People say that I have a very strange background and it may be true. Chemical engineering was my major for six years in undergraduate and graduate and then I worked in the field for six more years. Design ideology meant nothing to me until I came to RISD. However I have become familiar with design history at in this school, especially mainly thanks to this course. After class discussions and self-study, recently I realized that I was once a bone-deep functionalist and it was astonishing.
During my years in the industry, one of my inventions was a tape dispenser designed for workers in a solar panel factory. The overall process was very similar to glazing. Once a glass-covered solar panel was prepared, workers enclosed its girth with aluminum frames for the sake of protection and installation. Double-sided tape was sandwiched manually between the panel and the frames. Taping 176 inches of the girth on the thin border, relying only on extreme concentration and care, looked very painful and inefficient. To help them, the dispenser was equipped with many features like gradually grooved rollers and lightweight materials for easy taping. As all of the features were focused solely on efficiency and finality, the dispenser did not have any “nonfunctional” parts, though it became very popular with most companies in the industry later.

Following my surprising self-discovery, it seemed natural to pose the following questions: Why had I unconsciously become a functionalist without having any design education or instruction? How has this course influenced or changed my design? In addition, the classes prompted me to ask more questions: What led us to be absorbed in functionalism? What are the elements of functionalism? I am going to deal with these topics in this essay.
Scene 1
One day in my childhood, I visited a museum with my mom. Looking at the old artifacts was a very amazing experience. Among the archeologically precious objects, Paleolithic earthenware grabbed me. Some relatively “new” vessels were decorated with zigzag grooves while old ones were unstriated.
Scene 2
Nobody is able to deny that the internet has revolutionized our lives. Nowadays numerous websites boast of eye-popping graphics and jaw-dropping technologies. However, revisiting their shabby past archived on a sneaky website would might be comparable to voyeurism or a peep at celebrities’ school days pictures.
The holy bible says, “Your beginnings will seem humble, so prosperous will your future be (Job 8:7).” Once a technology is born, it attracts people’s attentions and gets in them. Since there are not enough references and precedents, utilization of the technology is limited and simple in the early stage. The design and products based on the technology are humble and coarse. As it gets popular, accumulated researches and experiments begin to expedite the process, and the results flourish. Thanks to the progress, development of commodities adopts the technology seriously to be in full swing. However, the law of diminishing marginal utility comes next making the advances less effective. Affected by the inevitable rule, the mature technology becomes prevalent and somewhat stale so new products attempt to attract people by different means – variations of “appearances”.
In human history, everything created by humans has been evolved by humans. Especially in the late 19th and early 20th century, revolutionary inventions and innovations have been created to make the period the industrialization era. The machine civilization changed our way of thinking as well as way of living. Slow, old and manual tools were kicked out from factories, farms and even homes. Instead, fast, new and automated machines were placed. New technologies were fascinating enough to attract popular attention. Scientists, scholars, designers and engineers all rushed into the boom.
It is not going too far to say that the last 100 years were dedicated to functionalism. It has dominated not only designers and architects but also virtually everybody in our society. Rebelling at fogeyish handicraft manufacturing and tedious manipulations, early machines were adopted aggressively into industry for mass production. Since the new tide was unprecedented, radical and even overwhelming, the change was prompt and complete, though the level of the technology was still basic. Words like efficiency, economy and yield were regarded as new social standards toward a perfect future. It is no wonder that the functionalism was born under the atmosphere, or rather, the times knocked it up as an appropriate ideology. Here I assert that functionalism was the zeitgeist which was formed from the molds of incipient technology and circumstantial environments. It should be pertinent that this background gave functionalism validity, presenting it as a perfect answer for those who were seeking a new way of thinking.
As an advocate of the ideology, Louis Sullivan said, “Form follows function.” In fact, before the appearance of machinery, terms such as “functions” or “forms” were almost meaningless because most of the products and tools were manufactured under the traditional apprentice system allowing a few variants within limited extent. Moreover, there was no leeway allowed to consider ornamental elements seriously in his times. That is, understanding new technologies and introducing them into production were laborious enough. Frankly speaking, I am sure that it was too early to investigate about aesthetic factors in design, utilizing the technologies. It can be a great justification for the pragmatic movements which were the mainstream in the period. Bauhaus and its renowned designers are representative models. The two examples regarding the Stone Age relics and web design shown above give another proof of the statement.
It was also interesting that functionalism enjoyed longevity even after the technology got mature and I avouch that it was caused by World Wars. The aftermath of the wars continued until the midst of 20th century, disturbing improvements in the quality of life and constraining the freedom of thinking, even in advanced countries. Trauma of the cruel warfare and lessons from the indigence forced the designers to shut themselves in a room named simplicity and restraint. Again, functionalism was a circumstantial trend which occurred under the peculiar environment.
Since functionalism had a situational background, it should be temporary. It means that we need to find or make a new and opportune way of thinking. Recently, there have been many attempts to overcome the ideology which suppressed various “forms”. In architecture, Peter Eisenman’s manifesto “I don’t do function.” and Frank Gehry’s design are a part of the movement. The new trend might be interpreted as diminishment in marginal utility of technology. Gushing diverse desire induced the designers to pursue personalization and customization in industrial design. Utensils from Alessi can be good examples for the proposition. The designers left the essential function of a product unchanged; they focused on the visual and psychological factors such as joy, humor and uniqueness as their own language to the users instead. That is a transition of criteria from physical values to metaphysical ones.
The chairs discussed in the classes are also representative of the trend. Most of the sensational seating tools were not created by intensive research on human postures or new finding in anthropometry. They were generated by designers’ passion and volition toward nonverbal communication through various shapes and colors. The diversity shows that our current position on the coordinates is certainly beyond the functionalism.
Based on the ideas I have developed so far, I analyzed myself. When I designed the tape dispenser, time and resources for the design were extremely deficient but it was reality. All of my concerns were how to make “good” products to help the workers. Since there were no previous examples or similar products, I started with measuring the workers’ individual hand sizes and arm forces. And then experiments were repeated to test usability and performance using lots of wheels and other materials for two weeks. Fortunately I got an inspiration from in-line skates crossing the roads so fast and it was a motif for the “form.” But that was all. I could not devote any more attention to make it more attractive and sleeker. Under the limited condition, I focused on the rather fundamental aspects of the object such as smoother rollers and softer grip. Consequently, the final product was quite practical and I realized that I stepped onto the path of functionalism.
From what I learned at RISD, I understood the importance of design practice to extend diversity and tried to make experiments released from intrinsic functionalism. Last semester, as a part of a course, I redesigned a paper shredder which was very normal and pragmatic. It had perfect features and shape for office use. Though there were many possibilities, I eliminated functional improvements because related technologies are already saturated. Instead, intensifying the mutual communication between the user and the object through aesthetic novelty was set as my goal. Saying goodbye to something once familiar was awkward and even scary a little like getting into a zero-gravity zone. However, the procedure seeing an object from significantly different angles and constituting a new one through a totally fresh method was an amazing experience. As a result, a paper shredder consisted of uncommon design and communicative interface was created and finally I unleashed myself from the functionalism.

Now we are passing the turning point in history – the end of functionalism. Though it once absorbed people’s attention and acted as an absolute rule for design, it was a circumstantial trend. I think it is worthwhile to anticipate what could come next. After technological progress has reached the utmost point, it is now the time for multiform changes in design and that is a challenging opportunity for us.