a utilitarian perspective, I create it in the
interests of utility. Its beauty lies in its usefulness. Its practical
utility. Ex: "This thing performs beautifully". On the otherhand, If I
create an object from a functionalist perspective, I am interested in how
well it is designed to perform a particular function or use. Its beauty
rests in how well it is designed to perform a particular function or use.
ex: "This thing is designed to perform that task beautifully."
If I create a non utilitarian, non functional object, its beauty cannot be
found in its use or its design..... Yep. Beauty. While an understanding of
beauty is not necessary in order to create utilitarian objects; an
understanding of beauty may be necessary when designing functional
objects. An understanding of beauty is necessary when designing
non-functional objects. East meets west when we reach a common
understanding of the idea of beauty. We do this by comparing notes. Notes
are found in the history of both cultures. The words that comprise the
notes are different. I would not be surprised, if in the final analysis,
after comparing our notes using a common language, the differences don't
exist.
>I would like to know more clearly the motive behind the question.
I've always felt that the exploration of ideas, historical and
contemporary, and the questioning of commonly held assumptions were a
responsibility of the artist. This presumption may be untrue. This belief
came to me as I was finishing the lip on a bowl. Its refinement comes about
as the result of the trailing edge meeting the leading edge. My minds eye
acts as mediator in a revolutionary process. It was difficult to decide
exactly where to start. Choosing is always difficult. Ideally, according to
my belief, the ultimate outcome should be a perfect circle with meaningful
content. If I have offended anyone, by my questions or the way in which I
have asked these questions, please accept my apologies. I do not intend
them to be personal attacks on anyones sensibilities, way of life or method
of thinking.
"Understanding is the result of adequate explanation." I don't know who
said it but it means something to me. If it doesn't mean anything to you,
you'll probably forget it.
I have to go now. My daughter wants to play "Think'n Things".
Dan
| |
|
